Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Ok, thank you for the retraction,  (this was specifically what my original question was regarding and what the resulting CFR was asking for.)  Sorry if I missed the first two.

If you want to expand the discussion to other topics (ie.  "Joseph's testimony and reliability in other matters"), that could be an interesting discussion, IMO.

CFR when notHagoth retracted!

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

CFR when notHagoth retracted!

It's kind of like Trump strongly believing that Obama wiretapped his phones. When pushed for evidence Trump couldn't provide any but maintains his believe that he was tapped. That's fine. The claim of wiretapping hasn't been rescinded but the expectation that there is any kind of evidence has been removed.

NotHagoth stated he has "Zero" references which means his comments are clearly opinion, nothing more. I'm good with that.

[Darren10]

This is not my website so, if the moderators want to have a CFR standard, by all means, have them. In fact, I think there are definite merits to have such standards; but, good grief, why are CFRs some people's personal opium? Why not just move the conversation along. "OK, that seems your opinion, here's mine", "I've never heard that before, let me know if you can find some sources on that...", "Pretty outlandish comment there, I do not know of any legitimate sources backing up your claim..." are perfectly reasonable ways to move a conversation along without getting up in another person's face and DEMANDING that they show a source or RETRACT! I think causes disharmony and unneeded contention. It also makes people blind to content. While I believe that Ahab's statement of Egyptian funerary texts having originated from Abraham is quite an unsustainable claim, notHagoth was very plainly asked if he/she *believed*, "So do you also believe that the standard funerary texts and facsimiles originated with Abraham?" (bold mine), in which notHagoth answered yes. But I think at this point Ahab's assertion has become such a focal point that it carried on to notHagoth, even to the point that a moderator intervened.

Why is there such a fixation on CFRs? Is it to maintain a high level of integrity because it seems to be used more to attack than anything else. And why was it needed so bad on this thread? Why not just move on with pointed disagreements? Once that was done with notHagoth, discussion continued and I think in a reasonable manner.

For some there are times to just say no to insisting on CFR.  

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, notHagoth7 said:

K. Sounds enjoyable, if time/resources/tech access allow.

Would you prefer that discussion here in this thread (since such does weigh into the OP's assertion that the BofA preface was somehow misleading)?

Or would you prefer a separate thread(s)?

I think if you want to discuss that, it'd be best to start another thread rather that derail this one any further.  It's kind of a broad topic and similar to some things already discussed recently (like the one about whether Joseph lied or deceived, etc.).  So maybe narrow it down to one area regarding Joseph?  Just a thought....

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's kind of like Trump strongly believing that Obama wiretapped his phones. When pushed for evidence Trump couldn't provide any but maintains his believe that he was tapped. That's fine. The claim of wiretapping hasn't been rescinded but the expectation that there is any kind of evidence has been removed.

NotHagoth stated he has "Zero" references which means his comments are clearly opinion, nothing more. I'm good with that.

notHagoth disagrees. He/she did not retract anything. And don't insult notHagoth by comparing him/her to Trump. That's a new low.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

This is not my website so, if the moderators want to have a CFR standard, by all means, have them. In fact, I think there are definite merits to have such standards; but, good grief, why are CFRs some people's personal opium? Why not just move the conversation along. "OK, that seems your opinion, here's mine", "I've never heard that before, let me know if you can find some sources on that...", "Pretty outlandish comment there, I do not know of any legitimate sources backing up your claim..." are perfectly reasonable ways to move a conversation along without getting up in another person's face and DEMANDING that they show a source or RETRACT! I think causes disharmony and unneeded contention. It also makes people blind to content. While I believe that Ahab's statement of Egyptian funerary texts having originated from Abraham is quite an unsustainable claim, notHagoth was very plainly asked if he/she *believed*, "So do you also believe that the standard funerary texts and facsimiles originated with Abraham?" (bold mine), in which notHagoth answered yes. But I think at this point Ahab's assertion has become such a focal point that it carried on to notHagoth, even to the point that a moderator intervened.

Why is there such a fixation on CFRs? Is it to maintain a high level of integrity because it seems to be used more to attack than anything else. And why was it needed so bad on this thread? Why not just move on with pointed disagreements? Once that was done with notHagoth, discussion continued and I think in a reasonable manner.

For some there are times to just say no to insisting on CFR.  

Just an IMO, would have taken care of it.

[Hestia]

NotHagoth either provide the reference or retract.  

Darren10, stay out of it.  

Everyone else move on.

[Darren10]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Just an IMO, would have taken care of it.

IMO was nothagoth's premises all along, was it not?

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, JulieM said:

No, it does not.  Joseph misidentified Osiris (Egyptian God) as being Abraham.  He was also wrong about identities of the other figures in the facsimile.

Did you see my post on this? I think it's at least worth considering if you have not already done so.

 

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

CFR that the facsimiles originated with Abraham.

Michael Rhodes makes precisely that argument here: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-4-number-2-2003/teaching-book-abraham-facsimiles (see also his comments in Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes, The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2005]).

Quote

What about the association of facsimiles 1 and 3 with the Hor Book of Breathings? The likely explanation here is that the original illustrations done by Abraham had been modified and adapted for use by Hor, the owner of the papyrus. What Joseph Smith did with the facsimiles is similar to what he did with the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible—he gave the original meaning of the Abraham illustrations, correcting the distortions that had taken place over nearly two millennia. The same, of course, holds true for facsimile 2.

But is there any evidence that, even in distorted form, these illustrations were associated with Abraham anciently? There is indeed...

— Michael D. Rhodes, “Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles,” Religious Educator 4, no. 2 (2003): 118.

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Nevo

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Michael Rhodes makes precisely that argument here: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-4-number-2-2003/teaching-book-abraham-facsimiles (see also his comments in Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes, The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2005]).

 

Thanks Nevo!  Just what I was asking for all along here.  I really am interested in any sources regarding this and in looking into all angles or views.  I'll definitely read this!

ETA:

I read through this and it's really interesting.  I see it as just his theory (and he even states that's it's "a likely explanation"), but I see no evidence that the facsimiles are copies of Abraham's originals (with alterations).  It is interesting to read all thoughts and theories though, so thanks again.

What is your opinion on this Nevo?  I always enjoy reading your input on different topics.

Edited March 17, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

My understanding of Ahab's (no longer present to clarify) argument was Abraham created the very idea of facsimiles and funerary texts in general, not just these specifically.  I don't think Rhodes is making that kind of claim, but just dealing with the specific ones.

[Darren10]

57 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Michael Rhodes makes precisely that argument here: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-4-number-2-2003/teaching-book-abraham-facsimiles (see also his comments in Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes, The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2005]).

 

That is very interesting. My link by Kevin Barnes stated this in reverse order. That Semitic story tellers took existing Egyptian hieroglyphs which told a story of Egyptian characters and reinterpreted them to tell a Semitic story with Semitic characters. In the end, it points to the possibility that not only did Joseph Smith not get the Egyptian characters "wrong", but he got the reinterpretation of the characters right. If what Rhodes says is true then it seems the reinterpretation was reinterpreted. Would you say that is accurate?

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Darren10

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Hestia said:

NotHagoth either provide the reference or retract.  

Listening.

Retract what?

[Ouagadougou]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

My understanding of Ahab's (no longer present to clarify) argument was Abraham created the very idea of facsimiles and funerary texts in general, not just these specifically.  I don't think Rhodes is making that kind of claim, but just dealing with the specific ones.

The problem with this is JS claimed that it was a "translation of the Book of Abraham  written by his own hand" in 1842.  That would mean, IMO, that Abraham's "own hand" wrote the actual text on the papyrus (not by the hand(s) of somebody else thousands of years later).  JS never made any mention that Abraham created the idea of the facsimiles/texts; rather, he said they were all written "by the hand of Abraham." Also, if people claim JS channeled the text, then you also can't claim it was a translation.  

 http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-early-1842/1

 

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

This is not my website so, if the moderators want to have a CFR standard, by all means, have them. In fact, I think there are definite merits to have such standards; but, good grief, why are CFRs some people's personal opium? Why not just move the conversation along. "OK, that seems your opinion, here's mine", "I've never heard that before, let me know if you can find some sources on that...", "Pretty outlandish comment there, I do not know of any legitimate sources backing up your claim..." are perfectly reasonable ways to move a conversation along without getting up in another person's face and DEMANDING that they show a source or RETRACT! I think causes disharmony and unneeded contention. It also makes people blind to content. While I believe that Ahab's statement of Egyptian funerary texts having originated from Abraham is quite an unsustainable claim, notHagoth was very plainly asked if he/she *believed*, "So do you also believe that the standard funerary texts and facsimiles originated with Abraham?" (bold mine), in which notHagoth answered yes. But I think at this point Ahab's assertion has become such a focal point that it carried on to notHagoth, even to the point that a moderator intervened.

Why is there such a fixation on CFRs? Is it to maintain a high level of integrity because it seems to be used more to attack than anything else. And why was it needed so bad on this thread? Why not just move on with pointed disagreements? Once that was done with notHagoth, discussion continued and I think in a reasonable manner.

For some there are times to just say no to insisting on CFR.  

opinions are like........... everyone has one. A CFR, however, requires something more than an opinion.. 

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

opinions are like........... everyone has one. A CFR, however, requires something more than an opinion.. 

That goes to my point but we were all told to move on and I specifically am to stay out of it. 

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Did you see my post on this? I think it's at least worth considering if you have not already done so.

 

Thanks, Darren.  I'll take a look at this.

[bcuzbcuz]

25 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

opinions are like........... everyone has one. A CFR, however, requires something more than an opinion.. 

i have nothing against opinions, I have one about almost any topic anyone should choose. But when when a CFR is called for, a reference is appreciated.  It adds a level of class that surpasses an opinion. 

[Nevo]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

What is your opinion on this Nevo?  I always enjoy reading your input on different topics.

My opinion on the facsimiles originating with Abraham or my opinion of the Book of Abraham generally? Since I'm getting lazy in my old age, I'll just recycle some comments I made on another board:

Quote

I believe the Book of Abraham is an inspired, prophetic, revelatory text, which may or may not have originated with the biblical Abraham. If Joseph Smith was looking at Ptolemaic-era funerary texts rather than an actual writing of the biblical Abraham when he "translated" the Book of Abraham, then I'm okay with that. I don't really care who gets credit for writing for writing the Book of Abraham. I'm interested in what it says.

Ultimately, my acceptance of the Book of Abraham as scripture rests on my acceptance of the prophetic authority of Joseph Smith.

http://mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=794040#p794040

 

Quote

As Jared Ludlow notes, "The Apocalypse of Abraham is the only Jewish text to discuss foreordination, Satan's rebellion, and premortal existence in the context of Abraham's heavenly vision"—a heavenly vision that the Bible says nothing about, incidentally. 

The Apocalypse of Abraham also associates Abraham with priesthood—something again that is entirely absent from the Bible. Writes one scholar: "In the Apocalypse of Abraham the development of the patriarch's priestly profile appears to reach an entirely new conceptual level. Here Abraham is depicted not merely as an important link in the long chain of earthly priests but as a priest par excellence—a kind of sacerdotal archetype" (Andrei A. Orlov, Heavenly Priesthood in the Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 3; cf. Abraham 1:2–3). 

Furthermore, as Ludlow points out, both the Book of Abraham and the Apocalypse of Abraham share a common bipartite structure ("the first part discloses Abraham's father's idolatry and Abraham's refusal to follow, and the second part details the visions Abraham was given of the heavens and events related to God's plan").

I think the thematic and structural affinities between the books are quite strong, even though they are clearly independent accounts. There seems to be a certain family resemblance if you will. Of course, this doesn't prove that the Book of Abraham is an ancient text (as there are a lot of anachronisms too). But if Joseph Smith just made up the Book of Abraham (a possibility), then he somehow managed to produce a pseudepigraphal Abraham text with striking similarities to themes found in seventeen-hundred-year-old apocryphal texts to which neither he nor any of his contemporaries had access. At the very least, that's curious.

http://mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=796042#p796042

 

Quote

I mentioned the parallels to the Apocalypse of Abraham more as a curiosity than as evidence for a Bronze Age origin for the Book of Abraham. I acknowledge that the Book of Abraham may be Joseph's own invention, in which case I think he had a knack for, as Harold Bloom observed, recapturing "elements in the archaic Jewish religion . . . that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly." Or maybe he really did transmit authentic Abraham traditions, as unlikely as that is.

As I noted in one of my first posts on the Book of Abraham, I consider the historicity issue—while interesting to discuss—to be beside the point. What matters to me is the text and the revelation it expresses.

Quote

Wittgenstein’s observation about Christianity is equally true of Mormonism. "Christianity is not," he said, "based on a historical truth; rather it offers us a (historical) narrative and says: now believe! But not, believe this narrative with the belief appropriate to historical narrative, rather . . . make a quite different place in your life for it." Attention to narrative function furthers Wittgenstein’s point by positing that the believing reader’s commitment is not partial. The reader does not make "a place" for the narrative but enters—takes his or her life experience—into the narrative as a world of possibility.

This is not to argue against the kind of verification fundamental to scientific history. . . . Rather, it is to argue for something besides the power of description at work in certain narratives, especially those that rise to the level of mythos and make a claim to religious authority. Smith’s narratives do not display fact to be assented to but draw the reader into a malleable reality by means of the malleable plots that traditionally provided the basis for Jewish and Christian ethos and ethic. . . . Whatever his intention, the effect was to deploy the biblical text in a manner that radically subverted centuries of theologizing on who God is and how humans are to worship God.

—Kathleen Flake, "Translating Time: The Nature and Function of Joseph Smith's Narrative Canon," The Journal of Religion 87, no. 4 [October 2007]: 525–26.

http://mormon*****.***/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=796334#p796334

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Nevo

[rongo]

On 3/16/2017 at 3:22 PM, JulieM said:

No, it does not.  Joseph misidentified Osiris (Egyptian God) as being Abraham.  He was also wrong about identities of the other figures in the facsimile.

Julie, what do you think about the explanations given by Nibley and others (quoting other Egyptological works) that Egyptian rituals and depictions often had people identify themselves with Egyptian gods?

From "All the World's a Stage" (the chapter dealing with Facsimile 3):

"In Facsimile 3, the person on the throne is indeed Osiris, and yet he is here supposed to be a normal human being. As everyone knows, the deceased in Egyptian funerary texts is regularly designated as 'the Osiris So-and-So,' . . . It once puzzled scholars greatly: If this constant exchange, mixing, shifting of identification of persons happens on every page of the written text, so as to make our heads whirl, why should we expect perfectly logical unilinear consistency in the drawing?" (Abraham in Egypt, pp. 404-405).

"One boasts that he took various parts in the Sed festival, that he 'took the part of the Beloved Son in the mysteries of the Lord Abydos.' Another man is depicted curiously dressed up in royal costume, without the uraeus and holding the royal Osiris insignia. The fact that 'a person or object during the changing phases of the rite can play a number of different roles' offers, as Bergman notes, 'no difficulty in the logical religious thinking of the Egyptians.' Figure 1 in Facsimile 3 can be either god, king, or human, since everything is 'saturated with the religious cult of the Osirian mysteries' at every level, and there is a 'general resemblance of costume and insignia' between the king and Osiris even when taken independently." (p. 422)

(This extends to gender-bending cross-dressing [a common canard against Facsimile 3]. He then quotes a dissertation from Egyptian Ali Radwan that studies specifically presentation scenes, of which Facsimile 3 is one):

"Anyone wishing to demolish Joseph Smith's interpretation of Facsimile 3 . . . need look no further than his designating as King Pharaoh and Prince of Pharaoh two figures so obviously female that a three year-old child will not hesitate to identify them as such . . . Dietrich Wildung notes an instance in which 'we can identify Anat as the king himself in the shape of a goddess. There you have it --- the Lady Hathor, who is figure 2 in Facsimile 3, is none other than the Pharaoh himself. The two ladies in figures 2 and 4 will be readily identified by any novice as the goddesses Hathor and Ma'at, who are indispensible to scenes having to do with the transmission of power and authority. The spectacle of men, kings, and princes dressed as women calls for a brief notice  on the fundamental issue peculiar to the Egyptians and the Book of Abraham, namely, the tension between the claims of patriarchal vs. matriarchal succession." (p. 425)

Thoughts, Julie?

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

i have nothing against opinions, I have one about almost any topic anyone should choose. But when when a CFR is called for, a reference is appreciated.  It adds a level of class that surpasses an opinion. 

Hopefully I won't get involved too much in this but by definition, facts are supported by evidence, opinions are nit facts and do nit require evidence. Therefore, when someone asks, "do tou belive...", no matter tour answer, no evidence to support it is necessary because it is not a fact. 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Darren10

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Darren10 said:

This is not my website so, if the moderators want to have a CFR standard, by all means, have them. In fact, I think there are definite merits to have such standards; but, good grief, why are CFRs some people's personal opium? Why not just move the conversation along. "OK, that seems your opinion, here's mine", "I've never heard that before, let me know if you can find some sources on that...", "Pretty outlandish comment there, I do not know of any legitimate sources backing up your claim..." are perfectly reasonable ways to move a conversation along without getting up in another person's face and DEMANDING that they show a source or RETRACT! I think causes disharmony and unneeded contention. It also makes people blind to content. While I believe that Ahab's statement of Egyptian funerary texts having originated from Abraham is quite an unsustainable claim, notHagoth was very plainly asked if he/she *believed*, "So do you also believe that the standard funerary texts and facsimiles originated with Abraham?" (bold mine), in which notHagoth answered yes. But I think at this point Ahab's assertion has become such a focal point that it carried on to notHagoth, even to the point that a moderator intervened.

Why is there such a fixation on CFRs? Is it to maintain a high level of integrity because it seems to be used more to attack than anything else. And why was it needed so bad on this thread? Why not just move on with pointed disagreements? Once that was done with notHagoth, discussion continued and I think in a reasonable manner.

For some there are times to just say no to insisting on CFR.  

The CFR is an ironclad rule on this board, asking someone to put up or shut up.  Sometimes it is just necessary.

[dberrie2000]

21 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

The Missing Papyrus Theory, IMO, is very weak and has been discussed here:

"The Missing Papyrus theory fails. Some apologists argue that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This argument fails for multiple reasons, including: 

 

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

 

 

Hi Oua:

I'm going to separate out these argument in a singular form--and attempt to engage a dialog as to the individuality of the points you pose, i hope that is agreeable with you.

How does the reference to facsimile #1 preclude the fact there are a number of eye witness accounts--both LDS and non-LDS ---which testify the volume of the original papyri--which was had in Nauvoo-- far exceeds the amount of extant papyri?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dberrie2000]

On 3/17/2017 at 2:12 AM, Ouagadougou said:

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

As has already been pointed out--the translation has nothing in common with the characters in the left hand margin--and one character does not translate to 176 English words--as is the case of the extant copies.

Further--as Brian M. Hauglid points out--and, IMO-- is a very good argument--what is extant, as to the Book of Abraham text translation--is probably not an original--but a copy, IE--

 

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

 

Thoughts on the Book of Abraham

Brian M. Hauglid

"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."

 

If the extant translation is indeed a copy--the question has to be asked--were the characters in the left hand column even present in the original?