Ritner's response to the Book of Abraham essay

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

Interesting stuff. But to have a language with characters that could be translated into 100 word paragraphs, I would think you'd need millions and millions (maybe billions?) of unique characters to account for every possible thought you might want to convey. Pretty inefficient and unrealistic.

I agree, it doesn't make any sense logically to me.  

[stemelbow]

Yes two questions remain for me, after this discussion (and I apologize for speaking from memory earlier when I should have refreshed my memory before commenting).

What does it matter if there were two different color inks?

How is Hauglid so certain that the extant manuscript is a copy of something earlier?  it seems Ritner is the exact opposite--that the extant manuscript must represent a translation attempt by Smith? 

I think I lean towards Hauglid's view in that the extant form doesn't seem to coincide with what Joseph had produced with the BoM.  but I wouldn't say it's a case closed scenario.  It could be the resultant form could be different. 

Thanks for the discussion so far. 

[dberrie2000]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes two questions remain for me, after this discussion (and I apologize for speaking from memory earlier when I should have refreshed my memory before commenting).

What does it matter if there were two different color inks?

How is Hauglid so certain that the extant manuscript is a copy of something earlier?  it seems Ritner is the exact opposite--that the extant manuscript must represent a translation attempt by Smith? 

I think I lean towards Hauglid's view in that the extant form doesn't seem to coincide with what Joseph had produced with the BoM.  but I wouldn't say it's a case closed scenario.  It could be the resultant form could be different. 

Thanks for the discussion so far. 

Hi Stem:

Thanks to you--your a great conversationalist.

Stem--I don't recall anything about any reference of mine to ink colors. My concern was the ink being from the same ink source, IE--different inks(which different colors could indicate that).

IOW--do the inks have the same DNA? (I know that is a little fictitious, but the only way I can find to express it)

I'm referring to the inks of the actual margin line, the text, and the characters.

If the inks of the margin line and the text is a different ink from the characters--and if the ink from the characters overlap the margin line(which the two do cross)--then the characters were probably added after the translation was complete.

That has been the speculation for awhile--and I am surprised that test has not been either done --or the results published. Hauglid stated they were in process of that test.

That could at least give us more information to advance the theories--or eliminate some.

As Hauglid stated--the manuscripts we now possess, as to the Kirkland Book of Abraham translation-- are quite neat--divided up into paragraphs, punctuated, indented, etc. (or so it appears to me)--which is not inherit to original dictation--even if it were given straight from heaven.

IOW--dictation is not usually--"and God stated--indent, new paragraph--thus saith the Lord, semi colon, capital, etc---

You get the gist of that, hopefully. As Hauglid, and you, also noted--the BOM was not done in that fashion either. Originals are usually much messier in appearance.

I agree--it's not out of the question--but not in the norm--even for Joseph Smith dictations, in any other instance we are aware of. I personally, would have a hard time believing those extant manuscripts were originals--it just does not fit the mold, IMO.

Well--more pruning to be done--enjoyed the exchange.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CA Steve]

16 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Steve:

You may be right--but tell me your take on this:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/thoughts-book-abraham

 

Steve--that makes good sense to me.

 

So first let's make sure we are using the word copy in the same sense. All the documents we are looking at are originals. The question, I believe you are asking is whether or not the information on the documents was copied from another source or sources, such as the hypothetical source Dr. Hauglid calls Ab0. By the way, his 2011 book A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions is a must have for these question. It is one of my favorite Book of Abraham books and really shows the kind of scholarly approach that can be taken by with regard to this subject. It is also a beautiful tome.

 

I believe that Dr. Hauglid is trying to establish the possibility of a preexisting document (Ab0) containing the original translation, a possibility even he calls hypothetical. I believe this an effort to provide a possible alternate explanation as to why the other Book of Abraham manuscripts are showing Egyptian characters in the margins next to the translations which do not have anything to do with the characters. It has been quite a while since I went through the book so for now all I can do is respond in a general sense to what I saw as problems with this theory.

First and foremost is that it is not extant and is completely hypothetical. So it is similar to the missing sections of papyri theory, even if it turned up there is no evidence it would not resemble the texts we currently have. In other words if it suddenly appeared it could very well have the very same characters in the margins to the left of the very same text. One cannot conclude anything about what is on it or how it was written, so in effect it does not add any evidence one way or the other to the problems of the KEP translation manuscripts.

We know exactly where the characters on the extant translation manuscripts can be found on the extant papyri. And they are right where one would expect if one believes that Joseph Smith thought the Hor scroll was the source of the first part of the Book of Abraham. So if there was a preexisting translation that was actually done from some other part of the papyri, why are the scribes trying to reverse engineer a translation from the Hor scroll? It is hard to imagine that sometime during that process Joseph never walked by them and said, "hey guys that isn't the right area, you should be working over here!". When you add to that the fact that all the EAG characters can be found on extant  portions of the papyri, they invested a lot of work into this document, firmly believing they were determining the meaning of these characters. If Joseph actually did translate the Book of Abraham from another missing portion of the papyri, why didn't he at least guide the scribes to those portions where the story of Abraham was written, instead of allowing them to continue on the Hor scroll?

 

Lastly, according to Don Bradley, Joseph himself in 1843 still believed the EAG was useful as a translation device in the Kinderhook plates episode.

So while I understand why Dr. Hauglid is proposing a hypothetical preexisting translation manuscript, I think it raises as many questions as it answers.

Edited February 16, 2017 by CA Steve
For clarification

[CA Steve]

dBerrie2000,

 

I would have to look it up but I do believe Dr Hauglid suggest that the characters might have been drawn by a different scribe than whomever was writing the translation sections, but beyond that, I am not sure one can concluded anything about the different inks. It is inescapable that the characters were there before the translation regardless of who drew either the margin line or the characters.

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Where are you getting your information from or are you just winging it?

http://www.egyptianhieroglyphs.net/egyptian-hieroglyphs/lesson-9/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs

This section on causative verbs demonstrates that many letters wereneeded to form words.

 

Please use a dictionary and look up mnemonic -- check out google for examples.  Has absolutely nothing to do with grammar.  I am getting my information from Tvedtnes, as I have posted many times.

Quote

Mnemonics are memory devices that help learners recall larger pieces of information, especially in the form of lists like characteristics, steps, stages, parts, phases, etc

https://www.learningassistance.com/2006/january/mnemonics.html

Are you familiar with "every good boy does fine" for the musical notes on sharps and flats.  What part of grammar does that represent???

Do not waste our time if you are not going to read and make the minimal effort to understand my posts.

Edited February 16, 2017 by cdowis

[dberrie2000]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

dBerrie2000, I would have to look it up but I do believe Dr Hauglid suggest that the characters might have been drawn by a different scribe than whomever was writing the translation sections, but beyond that, I am not sure one can concluded anything about the different inks. It is inescapable that the characters were there before the translation regardless of who drew either the margin line or the characters.

Hi Steve:

There has been no conclusions drawn on the inks, as there have not been any results posted, which I am aware of--although Hauglid did suggest some tests were in the process.

I believe there are a lot of things the results COULD reveal--that might change the landscape of the views on the extant Book of Abraham manuscript. 

And if the characters were there previous to the translation (which is a possibility)--if the manuscript was a copy--then what evidence is there the originals contained the characters?

I still see a lot of unanswered questions--and some we may not ever have.

 

 

 

 

[dberrie2000]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

So first let's make sure we are using the word copy in the same sense. All the documents we are looking at are originals.

I don't see that as the probability--and neither does Hauglid--if I am interpreting Hauglid correctly. 

Here is his comments:

"At first glance, one could be tempted to surmise that these manuscripts represent the actual translation papers of the Prophet. And, of course, this is precisely what the critics against the Book of Abraham want us to believe. For the critics, the English text in these manuscripts, opposite the characters, clearly evidence the Prophet’s dictated translation of the hieratic characters. To bolster their case, the critics note that the Egyptian characters in these manuscripts come from one of the eleven fragments donated to the Church in 1967. Furthermore, this particular fragment, with the hieratic characters, was also once attached to another fragment that contains the representation of Facsimile 1. This leads them to Abraham 1:12, which says, “The representation at the commencement of this record,” concluding that Joseph Smith thought that the fragment, once attached to the Facsimile 1 fragment, contained the Book of Abraham. The coup de grace of their argument centers on modern Egyptologists translating the hieratic characters and finding that they do not translate to the Book of Abraham. In fact, Egyptologists argue that the papyri are merely a Greco-Roman Egyptian religious text resembling the ancient Book of the Dead.

So what is factual in these arguments? This is where things tend to get somewhat complicated. First, the hieratic characters in the three manuscripts do, in reality, come from one of the eleven fragments. Second, this fragment, from which the Egyptian characters were taken, was initially attached to the Facsimile 1 papyrus. And third, the hieratic characters do not translate to the Book of Abraham. In fact, except for the Facsimile 1 papyrus, nothing related to the Book of Abraham appears on any of the papyri fragments the Metropolitan Museum of Art returned to the Church.

While closely examining the Abraham manuscripts, one fact quickly became clear: all of the surviving manuscripts containing text of the Book of Abraham represent copies of earlier documents. This means that, unlike the Book of Mormon, we have no originally dictated manuscripts for the Book of Abraham.

We have a fairly good idea of how Joseph Smith worked when it came to receiving revelation and dictating it to a scribe. From the surviving originally dictated manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, we know that there was no paragraphing, sentence structure, or punctuation, because the text in the dictated manuscripts appears as one long sentence. Joseph Smith appears to have dictated the Book of Mormon text in a generally continuous fashion, rarely stopping. The text in the Abraham manuscripts, on the other hand, exhibits paragraphing, sentence structure, and punctuation that would be characteristic of text that had evolved beyond the dictation phase.

Another way to determine if handwritten text has been copied from an earlier manuscript is to study the errors. Sometimes when a scribe would copy text from an earlier manuscript to another sheet, the eye would see the same word twice and accidentally rewrite it. Often the scribe caught the error right away and crossed out the repeated word. Also, periodically, the scribe’s eye would see a word on one line and turn away and then, when returning to the page, focus on a different line, see the same word, and omit the text in between. Erasures or cross-outs can also be quite revealing. Once in a while the crossed-out or erased word or phrase will show that the scribe saw the word or phrase ahead of where the scribe actually was in the text. When this happened, the scribe would generally quickly catch it, cross it out, and put the word or phrase in its proper place. Errors such as those described above happen frequently enough in the earliest Abraham manuscripts to give strong evidence that all of them are copies of even earlier manuscripts that have not survived.

So if the few surviving Abraham manuscripts are not the originally dictated manuscripts, what are they? Why do the three 1835 manuscripts have the hieratic characters opposite paragraphs of English text from the book of Abraham? As mentioned above, most of the characters can be found on one of the fragments of papyri that belonged to Joseph Smith. How is this to be explained?

Is it possible that these manuscripts, though not originally dictated, represent the actual process Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham? I have thought much about this possibility, but this method is nowhere reinforced in other translation activities of the Prophet, particularly in his translation of the Book of Mormon. That Joseph Smith spent considerable time learning new languages is clearly demonstrated in the historical record, but it was generally a separate pursuit from his revelatory experiences. It seems that he was quite aware of the distinction between his own personal educational pursuits and his work as a seer."

 

Steve--I highlighted because I thought those areas might be of particular interest and relevance to our discussion. Hope that does not distract from our focus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CA Steve]

13 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

I don't see that as the probability--and neither does Hauglid--if I am interpreting Hauglid correctly. 

 

 

 

Steve--I highlighted because I thought those areas might be of particular interest and relevance to our discussion. Hope that does not distract from our focus.

 

I think I have allowed the word "copy" to get in the way here. I do not disagree with how it is being used by Dr Hauglid above in his attempt to explain these were versions created by looking at the previous hypothetical translation. I merely meant the paper we are looking at is the original, in the sense it is the paper on which the scribe wrote. We can move past that as I don't think we disagree about it's usage, just the claim that they are versions made from a previous non-extant version and I have already pointed out why I think that theory is problematic.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by CA Steve

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

We have a fairly good idea of how Joseph Smith worked when it came to receiving revelation and dictating it to a scribe. From the surviving originally dictated manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, we know that there was no paragraphing, sentence structure, or punctuation, because the text in the dictated manuscripts appears as one long sentence. Joseph Smith appears to have dictated the Book of Mormon text in a generally continuous fashion, rarely stopping. The text in the Abraham manuscripts, on the other hand, exhibits paragraphing, sentence structure, and punctuation that would be characteristic of text that had evolved beyond the dictation phase.

Question for you.  How does this compare to Joseph's translation of the Bible?  I'm just wondering if this assumption that the BoA process would have been the same as the BoM is a fair comparison.  For one, we know that most accounts of the BoM translation have Joseph Smith putting his face in his hat and dictating to a scribe.  We also know that the plates were either covered in the room or not in the house during the dictation process.  

Because we have no concrete evidence of golden plates today, we should allow for the possibility that there were no ancient plates with characters on them, and I think that whether the plates existed or not still doesn't change the evidence that Joseph wasn't using the plates significantly if at all, during his dictation efforts.  I think this changes the comparison of BoM translation efforts compared to the BoA where we know they were using the papyri as part of the process.  

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Question for you.  How does this compare to Joseph's translation of the Bible?  I'm just wondering if this assumption that the BoA process would have been the same as the BoM is a fair comparison.  For one, we know that most accounts of the BoM translation have Joseph Smith putting his face in his hat and dictating to a scribe.  We also know that the plates were either covered in the room or not in the house during the dictation process.  

Because we have no concrete evidence of golden plates today, we should allow for the possibility that there were no ancient plates with characters on them, and I think that whether the plates existed or not still doesn't change the evidence that Joseph wasn't using the plates significantly if at all, during his dictation efforts.  I think this changes the comparison of BoM translation efforts compared to the BoA where we know they were using the papyri as part of the process.  

None of Joseph's "translations" involved language to language translation.
Once we realize that in my opinion that actually makes the JST, Book of Mormon, and Book of Abraham even more brilliant.

I don't care how many anti's attribute them to the better educated Rigdons and Cowderys, there is NO way on this earth that these three bodies of work PLUS the revelations contained in the D&C could have been produced by Joseph extemporaneously in the limited time frames they were created under.   Not by Joseph, Rigdon, or Cowdery, nor all 3 together.

[dberrie2000]

51 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think I have allowed the word "copy" to get in the way here. I do not disagree with how it is being used by Dr Hauglid above in his attempt to explain these were versions created by looking at the previous hypothetical translation. I merely meant the paper we are looking at is the original, in the sense it is the paper on which the scribe wrote. We can move past that as I don't think we disagree about it's usage, just the claim that they are versions made from a previous non-extant version and I have already pointed out why I think that theory is problematic.

 

OK--I was wondering where I missed the proverbial boat. On a personal note--I believe it is much more problematic to believe a polished manuscript is the original--as we might say in the south here--that dog just ain't gonna hunt--at least for me. But I appreciate your input here.

 

 

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

None of Joseph's "translations" involved language to language translation.
Once we realize that in my opinion that actually makes the JST, Book of Mormon, and Book of Abraham even more brilliant.

I don't care how many anti's attribute them to the better educated Rigdons and Cowderys, there is NO way on this earth that these three bodies of work PLUS the revelations contained in the D&C could have been produced by Joseph extemporaneously in the limited time frames they were created under.   Not by Joseph, Rigdon, or Cowdery, nor all 3 together.

I agree that the evidence is strong that Joseph had no skill with translating ancient languages, Egyptian or anything else for that matter.  

I think the difference with the BoA, is that we know he had an ancient language on papyri and we know that he was attempting to translate the characters into English.  So from my perspective this attempt at translation is different from the Bible or BoM substantially because we know he had an actual ancient text and was using that text as part of his translation efforts.  

As for whether or not Joseph could have produced texts like this with the levels of complexity involved and in the in the time periods he had to work on these texts, I think that is largely a question of faith.  There have been other authors that have produced texts of greater length and complexity that claimed to be receiving these texts as a divine source.  I don't have my copy of Natural Born Seer with me at the moment, but at the end of that book Richard Van Wagoner lists a number of examples of other texts produced by authors claiming divine inspiration.  I found it very interesting.  Not to prove or disprove that Joseph's texts were divine, but it does make me question the claim that it would have been impossible for Joseph to produce texts like this when others have created remarkable works in similarly unexplained ways.  

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by hope_for_things

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

OK--I was wondering where I missed the proverbial boat. On a personal note--I believe it is much more problematic to believe a polished manuscript is the original--as we might say in the south here--that dog just ain't gonna hunt--at least for me. But I appreciate your input here.

But that is the crucial thing in my mind, so I'll repeat it. Even if we admit of the possibility of a preexisting text, it does not mean anything. You cannot infer anything from that text. Okay, so there is a long lost original version, you still have all the questions that apply to the existing ones. Anything you can say about the purported original is pure conjecture, so to say it might not have the characters in the margin like the ones we do have, not only is not supported by any evidence, it also raises even more questions like I outlined above. I am not sure what is gained by suggesting it exists.

 

And now I have to go prune trees, so to speak, or in my case get in my daily walk.

Edited February 16, 2017 by CA Steve

[cdowis]

23 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

But that is the crucial thing in my mind, so I'll repeat it. Even if we admit of the possibility of a preexisting text, it does not mean anything. You cannot infer anything from that text. Okay, so there is a long lost original version, you still have all the questions that apply to the existing ones. Anything you can say about the purported original is pure conjecture, so to say it might not have the characters in the margin like the ones we do have, not only is not supported by any evidence,

Can we assume that you completely ignored Muhlstein's video on historical clues the BOA provides, to which JS would not have had access.  He wrote an entire book on the parallels with ancient stories of Abraham.

You remind me of the antiMormons who claim there is absolutely no evidence for the BOM, but when I ask them about such existing evidence, they re completetely silent == no response.  

Edited February 16, 2017 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for whether or not Joseph could have produced texts like this with the levels of complexity involved and in the in the time periods he had to work on these texts, I think that is largely a question of faith.  There have been other authors that have produced texts of greater length and complexity that claimed to be receiving these texts as a divine source.  I don't have my copy of Natural Born Seer with me at the moment, but at the end of that book Richard Van Wagoner lists a number of examples of other texts produced by authors claiming divine inspiration.  I found it very interesting.  Not to prove or disprove that Joseph's texts were divine, but it does make me question the claim that it would have been impossible for Joseph to produce texts like this when others have created remarkable works in similarly unexplained ways. 

It may be a question of faith, but a 25 year old New York farmboy simply wouldn't have had the skills needed to produce the Book of Mormon and go through and make changes through the entire bible with any degree of consistency in tight timespans related.
Also remember most of the revelations contained in the D&C were dictated by Joseph extemporaneously, with only minor edits made to the published versions.

Yes, there are those people who could have produced similar works, perhaps even in as short a period of time.  But to do so with consistency, minimal editing and correct, and with as little skill as Joseph had is beyond improbable.
 

[dberrie2000]

22 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

But that is the crucial thing in my mind, so I'll repeat it. Even if we admit of the possibility of a preexisting text, it does not mean anything. You cannot infer anything from that text. Okay, so there is a long lost original version, you still have all the questions that apply to the existing ones. Anything you can say about the purported original is pure conjecture, so to say it might not have the characters in the margin like the ones we do have, not only is not supported by any evidence, it also raises even more questions like I outlined above. I am not sure what is gained by suggesting it exists.

And now I have to go prune trees, so to speak, or in my case get in my daily walk.

Hi Steve:

Well--if the door to the existence of previous texts is opened--as I believe it has been---then it limits the hard lines one can draw in the sand--IMO. It leaves the door open to other possibilities.

I believe there are still numerous possible explanations which have not yet been explored, and some that might never be.

As to my position--I believe I related a lot to Dr Hauglid's comments:

"One thing I have tried to do all along in this important research is to make sure my focus on academic results does not in any way get tangled up with my spiritual witness of the Book of Abraham. That is to say, my hearing the voice of God in the sacred text of the Book of Abraham is not dependent on my secular findings in this research. I have become quite aware that secular pursuits using scientific methods and argumentation are just that—secular; and spiritual pursuits using faith and the Spirit are an entirely different path to learning truths.

I know that the Book of Abraham is the word of God, but at the same time I do not know how exactly how it originated. Both truth and uncertainty exist side by side in this case, and likely in many others cases, if the path of faith is chosen."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It may be a question of faith, but a 25 year old New York farmboy simply wouldn't have had the skills needed to produce the Book of Mormon and go through and make changes through the entire bible with any degree of consistency in tight timespans related.
Also remember most of the revelations contained in the D&C were dictated by Joseph extemporaneously, with only minor edits made to the published versions.

Yes, there are those people who could have produced similar works, perhaps even in as short a period of time.  But to do so with consistency, minimal editing and correct, and with as little skill as Joseph had is beyond improbable.
 

What you're describing is largely a matter of faith in my opinion.  For one, Joseph didn't produce his texts by himself, he had help from scribe and others.  For the Bible translation he had Signey Rigdon.  I think you're discounting the amount of editing that occurred to our current version of the D&C, and the amount of editing to get the BoM into a publishable format including punctuation and grammar.  I'm not saying these aren't still quite remarkable texts, I just don't find the argument that Joseph couldn't have accomplished this work by himself, convincing.  There are evidences of people that have extremely good memories, quoting entire sections of the bible exactly from memory, there are some recollections that Joseph Smith Sr. had such an ability.    

If you haven't read Van Wagoner's recent book on Joseph Smith, it's very well written and I feel fairly treats this material, as well as inviting the reader to consider alternative explanations with respect to the early events in the life of Joseph.  I'm by no means saying there wasn't inspiration involved in the works of Joseph Smith, I personally believe that there was, I just don't find the argument that he couldn't have produced these things without inspiration a provable argument.  Especially when there are other examples and explanations for how he could have produced the text as other people have done works of similar complexity who also didn't have formal education and resources, I just think we should consider those as possibilities as well, and leave the ultimate question up to a question of faith, not of fact.  

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Steve:

Well--if the door to the existence of previous texts is opened--as I believe it has been---then it limits the hard lines one can draw in the sand--IMO. It leaves the door open to other possibilities.

I believe there are still numerous possible explanations which have not yet been explored, and some that might never be.

As to my position--I believe I related a lot to Dr Hauglid's comments:

"One thing I have tried to do all along in this important research is to make sure my focus on academic results does not in any way get tangled up with my spiritual witness of the Book of Abraham. That is to say, my hearing the voice of God in the sacred text of the Book of Abraham is not dependent on my secular findings in this research. I have become quite aware that secular pursuits using scientific methods and argumentation are just that—secular; and spiritual pursuits using faith and the Spirit are an entirely different path to learning truths.

 

I know that the Book of Abraham is the word of God, but at the same time I do not know how exactly how it originated. Both truth and uncertainty exist side by side in this case, and likely in many others cases, if the path of faith is chosen."

 

I quite like Dr Hauglid's approach and believe his book to be top notch scholarship. He does not get drug down into labeling others with whom he disagrees as Anti- this or anti that, and provides a very valuable resource with his material.

 

I am not sure I would quibble too much with this part in your last post:

Quote

Well--if the door to the existence of previous texts is opened--as I believe it has been---then it limits the hard lines one can draw in the sand--IMO. It leaves the door open to other possibilities.

except may to add that in addition to opening doors to other possibilities it also opens doors to other problems.

 

One thing I have always wanted to look at more closely is a time line from when the papyri and other Egyptian artifacts arrived in Kirtland and when the earliest extant translation manuscript(s) was started. Dr. Hauglid places a date of "as early as summer of 1835" on the Ab1, the Phelps manuscript. Chandler sold the artifacts to the Church somewhere between 5 July and 9 July. It would be interesting to examine the period  in between the purchase of the artifacts and the Phelps document, if it can be established there was even time to do an initial translation (AbO) and then to see if there was any indication why the scribes would have devoted themselves at that particular time,  to trying to translate the same passages on their own, assuming that is what they were doing. Also if the Phelp's document predated both the Williams and Parrish documents as Hauglid says it does, why would the later bother to copy down what Phelps was doing, if he was only trying to decipher Egyptian on his own? Wouldn't they be doing their own translations with their own results?

As you can see the question of a purported preexisting manuscript opens up as many questions or more, than it answers.

 

Interesting discussion.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Steve:

Well--if the door to the existence of previous texts is opened--as I believe it has been---then it limits the hard lines one can draw in the sand--IMO. It leaves the door open to other possibilities.

I believe there are still numerous possible explanations which have not yet been explored, and some that might never be.

As to my position--I believe I related a lot to Dr Hauglid's comments:

"One thing I have tried to do all along in this important research is to make sure my focus on academic results does not in any way get tangled up with my spiritual witness of the Book of Abraham. That is to say, my hearing the voice of God in the sacred text of the Book of Abraham is not dependent on my secular findings in this research. I have become quite aware that secular pursuits using scientific methods and argumentation are just that—secular; and spiritual pursuits using faith and the Spirit are an entirely different path to learning truths.

 

I know that the Book of Abraham is the word of God, but at the same time I do not know how exactly how it originated. Both truth and uncertainty exist side by side in this case, and likely in many others cases, if the path of faith is chosen."

Recently I have been re-evaluating this construct of the secular and the religious being kept separate, but I don't know how this is entirely possible for us humans to say we can compartmentalize our secular beliefs and keep them entirely separate from our religious convictions.  I believe both sides influence each other.  

Also, I think we should be humble about and receptive to new information as it comes, whether that builds our earlier convictions, or breaks them down.  Our allegiance should be to truth, not to some prior position that we held.  Meaning, we should be nimble and flexible and willing to receive the honest truth even when that directly conflicts with our earlier paradigms.  I think this is part of the problem with Hauglid's statement that you quoted.  He wants to stay true to a particular conviction religiously even if he learns new truths that directly contradict that earlier conviction.  This to me is a dangerous and prideful position and isn't the kind of position God is calling us to take.  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Robert:

The possibilities are almost without bounds. Some things I still would like to know is--seeing a good case can be made as to the manuscripts we now have being copies--did the originals even have the characters in the left margin?

I'm befuddled as to why the inks have not been tested to see if they were the same ink, as to the characters and the English translation, and the margin line--what ink the margin line belongs to--and what ink is the overlapping ink, concerning the margin line and the characters. That may not solve all the mysteries, although, if they are different inks, and the character ink overlaps the margin line--the test will tell us something significant, even if to only eliminate some possibilities.

I am not privy to the forensic side of the ink testing (if there has been any), but you could examine the nice photos of all the material available in Brian M. Hauglid, ed., A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions, Studies in the Book of Abraham 5 (BYU Maxwell Institute, 2010), and note Hauglid's comment on p. 84,

Quote

 

     Just as with Ab2, Ab3 has nineteen Egyptian hieratic characters in the left margins of the folios juxtaposed to the text.  Ten of these characters can be found in the right-hand column of JSP XI (reading from right to left).  However, some of the characters, supposed to have come from damaged areas, resemble characters from random areas of JSP XI and defy sequential order.  What is quite notable is that, on the whole, a character was placed at the beginning of a paragraph.  Both Ab3 and Ab2 begin and end with the same characters (although Ab3 has no text opposite the last character).

     At present, it is difficult to determine definitively what these signs were used for or whether the characters or the text were placed on the manuscript first.  Because the characters appear at the beginning of paragraphs, either the English was written first and the character marked the paragraph or the character was drawn first and the paragraph was then written and followed by another character and another paragraph, an so forth.

 

Photos and transcripts of the entire collection is also available online at http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6 .

[dberrie2000]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Recently I have been re-evaluating this construct of the secular and the religious being kept separate, but I don't know how this is entirely possible for us humans to say we can compartmentalize our secular beliefs and keep them entirely separate from our religious convictions.  I believe both sides influence each other.  

Also, I think we should be humble about and receptive to new information as it comes, whether that builds our earlier convictions, or breaks them down.  Our allegiance should be to truth, not to some prior position that we held.  Meaning, we should be nimble and flexible and willing to receive the honest truth even when that directly conflicts with our earlier paradigms.  I think this is part of the problem with Hauglid's statement that you quoted.  He wants to stay true to a particular conviction religiously even if he learns new truths that directly contradict that earlier conviction.  This to me is a dangerous and prideful position and isn't the kind of position God is calling us to take.  

 

Hi Hope:

While I agree with a lot of your assessment here--I suppose you would have to add me to your "prideful position"--as I take the same stance Hauglid does, and admire his faith. 

As I am the media shepherd for our area--I have learned the LDS do take positions that just are not going to float, in many instances. In a number of cases the LDS do poorly on the internet, when trying to dialog with critics, as they have a lot of "wives tales" in their heads, and are not up on the scholarly side of things, or know how to present doctrine in a way that is effective, IMO. Some LDS believe they are right--just because they are LDS.

But having said that---I love the LDS people. They sacrifice a lot, are a faithful people, for the main, and are just plain good people. That may be a hard thing to find in this world.

Hope--thanks for your dialog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dberrie2000]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am not privy to the forensic side of the ink testing (if there has been any), but you could examine the nice photos of all the material available in Brian M. Hauglid, ed., A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions, Studies in the Book of Abraham 5 (BYU Maxwell Institute, 2010), and note Hauglid's comment on p. 84,

Photos and transcripts of the entire collection is also available online at http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6 .

Thanks, Robert. I'm looking that over--and I have some books already. I have studied the issue with some interest--but am not a scholar, nor even a good amateur, unfortunately.

If you come across any more material--please send it to me.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Hope:

While I agree with a lot of your assessment here--I suppose you would have to add me to your "prideful position"--as I take the same stance Hauglid does, and admire his faith. 

As I am the media shepherd for our area--I have learned the LDS do take positions that just are not going to float, in many instances. In a number of cases the LDS do poorly on the internet, when trying to dialog with critics, as they have a lot of "wives tales" in their heads, and are not up on the scholarly side of things, or know how to present doctrine in a way that is effective, IMO. Some LDS believe they are right--just because they are LDS.

But having said that---I love the LDS people. They sacrifice a lot, are a faithful people, for the main, and are just plain good people. That may be a hard thing to find in this world.

Hope--thanks for your dialog.

I really like Hauglid and his approach is refreshing especially for someone employed by the church, he has been much more even handed and respectful than most.  I've listened to a couple podcasts he's been on, they were dated a couple years after this writing that you quote and I think some of his opinions on the subject have changed a little since he wrote that paper but that's just my perspective, you can listen to those podcasts if you're interested, I'm speaking of one on Mormon Matters and one on Mormon Discussion Podcast, let me know if you'd like links.  

I love the LDS people too, I've been on a faith journey in recent years, took a sabbatical from active church attendance and am back to active attendance again, and proactively meeting with leaders in my ward and stake to try and create positive dialogues around helping those in faith crisis, using the new church materials (Gospel Topics essays, JSPP, etc), and loving and supporting those with doubts and questions.  I'd like to think that the church will be better off as it engages with these things at a local level, its apparent to me that the church as an organization is going in this direction, slowly, but deliberately, even if the messages from the 15 aren't often very nuanced or informed about historical controversies.  I have a hope for big tent Mormonism.  

Thanks 

 

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am not privy to the forensic side of the ink testing (if there has been any), but you could examine the nice photos of all the material available in Brian M. Hauglid, ed., A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions, Studies in the Book of Abraham 5 (BYU Maxwell Institute, 2010), and note Hauglid's comment on p. 84,

Photos and transcripts of the entire collection is also available online at http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/revelations-and-translations/jsppr6 .

Fascinating stuff. Looks like he was dissecting individual letters and ascribing individual meaning to each fraction of a letter (I think someone already mention that, but I hadn't seen the source material until now). It's like taking the letter B, and saying the vertical line means one phrase, each horizontal line has another meaning, and so forth. I guess that's how you get a paragraphs out of single words.