Evidence for the Book of Abraham

[CA Steve]

Quote

"Hugh Nibley cites a personal reference to scrolls clearly different from the recovered papyri. In 1906, while visiting Nauvoo, President Joseph F. Smith related to Preston Nibley his experience as a child of seeing his Uncle Joseph in the front rooms of the Mansion House working on the Egyptian manuscripts. According to President Smith, one of the rolls of papyri "when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House."

 

First person memories from 60 years before, when the person was 5, are, in and of themselves, problematic.  Those problems multiply when the evidence is twice removed from the original source and is strictly anecdotal. Below is what others have remarked regarding the accuracy of the Nibley reference above. Back in the early 2000's on the old ZLMB board Brent Metcalfe wrote:

 

Quote

Nibley provided no reference in his Dialogue essay, but his assertion is almost certainly a mischaracterization of a recollection attributed to Joseph F. Smith (son of Hyrum Smith) and related by Nibley in the Improvement Era and his essay "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham":

As President Joseph F. Smith stood in the front doorway of the Nauvoo House with some of the brethren in 1906, the tears streamed down his face as he told how he remembered "as if it were yesterday" his "Uncle Joseph" down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, peering at the strange writings and jotting things down in a little green notebook with the stub of a pencil. When one considers that the eleven fragments now in our possession can be easily spread out on the top of a small desk, without straining the knees, back, and dignity, it would seem that what is missing is much more than what we have [H. Nibley, "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham"].

Joseph F.'s reminiscence most closely resembles what Nibley describes in Dialogue. If I'm correct, then we can conclude that in Dialogue Hugh misidentified the Nauvoo House as the "Mansion House" and mistakenly depicted the papyri running through two rooms rather than scattered on the floor of one room. If I'm not correct, then I have no idea what Nibley is referring to in his undocumented remark.

In the Improvement Era, Hugh informs readers that Preston Nibley had supplied the Joseph F. Smith account. Preston published his 1906 encounter with Joseph F. in the early 1940's (if memory serves), but omitted the recollection about the Book of Abraham papyri. According to Preston, in 1906 Joseph F. was recalling an event that occurred over six decades earlier when Smith was 5 years old, or younger. Four years later, in 1910, Hugh was born. Before Preston died (in the mid 1960's?) he related Joseph F.'s recollection to Hugh. Finally, Hugh published the reminiscence in the mid/late 1960's. Given this transmission history, scholars would be reckless to uncritically appeal to Joseph F.'s story as an unblemished depiction of the Book of Abraham papyri

Also as Chris Smith has pointed out:

Quote

A story attributed to Joseph F. Smith says that one of the papyrus scrolls, “when unrolled on the floor, extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.” But this quote is known only from a casual comment by Hugh Nibley, who heard it from Preston Nibley, who heard it from President Smith, who was recalling a time when he was five years old or younger. And in addition to its rather incredible provenance, it differs substantially from Hugh Nibley’s own earlier telling of the story, which had President Smith remember “Uncle Joseph” seated on the floor of the Nauvoo House (not the Mansion House) with “Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him.” Like the “one that got away”, this tale seems to have taken on new proportions in Hugh Nibley’s memory.

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by CA Steve

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Deception requires intent, has intent been demonstrated?

Getting it wrong is not equivalent to deception.  He has to know he is wrong  

How can intent to deceive be demonstrated here?  Did Joseph say something like I know this isn’t what I am saying it is?

If not, it is mindreading to assume intent to deceive, imo. 

Yep that's the point they conveniently never understand

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, mikwut said:

mfbukowski,

I am responding to your response to Dan not our previous chain.

Dan's position doesn't require mind reading, just reading the historical record. What are you missing from that?

There is no historical record for a catalyst theory, or that they weren't translating. Without that evidence the catalyst theory or any like it requires the one who accepts it to read Joseph's mind cause there is no record otherwise to support that idea.

This is so transparently simple I am baffled by your response. It is just wrong to play the games your playing with evidence and playing three cups hide the ball with facts.

I do not understand your points. They seem confused

As Calm points out, deception requires intent, and intent requires mindreading when the author is no longer alive. We have no one to interview, and no objective standard for establishing states of mind for anyone, much less dead people. There is clearly reasonable doubt about Joseph' s intent as being deceptive. It would just be a stupid move on his part considering the possibility that Egyptian might someday be translated.

Like all paradigm shifts, the catalyst theory presents a new interpretation of the evidence, presented for a given purpose to a given community. Is that idea what is bothering you?

There was no historical record for the heliocentric view either, what's your point? 

This is not a paradigm which requires objective evidence anyway, but spiritual evidence, which Dan concedes is not amenable to scholarship. This is theology, not science!! 

Protestants may see a symbolic view of the eucharist as more "reasonable" than transubstantiation without any objective evidence for either view, and the catalyst  theory is a similar case for a religious paradigm presented to an LDS community.

I can suggest sources for these views if you are not familiar with them. I am not understanding your objections.

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not understand your points. They seem confused

As Calm points out, deception requires intent, and intent requires mindreading when the author is no longer alive. We have no one to interview, and no objective standard for establishing states of mind for anyone, much less dead people. There is clearly reasonable doubt about Joseph' s intent as being deceptive. It would just be a stupid move on his part considering the possibility that Egyptian might someday be translated.

Like all paradigm shifts, the catalyst theory presents a new interpretation of the evidence, presented for a given purpose to a given community. Is that idea what is bothering you?

There was no historical record for the heliocentric view either, what's your point? 

This is not a paradigm which requires objective evidence anyway, but spiritual evidence, which Dan concedes is not amenable to scholarship. This is theology, not science!! 

Protestants may see a symbolic view of the eucharist as more "reasonable" than transubstantiation without any objective evidence for either view, and the catalyst  theory is a similar case for a religious paradigm presented to an LDS community.

I can suggest sources for these views if you are not familiar with them. I am not understanding your objections.

 

Where is the evidence for the catalyst theory during JS's time?  JS never claimed he was receiving a complete revelation as the catalyst theory presupposes.  JS claimed he was translating something, right?  And the supposed "translation" turned out to be completely wrong.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Where is the evidence for the catalyst theory during JS's time?  JS never claimed he was receiving a complete revelation as the catalyst theory presupposes.  JS claimed he was translating something, right?  And the supposed "translation" turned out to be completely wrong.

Where is the evidence for heliocentrism in Ptolemaic times?

What kind of ridiculous question is that?

For Newton in Aristotle? 

[clarkgoble]

Just checking in for the first time since last week - so forgive me if I miss something in how the dialog has evolved here. I'm going in reverse order, so apologies if my comments appear disjointed. I'll make the broader comments later tonight.

7 hours ago, mikwut said:

There is no historical record for a catalyst theory, or that they weren't translating. Without that evidence the catalyst theory or any like it requires the one who accepts it to read Joseph's mind cause there is no record otherwise to support that idea.

I'm not entirely sure that's true. It depends upon the role you give Joseph's and others descriptions of the function of the seer stones. I believe those who adopt certain types of catalyst theories see evidence there. Of course so far as I know no one has really done a thorough explication of the catalyst theory. The missing papyri theories have had most of the attention from what I can see. The closest is Karl Sandberg, “Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith as Translator.” I know both Sam Brown and Jonathan Stapley have embraced catalyst theories but I don't think they've really explicated them in a nuanced and comprehensive fashion. (Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong there) However there appear to be a fair range of views - nearly a continuum between the missing papyri theory to various catalyst theories. What I've often called the deconstruction catalyst theory seems to be one in which the seer stone allows one to interrogate a text, getting information about what is in the margins of the text. i.e. ask questions about a reference and get deeper information on that reference.

The term arises out of how Derrida saw meaning not in the text itself of a writing but in its margins. I raise this not to complicate things or to bring in esoteric philosophical texts to distract but to clarify how the seer stone as a translator could lead to this. A good way of thinking about this is to ask whether a translation is primarily in terms of a dictionary or an encyclopedia. Very literalistic translations (such as the KJV) are largely dictionary styled translations. You get a reasonable replacement of a word or words by an equivalent by way of a dictionary. Encyclopedia translations are much more loose. Rather than focus on the sign in its dictionary sense they focus on the reference of the sign or its use. And not just the word as sign but larger structures. That means in a text that might mention Abraham in passing, one could ask who Abraham was. It would be more akin to following entries in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. (For a good explanation of this see "The Encyclopedia in Umberto Eco's Semiotics" or better yet Eco's chapter in Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language "Dictionary vs. Encyclopedia.")

On 12/25/2018 at 12:29 PM, cdowis said:

The anachronism argument is based on a logical fallacy -- "not found, not exist", and  the assumption that it  will not materialize in the future.
A futile attempt to prove a negative by simply  making an assertion.

It's worth noting that the argument from silence is only fallacious if one doesn't have a good argument for why it won't be found in the future. To give a humorous example of this in recent history relative to anachronisms, Dan Rather claimed to have a text about George Bush back in 1999 purporting to be about his time in the National Guard. The problem was that the document was written using a modern computer font. In this case there were very strong arguments against the font existing earlier. So we have to be careful not dismissing arguments from silence here, if the argument is done well. 

On 12/25/2018 at 8:43 PM, aussieguy55 said:

In the printing  picture  do you notice any chisel marks above the 'slave"  Anubis  head. Google images of  Anubis show two ears. You notice a rough markings on the head on the right side of the one ear?

There's very little space above the ears. That could easily just be a mistake or problem of recreating in lead the ears where the box was small. It seems dubious this was done after the lead stamp was initially made. It seems more an error, if anything, of where the line was above Anubis' head when the stamp was first made -- possibly because the original papyri was already damaged there.

 

On 12/24/2018 at 7:10 PM, Dan Vogel said:

Gee and other apologists have used "Shinehah" as evidence that Abraham 3:13 was dictated by the time JS used it as a code name in the D&C. However, the code names were probably decided on before typesetting began several months before the papyri arrived in early July 1835. Since chapters 3-5 show evidence of JS Hebrew lessons, which began in January 1836, they date to Nauvoo.

Did you mistype here? Nauvoo is 1840. Or am I missing something?

D&C 82 & 104, as you noted, is 1835. Although I agree with your point if we can establish that "shinehah" arises out of Sexias' particular transliteration scheme. I don't know if it is though. Admittedly I'm no Hebrew speaker so I'm quite ignorant here. However Zucker, in "Joseph Smith as a Student of Hebrew" argues it's an invented word. I suspect the idea is that it's the English word "shine" + "hah" which was the Book of Mormon for for "iah" or YHWH. So it's the word for sun. The Hebrew for sun is "shemesh" which is pretty unlike this. So I think the argument is that had he already had Sexias' teaching he wouldn't have used this transliteration and thus it predates 1836. The apologist argument I've read is that perhaps Joseph used the word "shenayim" for two but if he did, I don't think that's from Sexias. Rhodes suggests it's Semitic for "year." In Sexias' grammar there is Sh-N-H as year but no word for sun. The idea I guess being that a rotation of the sun is one year from a heliocentric view. The Egyptian (again something I'm completely ignorant in) according to Budge is "shn" so some apologists suggest that as the basis for "shinehah" although I don't see how you get to that. I just don't know enough about pronunciation to say much here. Maybe Robert can chime in here.

On 12/24/2018 at 3:34 PM, aussieguy55 said:

Doesn't the fact that the name "Hor" appears both on fac 1 and the Book of Breathings  indicate that they thought that was the Book of Abraham (or pretended was)?

Again I'm ignorant of a lot of the arguments here, but I believe the argument of some is that the vignette was used to illustrate the text and that Abraham 1:14 is an aside by the translator rather than part of the text itself proper. I'm not sure I buy that, but that's the argument. If one takes it as part of the translation then I do think it clearly indicates the Hor papyri is the source - which is why John and others spent so much time arguing for missing papyri on the Hor papyri.

On 12/24/2018 at 7:10 PM, Dan Vogel said:

Phelps wrote the sample of the pure language before the Egyptian papyri because he was living with JS at the time. The English content is JS's from 1832. When the papyri arrived the same plan was used because it was JS's plan, as the HC says. Phelps would have no reason to make up characters to put with JS's definitions of God, Son, and Angels in the Adamic language. That wasn't his role as scribe.

It's worth noting that theories about Adamic language have a fair history. John Dee's Enochian as the language of angels is an obvious background. However Kircher's view of Egyptian hieroglyphics. Kircher thought there were two Hermes. One lived at the time of Abraham and the other before the flood. He thought hermeticism involved the secret teachings of Adam passed down maintaining the original teachings of Adam. The role of hermeticism in Joseph's understanding of Egyptian things but also his texts is somewhat speculative, but oft commented upon. Albeit not yet in a comprehensive fashion.

However while one certainly can argue Joseph is the source of all this, I think we dismiss Phelps too much. If there's study before the purported revelation then it would make sense that both Phelps and Joseph would be involved in such study. It's not clear what they were reading after all beyond likely Clarke's commentary. In any case I don't think Phelps alone makes any sense. Too many of his ideas clearly come from Smith. Even if Phelps wrote the 1832 document I don't think we can say it comes purely from him. Further as you note, talk about Adamic (I'd say particularly in glossalia) was common before the papyri arrived. It's also worth noting the prominence of the idea of Adamic in the brother of Jared narrative in the Book of Mormon or Moses 6. (Leading Sam Brown to suggest gazelem was Adamic)

On 12/23/2018 at 7:46 PM, cdowis said:

Here Tvedtnes  has suggested that the mnemonic theory offers an interesting possibility for the translation of the Book of Abraham using the EAG.
Several have asked for details of this theory, and I have finally located his original articles.

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_109-2.PDF

It was later updated:
http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_120-2.PDF

Basically it is he Book of Abraham in mnemonic format, with memory devices embedded in unrelated  sentences and paragraphs, in a document otherwise known as the BOD.

It's an interesting line of pursuit but other that putting the theory out there he never did anything with it. As I recall he followed John Gee when John started publishing on Abraham. I still think his mnemonic theory for both the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are intriguing. But at this stage there's really no argument as such. 

The reason mnemonic devices are intriguing is because the idea of such things is a big part of Renaissance philosophy especially as tied to hermeticism and later masonry. There the mnemonic devices were a memory palace (basically a physical stage where the entities involve not just an image but also a location and procession in time) The idea of memory plays were significant in the rise of masonry. I'm not sure how much was written on this prior to the 1850's when the heyday of masonic writings really got going. Certainly in the early 19th century there were many tomes on mnemonics. (e.g. A New System of Mnemonic from 1814) The use of memory palaces in masonry has been theorized since Yates work in the 1960's. I'm not aware of books in Joseph's era making the connection though. Although certainly there are masonic mnemonic devices and noting how mnemonic aids memory and allows texts to be drastically shortened in Joseph's era. I have found use of loci method of the art of memory well discussed in Joseph's time though. e.g. "Artificial Memory of the Ancients"

I don't know the KEP well enough to say much there, but I always wondered if the "degrees" therein weren't tied to amplification so much as a memory palace.

(More later when I have time)

[clarkgoble]

On 12/20/2018 at 1:17 PM, mfbukowski said:

It appears that you feel that personal experience justifies Faith propositions like "God exists." Acting on the proposition that God exists your life becomes better in predictable ways. You can predict that if you are happy today in 20 years you will be more happy being further immersed in the gospel.

But the question isn't predicting happiness but predicting the wider range of experience tied to such things. That's part of my objection - if we see happiness as all that matters then I guess that follows. That seems a rather limited view of the world though. I don't merely want to predict my happiness. I want to predict the wide range of phenomena I experience. After all lots of things make me happy. Often religion requires unhappiness in the short term. For Jesus I rather assume during the torture it mattered whether what he believed would happen after he died. Me too.

On 12/20/2018 at 2:32 PM, CA Steve said:

I am really enjoying our discussion here but it looks to be getting lost in another discussion. I think this is worth pursuing more in its own thread. I will try and look a little more into what claims have been made regarding the missing nose as well as go though what material I have on it.

[...]

Oh and a while back you mentioned that you though the lead plates were woodcuts because Ritner had said so in his paper. Can you tell me what paper that was, I would be interested in reading it. I did notice that the lead plates were affixed to wood slabs with screws, maybe that is where the idea they were wood came from.

I assume now that Christmas is over the discussion will start up again. I can comment here or there. Feel free to quote me from here in the other thread if you prefer.

As for Ritner, I just checked and I think he's just adopting the common rhetoric as woodcut not making an explicit claim. It's his "Translation and historicity of the Book of Abraham: A Response." He just says, "The published text of the Book of Abraham is accompanied by three woodcut “Facsimiles” with explanations authored by Joseph Smith himself." I don't know the origin of calling them woodcuts. I would have thought Nibley, but in the places I could look he calls them engravings. Charles Larson uses "woodcut" in By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus. I don't know, but he might be the original source. Although I don't have a way to search all the Nibley books to be sure. John Gee calls it a woodcut back in an old review from 1996 but that postdates Larson and I suspect he's just following Larson in the review. 

On 12/20/2018 at 2:32 PM, CA Steve said:

Everyone assumes that Joseph Smith wrote the Explanations to the Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham. We cannot, however, prove that he did. The earliest manuscripts of any of the Explanations are Book of Abraham manuscripts 5A and 6, both in the handwriting of Willard Richards. There is nothing in the documents that indicates authorship. While I am not saying that assuming that Joseph Smith wrote the Explanations is a bad assumption, it does need to be pointed out that it is an assumption and is not provable. If someone wanted to argue that Willard Richards wrote the Explanations, we could not prove it false. So one cannot, with certainty, use the Explanations of the Facsimiles as a source for Joseph Smith’s knowledge of Egyptian or lack thereof.

Whether or not he wrote it I'd assume he approved it. The question is whether he thinks he received this explanation directly from God or worked it out indirectly from the various KEP stuff. To me Joseph's authorship is almost always a side issue since the real apologetic concern isn't whether or not Joseph wrote something but what its connection to revelation is. Apologists after all have no problem of Joseph working things out by inference from revelations in an uninspired fashion and even including such things in texts.

On 12/22/2018 at 12:07 PM, CA Steve said:

Even for those defending the Book of Abraham there isn't a  consensus about whether or not it was entirely revelatory, entirely scientific or a mixture of both. Clearly the GAEL & the EA were scientific endeavors as is the question of the relationship of the Egyptian documents to the actual Book of Abraham. I have no issue with those that believe that the Book of Abraham was produced entirely through a revelatory process, but the discussion that weighs the evidences for such a claim is a scientific one in which both sides engage.

I think this is a key point often forgotten. I'd probably not use the term "scientific" mind you. I favor the mixture theory but it's hard to see how that can be established.

On 12/23/2018 at 9:35 AM, Vance said:

Sorry, but you can not "know" that there wasn't more material appended to that roll.  You can only "know" that it currently does not exist.

Unless you can supernaturally see into the past.

The argument is you can infer the length from the windings in the papyri. John Gee had some back and forth with Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith after their work on the history of the various papyri. The main text is "The Original Length of the Scroll of Hor." At this point I think most agree John was mistaken in his calculations.

On 12/22/2018 at 11:14 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I consider it a myth that any of the KEP constitute an effort to translate or prepare a translation-key to the Book of Abraham, and John Gee shares that view (Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 13-42,177).  Moreover, William Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and he was the dominant force in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations -- D&C 76 and 88 (cf. May 27, 1835 letter of Phelps to his wife, and the July 17, 1835 History of the Church entry). 

What do you think the KEP are? (Honest question - I can't make heads nor tails out of it) The back-engineering never made much sense given how much unique material is in the KEP.

On 12/22/2018 at 4:16 PM, Dan Vogel said:

As mentioned several times in my videos...

Kind of hard to expect people to watch a slew of videos to find all this stuff. It would be much more helpful to have at least a transcript somewhere people can search upon.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Where is the evidence for heliocentrism in Ptolemaic times?

Aristarchus of Samos is generally seen as the first example of Heliocentrism. He lived around the 3rd century.

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/25/2018 at 3:05 PM, Exiled said:

Maybe I am new to the burden shifting attempt you are making? Proponent says book of abraham is historical and critic replies that the misuse of egyptus and pharaoh seem out of place, that the chaldeans existed later, that abraham's astronomy is a 19th century concoction, etc.

There is in fact no misuse of Egyptus or Pharaoh.  Indeed, just the opposite is the case.  The same applies to Chaldeans, who existed both early and late.  Book of Abraham historicity is based on the use of linguistics and concepts which Joseph could not possibly have known about in his time.  It is also based on recopying and recasting of the BofA by Jews down to the Ptolemaic period.  See my comments on all that and BofA astronomy in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 9 online Feb 20, 2018, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Quote

JS probably made it up for his religious purposes. Also, historians question whether Abraham or Moses or Noah even existed.

All professional historians acknowledge that we cannot prove that such persons actually existed, nor that any miraculous events are subject to secular, scientific proof.  The issue is rather the actual content of the documents which claim historicity, whether the Bible or the Book of Abraham.  Do they fit within the time frame in which they claim to have their origin?

Quote

Propenent then says absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence and challenges critic to disprove these possibilities. While true, this applies to almost anything.  Anything is true because perhaps in the future someone will find something that will bolster whatever claim? Nevertheless, it is your burden to show that the boa is historical .... that is the claim, right? Maybe start by showing that Abraham existed?

Showing that the Book of Abraham is historical is no different than showing that the Bible, or the Testament of Abraham, or other ancient document is historical.  Professional historians do that by examining the time and culture as portrayed in such books.  Without ever addressing whether Abraham actually existed, professional historians closely examine the context and try to determine whether the text is a pseudepigraphon, forgery, or an actual ancient account from the claimed author.  One's faith is a religious belief and is unrelated to such secular historical concerns.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

...................................

As for Ritner, I just checked and I think he's just adopting the common rhetoric as woodcut not making an explicit claim. It's his "Translation and historicity of the Book of Abraham: A Response." He just says, "The published text of the Book of Abraham is accompanied by three woodcut “Facsimiles” with explanations authored by Joseph Smith himself." I don't know the origin of calling them woodcuts. I would have thought Nibley, but in the places I could look he calls them engravings. Charles Larson uses "woodcut" in By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus. I don't know, but he might be the original source. Although I don't have a way to search all the Nibley books to be sure. John Gee calls it a woodcut back in an old review from 1996 but that postdates Larson and I suspect he's just following Larson in the review. .............................

Reuben Hedlock made the woodcuts of the illustrations from which the printing was done.

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

What do you think the KEP are? (Honest question - I can't make heads nor tails out of it) The back-engineering never made much sense given how much unique material is in the KEP........................

See http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-book-of-abraham-manuscripts , and  http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-egyptian-material .

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Reuben Hedlock made the woodcuts of the illustrations from which the printing was done.

From what I understand they

 

 were lead not wood. The originals are available at the Joseph Smith Papers. I linked to some of them and included some close ups a few pages back. The lead was screwed into the wood so I assume that's where the idea of them as woodcuts came from. Interestingly on one of the other JSP pages they call them woodcuts. (fn 99 for the Dec 1841-Dec 1842 page 61)

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Showing that the Book of Abraham is historical is no different than showing that the Bible, or the Testament of Abraham, or other ancient document is historical.  Professional historians do that by examining the time and culture as portrayed in such books.  Without ever addressing whether Abraham actually existed, professional historians closely examine the context and try to determine whether the text is a pseudepigraphon, forgery, or an actual ancient account from the claimed author.  One's faith is a religious belief and is unrelated to such secular historical concerns.

I think the argument is the paucity of data about the era of Abraham. However it seems to me some data is available and there's nothing particularly glaring. The main issues are the quotation of the two creation accounts typically attributed to P and J and then the astronomy model. I can't think of anything else not in keeping with what we know about the era. 

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Reuben Hedlock made the woodcuts of the illustrations from which the printing was done.

See http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-book-of-abraham-manuscripts , and  http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-egyptian-material .

That doesn't really give any theoretical background for what the grammar and alphabet were.

Edited December 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/24/2018 at 7:10 PM, Dan Vogel said:

What? The History of the Church says JS was responsible for the Alphabets and Grammar, not Phelps. There is 0 evidence that it was Phelps. Gee got it all wrong. He didn't even mention the reference in History of the Church, although he claims the translation was begun in July 1835. The only reason he knows that is because of the HC.

Part of the problem is the notorious fact that the HC was composed of reminiscences, news articles, etc., which were later incorporated into the HC as part of Joseph's Journal or other document, and often put into Joseph's mouth as though he is speaking in the first person.  For example, the HC entry for July 6-8, 1835, was based on reminiscences of Phelps inserted into Joseph's Journal in 1843 by Willard Richards.  Similarly, Warren Parrish wrote in February 1838, “I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of heaven.”[1]

---

[1] Gee, Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 20, quoting Parrish in Painesville Republican, Feb 15, 1838, page 3.

Quote

Phelps wrote the sample of the pure language before the Egyptian papyri because he was living with JS at the time. The English content is JS's from 1832. When the papyri arrived the same plan was used because it was JS's plan, as the HC says. Phelps would have no reason to make up characters to put with JS's definitions of God, Son, and Angels in the Adamic language. That wasn't his role as scribe.

Phelps was an extraordinarily talented man, and he was never just a scribe.  We may never agree as to who was the prime mover in any particular endeavor, but your speculations are interesting.

Quote

There is no reason to believe the text of the BOA came before the Alphabets or the Grammar. Once you understand the content, then you can see the progression of project from the Valuable Discovery notebooks, which deal with the Amenhotep Book of the Dead, to the Alphabets, which have two parts with definitions. Part 1 is basically about the owners of the scrolls discussed in the VD notebooks. Part 2 deals with the pure language, including the same characters from the previous effort. This is followed by characters from the columns of the Book of Breathings, which evolves into the Egyptian astronomy. At the end appears the first two characters from JSP XI, which as you know was connected to the fragment containing Facsimile 1. 

Gee and other apologists have used "Shinehah" as evidence that Abraham 3:13 was dictated by the time JS used it as a code name in the D&C. However, the code names were probably decided on before typesetting began several months before the papyri arrived in early July 1835. Since chapters 3-5 show evidence of JS Hebrew lessons, which began in January 1836, they date to Nauvoo. JS's journal clearly states that on 8-9 March 1842, JS was "translating" for the next issue of the T&S, and that issue began with Abraham 2:19. It is therefore more likely that JS in 1842 borrowed Shinehah from the code names. However, the probable source of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 is an 8 July 1838 revelation that speaks of both the “mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman” and the “plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt” (D&C 117:8). An early copy of this revelation in the handwriting of Edward Partridge as well as two other sources close to Joseph Smith read “Olea Shinihah.”

We ought to see Olea and Olaha as homonyms, with different scribes rendering them in different ways (cf. Olihah = Oliver, 1835 D&C 82:11, 104:28-29), which fits with the Hebrew & Egyptian word for "moon," just as Shinehah (as Nibley has shown) is a good term for the "sun" (Abr 3:13) in Egyptian, being based on the shen-sign, which Budge defined as the old “cartouche” – “emblem of sun’s orbit, which symbolizes eternity”[1] + Egyptian nḥḥ  “eternity, forever” (with solar determinative ⊙)

                                                            

---

[1] Budge, Book of the Dead (1913), II:381-382; (Univ. Books, 1960), 259; Budge, The Mummy, 2^nd ed., 264; Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 743-744 (šnw “endless time, eternity”; šnt nt pt “circuit of heaven”; šnw n tЗ “circuit of the earth”).

So, the evidence from historical linguistics is an argument in favor of adoption of such terms in 1835-1836.  Indeed, the entire BofA Onomasticon is based on actual knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

From what I understand they were lead not wood. The originals are available at the Joseph Smith Papers. I linked to some of them and included some close ups a few pages back. The lead was screwed into the wood so I assume that's where the idea of them as woodcuts came from. Interestingly on one of the other JSP pages they call them woodcuts. (fn 99 for the Dec 1841-Dec 1842 page 61)

Each of them is termed a "cut" in the first publication, but I was unaware that they are lead.  Thanks.

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the argument is the paucity of data about the era of Abraham. However it seems to me some data is available and there's nothing particularly glaring. The main issues are the quotation of the two creation accounts typically attributed to P and J and then the astronomy model. I can't think of anything else not in keeping with what we know about the era. 

We may want to assume some of the same exigencies in biblical copying and recasting were used by the Jews in Egypt who were transmitting the BofA.

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That doesn't really give any theoretical background for what the grammar and alphabet were.

I thought you wanted a general introduction to the documents.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

.............................

The argument is you can infer the length from the windings in the papyri. John Gee had some back and forth with Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith after their work on the history of the various papyri. The main text is "The Original Length of the Scroll of Hor." At this point I think most agree John was mistaken in his calculations...............................

Actually, Gee is quite good at math, and I have been disappointed that he and Bill Schryver have not had more to say on this matter (pro or con).  Fact is we don't know what is under the Breathing Papyrus backing paper (glued).  Has an effort been made to read any hidden text?  Technology now allows us to do so, without damaging the papyrus.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, Gee is quite good at math, and I have been disappointed that he and Bill Schryver have not had more to say on this matter (pro or con).  Fact is we don't know what is under the Breathing Papyrus backing paper (glued).  Has an effort been made to read any hidden text?  Technology now allows us to do so, without damaging the papyrus.

I worked briefly at the Getty museum while at UCLA, and there many ways to do that including simple x rays.

[mfbukowski]

I am putting this quote from Wittgenstein into both Book of Abraham threads because of its high degree of relevance to these issues.

Wittgenstein to me is clearly the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.  Here is one comment on him

https://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/

  Quote

Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and regarded by some as the most important since Immanuel Kant. His early work was influenced by that of Arthur Schopenhauer and, especially, by his teacher Bertrand Russell and by Gottlob Frege, who became something of a friend.

He is a bit of a curiosity because he began working with Russel in his early work as a positivist- and later in life reversed his position and ended up in positions one might see as "Pragmatism".   His later work was published after his death- from  aphorisms in he wrote in notebooks.   This is a portion of one of these aphorisms. 

 

 

 

  Quote

 

Queer as it sounds:” The historical accounts in the Gospels might, historically speaking, be demonstrably false and yet belief would lose nothing by this: nothowever because it concerns “universal truths of reason”’!  Rather, because historical proof (the historical proof-game) is irrelevant to belief.  This message (The Gospels) is seized on by men believingly (ie lovingly). That is the certainty characterizing this particular acceptance-as-true, not something else.

 

A believer’s relation to these narratives is neither the relation to historical truth (probability) nor yet that to a theory consisting of “truths of reason”.  There is such a thing-- (We have quite different attitudes even to different species of what we call fiction!)

 

I read: “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1:Cor 12) - and it is true: I cannot call him Lord ; because that says nothing to me.  I could call him ‘the paragon’, ‘’God’ even- or rather, I can understand it when he is called thus; but I cannot utter the word “Lord” with meaning. Because I do not believe he will come to judge me; because that says nothing to me.  And it could say something to me, only if I lived completely differently.

 

 

 

 

P32-33 e

Ludwig Wittgentstien

Culture and Language Translated by Peter Winch

University of Chicago Press 1980

To understand these truths one must be part of a community of believers who are living the principles.

The truth is found in living the principles- not the words or their alleged history.  I am sure Wittgenstein never heard of the Book of Abraham and didn't need to read it to understand prophets and its truth.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I worked briefly at the Getty museum while at UCLA, and there many ways to do that including simple x rays.

Yes.  Especially with X-ray phase contrast imaging.  But, even better, we can now read carbonized scrolls, as well the paper-mâché mummy boxes and mummy face masks made from used papyrus (often containing important documents) -- using more sophisticated filtered digital imaging technology -- without destroying or unraveling those items.  One surprise:  Some inks used copper in the formula, not just carbon.

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-scanning-technique-words-mummy.html ,

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-scrolls-blackened-vesuvius-are-readable-last-herculaneum-papyri-180953950/ .

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-advanced-technology-reveals-itself-egyptian-papyrus-ink-009118 .

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

............................

A believer’s relation to these narratives is neither the relation to historical truth (probability) nor yet that to a theory consisting of “truths of reason”.  There is such a thing-- (We have quite different attitudes even to different species of what we call fiction!)...........................

The equation of "historical truth" with "probability" reminds me of the way in which courtroom juries reach their verdicts -- based on the strong probability (not proof) that a particular scenario is correct.  In criminal cases, "beyond a reasonable doubt," and in civil cases based on the "preponderance of evidence."  Always a statistical enterprise, as explained via Bayes Theorem, and always subjective.

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The equation of "historical truth" with "probability" reminds me of the way in which courtroom juries reach their verdicts -- based on the strong probability (not proof) that a particular scenario is correct.  In criminal cases, "beyond a reasonable doubt," and in civil cases based on the "preponderance of evidence."  Always a statistical enterprise, as explained via Bayes Theorem, and always subjective.

Absolutely! It is a characteristic of induction, as you point out.

 I was worried that this would imply a theory of pious fiction. But of course that is not his point. The point is there are many classifications of what we call fiction ,And in one sense even anything concluded from induction can be seen as at least partial fiction or temporary truth

If there is a later revision of data suddenly the previous proof becomes fiction.

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  Especially with X-ray phase contrast imaging.  But, even better, we can now read carbonized scrolls, as well the paper-mâché mummy boxes and mummy face masks made from used papyrus (often containing important documents) -- using more sophisticated filtered digital imaging technology -- without destroying or unraveling those items.  One surprise:  Some inks used copper in the formula, not just carbon.

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-scanning-technique-words-mummy.html ,

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-scrolls-blackened-vesuvius-are-readable-last-herculaneum-papyri-180953950/ .

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-advanced-technology-reveals-itself-egyptian-papyrus-ink-009118 .

 Great stuff.

I recall in one case there was a broken Greek sculpture In which the head and torso were present but the neck was broken and not able to be reconstructed.  In this case the correct orientation of the head was important because it made the statue more valuable.

By using neutron activation on samples from the head and the torso they were able to match up the minerals in the veins of the stone to show the correct orientation of the head, and using brass rods, they attached the head in the correct orientation for display.

They are even able to lift the paint off deteriorating substrates and replace the substrate without harming the paint!

 Truly amazing what can be done and this technology was all available as of the late 1970s. I have no clue how much it has advanced since then but I'm sure it is mind boggling.

 Of course with The Getty cost is no barrier

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, Gee is quite good at math, and I have been disappointed that he and Bill Schryver have not had more to say on this matter (pro or con).  Fact is we don't know what is under the Breathing Papyrus backing paper (glued).  Has an effort been made to read any hidden text?  Technology now allows us to do so, without damaging the papyrus.

Should anyone expect to find anything about Abraham on the back?  It would be a curious thing for them to have glued and covered the relevant parts of the papyri so they could display the irrelevant parts.  

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 Great stuff.

I recall in one case there was a broken Greek sculpture In which the head and torso were present but the neck was broken and not able to be reconstructed.  In this case the correct orientation of the head was important because it made the statue more valuable.

By using neutron activation on samples from the head and the torso they were able to match up the minerals in the veins of the stone to show the correct orientation of the head, and using brass rods, they attached the head in the correct orientation for display.

They are even able to lift the paint off deteriorating substrates and replace the substrate without harming the paint!

 Truly amazing what can be done and this technology was all available as of the late 1970s. I have no clue how much it has advanced since then but I'm sure it is mind boggling.

 Of course with The Getty cost is no barrier

 

I think you guys have offered some interesting comments.  of course these comments seem to have little to nothing to do with evidence for the Book of Abraham.  I don't think anyone is really arguing against the notion that people can't believe whatever they want.  Nothing on the papyri that mentions Abraham yet you still think it scripture?  Fine have at it.  No one cares.  Want to think there were Egyptian writings on the papyri that told the Book of Abraham?  Well that's just silly.  Believe what you want but the evidence doesn't seem to bear that belief out.  Want to believe God inspired Joseph to write the BoA and we shouldnt' expect the papyri to contain Abraham's story?  Fine.  Whatever.  If God, he works in mysterious ways, I guess, so believe whatever you want to ascribe to him.  

Back when I was so actively trying to participate in the Church I couldn't get why people were trying to defend the BoA.  It is rarely alluded to.  The pictures are less than curious pictures of meaninglessness, particularly as they are used in conjunction with the BoA text.  The one passage that is ever mentioned--wherein Abraham was one of the noble and great ones--well, it's meaning can be found elsewhere anyway.  Scrapping the whole thing from the Mormon canon wouldn't do a thing because no one pays attention to it anyway.  it feels like a silly hill to die on, from that perspective.  What's the point?  

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Should anyone expect to find anything about Abraham on the back?  It would be a curious thing for them to have glued and covered the relevant parts of the papyri so they could display the irrelevant parts.  

Good point, but we should use digital imaging techniques to examine all possibilities, since such papyri regularly included other texts.

[Robert F. Smith]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 Great stuff.

I recall in one case there was a broken Greek sculpture In which the head and torso were present but the neck was broken and not able to be reconstructed.  In this case the correct orientation of the head was important because it made the statue more valuable.

By using neutron activation on samples from the head and the torso they were able to match up the minerals in the veins of the stone to show the correct orientation of the head, and using brass rods, they attached the head in the correct orientation for display.

They are even able to lift the paint off deteriorating substrates and replace the substrate without harming the paint!

 Truly amazing what can be done and this technology was all available as of the late 1970s. I have no clue how much it has advanced since then but I'm sure it is mind boggling.

 Of course with The Getty cost is no barrier

The Getty is amazing.  I love it that it is free, and that you can park in the Brentwood VA facility free and take a Getty shuttlebus to that wondrous museum.  They have assembled such amazing stuff, and spared no expense on expert conservation of artifacts and art.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think you guys have offered some interesting comments.  of course these comments seem to have little to nothing to do with evidence for the Book of Abraham.  I don't think anyone is really arguing against the notion that people can't believe whatever they want.

I think the main point is that belief is very subjective, and most people may have no real interest in evidence pro or con, because such debates are irrelevant to their lives.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  Nothing on the papyri that mentions Abraham yet you still think it scripture?  Fine have at it.  No one cares.

We currently have only a small part of the papyri once in the possession of Joseph Smith.  Only the facsimiles (illus) provide any connection with actual Egyptian documents.  Most people have no idea what any of that means, and many don't care (as you suggest), because such issues are irrelevant to their lives.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  Want to think there were Egyptian writings on the papyri that told the Book of Abraham?  Well that's just silly.  Believe what you want but the evidence doesn't seem to bear that belief out.  Want to believe God inspired Joseph to write the BoA and we shouldnt' expect the papyri to contain Abraham's story?  Fine.  Whatever.  If God, he works in mysterious ways, I guess, so believe whatever you want to ascribe to him.  

We all seem to agree that belief is a very subjective matter (you, me, and Mark), and modern physics has only strengthened the conclusions of David Hume.  Only a few highly  motivated afficionados bother to examine these exotic documents, and to what end?  I find the secular evidence convincing, and have explained why via standard, professional historical considerations.

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Back when I was so actively trying to participate in the Church I couldn't get why people were trying to defend the BoA.  It is rarely alluded to.  The pictures are less than curious pictures of meaninglessness, particularly as they are used in conjunction with the BoA text.  The one passage that is ever mentioned--wherein Abraham was one of the noble and great ones--well, it's meaning can be found elsewhere anyway.  Scrapping the whole thing from the Mormon canon wouldn't do a thing because no one pays attention to it anyway.  it feels like a silly hill to die on, from that perspective.  What's the point?  

C. S. Lewis the atheist once took just such a position on the Bible and Jesus Christ, considering it all as just typical mythmaking, dying and rising gods, and all that.  Frazer's Golden Bough had already systematically covered myth worldwide.  Why bother to take any of it seriously, except as lovely symbols and fictional stories?  That could only appeal to credulous and silly billies.  Right?

On closer examination, however, Lewis came to think that just maybe the case of Jesus Christ was the real thing.  It compelled him to become a Christian.  How could an Oxford professor like Lewis make such a conversion?  Why would he follow a man who chose "a silly hill to die on"?  Or is that a fair characterization of what happened?  Ignoring the subjective nature of such belief is equally a problem for those who reject Billy Graham as it is for those who reject Joseph Smith.  Believers suggest that the Holy Spirit draws them to that altar call.  To imagine that as an objective choice is to miss the point entirely.

To excise the BofA from the Mormon Canon would be to remove the most important cosmological principle of LDS theology -- the nature of Intelligences in pre-mortal life, and the First and Second Estates.  The notion that we are all co-eternal with God is an astounding rejection of normative Judeo-Christian theology, and sets us completely apart from the others.  Our heresy is complete.

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think the main point is that belief is very subjective, and most people may have no real interest in evidence pro or con, because such debates are irrelevant to their lives.

We currently have only a small part of the papyri once in the possession of Joseph Smith.  Only the facsimiles (illus) provide any connection with actual Egyptian documents.  Most people have no idea what any of that means, and many don't care (as you suggest), because such issues are irrelevant to their lives.

We all seem to agree that belief is a very subjective matter (you, me, and Mark), and modern physics has only strengthened the conclusions of David Hume.  Only a few highly  motivated afficionados bother to examine these exotic documents, and to what end?  I find the secular evidence convincing, and have explained why via standard, professional historical considerations.

C. S. Lewis the atheist once took just such a position on the Bible and Jesus Christ, considering it all as just typical mythmaking, dying and rising gods, and all that.  Frazer's Golden Bough had already systematically covered myth worldwide.  Why bother to take any of it seriously, except as lovely symbols and fictional stories?  That could only appeal to credulous and silly billies.  Right?

On closer examination, however, Lewis came to think that just maybe the case of Jesus Christ was the real thing.  It compelled him to become a Christian.  How could an Oxford professor like Lewis make such a conversion?  Why would he follow a man who chose "a silly hill to die on"?  Or is that a fair characterization of what happened?  Ignoring the subjective nature of such belief is equally a problem for those who reject Billy Graham as it is for those who reject Joseph Smith.  Believers suggest that the Holy Spirit draws them to that altar call.  To imagine that as an objective choice is to miss the point entirely.

To excise the BofA from the Mormon Canon would be to remove the most important cosmological principle of LDS theology -- the nature of Intelligences in pre-mortal life, and the First and Second Estates.  The notion that we are all co-eternal with God is an astounding rejection of normative Judeo-Christian theology, and sets us completely apart from the others.  Our heresy is complete.

I can appreciate the argument to try and make the passage in Abraham more than it is, but intelligences were conceived of by Joseph when he wrote section 93 of the D&C before this Abrahamic work was conceived of.  And calling those who came to earth as those who kept their first estate hardly sounds like much of an addition to the notion that there was satan who pulled away a third of the hosts of heaven, also a  notion found in the D&C pre-dating Abraham.  This is why Mormons typically don't pay a bit of attention the Abraham at all.  It's already found elsewhere.  tellin the story of creation with Gods is already presumed as well.