Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!  

According to the church's essay on the Book of Abraham, it says the following:

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

The preface of the Book of Abraham contains the following description:

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

If the church admits that the current fragments we have are from funerary texts and do not mention Abraham's name, then how can it still consider the Book of Abraham as "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?"

Based on the papyrus fragments we have today, wouldn't the correct/honest description be something like? 

"Writings of a funerary text for Horus (dated third century B.C.E.) that Joseph Smith channeled to be the words of Abraham."

People can believe in the Book of Abraham if they want (I personally do not), but you can't claim that the existing evidence we do have was written by Abraham; that is misleading, IMO.  

The church recently made a change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.  Could it not do the same with the preface to the Book of Abraham?  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

 

Here's a link to Appendix V Criticisms from the Book of Abraham Project: http://www.boap.org/LDS/BOAP/SecondEd/Draft-copy/AppendixV-JS-Commentary-on-BOA.pdf

According to its conclusions, the surviving Egyptian fragments we have today are not the ones Joseph Smith used to translate into the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith had possession of a lot of papyrus and only a small portion of them contained the writings of Abraham according to Jopesh Smith's account of them. 

[Ouagadougou]

38 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

We can speculate all we want on what scrolls might be missing. But there is no evidence that these missing scrolls ever existed.  And besides, it really doesn't matter.  We have the facsimilies.  We have JS translate of the facsimilites.  JS's translation is bogus.  It is not even close.  Regardless of what JS has said, this is not a valid translation.  This is why many cannot take JS at his word.

And I'm not aware of any non-LDS Egyptologist who would claim that the translations of these facsimiles are anything else but bogus.  You compare the facsimiles JS translated with the actual translations Egyptologists have done, and it's immediately noticeable that it's a failed translation.  And it's the same thing with the papyrus fragments we do have, but at least the church admits that these papyrus fragments have nothing to do with Abraham and are nothing more than a funerary text. 

[Darren10]

Ouagadougou;

Quote

People can believe in the Book of Abraham if they want (I personally do not), but you can't claim that the existing evidence we do have was written by Abraham; that is misleading, IMO.

Oh, I very much believe in the Book of Abraham. I find it one of the most profoundly insightful view into the eternal nature if God, His Son, and all of humanity. 

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

Here's a link to Appendix V Criticisms from the Book of Abraham Project: http://www.boap.org/LDS/BOAP/SecondEd/Draft-copy/AppendixV-JS-Commentary-on-BOA.pdf

According to its conclusions, the surviving Egyptian fragments we have today are not the ones Joseph Smith used to translate into the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith had possession of a lot of papyrus and only a small portion of them contained the writings of Abraham according to Jopesh Smith's account of them. 

According to the church's essay, the fragments we have do include one facsimile.

"The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.26"

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

This facsimile is a failed translation...

[Ouagadougou]

2 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Ouagadougou;

Oh, I very much believe in the Book of Abraham. I find it one of the most profoundly insightful view into the eternal nature if God, His Son, and all of humanity. 

I respect your belief, but I, however, view the BoA as a failed translation and a complete fraud (no offense please).  This is my honest opinion, but I understand that some might view it as historical scripture.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

They did it in the intro to the BoM, so why not do the same thing to reflect the source fragments we do have for the BoA?  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

I think the change in the Book of Mormon was to remove confusion because many did not know what "principal" meant.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

How have I turned it around?  The church is the one who turned it around (as they make mention in the essay), so why not list it as well in the preface?  The church's own essay contradicts the preface to the BoA, or at least doesn't paint the entire picture that the fragments we do have are dated third century B.C.E.; and they do not mention Abraham; and are a standard funerary text, which were used by JS to channel/translate some of the BoA, to include facsimile 1.  

Exactly what I would expect from someone who is either poorly informed and has difficulty reading, or who deliberately misinterprets for polemical reasons.  Of course, sometimes people substitute contempt for rationality.  Is that really how a legitimate conversation proceeds?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

We can speculate all we want on what scrolls might be missing. But there is no evidence that these missing scrolls ever existed.  And besides, it really doesn't matter.  We have the facsimilies.  We have JS translate of the facsimilites.  JS's translation is bogus.  It is not even close.  Regardless of what JS has said, this is not a valid translation.  This is why many cannot take JS at his word.

False premises lead to false conclusions, as here.  The first job a fair-minded observer or commentator is to authentically understand what claims are actually being made.  Maybe an introductory course in logic would help you.

[dberrie2000]

15 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

But from the fragments we DO have, it was a failed translation, IMO.  And a funerary text was used, not the writings of Abraham.  

What is your evidence the Book of Abraham text came from a funerary text--or anything which is extant today?

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!  

According to the church's essay on the Book of Abraham, it says the following:

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

The preface of the Book of Abraham contains the following description:

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

If the church admits that the current fragments we have are from funerary texts and do not mention Abraham's name, then how can it still consider the Book of Abraham as "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?"

Based on the papyrus fragments we have today, wouldn't the correct/honest description be something like? 

"Writings of a funerary text for Horus (dated third century B.C.E.) that Joseph Smith channeled to be the words of Abraham."

People can believe in the Book of Abraham if they want (I personally do not), but you can't claim that the existing evidence we do have was written by Abraham; that is misleading, IMO.  

The church recently made a change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.  Could it not do the same with the preface to the Book of Abraham?  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

 

If what Joseph produced in any sense is scripture, translation is a bad word to use.  For the BoM we already have descriptions by those who sat and wrote what Joseph told them that he did not refer to the plates.  I'd imagine he did the same for the BoA.  Thus its possible even Joseph had no clue whether the papyrus contained the writings of Abraham.  I think you're correct here.  There's no reason to include that in the preface.  And in addition to that, with all the evidence we have, there is no way to suggest, at least with a straight face, that Abraham's story was found on the papyrus.  We'd have to have evidence that any missing portions mentioned Abraham first, which we have nothing as far as I know.

Thanks for the thread.

Edited March 16, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly what I would expect from someone who is either poorly informed and has difficulty reading, or who deliberately misinterprets for polemical reasons.  Of course, sometimes people substitute contempt for rationality.  Is that really how a legitimate conversation proceeds?

He asking questions and stating clearly his concern and complaint and all you offer in response is insult?  And then you question if he's causing problems when it comes to the conversation? 

I find his OP pretty straightforward, clear and convincing.  There is good reason for the Church to change the preface.  I'm not sure why anyone would argue otherwise. 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

As I point out above, if you adjust the preface you are adjusting what Joseph Smith said about the history.  You are in effect saying "we know better than he did."  That's easy for us to say here on the internet, but I wouldn't want to stand in front of the Q15 and be the one to argue that it needs to be changed.

But that's already being admitted in the essay. Joseph claimed X about his translation process. Now the church doesn't claim X but instead offer theory XX, Y, and Z as possible explanations of the translation. Changing the heading would merely make it more visible for people to see that the church is changing what Joseph said about the translation process.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

 

Th preface says:

"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

 

And? Seems like you don't know where to go with this.

Let’s look at the full heading. The second sentence is in context of the first, the “em dash” being in place of a comma.

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

From the first sentence, “Translation” accords with “The writings of Abraham... written by his own hand” in the second (and this "Translation" is called "the Book of Abraham"); and “Records” from the first sentence accords with “upon papyrus” in the second sentence.

In other words, the “Records, that have fallen into our hands” were on papyrus and served as the source of the “Translation,” which in turn is explained to be the writings of Abraham written by his own hand (in accord with 1:31).

Edited March 16, 2017 by CV75

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And? Seems like you don't know where to go with this.

Let’s look at the full heading. The second sentence is in context of the first, the “em dash” being in place of a comma.

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

From the first sentence, “Translation” accords with “The writings of Abraham... written by his own hand” in the second (and this "Translation" is called "the Book of Abraham"); and “Records” from the first sentence accords with “upon papyrus” in the second sentence.

In other words, the “Records, that have fallen into our hands” were on papyrus and served as the source of the “Translation,” which in turn is explained to be the writings of Abraham written by his own hand (in accord with 1:31).

It remains a mistake to continue to use the word translate, no matter what Joseph thought about it.  The extant portions have nothing about Abraham, thus the Church in the essay has promoted the possibility of it not being a translation but a dictation spoken to Joseph's brain in some way.  But even in the case of the BoM it is not a translation but a dictation, at least as far as Joseph's contribution is concerned.  So assuming Joseph was consistent when he came up with the two books, translation does not work.  And certainly giving the impression that Joseph translated the Egyptian off of the papyrus that was in his hands and found Abraham on them, seems to do nothing but magnify the glaring mistake. 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It remains a mistake to continue to use the word translate, no matter what Joseph thought about it.

Well now that's broad-minded, especially since it's not just what Joseph "thought" about it. LOL

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well now that's broad-minded, especially since it's not just what Joseph "thought" about it. LOL

CV75- words mean things. Language matters.

"Translate" is not the proper term for a person dictating scripture to a scribe based on thoughts coming into his mind. It can be other things, but "translate"? That's just silly. Changing the word away from translate doesn't mean there is no value in the text but is simply an effort to be more accurate.

There is nothing broadminded about using words incorrectly...on purpose. That's not broadminded, it's uneducated, or possibly even deceitful.

[Ahab]

19 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!  

According to the church's essay on the Book of Abraham, it says the following:

..."27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

The preface of the Book of Abraham contains the following description:

"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

If the church admits that the current fragments we have are from funerary texts and do not mention Abraham's name, then how can it still consider the Book of Abraham as "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?"

This part of the OP is the best part of it, I think, and what I understand from this combined with my knowledge that Abraham shared his knowledge with ancient Egyptians is that his writings became the basis for the standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.

Some people apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

47 minutes ago, Ahab said:

This part of the OP is the best part of it, I think, and what I understand from this combined with my knowledge that Abraham shared his knowledge with ancient Egyptians is that his writings became the basis for the standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.

Some people apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture.

 

You are kidding, right?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

What is your evidence the Book of Abraham text came from a funerary text--or anything which is extant today?

The church essay.

[Ouagadougou]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think the change in the Book of Mormon was to remove confusion because many did not know what "principal" meant.

I think updating the preface could remove a lot of confusion, since many don't realize a funerary text was used for at least facsimile 1 in the BoA.  

[Ouagadougou]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church essay.

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

This part of the OP is the best part of it, I think, and what I understand from this combined with my knowledge that Abraham shared his knowledge with ancient Egyptians is that his writings became the basis for the standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.

Some people apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture.

 

I really hope you are not serious.  The funerary text is for Horus dated around third century B.C.E. (thousands of years after Abraham) and doesn't even mention Abraham's name.  Yet...somehow it is the basis for funerary texts, but doesn't even mention his name.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CV75- words mean things. Language matters.

"Translate" is not the proper term for a person dictating scripture to a scribe based on thoughts coming into his mind. It can be other things, but "translate"? That's just silly. Changing the word away from translate doesn't mean there is no value in the text but is simply an effort to be more accurate.

There is nothing broadminded about using words incorrectly...on purpose. That's not broadminded, it's uneducated, or possibly even deceitful.

From what we do have, it was a failed translation.  F- ... do not pass go...

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly what I would expect from someone who is either poorly informed and has difficulty reading, or who deliberately misinterprets for polemical reasons.  Of course, sometimes people substitute contempt for rationality.  Is that really how a legitimate conversation proceeds?

Poorly informed from reading the church's own essay?  I'm sorry, but the church, in this case, contradicts itself, IMO, based on the essay and current preface to the BoA.  

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I really hope you are not serious.  The funerary text is for Horus dated around third century B.C.E. (thousands of years after Abraham) and doesn't even mention Abraham's name.  Yet...somehow it is the basis for funerary texts, but doesn't even mention his name.

Yes, because the "standard" funerary text (with pictures) originated from Abraham.  He did it first, and they then followed his example while using details from their own lives.