Missing Papyrus Theory

[Rivers]

I know the topic of the Book of Abraham had probably been done to death on this board.  But I am just curious as to the state of the missing papyrus theory at this time.  Has it been completely debunked yet?  Or is it still a viable hypothesis.  

Personally I’m fine with the catalyst theory but I’m still open to the other option if there’s still any good reason to accept it.  

 

[Fair Dinkum]

23 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I know the topic of the Book of Abraham had probably been done to death on this board.  But I am just curious as to the state of the missing papyrus theory at this time.  Has it been completely debunked yet?  Or is it still a viable hypothesis.  

Personally I’m fine with the catalyst theory but I’m still open to the other option if there’s still any good reason to accept it.  

 

While I'm certain that you will find some adherents of the Missing Papyrus Theory on this board, the only viable explanation for the production of the Book of Abraham that holds any credibility, in my opinion, is the catalyst theory.  All other theories have been so thoroughly pulled to pieces that they no longer hold any for anyone who has studied the apologetic explanations. (again in my opinion)

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that Joseph cribbed the ideas that were available within his milieu.  For me the BoA doesn't need to be divine to be considered scripture.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Rivers]

28 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

For me the BoA doesn't need to be divine to be considered scripture.

Something can be scripture and not divine? Interesting.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I know the topic of the Book of Abraham had probably been done to death on this board.  But I am just curious as to the state of the missing papyrus theory at this time.  Has it been completely debunked yet?  Or is it still a viable hypothesis.  

Personally I’m fine with the catalyst theory but I’m still open to the other option if there’s still any good reason to accept it.  

 

 

43 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

While I'm certain that you will find some adherents of the Missing Papyrus Theory on this board, the only viable explanation for the production of the Book of Abraham that holds any credibility, in my opinion, is the catalyst theory.  All other theories have been so thoroughly pulled to pieces that they no longer hold any for anyone who has studied the apologetic explanations. (again in my opinion)

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that Joseph cribbed the ideas that were available within his milieu.  For me the BoA doesn't need to be divine to be considered scripture.

In 100 words or less, can either of you explain why you think the missing papyrus theory has no credibility? 

[Fair Dinkum]

7 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Something can be scripture and not divine? Interesting.

Of course it can.  Hinduism has Gita and 4 Vedas, Christians have the Bible, Muslims have Koran and Sikhs have Guru Granth Sahib, and Buddhists have 3 Pitikäs.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

In 100 words or less, can either of you explain why you think the missing papyrus theory has no credibility? 

Sure, I can do it in 3 letters KEP

[aussieguy55]

Andrew Cooke and Christopher Smith demolished the "missing scroll" theory. Anyone know of a response from Gee to this matter?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Sure, I can do it in 3 letters KEP

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. 
 

Perhaps I should add one word to my question: Can you explain intelligibly why you think the theory has no credibility? 

[Fair Dinkum]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. 
 

Perhaps I should add one word to my question: Can you explain intelligibly why you think the theory has no credibility? 

Bro Lloyd, you are familiar with the KEP correct?  Much of the KEP is in Joseph's own handwriting.  The rest is in the handwriting of his closest scribes.  On one half of the page is a Egyptian symbol and the other is it's supposed translation.  Abraham Chapter 1 is found within the supposed translations found in the KEP.  No need for any longer or missing papyri roll, its right there, both within the KEP and the Papyri owned by the church.  Nothing is missing.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-july-circa-november-1835-c-abraham-11-218/3

Edited April 28, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

While I'm certain that you will find some adherents of the Missing Papyrus Theory on this board, the only viable explanation for the production of the Book of Abraham that holds any credibility, in my opinion, is the catalyst theory.  All other theories have been so thoroughly pulled to pieces that they no longer hold any for anyone who has studied the apologetic explanations. (again in my opinion)

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that Joseph cribbed the ideas that were available within his milieu.  For me the BoA doesn't need to be divine to be considered scripture.

Yeh, Fair Dinkum.  You are so certain.

Didn't you tell me that you didn't have time to read my scholarly appraisal?  Well, whatever.  In fact, most of the Egyptian papyri which came to Kirtland, Ohio, in 1835 are missing now, and have been for a long time.  So the Missing Papyrus theory is certainly a legitimate view.  You might want to escape from the fever swamp of apologetics and polemics and approach the issue as a responsible intellectual.

As to the ideas Joseph was supposed to have cribbed from information available in his own time, that approach just won't wash.  Too many key points were simply unknown in his day, which should be impossible for the BofA to contain.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Bro Lloyd, you are familiar with the KEP correct?  Much of the KEP is in Joseph's own handwriting.  The rest is in the handwriting of his closest scribes.  On one half of the page is a Egyptian symbol and the other is it's supposed translation.  Abraham Chapter 1 is found within the supposed translations found in the KEP.  No need for any longer or missing papyri roll, its right there, both within the KEP and the Papyri owned by the church.  Nothing is missing.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-july-circa-november-1835-c-abraham-11-218/3

From your link:

“As discussed in the general introduction to the Book of Abraham manuscripts on this website, JS and his scribes 

Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Frederick G. Williams, and 

Warren Parrish spent considerable time in the second half of 1835 engaged in two separate yet related endeavors: the translation of the Book of Abraham, which yielded several Abraham manuscripts; and a language-study effort that produced a number of Egyptian alphabet and grammar manuscripts. Both types of manuscripts exhibit connections to the papyri in JS’s possession and, according to the historical record, both projects occurred roughly concurrently. However, there is presently not enough information to definitively ascertain how these two projects are related to each other or to the revelatory process.”

(Boldface emphasis mine)

So I take it, then, that the answer to my question, “Canyou explain intelligibly why you think the theory has no credibility?“ is no. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I know the topic of the Book of Abraham had probably been done to death on this board.  But I am just curious as to the state of the missing papyrus theory at this time.  Has it been completely debunked yet?  Or is it still a viable hypothesis.  

Personally I’m fine with the catalyst theory but I’m still open to the other option if there’s still any good reason to accept it.  

 

Completely debunked. There is a reason Hauglid called Gee’s work here abhorrent. From a different thread I wrote:

Based on the most reliable early witness statements we know what was on the papyri. There were two scrolls, one allegedly from Joseph and one from Abraham. Based on witness descriptions we know that the breathing permit for Hor was the one that allegedly contained Abraham’s writings. Based on the fragments we have Gee and others postulated an absurd length of missing papyrus from this scroll as the source of the book of Abraham. Klaus Baer estimates 59 cm missing, Cook and Smith have independently estimated 56 cm using a different method. The text of the book of Abraham needs about 10 times this amount of space. Gee has stated (without showing his work or math) that more than 12 meters was missing. This is just not supportable. There is no missing papyrus sufficient to explain the book of Abraham. The missing papyrus theory is dead. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72277-terryl-givens-interview-of-dr-kerry-muhlestein/?do=findComment&comment=1209933129

There are several follow up posts in the thread. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Something can be scripture and not divine? Interesting.

i'm the opposite🥰

[Robert F. Smith]

29 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Bro Lloyd, you are familiar with the KEP correct?  Much of the KEP is in Joseph's own handwriting.  The rest is in the handwriting of his closest scribes.  On one half of the page is a Egyptian symbol and the other is it's supposed translation.  Abraham Chapter 1 is found within the supposed translations found in the KEP.  No need for any longer or missing papyri roll, its right there, both within the KEP and the Papyri owned by the church.  Nothing is missing.

Not true.  Very little of KEP is in Joseph's hand (some on only one manuscript, and his signature on another).  Nearly all of it is in the hand of several scribes, and we even know the approximate dates when they were produced.  We also know that the cipher-key work of one of those scribes, William W. Phelps, had already begun before the arrival of the mummies and papyri in Kirtland (he discusses it with his wife by letter already May 27, 1835).  So the non-causal correlation of Egyptian and non-Egyptian signs on some documents which contain some early duplicate parts of the BofA English text provides no more than Phelps' cipher-key work.  He and the other scribes went down a blind alley if they thought that was any sort of key to translating Egyptian.  There are far more productive methods of assessing Joseph's translation ability.

For example, see this short video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WTwQml8MaE

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Completely debunked. There is a reason Hauglid called Gee’s work here abhorrent. From a different thread I wrote:

Based on the most reliable early witness statements we know what was on the papyri. There were two scrolls, one allegedly from Joseph and one from Abraham. Based on witness descriptions we know that the breathing permit for Hor was the one that allegedly contained Abraham’s writings. Based on the fragments we have Gee and others postulated an absurd length of missing papyrus from this scroll as the source of the book of Abraham. Klaus Baer estimates 59 cm missing, Cook and Smith have independently estimated 56 cm using a different method. The text of the book of Abraham needs about 10 times this amount of space. Gee has stated (without showing his work or math) that more than 12 meters was missing. This is just not supportable. There is no missing papyrus sufficient to explain the book of Abraham. The missing papyrus theory is dead. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72277-terryl-givens-interview-of-dr-kerry-muhlestein/?do=findComment&comment=1209933129

There are several follow up posts in the thread. 

That was a nice discussion last September, but one needs to be aware that we do not yet have Hauglid's full presentation of why he attacks Egyptologist Gee in such an unscholarly fashion as "abhorrent."  It would be much better if Hauglid, whose specialty is Arabic, not Egyptology, could explain in dispassionate terms where Gee has gone wrong.  The scholarly world is filled with divergent views on all kinds of things, but there is no call for emotional name-calling.

Since we lack most of the papyri which were available in Kirtland in 1835, we don't actually have any sort of certainty that "the missing papyrus theory is dead," or if it is even necessary.  Gee himself does a fair job of presenting the basic facts in his Introduction to the Book of Abraham (BYU Religious Studies Center/Deseret Book, 2017).  Perhaps you could review it for us.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not true.  Very little of KEP is in Joseph's hand (some on only one manuscript, and his signature on another).  Nearly all of it is in the hand of several scribes, and we even know the approximate dates when they were produced.  We also know that the cipher-key work of one of those scribes, William W. Phelps, had already begun before the arrival of the mummies and papyri in Kirtland (he discusses it with his wife by letter already May 27, 1835).  So the non-causal correlation of Egyptian and non-Egyptian signs on some documents which contain some early duplicate parts of the BofA English text provides no more than Phelps' cipher-key work.  He and the other scribes went down a blind alley if they thought that was any sort of key to translating Egyptian.  There are far more productive methods of assessing Joseph's translation ability.

For example, see this short video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WTwQml8MaE

The video you pointed to does not address any of the physical evidence against the Book of Abraham.  It is a talk about interpretation of the writing itself, most of which is highly subjective.  I think the questions that arise about the Book of Abraham is the actual physical evidence rather than faith based evidence.  This video addresses the physical evidence, which I think the question was about.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by california boy

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That was a nice discussion last September, but one needs to be aware that we do not yet have Hauglid's full presentation of why he attacks Egyptologist Gee in such an unscholarly fashion as "abhorrent."  It would be much better if Hauglid, whose specialty is Arabic, not Egyptology, could explain in dispassionate terms where Gee has gone wrong.  The scholarly world is filled with divergent views on all kinds of things, but there is no call for emotional name-calling.

Since we lack most of the papyri which were available in Kirtland in 1835, we don't actually have any sort of certainty that "the missing papyrus theory is dead," or if it is even necessary.  Gee himself does a fair job of presenting the basic facts in his Introduction to the Book of Abraham (BYU Religious Studies Center/Deseret Book, 2017).  Perhaps you could review it for us.

This one on Amazon seems pretty spot on for other work from Gee that I have reviewed:

Quote

For a MUCH better introduction to the Book of Abraham, get the church published Joseph Smith Papers https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Papers-Revelations-Translations/dp/1629724807. It is much better. John Gee has perpetuated confusions and misconceptions surrounding the Book of Abraham that make it harder to understand and cloud the landscape for the honest seeker of truth. He is SO convinced that there was a longer scroll and that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. He is SO convinced that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Alphabet and Grammar, that he ignores the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

I would ask Dr. Gee:
- Why were Facsimile #1 and #3 labeled as "From the Book of Abraham" if they really weren't?
- Why do characters from the Papyri that we have show up sequentially in three different translation manuscripts, from three different scribes, with the column headers of "character", and "translation"?
- Joseph Smith said that the other scroll was the Book of Joseph. Was the Book of Joseph also appended to the second scroll?
- Who are these unnamed and unsourced "mormon and non-mormon" eye witnesses who saw a "long scroll"? From my research into your other writings, every source you have, saw the scrolls AFTER they had been cut up and put into picture frames. None of your sources were involved in the purchase or translation. Why do you NOT mention that David Whitmer and W.W. Phelps said they purchased but 2 scrolls and some scattered papyri?
- If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, why would he consult it at all?
- If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, why is there an Egyptian Alphabet in Joseph Smith's own handwriting?
- If Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, why are they mentioned in his journals, multiple times?
- If W.W. Phelps wrote the Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet, why do other scribes handwriting also show up there?
- What evidence do you possibly have that the Egyptian Documents were in W.W. Phelps possession? This is incredibly puzzling to me how you even got to this conclusion.
- If the Alphabet and Grammar were a reverse translation of the Book of Abraham, why do they deal only sparsely with the Book of Abraham?
- How do you respond to Egyptologist Robert Ritner's charges of plagiarism?
- How do you respond to Mormon and Non-Mormon scholars who charge you with atrocious scholarship (i.e. Brian Hauglid, Brent Metcalfe, Robert Ritner, among others)?
- Do you know of ANY other LDS Egyptologists that concur with your conclusions besides Kerry Muhlestein? You wouldn't get it from reading this book, but your views are HIGHLY controversial, even within the church. Why do you gloss over any controversy and present your views as verified fact?
- Why did you fail to address anachronisms in your text (i.e., the words 'potiphar', 'chaldeans', Egyptian human sacrifice, etc.)?

Do not read this book. What you find in this book are half truths, mingled with the philosophies of Dr. Gee.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The video you pointed to does not address any of the physical evidence against the Book of Abraham.  It is a talk about interpretation of the writing itself, most of which is highly subjective.  I think the questions that arise about the Book of Abraham is the actual physical evidence rather than faith based evidence.  This video addresses the physical evidence, which I think the question was about.

 

 

This is a great video that cuts through the obfuscation of Gee and Muhlestein quite nicely. 

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear. 
 

Perhaps I should add one word to my question: Can you explain intelligibly why you think the theory has no credibility? 

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.

 

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.

 

The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham,

 

The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles.

 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64547-boa-catalyst-and-missing-papyrus-theories-both-deeply-flawed/

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The Book of Abraham Criticisms Defenses and Implications.pdf

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This one on Amazon seems pretty spot on for other work from Gee that I have reviewed:

That Joseph Smith Papers volume is very helpful.  We can agree on that.  I also like Hauglid's Textual History of the BofA (BYU Maxwell Institute, 2010).

What I don't understand is the need for angry denunciations in that Amazon review, based almost exclusively on false premises -- listed in repetitive, polemic fashion -- rather than calmly trying to throw light on the issues.  The great Egyptologist John A. Wilson reviewed an earlier generation of similar anti-Mormon polemic as “a lot of indignant snorts” inimical to good scholarship (Wilson, Thousands of Years, 176).

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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.

I have mentioned many times before on this board that it might be helpful to read closely, in scholarly fashion.  What one finds in doing that is that your basic claims here are false and misleading.  The BofA English text clearly refers to a Chaldean representation at the outset, along with the names of Chaldean gods, such as Elkenah and Libnah.  That is what we should expect from the original Vorlage, which we no longer have.  Instead, the Graeco-Roman period Jewish tradent or redactor has substituted an Egyptian illustration from the Book of Breathings (a miniature Book of the Dead).  The text is referencing some sacrifices taking place in North Syria, in the vicinity of Abe's homeland.  During Abe's lifetime (Middle Bronze Age/Egyptian Middle Kingdom), Egypt actually had a lot of influence in that area, and the notion that they and Chaldeans should be conducting human sacrifice there should not be controversial.

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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.

No scholar ever assumes that a one to one relationship between some symbols and an English text opposite mean a causal relationship.  That is always a fallacy.  This is especially true given Phelps' stated cipher interests which preceded the arrival of papyri in Kirtland.  Sure, he and his fellow scribes may have had the belief that this might be a way of finding a translation key to the papyri, but the large amount of text associated with a single symbol seems absurd to the casual observer.  However, dismissing the Breathing text as "a common Egyptian funerary text" is also incorrect.  That text, and other such texts in the Book of the Dead tradition (Pyramid and Coffin texts), are liturgical in nature, and used by the living in their temple worship.  They take copies with them when they go to the other side as well.  Just as Christians believe that the Resurrection of Jesus is the way to their own resurrection, so the Egyptians believed that the dying-and-rising god Osiris likewise guides the way for resurrection of the righteous.  Egyptologists refer to this as Osirification.  Thus, the owner of the Breathing Permit of Hor is the Osiris-Hor.  He plans to rise just like Osiris.

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham,

The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles.

Actually, the illustration explanations are surprisingly accurate.  Have you ever bothered to take stock of them?  I have.  Not only are they explained accurately, but actual translation of the Egyptian characters are provided, some of which match the words in other Abrahamic pseudepigrapha.  It is true that the anti-Mormon polemicists don't agree, but I don't know even one of them who has bothered to review the facts.  Too easy to just dismiss them and have done with it.  Apriori.

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64547-boa-catalyst-and-missing-papyrus-theories-both-deeply-flawed/

Yeh, way back in 2014.  That was Bill Reel's post wasn't it?  Just looking through it, I have to agree with the summation of Drums12:  "I believe Kevin Barney's Semitic Adaptation theory is the most plausible of apologetic arguments.  Also, it seems to me that critics primarily focus on the production of the BofA, not its content."  And of course Bill admitted that this was true.

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The Book of Abraham Criticisms Defenses and Implications.pdf

My reply to Bill on that very piece was as follows:

Quote

So, Bill, if you didn't write it, did you get it from TruthSeeker at the Mormondiscussions web site in his DropBox?  https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20Criticisms%20Defenses%20and%20Implications.pdf .  I recall that he presented his arguments from that same piece back in 2013 right here on this board, and I gave it a critique at that time.  My primary problem with his work is that he didn't bother to take scholarship on the matter into serious consideration, and so presented a quite naive and very one-sided set of arguments.  You have repeated the gist of his case herewith, and did not even bother to cite your source.  That doesn't bode well for throwing light on the issue.  Or do you think your approach is O.K.?

Canard78 then said:  "The exact wording is copied from a thread on the NOM board. DB linked to it earlier. The context is that DB had asked people with concerns to summarise their key issues so he could gather and source faith promoting responses which would then probably summarise in a future faith-promoting podcast."

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

The video you pointed to does not address any of the physical evidence against the Book of Abraham.  It is a talk about interpretation of the writing itself, most of which is highly subjective.  I think the questions that arise about the Book of Abraham is the actual physical evidence rather than faith based evidence.  This video addresses the physical evidence, which I think the question was about....................................

A nice video from MormonThink, as anti-Mormon videos go.  Too bad they are uninterested in scholarship.  While it is true that the very short video I cited does not take a lot of time to view, and does not include an extensive discussion, I deliberately chose not to be too demanding.  Some people on this board have short interest spans, and cannot sit through long videos or read complex books.

Rather than the MormonThink video, however, if one really wants to know the nature and content of the actual papyri, he could take a look at John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (FARMS, 2000).  It's been available for twenty years.

More even-handed presentations on the papyri and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are available.  I'll cite a couple here, in case you are interested:

Pearl of Great Price Central, “What Egyptian Papyri Did Joseph Smith Possess?” Book of Abraham Insight #37, Jan 28, 2020, online at https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/what-egyptian-papyri-did-joseph-smith-possess/ .

Pearl of Great Price Central, “The ‘Kirtland Egyptian Papers’ and the Book of Abraham,” Book of Abraham Insight #38, Jan 29, 2020, online at https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/the-kirtland-egyptian-papers-and-the-book-of-abraham/ .

By the way, I have nothing to do with these items.

[rongo]

What is Hauglid's orientation vis a vis the Church? I remember his FAIR Conference talk sometime around 2008-ish. I ask because of his choice of words.

Quote

For the record, I no longer hold the views that have been quoted from my 2010 book in these videos. I have moved on from my days as an

“outrageous” apologist. In fact, I’m no longer interested or involved in apologetics in any way. I wholeheartedly agree with Dan’s [Dan Vogel’s] excellent assessment of the Abraham/Egyptian documents in these videos.3

I now reject a missing Abraham manuscript.

I agree that two of the Abraham manuscripts were simultaneously dictated.

I agree that the Egyptian papers were used to produce the BoA.

I agree that only Abr. 1:1-2:18 were produced in 1835 and that Abr. 2:19-5:21 were produced in Nauvoo.

And on and on.

I no longer agree with Gee or Mulhestein. I find their apologetic “scholarship” on the BoA abhorrent. One can find that I’ve changed my mind in my recent and forthcoming publications. The most recent JSP Revelations and Translation vol. 4, The Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (now on the shelves) is much more open to Dan’s thinking on the origin of the Book of Abraham. My friend Brent Metcalfe can attest to my transformative journey.

Not that losing interest "in any way" for apologetics signals a loss of faith (many believing people aren't interested in it), but choosing to refer to oneself as "outrageous" (he was very mild and even-keeled in the heart of his "outrageous" period, so I'm not sure what he wants to convey by tagging himself as outrageous. Is this a dog whistle?) stands out. 

Pointing to Brent Metcalfe to testify about his "transformative journey" also seems to couch in terms of exit story. But not conclusively, so I'm not sure. I know he was a bishop at the time he gave his FAIR Conference talk. He was also working with Will Schryver until he abruptly wasn't and didn't want any contact any more (which may have been because of Schryver's baggage). 

Is there any more information that would shed light on whether Hauglid no longer believes LDS truth claims? He hasn't gone Bokovoy on us, has he? 

I'm just curious for my own knowledge. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by rongo

[rongo]

I hate the quote feature, by the way. Flip of the coin whether your whole thing, quote and commentary, will be in a quote box or not, and it's impossible to edit afterwards. And I've started making sure that the "close quote" has the brackets and the slash along with quote, so it isn't that. 

Would not recommend. Would not buy again. One star out of five.   

[smac97]

On 4/28/2020 at 5:45 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Completely debunked. There is a reason Hauglid called Gee’s work here abhorrent. 

As a lawyer, I tend to get a wee bit suspicious when boldly-asserted conclusory statements like this are presented about a hotly contested issue.

Quote

From a different thread I wrote:

Based on the most reliable early witness statements we know what was on the papyri. There were two scrolls, one allegedly from Joseph and one from Abraham. Based on witness descriptions we know that the breathing permit for Hor was the one that allegedly contained Abraham’s writings. Based on the fragments we have Gee and others postulated an absurd length of missing papyrus from this scroll as the source of the book of Abraham. Klaus Baer estimates 59 cm missing, Cook and Smith have independently estimated 56 cm using a different method. The text of the book of Abraham needs about 10 times this amount of space. Gee has stated (without showing his work or math) that more than 12 meters was missing. This is just not supportable. There is no missing papyrus sufficient to explain the book of Abraham. The missing papyrus theory is dead. 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72277-terryl-givens-interview-of-dr-kerry-muhlestein/?do=findComment&comment=1209933129

There are several follow up posts in the thread. 

Yes.  Including mine, which included this:

Quote

It appears that the debate about mathematical estimates of scroll length are unresolved.  I really would like to see Dr. Gee (and Dr. Muhlestein) address the Smith/Cook treatment of this issue.

However, Gee has also presented apparent eyewitness recollections about this issue:

Quote

Eyewitnesses from the Nauvoo period (1839–1844) describe “a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics,”32 including (1) some papyri “preserved under glass,”33 described as “a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics”;34 (2) “a long roll of manuscript”35 that contained the Book of Abraham;36 (3) “another roll”;37 (4) and “two or three other small pieces of papyrus with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c.”38 Only the mounted fragments ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and thence were given back to the Church of Jesus Christ. When eyewitnesses described the vignettes as being of the mounted fragments, they can be matched with the fragments from the Metropolitan Museum of Art; but when the vignettes described are on the rolls, the descriptions do not match any of the fragments from the Met. Gustavus Seyffarth’s 1856 catalog of the Wood Museum indicates that some of the papyri were there.  Those papyri went to Chicago and were burned in the Great Chicago Fire in 1871. Whatever we might imagine their contents to be is only conjecture. Both Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses from the nineteenth century agree that it was a “roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham,”39 meaning the “long roll of manuscript” and not one of the mounted fragments that eventually ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.40
---
32. William S. West, A Few Interesting Facts Respecting the Rise, Progress, and Pretensions of the Mormons (Warren, OH, 1837), 5, cited in Todd, Saga of the Book of Abraham, 196–97.
33. Quincy, Figures of the Past, 386.
34. Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842 (London: Rivington, 1843), 22–23.
35. Charlotte Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843, printed in “A Girl’s Letters from Nauvoo,” Overland Monthly 16/96 (December 1890): 624, as cited in Todd, Saga of the Book of Abraham, 245.
36. Jerusha W. Blanchard, “Reminiscences of the Granddaughter of Hyrum Smith,” Relief Society Magazine 9/1 (1922): 9; and Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843.
37. Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843.
38. Oliver Cowdery to William Frye, 22 December 1835, printed in the Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 2 (December 1835): 234.
39. Blanchard, “Reminiscences,” 9; and Haven to her mother, 19 February 1843.
40. For the distribution of the manuscript fragments, see John Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” in The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed.  Stephen D. Ricks et al. (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 188–91; and John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 10–13.

 

You responded:

Quote

These are all over the place in time and content. Most are entirely consistent with Cowdery and Phelps (recorded contemporaneously above). And even if there was some other scroll, we know via so many other means that Joseph believed the Hor scroll to contain the words of Abraham. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "all over the place in time and content."  Different recollections will certainly have different levels of probative value.  For example, Nibley's very late and multiple-hearsay account is not used by Gee in the above quote:

Quote

Q. Then where is the other manuscript?

A. That is one of those questions that should have been asked the moment it became apparent that nobody could have taken the Book of Breathing connection seriously. The fact is that the manuscripts at present in the possession of the church represent only a fraction of the Joseph Smith papyri. 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. 

In contrast, the accounts from Cowdery and Phelps (and Haven and Blanchard) are seemingly from percipient witnesses, and much closer in time to the events, and therefore have more probative value).  And then there are the chain of custody issues.  Oi...

I was also interested in this exchange you and I had (from the same link as above):

Quote

Quote

Haven's letter seems to be the most noteworthy evidence, as it references both a "long roll" and "another roll." 

Jeff Lindsay provides a pretty good summary of the relevant evidence re: scroll length (and number of scrolls) here.

Quote

Klaus Baer estimates 59 cm missing, Cook and Smith have independently estimated 56 cm using a different method.

So you posit that what we have today is a remnant of "long scroll," and that this remnant is missing, at most, less than two feet of papyri?

That does not seem like a very long scroll.

Are you saying a scroll that is 5 feet long plus or minus couldn’t be described as long?

I'm saying it doesn't seem very long.

Moreover, the "long roll" was elsewhere described as follows: 

Quote

The roll was as dark as the bones of the Mummies, and bore very much the same appearance; the opened sheets were exceedingly thin parchment, and of quite a light color.  There were birds, fishes, and fantastic looking people, interspersed amidst hyeroglyphics {sic}.

As the Wiki article notes, "{t}here are no fish on the surviving fragments of papyri, further evidence of sections that are no longer extant."

So I guess I am noting that we are dealing with evidence that is quite speculative (the mathematical estimates you rely on) and fragmentary and vague and of uneven probative value (the various historical accounts).

That leaves us with something much better described as "conjecture," and not the hard, empirically demonstrated factual assertions you seem to want us to accept on your say-so.  We are, after all, working with observations of physical items that were recorded nearly 200 years ago.  The "chain of custody" of those items since then has been extremely loose:

Quote

After Joseph Smith's death, the Egyptian artifacts were held principally by his mother, and then by Emma Smith after Lucy's death on May 14, 1856. On May 25, 1856, Emma sold "four Egyptian mummies with the records with them" to Mr. Abel Combs (Improvement Era, Jan. 1968, pp. 12-16). (Pioneers brought one fragment west.) Combs then sold two mummies with some papyri, which were sent to the St. Louis Museum (1856); they ended up in the Chicago Museum (1863), where they apparently burned in 1871. The fate of Combs's two other mummies and papyri is unknown, but some papyri remained, for in 1918 Mrs. Alice Heusser of Brooklyn, a daughter of Combs's housekeeper, approached the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA) with papyri once owned by Joseph Smith. In 1947 MMA acquired papyri from her widower. In May 1966 Aziz S. Atiya of the University of Utah saw eleven Heusser fragments at MMA. He informed Church leaders, and on November 27, 1967, the Church acquired the fragments; one of them is Facsimile No. 1.

Gee describes the chain of custody in more detail (from pp. 5-9 of An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, see also here) (emphasis added) :

Quote

When Joseph Smith relocated to Nauvoo, he turned over the mummies and papyri to his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, to free himself from the obligation of exhibiting the papyri and to provide his widowed mother with means to support herself. She kept the mummies and papyri for the rest of her life, showing them to interested visitors for twenty-five cents a person. On May 26, 1856, less than two weeks after Lucy Mack Smith died, Emma Smith (Joseph’s widow), her second husband (Lewis C. Bidamon), and her son Joseph Smith III sold the mummies and the papyri to a man named Abel Combs.

Abel Combs split up the papyri. Some he sold to the St. Louis Museum, including at least two of the rolls and at least two of the mummies; some of the mounted fragments he kept. The St. Louis Museum sold the rolls and mummies to Colonel Wood’s Museum in Chicago. Wood’s Museum burned down in the Chicago Fire of 1871, and presumably the papyri and mummies were destroyed with it. Wood’s Museum was afterwards rebuilt and acquired other mummies. Its Egyptian collection was later sold to the Niagara Falls Museum, and the Egyptian holdings ended up in the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University; its mummies all date to a different time period than that of the Joseph Smith Papyri.

The mounted fragments of papyrus passed from Abel Combs to the hands of Edward and Alice Heusser. In 1918 Alice Heusser offered the papyri to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. At the time, the museum was not interested. But in 1947 Ludlow Bull, the Metropolitan’s associate curator of the Department of Egyptian Art, purchased the papyri for the museum from Edward Heusser. Notice of the purchase and origin of the papyri was published in the museum’s acquisition list.

After a change in personnel in the Department of Egyptian Art, the museum decided that they did not want the papyri any longer. When Aziz S. Atiya, a Coptic scholar living in Utah, visited the museum in 1966, the curators asked him to see if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be interested in the papyri. On 27 November 1967, the Metropolitan Museum presented the fragments of the papyri to the Church. The Church published the papyri two months later in their official magazine, the Improvement Era; the current numbering system of the papyri derives from this publication.

To the disappointment of many, although these remaining fragments contained the illustration that served as the basis for Facsimile 1, they were not the portion of the papyri that contained the text of the Book of Abraham. In historical hindsight, however, they could not have been; the portion of papyrus identified by nineteenth-century eyewitnesses as containing the Book of Abraham seems to have gone to Wood’s Museum and was presumably burned in the Chicago Fire of 1871. There is, at present, no way of recovering it.

So Gee posits that the "chain of custody" was complicated by Abel Combs, who split up the artifacts by selling some and retaining some of the mounted fragments for himself.  The fragments he kept went to the Heussers, then to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, then to the Church.

Meanwhile, Gee posits that "at least two of the rolls," including "the portion of papyrus identified by nineteenth-century eyewitnesses as containing the Book of Abraham" went from Combs to the St. Louis, which then burned down in 1871.

Working chronologically, we seem to end up with this:

Extant Fragments: Joseph Smith (1830s/1840s) ---> Lucy Mack Smith (1840s/1850s) ---> Emma Bidamon / Lewis Bidamon / Joseph Smith III (1856) ---> Abel Combs (1856 to ???) ---> Edward and Alice Heusser (before 1918 to 1947) ---> Metropolitan Museum (1947-1967) ---> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1967-Present).

Everything Other than the Extant Fragments, including Papyrus Scroll "identified by nineteenth-century eyewitnesses as containing the Book of Abraham": Joseph Smith (1830s/1840s) ---> Lucy Mack Smith (1840s/1850s) ---> Emma Bidamon / Lewis Bidamon / Joseph Smith III (1856) ---> Abel Combs (1856 to 18??) ---> St. Louis Museum (18??-1871) ---> Destroyed by fire.

There are all sorts of assumptions and unknowns here. 

Did the Bidamons retain any of the papyri, or did they sell absolutely everything to Abel Combs? 

Combs seemed to have possession of these materials for quite a while.  Did he keep 100% of the materials together, to be passed on to the Heussers and the St. Louis Museum ?

Was the entirety of the JSP materials divided between the Heussers and the St. Louis museum?  Or is it possible that some portions of the materials were lost, destroyed, sold to other parties, etc. while in the custody of Combs?

How can we possibly account for the materials sent to the St. Louis museum, which were lost in the fire?  As Gee notes: "Gustavus Seyffarth’s 1856 catalog of the Wood Museum indicates that some of the papyri were there."  Do you dispute this?  If so, on what factual/evidentiary basis?  

What about the Heussers?  They held the fragments from before 1918 to 1947.  Do we know with certainty that they retained 100% of the materials they received from Combs during these decades, and passed on 100% of the materials to the Metropolitan Museum?  If so, what factual/evidentiary basis do you have for such a proposition?

I am reminded here of the pithy wisdom of Donald Rumsfeld:

Quote

"There are known knowns" is a phrase from a response United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave to a question at a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) news briefing on February 12, 2002, about the lack of evidence linking the government of Iraq with the supply of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups.

Rumsfeld stated:

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

I think we can apply some of this reasoning to the Joseph Smith Papyri.

• Known Knowns: The extant fragments of the JSP have good provenance.  They are "known knowns."  
• Known Unknowns: There are all sorts of possible "known unknowns" with the JSP.  For example, we know we don't know what was lost in the 1871 fire in Chicago.
• Unknown Knowns: This one is a bit tricky.  It has been defined as "that which we intentionally refuse to acknowledge that we know."  The Cook/Smith assessment might fall into this category, or it might not.  It is, after all, a guess, not a "known."
• Unknown Unknowns: This are all sorts of possible "unknowns unknowns" as well.  There are things we don't know about the JSP, and we are not even aware that we do not know these things.  There are also potential historical sources that are out there, but are presently undiscovered.  For example, I have recently come across a reference to a possible heretofore unknown eyewitness account about the Joseph Smith Papyri.  I'll provide further updates if anything comes up.

Given this state of affairs, are you sure you want to stick with the claim that the hypothesis of missing papyri has been "completely debunked"?

Are you really sure?

In legal parlance, what we got here is "genuine issues of material fact."  Described here:

Quote

Genuine Issue of Material Fact

A disagreement between opposing parties on facts legally relevant to a claim.  The disagreement must be "genuine" in the sense that it must be plausible (e.g., one cannot logically dispute a contract date without also alleging that a copy of a contract with that date inaccurately reflects the agreement).  A genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment.

And here:

Quote

A genuine issue of material fact is a legal term often used as the basis for a motion for summary judgment. 
...
A factual issue is ‘genuine’ if it is not capable of being conclusively foreclosed by reference to undisputed facts. Although there may be genuine disputes over certain facts, a fact is ‘material’ when its existence facilitates the resolution of an issue in the case. Material facts tend to prove or disprove a disputed fact that is relevant to the outcome in a case.

We have factual issues about the overall length and amount of papyri once owned by Joseph Smith.

We have factual issues about the chain of custody of these materials.

We have factual issues about which of these materials (if any) was the (purported) source of the text of the Book of Abraham.

We have factual issues about what happened to the portion(s) of the papyri that were the (purported) source of the text of the Book of Abraham.  Assuming all papyri ended up with Abel Combs, what did he do with them?  Were they burned up in Chicago in 1871?  Or did they somehow end up with the Heussers, and later with the Metropolitan Museum (and, if so, how did that happen)?

We have factual issues about discrepancies and ambiguities regarding the length of the scrolls.  How long was the "long roll?"  Is the Cook/Smith guesstimate definitive?  How can it possibly be so, given the chain of custody issues?

And so on.

I submit that the "missing papyrus" theory is not only not "completely debunked," it is very much alive and kicking.  I'll even go so far as to say it is most plausible interpretation of the historical record.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 29, 2020 by smac97