Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Missing Papyrus Theory


Recommended Posts

@stemelbow Thank you for posting the texts of the eyewitness accounts. 

As I was reading them, my attention was drawn to the descriptions of the various images within the texts. Josiah Quincy notes that the image he saw was of a woman and a legged serpent - an image which is not extant among the Joseph Smith Papyri that we have. Caswall reported two images, one of which is clearly Facsimile 1, but the description of the second doesn't match any of the papyri we have that I know of. Finally, of course, there is Charlotte Haven and her retelling of Lucy's reading of the Abraham scroll. From these sources, it seems clear to me that there was materials which the early Saints held as related to Abraham doctrine which we do not now have. Is that not the essence of missing papyrus theory? 

With regard to William West, I was very interested to read the following:

Quote

These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost; but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved; and a larger volume than the Bible will be required to contain them.

This seems to indicate that the early Saints were aware of and comfortable with the idea that not all of the translated material would come directly from the papyri. Catalyst theory, in other words. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Josiah Quincy notes that the image he saw was of a woman and a legged serpent - an image which is not extant among the Joseph Smith Papyri that we have.

It sure sounds like the figure in the top right of this extant papyri that we have.

 

JSP1

Edited by CA Steve
Link to comment
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if Fair Dinkum gets his read of the Church via places like Ex Mormon Reddit, which are not exactly bastions of civility and fair-minded reasoning and evidence.

For example, regarding the issue of the "discovery" of Adam Clarke's commentary by Dr. Wayment and his research assistant, Hayley Wilson (now Lemmon), the latter wrote a brief article while at BYU regarding the influence of Adam Clarke's bible commentary on Joseph Smith and the translation of the Book of Mormon.  

Posting under "Promiscuous_Spirit16," she started a Reddit AMA in which she openly brags about being "free" after getting her diploma from BYU.  She talks about "TSCC" ("The So-Called Church," a term reeking of contempt), about getting together with other former members to "celebrate our freedom!", and worse:

I am saddened at watching the public gloating and glee exhibited by people who exploit the goodwill of the Church, and the Widow's Mite, to fund their educations, only to turn around and spit on the group providing that education.

Thanks,

-Smac

There must needs be opposition, Spencer.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

It sure sounds like the figure in the top right of this extant papyri that we have.

 

JSP1

Ooof. Fair enough, that's an error on my part. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I have not witnessed members of the Church publicly gloating and gleeful at having exploited and abused the goodwill of others in order to get gain, only to thereafter turn around and spit on those others.

No.  The tithes were voluntarily given.  The donations didn't have strings attached.

It seems not. 

Tithes are not a quid pro quo.  

I think it's contemptible to enroll (or stay enrolled) at BYU enjoy the benefits of the substantial goodwill of its patron organization, while privately despising its patron organization, and then after graduation turn around and publicly express contempt, ridicule, even hatred for the school and that is patron organization.

You are defending and justifying this behavior?

Thanks,

-Smac

I wasn't defending anyone.  I was, however calling out your "widows mite" emotional argument. From an economic point of view, the person paying thousands into the Church is NOT taking the widows mite from the tithing fund that supports BYU.  It could be fairly argued that the subsidized money used for any member's education who has paid thousands into the Church funds, came from their tithing and not from the widows mite.  You are using emotional blackmail and an unfair analogy.  

Simply put, can you prove that the widow's mite was used to subsidize a members education rather than the thousands that member might have paid in tithing.   From a Church that has 100 billion in a slush fund, I personally don't think you can EVER  use the widow's mite argument without ignoring the reality of who is paying the majority of the tithing funds that are used to subsidize BYU.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Calm said:

It sounded like she was a nonbeliever at least some of the time she was a student at BYU.  This is, imo, a very different situation than someone who was a believer while a student, left BYU and then whether shortly thereafter or years later became a disbeliever and abusive towards the Church or BYU.  The second situation I would agree was done in good faith at the time the money was allocated.

There is difficulty in changing schools midway through one's studies and more so when close to the end.  But people do it all the time for other reasons than change of religious beliefs, so I don't think changing so as not to take unfair advantage of the reason tithing is used to support the Church Education system should be seen as traumatic as some present it and therefore it is morally appropriate to hide one's change of belief simply to continue to get the monetary benefits given to believers.

I don't have an issue with those who become disbelievers, but stay respectful to the Church and its members and who are grateful and positive towards BYU finishing up their schooling if done with a significant majority of it.  It is those who go to the schools with their tuition being heavily subsidized by the Church while degrading it privately that I find problematic as I would a Saint attending another school on a scholarship while trashing it privately.

I am not arguing the right or wrong of what the person did.  I am not familiar with what was done or not done to make a comment on the morality of that.  What I am arguing is the bleeding heart widows mite stolen comment by SMAC.  Simply from an accounting point of view, I am pretty sure someone paying tithing to the Church has put more dollars into the Church then they have ever received back in the form of college subsidy.  

I personally am grateful for the education I received from BYU.  And I freely gave the church my tithing money for years, even after I no longer believed in the claims of Church leaders.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Caswall reported two images, one of which is clearly Facsimile 1, but the description of the second doesn't match any of the papyri we have that I know of

Can you provide more information regarding the second description?

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not arguing the right or wrong of what the person did.  I am not familiar with what was done or not done to make a comment on the morality of that.  What I am arguing is the bleeding heart widows mite stolen comment by SMAC.  Simply from an accounting point of view, I am pretty sure someone paying tithing to the Church has put more dollars into the Church then they have ever received back in the form of college subsidy.  

I personally am grateful for the education I received from BYU.  And I freely gave the church my tithing money for years, even after I no longer believed in the claims of Church leaders.  

“Simply from an accounting standpoint,” I doubt the average undergraduate BYU student has had enough time and earning capacity to have paid sufficient in tithing to come close to the value he or she is receiving in subsidized education. 
 

Furthermore, there are many faithful Church members each year who would love to matriculate at BYU but are turned away because they lack the advantages of successful applicants. 
 

That some who are so advantaged would spit on the university and the Church almost from the moment they graduate is, in a word, galling. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Finally, of course, there is Charlotte Haven and her retelling of Lucy's reading of the Abraham scroll

Haven's account is vague. What exactly does "long roll" mean? In relation to what? Further Haven tended to exaggerate in all of her descriptions. We simply do not know what she meant by this.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Can you provide more information regarding the second description?

Iirc, while waiting for the quote, it describes the tail of the serpent being used as in a tripod (two legs and the tail), which does not match the image we have.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I wasn't defending anyone.  

Seemed like it.

Quote

I was, however calling out your "widows mite" emotional argument.

Sacred funds are, well, sacred.  Noting that is more than mere "emotion."

Quote

From an economic point of view, the person paying thousands into the Church is NOT taking the widows mite from the tithing fund that supports BYU.  

Yes, they are.  Very few students at BYU have, at that point in their lives, paid more in tithes than the amount of the subsidizations they receive.

Moreover, it's not just a question of economics.  BYU only has so many slots to give to students.  It is aggravating that some of those slots are taken by people who express contempt, hatred, etc. of the very institution that is generously subsidizing and providing a top-notch education.  

Quote

It could be fairly argued that the subsidized money used for any member's education who has paid thousands into the Church funds, came from their tithing and not from the widows mite.  

No, it couldn't.

Quote

You are using emotional blackmail and an unfair analogy.  

Twaddle.  Whom am I "blackmailing?"  And what is "unfair" about what I have noted?

Quote

Simply put, can you prove that the widow's mite was used to subsidize a members education rather than the thousands that member might have paid in tithing.  

What?

Quote

From a Church that has 100 billion in a slush fund, I personally don't think you can EVER  use the widow's mite argument without ignoring the reality of who is paying the majority of the tithing funds that are used to subsidize BYU.

Here's a thought experiment: Next year you inherit ten million dollars from a distant relative.  Grateful for this largesse, you decide to "pass it on" by creating a private foundation that awards several scholarships for students in need, which scholarships are funded by your donations.  As the benefactor, you feel it important to not only fund the scholarships, but also try to periodically meet with the recipients and see how they are doing.  You realize that there are far more applicants than can be practically accommodated, but you do your best.  And you work to try to get to know these kids on a personal level.  And so it goes, for a period of years.  You feel edified at having helped others.

One night, you are perusing Facebook and come across a post from one of the scholarship recipients.  The post reads something like this: "Hey!  I just graduated with my BS!  Paid for by California Boy, who I can now say that I think is full of BS!  Ha!  What an absolute putz he is!  I've spent literally years being annoyed by pretty much everything he does.  But now that I've graduated, screw 'im!  I'm celebrating my freedom!  I'll never have to talk to that jerk again!"

I am curious what your response would be.  I also wonder if you would be as cavalier and indifferent to the foregoing obnoxious, ungrateful scholarship recipient's treatment of your efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

............  Very few students at BYU have, at that point in their lives, paid more in tithes than the amount of the subsidizations they receive............................"Hey!  I just graduated with my BS!  Paid for by California Boy, who I can now say that I think is full of BS!  Ha!  What an absolute putz he is!  I've spent literally years being annoyed by pretty much everything he does.  But now that I've graduated, screw 'im!  I'm celebrating my freedom!  I'll never have to talk to that jerk again!"

I am curious what your response would be.  I also wonder if you would be as cavalier and indifferent to the foregoing obnoxious, ungrateful scholarship recipient's treatment of your efforts.

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

I think that you put too much store by the contemptuous twerps who show up after graduation, laughing at the idiocy of those fools who funded their education.  That is simply not true of most students, who have had the opportunity to get a good education at an institution which did not openly flout rational and kind behavior.  That is something I will always treasure about my BYU education, and I have more than paid it back in tithing in the years since.  It was a good investment by the Church in human capital.  We should not cry or whine about occasional failures.  We can guarantee that there will be some.  That is one of the risks of life.

Moreover, @california boy does have a point in what he wrongly terms the Church "slush" fund potentially being used to even more heavily subsidize LDS education.  The investment in young people will more than pay for itself in the long run, despite occasional apostates.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Can you provide more information regarding the second description?

Sure. Caswall described what looks like another image here:

Quote

Turning to another of the drawers, and pointing to a hieroglyphic representation, one of the Mormons said, "Mr. Smith informs us that this picture is an emblem of redemption. Do you see those four little figures? Well, those are the four quarters of the earth. And do you see that big dog looking at the four figures? That is the old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth. Look at this person keeping back the big dog. That is Christ keeping the devil from devouring the four quarters of the earth. Look down this way. This figure near the side is Jacob, and those are his two wives. Now do you see those steps?" "What," I replied, "do you mean those stripes across the dress of one of Jacob's wives?" "Yes," he said, "that is Jacob's ladder." "That," I remarked, "is indeed curious."

There is a potential match within the Joseph Smith Papyri, which I've reproduced here. On the left side you can see the same 4-figure symbol associated with the 4 corners of the Earth in Facsimile 2, being faced by a leonine figure. There's a person standing behind the lion-figure, and prominent people drawn in the lower right. That said, I don't see the person behind the lion doing any restraining, and the figures to the bottom right are distorted to the point that I can't identify a Jacob, though there is a damaged person partially off-panel to their right. It could be a match, I suppose, though which scroll it came from remains to be seen. Either way it expands the field of potentially relevant Abrahamic material. 

image.png.e79fa96be49ccc98e3a0e8e0080ba92c.png

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Sure. Caswall described what looks like another image here:

There is a potential match within the Joseph Smith Papyri, which I've reproduced here. On the left side you can see the same 4-figure symbol associated with the 4 corners of the Earth in Facsimile 2, being faced by a leonine figure. There's a person standing behind the lion-figure, and prominent people drawn in the lower right. That said, I don't see the person behind the lion doing any restraining, and the figures to the bottom right are distorted to the point that I can't identify a Jacob, though there is a damaged person partially off-panel to their right. It could be a match, I suppose, though which scroll it came from remains to be seen. Either way it expands the field of potentially relevant Abrahamic material. ....................................................

That illustration you presented is Papyrus Joseph Smith III, and comes from the normally lengthy Book of the Dead.  Here is an even clearer one from another BD roll:

998x400_cod_hierogl_1.jpg

This is a typical Book of the Dead spell 125 judgment scene (weighing of the heart), with the four sons of Horus standing on a lotus flower and facing Osiris.  Caswall is describing a long roll.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That illustration you presented is Papyrus Joseph Smith III, and comes from the normally lengthy Book of the Dead.  Here is an even clearer one from another BD roll:

998x400_cod_hierogl_1.jpg

This is a typical Book of the Dead spell 125 judgment scene (weighing of the heart), with the four sons of Horus standing on a lotus flower and facing Osiris.  Caswall is describing a long roll.

Thank you, Robert!

The scene you provided is indeed quite a bit clearer than JS III. Are other versions of Spell 125 similarly cluttered? 

Please bear with me for a little bit, I'm trying to learn what goes where when it comes with the papyri. Am I correct in thinking that, since this is in Spell 125, it would be nearby Facsimile 3, which is supposedly another vignette from chapter 125 of the Book of Going Forth by Day? Would they be found on a different scroll than Facsimile 1? I'm under the impression that Facsimile 1 is from the Breathing Permit and that is entirely separate from the Book of the Dead.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Thank you, Robert!

The scene you provided is indeed quite a bit clearer than JS III. Are other versions of Spell 125 similarly cluttered? 

Please bear with me for a little bit, I'm trying to learn what goes where when it comes with the papyri. Am I correct in thinking that, since this is in Spell 125, it would be nearby Facsimile 3, which is supposedly another vignette from chapter 125 of the Book of Going Forth by Day? Would they be found on a different scroll than Facsimile 1? I'm under the impression that Facsimile 1 is from the Breathing Permit and that is entirely separate from the Book of the Dead.

Facsimiles 1 and 3 are both from the Breathing Permit, which is really just one of a number of short versions of the Book of the Dead, and fac 3 is indeed related to BD 125.  The tradition begins with the Pyramid Texts, continues with the Coffin Texts, and blossoms later in the Book of the Dead and other such compilations of spells/rituals.  As Hugh Nibley shows in his Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, all exhibit temple rites of various kinds, and they were actually performed by the living in Egyptian temples.  Upon death, naturally they wanted to have a copy to take with them into the afterlife -- where they would be resurrected to eternal life, or suffer the Second Death (Alma 40:26).

As you may know, Nibley's Message of the JSP is a complete translation-commentary of the Breathing Permit, along with facsimiles 1 to 3..

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Simply from an accounting standpoint,” I doubt the average undergraduate BYU student has had enough time and earning capacity to have paid sufficient in tithing to come close to the value he or she is receiving in subsidized education. 

Well that is totally speculative. Not only do you have no idea what the average undergraduate of BYU has paid in tithing.  Nor do you have any idea how much the Church subsidizes because none of their financials are exposed to the public or you I assume.

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, there are many faithful Church members each year who would love to matriculate at BYU but are turned away because they lack the advantages of successful applicants. 

And yet, if you would once again read what you quoted of me.  I am not commenting on the right or wrong of the person.  I have no idea what they did or didn't do.

 

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That some who are so advantaged would spit on the university and the Church almost from the moment they graduate is, in a word, galling. 

Scott, please, if you are going to quote me, and comment, then don't you think you should comment on what I actuaally posted?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Seemed like it.

You know this is the very reason I avoid your posts.  You ALWAYS assume the worst things about me.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sacred funds are, well, sacred.  Noting that is more than mere "emotion."

The emotional guilt was not sacred funds, it was making the claim that the widows mite subsidize the college costs. 

When that is the only thing you assume was used, then it is emotional guilting.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, they are.  Very few students at BYU have, at that point in their lives, paid more in tithes than the amount of the subsidizations they receive.

And you know this how?

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, it's not just a question of economics.  BYU only has so many slots to give to students.  It is aggravating that some of those slots are taken by people who express contempt, hatred, etc. of the very institution that is generously subsidizing and providing a top-notch education.  

And ONCE AGAIN, I was not commenting on the person or her actions.  I only quoted your little widows mite comment.  

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, it couldn't.

Twaddle.  Whom am I "blackmailing?"  And what is "unfair" about what I have noted?

What?

Here's a thought experiment: Next year you inherit ten million dollars from a distant relative.  Grateful for this largesse, you decide to "pass it on" by creating a private foundation that awards several scholarships for students in need, which scholarships are funded by your donations.  As the benefactor, you feel it important to not only fund the scholarships, but also try to periodically meet with the recipients and see how they are doing.  You realize that there are far more applicants than can be practically accommodated, but you do your best.  And you work to try to get to know these kids on a personal level.  And so it goes, for a period of years.  You feel edified at having helped others.

One night, you are perusing Facebook and come across a post from one of the scholarship recipients.  The post reads something like this: "Hey!  I just graduated with my BS!  Paid for by California Boy, who I can now say that I think is full of BS!  Ha!  What an absolute putz he is!  I've spent literally years being annoyed by pretty much everything he does.  But now that I've graduated, screw 'im!  I'm celebrating my freedom!  I'll never have to talk to that jerk again!"

I am curious what your response would be.  I also wonder if you would be as cavalier and indifferent to the foregoing obnoxious, ungrateful scholarship recipient's treatment of your efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

And ONCE AGAIN, I was not commenting on the person or her actions.  I only quoted your little overly emotional widows mite comment. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Facsimiles 1 and 3 are both from the Breathing Permit, which is really just one of a number of short versions of the Book of the Dead, and fac 3 is indeed related to BD 125.  The tradition begins with the Pyramid Texts, continues with the Coffin Texts, and blossoms later in the Book of the Dead and other such compilations of spells/rituals.  As Hugh Nibley shows in his Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, all exhibit temple rites of various kinds, and they were actually performed by the living in Egyptian temples.  Upon death, naturally they wanted to have a copy to take with them into the afterlife -- where they would be resurrected to eternal life, or suffer the Second Death (Alma 40:26).

As you may know, Nibley's Message of the JSP is a complete translation-commentary of the Breathing Permit, along with facsimiles 1 to 3..

I have a paper copy of some quotes from it, a presentation somebody made once. I'll go consult it, though I should certainly get my hands on the full text. Nibley's work is getting a little old, though, so I am hesitant to use it, excellent though it was at the outset. 

So, if Facsimiles 1 and 3 come from the same scroll, can we assume the Book of Abraham was likely sourced from that same scroll? Of course, since we have Facsimile 2 we know that Abrahamic materials were not constrained to any particular scroll. 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I have a paper copy of some quotes from it, a presentation somebody made once. I'll go consult it, though I should certainly get my hands on the full text. Nibley's work is getting a little old, though, so I am hesitant to use it, excellent though it was at the outset. 

The 2nd edition of Nibley's Message of the JSP is a massive volume, edited and updated by two LDS Egyptologists, Mike Rhodes and John Gee (FARMS & Deseret Book, 2005), so it is not at all out of date.

30 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

So, if Facsimiles 1 and 3 come from the same scroll, can we assume the Book of Abraham was likely sourced from that same scroll? Of course, since we have Facsimile 2 we know that Abrahamic materials were not constrained to any particular scroll. 

One notion is that it had both the Breathing Permit and the BofA on it (it was not unusual for two docs to be on one papyrus), perhaps on the reverse side.  Another notion is that it was among the other, now lost, JSPapyri.  The existence of the separate hypocephalus, of which we only have copies, suggests that whatever scroll contained the BofA text probably did not contain illustrations, but rather that the three illustrations were only regular Egyptian items reinterpreted (a Semitic adaptation according to Kevin Barney) for a late Jewish version of the Book of Abraham.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The 2nd edition of Nibley's Message of the JSP is a massive volume, edited and updated by two LDS Egyptologists, Mike Rhodes and John Gee (FARMS & Deseret Book, 2005), so it is not at all out of date.

One notion is that it had both the Breathing Permit and the BofA on it (it was not unusual for two docs to be on one papyrus), perhaps on the reverse side.  Another notion is that it was among the other, now lost, JSPapyri.  The existence of the separate hypocephalus, of which we only have copies, suggests that whatever scroll contained the BofA text probably did not contain illustrations, but rather that the three illustrations were only regular Egyptian items reinterpreted (a Semitic adaptation according to Kevin Barney) for a late Jewish version of the Book of Abraham.

Interesting. Is it common for Egyptian ceremonial texts to have writing on both sides? Of course, it doesn't have to be common to be plausible; clearly this was no ordinary Egyptian ritual text. Would it be possible to observe the backs of the extant papyri to examine them for writing, or would that be too damaging? I suppose that's more of a question for the Church archivists. Regardless, you've given me a good bit to think about. 

In the past, I've leaned towards the catalyst theory, thinking that the book came as pure revelation and the facsimiles were included as something of a modern expansion a la Blake Ostler's modern expansion theory for the Book of Mormon. However, I confess that my initial hesitation to consider the missing papyrus theory owes itself in large part to my being somewhat cowed by the unadulterated scorn heaped upon it by some critics. I'd prefer to actually engage it on an intellectual level now. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Interesting. Is it common for Egyptian ceremonial texts to have writing on both sides? Of course, it doesn't have to be common to be plausible; clearly this was no ordinary Egyptian ritual text. Would it be possible to observe the backs of the extant papyri to examine them for writing, or would that be too damaging? I suppose that's more of a question for the Church archivists. Regardless, you've given me a good bit to think about. 

Actually, column 1, line 5 of the Breathing Permit of Hor says that this Book of Breathings is written "inside and out," which I think Klaus Baer said could mean "both sides," or "front and back."  So maybe it was.  However, each piece was glued to an opaque backing, so I don't really know.

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

In the past, I've leaned towards the catalyst theory, thinking that the book came as pure revelation and the facsimiles were included as something of a modern expansion a la Blake Ostler's modern expansion theory for the Book of Mormon. However, I confess that my initial hesitation to consider the missing papyrus theory owes itself in large part to my being somewhat cowed by the unadulterated scorn heaped upon it by some critics. I'd prefer to actually engage it on an intellectual level now. 

Have you looked at the Mike Rhodes' translation-commentary on the BofA illustrations?  See the transcript of his 2003 Fair presentation.  Three videos are listed at the end of the transcript.

Link to comment
On 4/28/2020 at 6:21 PM, 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.

Amen. This is so important. I disagree with some of Gee’s points, but I respect his scholarship. Even if he wasn’t a scholar, that would have nothing directly to do with the merits of the substance. 
 

I also like Hauglid as a person, but I very much disagree with his take on the issue. 

Link to comment
On 5/1/2020 at 10:56 PM, OGHoosier said:

I have a paper copy of some quotes from it, a presentation somebody made once. I'll go consult it, though I should certainly get my hands on the full text. Nibley's work is getting a little old, though, so I am hesitant to use it, excellent though it was at the outset. 

So, if Facsimiles 1 and 3 come from the same scroll, can we assume the Book of Abraham was likely sourced from that same scroll? Of course, since we have Facsimile 2 we know that Abrahamic materials were not constrained to any particular scroll. 

Regarding Facsimile 2, even though it doesn’t relate directly to the narrative of the Book of Abraham I suspect Joseph found it to be relevant (for all the reasons Nibley pointed out) and so Joseph didn’t mind it being lumped in with the Abraham materials for the purpose of being printed in the newspaper. However, that is a lower bar than being published as scripture. Also, the manuscript for Facs. 2 does not say it is part of the Book of Abraham. The printer needed a headline though, and used the same headline he had used for Facsimile 1. Whether the headline was part of Joseph’s specific instructions, or was an issue which the printer was faced with at crunch time, I of course don’t know. 
 

When the Book of Abraham was canonized, I think Facs. 2 again got lumped together with everything else. 
 

I don’t think, in light of the ambiguity, that we can assume that Joseph mistook it for being part of Joseph of Egypt’s redacted record of Abraham’s writings. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...