Missing Papyrus Theory

[smac97]

10 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.

But we are dealing with a copy of the text of the Book of Abraham, not the original text.  So the relative positioning of Facsimile 1 in the original autograph is not necessarily congruent with the positioning of it in the copy created many centuries later.

Would you agree with that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

17 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.  

 

Heyanybuddy... *hic* see my papy/prus ???

[smac97]

20 hours 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)

I have "studied the apologetic explanations," as well as countervailing theories.

My opinion diverges rather substantially from yours.  

20 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

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.

I think it does.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Sure, I can do it in 3 letters KEP

Quoth Kerry Muhlestein:

Quote

Kirtland Egyptian Papers

Many critics feel there is other evidence for asserting that the hieroglyphs next to Facsimile 1 are the source of the Book of Abraham. Their argument stems from a group of papers known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. These poorly named documents are an eclectic collection of papers, 16 of which are associated with Egyptian characters or with the Book of Abraham. A few of these papers contain the text of the Book of Abraham written in English by several individuals with a single Egyptian character written next to each paragraph in the left margin. Because these Egyptian characters match characters from the Book of Breathings, critics have assumed that these manuscripts record the translation process. Supposedly the translator looked at a few characters from the Book of Breathings and derived the Book of Abraham from them.[22] This premise assumes that the characters were written first and that the text written next to them was created afterward as an attempt to translate the characters’ meaning.

There are, however, a number of problems with this assumption: (1) Scribal errors and other critical textual clues make it very clear that these papers represent later copies of the text of the Book of Abraham, not the original translation; they were probably not even first- or second-generation copies. Thus the characters at the right were not characters they were trying to work through on these papers; they must mean something else. (2) The Egyptian characters appear to sometimes overwrite the English. If this is the case, then it is clear they were later additions. (3) The first Egyptian characters are written in the order they appear in the Book of Breathings, but some characters in one of the manuscripts skip characters and lines and are even from two different papyri, exhibiting no system or method. It is hard to believe that Joseph thought he was to translate from random parts of the text instead of systematically going from line to line.[23] (4) We have reason to believe that while Joseph Smith was involved in creating some of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (two of the sixteen pages contain Joseph’s handwriting), at other times his associates did this work without him. The pages whose composition we can date come from a period when the Prophet was out of town and the School of the Prophets seemingly went on without him. Adding up all these scraps of evidence, it seems highly improbable that this collection of papers represents Joseph’s original translation.

So what are these papers? Do they represent an attempt on the part of a group who was very interested in ancient languages to create an Egyptian grammar after Joseph had translated the Book of Abraham? Do the Egyptian figures serve as fanciful and archaic bullet points? Were the Egyptian characters placed beside the text to excite the minds of potential readers in hopes of increasing the book’s circulation? At the present, we do not have enough evidence to discern what these papers represent, but it seems unlikely that they represent an English translation of the Egyptian characters written on the side. The evidence points away from this conclusion. Thus, while we cannot present an answer as to what these papers are, we can say the evidence does not support the critics’ claims.

And here:

Quote

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

Some have supposed that an eclectic collection of papers, sometimes known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, prove that the text adjacent to Facsimile 1 was the source of the Book of Abraham. This argument stems from a few sheets of papers, two of which exhibit a small amount of Joseph Smith’s handwriting, that show Egyptian hieratic characters in the margin and paragraphs from the Book of Abraham written out next to them. Some have supposed this means that the long paragraphs of the Abraham text are a translation of the hieratic characters next to them. Since these characters seem to come from the hieratic text next to Facsimile 1 on the Joseph Smith Papyri, some have argued that Joseph was translating from the papyri we currently have when he gave us the Book of Abraham.

There are a number of problems with this interpretation: (1) As was clearly explained above, evidence indicates that these papyri were not the source of the Book of Abraham. Because eyewitness accounts lead us to conclude that the source was elsewhere on the scroll, the characters on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers must serve some other purpose. (2) Transcription errors in all of these copies clearly demonstrate that these are not the original translation of the Book of Abraham. They are later copies of that book. If Joseph had originally written an Egyptian character in the margin and then either puzzled out or had the translation revealed to him, there would have been no need to continue to write down the original characters when making third or fourth copies of the scriptural text. [36] (3) We can document that Joseph Smith was not in Kirtland when many of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers were created. [37] (4) Both the fact that the hieratic text was apparently overwritten onto the English Book of Abraham verses and evidence of specific scribal practices suggest that the hieratic was a late addition. [38] This indicates that they were written after the text had been completed, not copied beforehand and then translated. [39]

I do not understand the relationship between the Egyptian characters and the rest of the papers. I think the evidence drives us to conclude that the papers are not a record of the translation process, but I am at a loss to say what they might be a record of. Perhaps the Egyptian characters were placed beside the text to excite the minds of potential readers in hopes of increasing the book’s circulation; maybe they are merely a manifestation of the kind of fascination with languages and scripts we know W. W. Phelps often displayed. [40] Or the Egyptian figures could merely serve as fanciful and archaic bullet points. Probably none of these speculations are the answer. The important point is that the evidence we have does not support the conclusion that critics try to derive from these papers. In fact, it dictates that these conclusions are wrong.

And then there's this recent article from Book of Abraham Central: The “Kirtland Egyptian Papers” and the Book of Abraham

An excerpt:

Quote

Associated with the translation of the Book of Abraham is a collection of documents known today as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.1 This name was coined by Hugh Nibley in the early 1970s to describe a corpus of manuscripts that can be classified into, broadly, two categories: Book of Abraham manuscripts and Egyptian-language manuscripts.2 Although still commonly used, because some of these documents post-date the Kirtland period of Latter-day Saint history, and because it is somewhat vague, the name coined by Nibley to describe this corpus has fallen out of use among scholars who prefer more precise classifications. What’s more, “The[se] name designations are modern ones and typically reflect assumptions of the individuals using the particular designations. No [single] designation [to describe these texts] has gained wide acceptance.”3

Notwithstanding, as mentioned above, this corpus “can be divided into two fairly distinct parts: “(1) those papers that center primarily on the text of the Book of Abraham and (2) those that focus on alphabet and grammar material that the authors connected to the ancient Egyptian language.”4 The Abraham manuscripts (1) are what contain the extant English text of the Book of Abraham. These manuscripts date from between mid-1835 to early-1842 and are in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps, Warren Parrish, Frederick G. Williams, and Willard Richards.5 The Egyptian-language manuscripts (2) are comprised of a hodgepodge of documents that transcribe portions of the characters from the Egyptian papyri and appear to attempt to systematize an understanding of the Egyptian language in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Warren Parrish.6 While these two groups can be broadly distinguished, “it should also be understood that the Abraham documents contain a certain amount of Egyptian material and the Egyptian papers include a certain amount of Abraham material.”7 Because of this, it is clear that there is some kind of relationship between these two groups.

Although there is an apparent relationship between these two groups of documents, because of conflicting interpretations of the historical data among scholars “almost every aspect of these documents is disputed: their authorship, their date, their purpose, their relationship with the Book of Abraham, their relationship with the Joseph Smith Papyri, their relationship with each other, what the documents are or were intended to be, and even whether the documents form a discrete or coherent group.”8 This uncertainty has unfortunately resulted in a lack of consensus on how to understand this collection.

Although it is clear that the Egyptian-language documents in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers reflect a sincere attempt by those involved to somehow understand the Egyptian language (there is no evidence for conscious fraud or deceit on the part of those involved), “like many similar efforts of the time to unravel the mysteries of the Egyptian language, these attempts are considered by modern Egyptologists—both Latter-day Saints and others—to be of no actual value in understanding [the] Egyptian” language.9 Because of this, some have attempted to use the Egyptian-language documents to cast doubt on Joseph Smith’s prophetic inspiration or the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. This effort, however, is highly questionable for many reasons.

First, “The extent of Joseph Smith’s involvement in the creation of these manuscripts is unknown.”10 While it is true that he had some involvement in the project since his handwriting appears in one manuscript and his signature on another,11 there is not enough evidence to conclusively demonstrate that Joseph Smith was the driving instigator behind the effort to create a systematized grammar of the Egyptian language.

Second, “It is unclear when in 1835 Joseph Smith began creating the existing Book of Abraham manuscripts or what relationship the Book of Abraham manuscripts have to the Egyptian-language documents.”12

Third, while “considerable overlap of themes exists between the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian-language documents . . . most of the Book of Abraham is not textually dependent on any of the extant Egyptian-language documents. The inverse is also true: most of the content in the Egyptian-language documents is independent of the Book of Abraham.”13

Fourth, and finally, the Egyptian-language documents were never presented as authoritative revelation similar to Joseph Smith’s other canonized books of scripture. “What emerges most clearly from a closer look at the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is the fact that there is nothing official or final about them—they are fluid, exploratory, confidential, and hence free of any possibility or intention of fraud or deception.”14

Rather than viewing the Egyptian-language documents as Joseph Smith’s botched revelation, they might instead more plausibly be seen as part of “an interest in ancient languages within the early church and an anticipation that additional ancient texts would be revealed.”15 This interest prompted Joseph Smith and those close to him to attempt a secular study of other ancient languages such as Hebrew and Greek.16 The Egyptian-language project undertaken by some early Latter-day Saints and associated with the coming forth of the Book of Abraham may very well be situated in that same context.

Seems like your three-letter explanation is not quite as probative or persuasive as you seem to think it to be.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Andrew Cooke and Christopher Smith demolished the "missing scroll" theory.

Well no, they didn't. 

Cook says that the formulas should predict the same thing, but the debate was started by his having arrived at a different prediction, right?

19 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Anyone know of a response from Gee to this matter?

It is my understanding that Dr. Gee has not responded further (that is, to Cook's 2012 article, which was responsive to Dr. Gee's article).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 hours 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

I'm not sure you are accurately characterizing the state of things.  From this article:

Quote

{S}ome have attempted to use the Egyptian-language documents to cast doubt on Joseph Smith’s prophetic inspiration or the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. This effort, however, is highly questionable for many reasons.

First, “The extent of Joseph Smith’s involvement in the creation of these manuscripts is unknown.”10 While it is true that he had some involvement in the project since his handwriting appears in one manuscript and his signature on another,11 there is not enough evidence to conclusively demonstrate that Joseph Smith was the driving instigator behind the effort to create a systematized grammar of the Egyptian language.

Second, “It is unclear when in 1835 Joseph Smith began creating the existing Book of Abraham manuscripts or what relationship the Book of Abraham manuscripts have to the Egyptian-language documents.”12

Third, while “considerable overlap of themes exists between the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian-language documents . . . most of the Book of Abraham is not textually dependent on any of the extant Egyptian-language documents. The inverse is also true: most of the content in the Egyptian-language documents is independent of the Book of Abraham.”13

Fourth, and finally, the Egyptian-language documents were never presented as authoritative revelation similar to Joseph Smith’s other canonized books of scripture. “What emerges most clearly from a closer look at the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is the fact that there is nothing official or final about them—they are fluid, exploratory, confidential, and hence free of any possibility or intention of fraud or deception.”14

Rather than viewing the Egyptian-language documents as Joseph Smith’s botched revelation, they might instead more plausibly be seen as part of “an interest in ancient languages within the early church and an anticipation that additional ancient texts would be revealed.”15

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

These quotes from Hauglid are indeed eyebrow raising. What is your source for them?

i note that there are quotation marks around “outrageous,” as though Hauglid was quoting someone who did not take kindly to his earlier body of work. 

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Do know which "Mormon and non-Mormon" eyewitnesses this is in reference to?  He's quoting Jerusha Blanchard from 1922's Relief Society Magazine.  She was born in 1849--after the Nauvoo era.  How does she constitute an eyewitness of any part of the Book of Abraham translation? Or by "eyewitness" what does he mean?  THat someone decades later said there was a long roll of papyrus and heard that it contained the Book of Abraham?  Also, from the story the Bean quoted, from which this quote is lifted, Jerusha was born in 1849 and this encounter took place before Lucy mack Smith died in 1856.  She would have been a young child.  I don't know why anyone would put stock in this passing comment as if it carries merit.  Certainly there's no eyewitness element to it and one person does not constitute many eyewitnesses, both in and out the Church.  

Additionally, "long" is a relativist term.  Long compared to what? 2 feet could be long relative to 1 foot.  5 feet can be long compared to 2.  

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by stemelbow

[smac97]

On 4/28/2020 at 6:59 PM, california boy said:

The video you pointed to does not address any of the physical evidence against the Book of Abraham.  

What "physical evidence" are you referring to here?

Quote

It is a talk about interpretation of the writing itself, most of which is highly subjective.

And the purported "physical evidence" about the origins of the text of the Book of Abraham is not subjective?  Not an exercise in "interpretation"?

Are you sure?

Quote

I think the questions that arise about the Book of Abraham is the actual physical evidence rather than faith based evidence.  

Actually, I think most of the questions that arise about the Book of Abraham arise from the lack of "actual physical evidence," and from ignoring historical evidence (like the eyewitness accounts, the "chain of custody" issues raised by Dr. Gee, etc.). 

IMO, most of the criticism about the BOA stems from supposition, guesswork, ignoring evidence, leaps in evidentiary analysis, and so on.

Quote

This video addresses the physical evidence, which I think the question was about.

I'm not sure how much stock I'm willing to put in this YouTube video.  It starts out with stating (and emphasizing) that in 1835 "Chandler displays four remaining mummies and two papyrus scrolls in Kirtland, Ohio."  In contrast, Kerry Muhlestein states:

Quote

Eyewitness accounts describe both the papyri collection and which part of the collection was the source of the Book of Abraham. W. W. Phelps writes of “two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings.”[10] We can identify five different ancient owners of the papyri from the fragments and facsimiles we have today, which indicates that there were at least five different sets of papyri, at least two of which were scrolls.[11] Other contemporary witnesses describe a number of fragments of papyrus contained under glass[12] (also described as “glazed slides”),[13] a “long roll” on which the Book of Abraham was reported to be written,[14] and “another roll,”[15] thus confirming Phelps’s account of several fragments (adding the information that at some point they had been put in framed glass) and his report of “two papyrus rolls” (specifying that one was longer than the other).

And here:

Quote

We know from eyewitnesses that Joseph had “two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings.” [29] From the surviving papyri, we can identify five different ancient owners, indicating that there were at least five different sets of papyri. A variety of accounts establish that at least two of these were sizable scrolls. Other contemporary witnesses describe a number of fragments of papyrus contained under glass, [30] a “long roll” reportedly containing the Book of Abraham, [31] as well as “another roll.” [32] Thus our available historical evidence establishes the existence of a fair-sized scroll, another longer scroll, and several other pieces of papyri. The bulk of the writing must have been on the two rolls of papyrus.

And here:

Quote

Charles Larson and others argue that there were only two papyrus scrolls in the original collection and that we have those papyri now (critics of Joseph Smith must so argue, for their case depends on this critical point, while some LDS also accept it without difficulty, though it is not an important issue to them). Were there only two scrolls? No. There were at least four scrolls and other documents as well, including the Papyrus of Hor, the Papyrus of Semminis, the Papyrus of Noufianoub, and the Papyrus of Amenophis (A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee [Gee, 2000, pp. 10-13]). The surviving Joseph Smith papyri represent at most 13% of the original collection. The Joseph Smith papyri contain fragments from three of the scrolls; the Papyrus of Amenophis is known only from a partial copy [Gee, 2000,pp. 12].

So the video comes right out of the chute with a substantively incorrect, or at least misleading, factual statement.  One that was pretty easily checked.

The video then states that in July 1835 "Joseph Smith reveals the two papyrus scrolls to contain the writings {respectively} of Abraham and Joseph."  This statement, of course, is based entirely on eyewitness accounts, which folks like you ignore when inconvenient.

The video then states that "Several loose outer papyrus fragments are pasted onto stiff paper for preservation.  There are now 2 scroll CORES plus MOUNTED FRAGMENTS."  Yet Muhlestein quotes the W. W. Phelps, letter dated July 19–20, 1835, which references “two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings," and concludes that "historical evidence establishes the existence of a fair-sized scroll, another longer scroll, and several other pieces of papyri."  So the vid seems to be playing a bit fast and loose with the basic facts.  And we're only 1.5 minutes into it.

The video then states that "Smith studies the Egyptian writing with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery and translates the Abraham scroll."  This seems fairly misleading.  See these remarks by John Gee:

Quote

How did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Abraham?

The exact process is not known. The only statement is that it was done by direct inspiration from heaven. Although some 19th-century accounts claim that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Abraham, those individuals were not actually involved in the translation and were not in a position to know. He definitely did not translate it using grammars or dictionaries or using the method of French scholar Jean-Francois Champollion (who deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs and was a founding figure in the field of Egyptology).

And here:

Quote

When it comes to the nature of the translation of the Book of Abraham, there is not much direct evidence for how Joseph accomplished the work. “No known first-person account from Joseph Smith exists to explain the translation of the Book of Abraham, and the scribes who worked on the project and others who claimed knowledge of the process provided only vague or general reminiscences.”18 John Whitmer, then acting as the Church’s historian and recorder, commented that “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records … which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints.”19 Another important source is Warren Parrish, one of the scribes who assisted Joseph in the production of the Book of Abraham. After his disaffection from the Church in 1837, Parrish reported that in his capacity as Joseph’s scribe he “penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as [Joseph] claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.”20 Parrish’s statement, like Whitmer’s, emphasizes that the method of Joseph’s “translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks” was revelatory, not academic, but that the Prophet was still performing a translation of an ancient language. Unfortunately, Parrish did not elaborate further on the precise nature of this translation “by direct inspiration.”

AFAIK, nobody has ever suggested that Joseph Smith was able to translate the BOA based solely on him having "studie{d} the Egyptian writing" on the papyri.

Al these shortcomings are in the first 1 minute and 46 seconds of the video, which is 23:40 long.  So you'll understand if I'm a bit reticent to rely on it as being a well-researched, fairminded, accurate summary of the state of how the Book of Abraham came to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 30, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

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

Do know which "Mormon and non-Mormon" eyewitnesses this is in reference to? 

Well, I provided links and footnotes...

Quote

He's quoting Jerusha Blanchard from 1922's Relief Society Magazine. 

Yes.

Quote

She was born in 1949--after the Nauvoo era. 

Actually, she was born on July 6, 1849.  After the Nauvoo era for the main body of the Church members, but still prior to 1856 (when the mummies and papyri were sold to Abel Combs).

Quote

How does she constitute an eyewitness of any part of the Book of Abraham translation?

She was the oldest grand-daughter of Hyrum Smith, who lived in Macedonia (in Hancock County, a few miles from Nauvoo) but frequently visited Nauvoo.  From her narrative:

Quote

On July 6, 1849, I came to their home and received the  name of Jerusha Walker. When I was three years old we moved from Nauvoo to Macedonia, Hancock county, and lived there three or four years. Often times Aunt Emma would send for us in the carriage and we would drive to her home to spend a few days with her and with great-grandmother, Lucy Mack Smith, who was a little old lady suffering from rheumatism. 

''What fun we had with Aunt Emma's boys, Joseph, Frederick, Alexander and David. How we raced through the house playing hide and seek. My favorite hiding place was in an old wardrobe which contained the mummies, and it was in here that I would creep while the others searched the house. There were three mummies : The old Egyptian king, the queen and their daughter. The bodies were wrapped in seven layers of linen cut in thin strips. In the arms of the Old King, lay the roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham. 

Emma and Lewis Bidamon sold the Egyptian relics to Abel Combs in May 1856.  So it appears that Jerusha was situated to be a percipient witness to the mummies/papyri.

Quote

Or by "eyewitness" what does he mean?  THat someone decades later said there was a long roll of papyrus and heard that it contained the Book of Abraham?

I agree that Jerusha's statement is partially not based on her personal knowledge ("the roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham"), but I don't think that impeaches her testimony as to the existence of the "roll of papyrus."  Do you?

Quote

Additionally, "long" is a relativist term.  Long compared to what? 2 feet could be long relative to 1 foot.  5 feet can be long compared to 2.  

I quite agree.  "Long" is a relative term.  The "long" scroll could have been five feet.  Or twelve.  Or forty.

This is rather the point I've been trying to make (a point made by Dr. Gee for a while now), which some in this thread have suggested has been definitively settled.  It hasn't.  The notion that the the hypothesis of missing papyri has been "completely debunked" is very problematic given the ambiguity you are pointing out here.  We cannot definitively state how long the scroll was.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 29, 2020 by smac97

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

These quotes from Hauglid are indeed eyebrow raising. What is your source for them?

i note that there are quotation marks around “outrageous,” as though Hauglid was quoting someone who did not take kindly to his earlier body of work. 

They were from Hauglid, on Facebook. They're the same source for his "Gee's work is abhorrent" statement. The quotes around outrageous were his; I'm not sure what he meant by them. I think he was signalling that he thought his prior efforts were outrageous, but that he doesn't think like that now. 

I'd love to be wrong, but it sounds to me like Brian Hauglid might have soured on the Church. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I provided links and footnotes...

Yes.

Actually, she was born on July 6, 1849.  After the Nauvoo era for the main body of the Church members, but still prior to 1856 (when the mummies and papyri were sold to Abel Combs).

She was the oldest grand-daughter of Hyrum Smith, who lived in Macedonia (in Hancock County, a few miles from Nauvoo) but frequently visited Nauvoo.  From her narrative:

Emma and Lewis Bidamon sold the Egyptian relics to Abel Combs in May 1856.  So it appears that Jerusha was situated to be a percipient witness to the mummies/papyri.

I agree that Jerusha's statement is partially not based on her personal knowledge ("the roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham"), but I don't think that impeaches her testimony as to the existence of the "roll of papyrus."  Do you?

I quite agree.  "Long" is a relative term.  The "long" scroll could have been five feet.  Or twelve.  Or forty.

This is rather the point I've been trying to make.  The notion that the the hypothesis of missing papyri has been "completely debunked" is very problematic given the ambiguity you are pointing out here.  We cannot definitively state how long the scroll was.

Thanks,

-Smac

I edited my last post.  That's the risk, someone picks up my initial offering.  That's ok.  We'll go from here. 

I certainly can't imagine a child pre-7 years old being a credible witness sufficient to claim a certain scroll of papyrus was that which the translation came from.  She doesn't distinguish different rolls or pieces of papyrus at all.  That's a pretty sad snippet to use to claim as certainly as Gee does.  

And

I"m not seeing any support for his claim that Mormon and non-Mormon "eyewitnesses" agree that the long roll is what was used for the translation.  If a young girl's passing comment, with no relation to other fragments, can be expanded to be many people in and out of the Church, I'm not sure there's much to take seriously here.  

 

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by stemelbow

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

They were from Hauglid, on Facebook. They're the same source for his "Gee's work is abhorrent" statement. The quotes around outrageous were his; I'm not sure what he meant by them. I think he was signalling that he thought his prior efforts were outrageous, but that he doesn't think like that now. 

I'd love to be wrong, but it sounds to me like Brian Hauglid might have soured on the Church. 

Here's a December 2018 summary: Book of Abraham Apologist: Brian Hauglid’s “Transformative Journey”

I won't speculate about his feelings about the Church.  I am, however, a bit disappointed at his strident language.  I'm also sort of put off by the apparent bolstering of his position by critics of the Church (Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe).

Ah, well.  Scholars disagree with each other all the time.  I would have preferred more professionalism and civility, but there you are...

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I edited my last post.  That's the risk, someone picks up my initial offering.  That's ok.  We'll go from here. 

We all make mistakes.  No biggie.

Just now, stemelbow said:

I certainly can't imagine a child pre-7 years old being a credible witness sufficient to claim a certain scroll of papyrus was that which the translation came from. 

I agree.  I am not saying she was a percipient witness as to the papyrus she saw being "that which the translation came from."

Rather, my point is that she was a percipient witness to there being a scroll in the possession of Emma and Lucy.  Again, from her account:

Quote

My favorite hiding place was in an old wardrobe which contained the mummies, and it was in here that I would creep while the others searched the house. There were three mummies : The old Egyptian king, the queen and their daughter. The bodies were wrapped in seven layers of linen cut in thin strips. In the arms of the Old King, lay the roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham. 

Would you agree that the non-strike-through text above is a competent account?  Or do you disregard her recollection in its entirety?

Just now, stemelbow said:

She doesn't distinguish different rolls or pieces of papyrus at all.

What do you mean?  She references "a roll of papyrus" situated "{i}n the arms of" one of the mummies.  How is this recollection problematic?

Just now, stemelbow said:

That's a pretty sad snippet to use to claim as certainly as Gee does.  

What do you mean by "sad?"  How is Gee's citation to it problematic (particularly given that it's one part of an accumulated set of eyewitness accounts)?

Just now, stemelbow said:

I"m not seeing any support his claim that Mormon and non-Mormon "eyewitnesses" agree that the long roll is what was used for the translation. 

Well, feel free to do a bit more digging.  

Just now, stemelbow said:

If a young girl's passing comment, with no relation to other fragments, can be expanded to be many people in and out of the Church, I'm not sure there's much to take seriously here.  

I don't think Gee has done this.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's a December 2018 summary: Book of Abraham Apologist: Brian Hauglid’s “Transformative Journey”

I won't speculate about his feelings about the Church.  I am, however, a bit disappointed at his strident language.  I'm also sort of put off by the apparent bolstering of his position by critics of the Church (Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe).

Ah, well.  Scholars disagree with each other all the time.  I would have preferred more professionalism and civility, but there you are...

Thank you! Yes, his stridency and abrasiveness is a red flag, and makes me wonder. It's possible that he just changed his views dramatically, but given how nice he was at the latter end of the last decade, I think the stridency probably portends more than an academic change of mind. Hopefully not . . . 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We all make mistakes.  No biggie.

I agree.  I am not saying she was a percipient witness as to the papyrus she saw being "that which the translation came from."

Rather, my point is that she was a percipient witness to there being a scroll in the possession of Emma and Lucy.  Again, from her account:

Would you agree that the non-strike-through text above is a competent account?  Or do you disregard her recollection in its entirety?

What do you mean?  She references "a roll of papyrus" situated "{i}n the arms of" one of the mummies.  How is this recollection problematic?

What do you mean by "sad?"  How is Gee's citation to it problematic (particularly given that it's one part of an accumulated set of eyewitness accounts)?

Well, feel free to do a bit more digging.  

I don't think Gee has done this.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Alright.  Here's Gee, "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 "

That "39" at the end is the reference for quoting Jerusha.  what Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses does he reference for his claim?  I don't see anyone.  Particularly since you and I agree, Jerusha can't really be a reliable witness of that claim.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Thank you! Yes, his stridency and abrasiveness is a red flag, and makes me wonder. It's possible that he just changed his views dramatically, but given how nice he was at the latter end of the last decade, I think the stridency probably portends more than an academic change of mind. Hopefully not . . . 

Again, I won't speculate as to his perspective on the Church.

His affiliation with the Maxwell Institute may be an indication of . . . something.  There seems to be an ongoing rift amongst faculty members at BYU since the 2012 events.  

At one point in my career I was seeking a tenured position in academia.  In hindsight, I'm rather grateful it didn't work out.  Academia, even at BYU, seems to be a pretty unpleasant environment (and I'm a lawyer).

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I won't speculate as to his perspective on the Church.

His affiliation with the Maxwell Institute may be an indication of . . . something.  There seems to be an ongoing rift amongst faculty members at BYU since the 2012 events.  

One of the commenters at your link pointed out just how much he's going out of his way, not just to disagree with Gee and Muhlestein, but to salt their fields, figuratively. There is more at play than academic disagreement, and even than mere hatred or distaste. It's like the quote about Lenin (I think from Trotsky): he doesn't just chop your head off, he holds it up to show everyone that it's empty. It's the sort of rage that seems to accompany personal apostasy (bitterness at what a dupe you were, and trying to make up for it by scorching the earth).

Sad. 

As was also pointed out at your link, the Gospel topics essay on the BoA relies heavily on Hauglid and much less so than Gee and Muhlestein. He has disavowed several key footnotes attributed to views he no longer agrees with. I wonder if part of his anger is that he doesn't want to be connected with that any more. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Alright.  Here's Gee, "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 "

Gee seems to have worked hard to parse out the relative merits of the various witness accounts.  See, e.g., here.

Have you reviewed his other publications on this point?

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That "39" at the end is the reference for quoting Jerusha.  what Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses does he reference for his claim?  I don't see anyone.  Particularly since you and I agree, Jerusha can't really be a reliable witness of that claim.  

She can't be a reliable eyewitness.  However, as regarding the long scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham, I doubt she just fabricated that.  I suspect she was an earwitness.

I'm not sure if this is a question of reliable or unreliable.  Perhaps it's more a question of more reliable or less reliable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Thank you! Yes, his stridency and abrasiveness is a red flag, and makes me wonder. It's possible that he just changed his views dramatically, but given how nice he was at the latter end of the last decade, I think the stridency probably portends more than an academic change of mind. Hopefully not . . . 

Is it his comment about the Gee/Muhlestein "scholarship" abhorrent, which offends?  What do we do when we find someone's methods abhorrent?  Should we say their "scholarship" is just really really bad, instead?  Should he not have named them?  Maybe he just have said the "scholarship" of some LDS scholars on the topic is really really bad?  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Gee seems to have worked hard to parse out the relative merits of the various witness accounts.  See, e.g., here.

Your source is merely the source of the quote.  There's nothing in it, that I can find, that defines any Mormon nor non-Mormon sources that shows anyone named a long scroll, opposed to any other fragments, as the source for the BoA.  Do you see any?  

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Have you reviewed his other publications on this point?

She can't be a reliable eyewitness.  However, as regarding the long scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham, I doubt she just fabricated that.  I suspect she was an earwitness.

I'm not sure if this is a question of reliable or unreliable.  Perhaps it's more a question of more reliable or less reliable.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

One of the commenters at your link pointed out just how much he's going out of his way, not just to disagree with Gee and Muhlestein, but to salt their fields, figuratively.

Yep.  That's why I think the acrimony at the Maxwell Institute may be a factor.  Hauglid seems to be getting personal, not clinical.  He's presenting conclusory cheap shots, not reasoned argument.

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is more at play than academic disagreement, and even than mere hatred or distaste. It's like the quote about Lenin (I think from Trotsky): he doesn't just chop your head off, he holds it up to show everyone that it's empty. It's the sort of rage that seems to accompany personal apostasy (bitterness at what a dupe you were, and trying to make up for it by scorching the earth).

Sad. 

I think ascribing "hatred" to Hauglid, and comparing him to Lenin, is a bit much.  He made a few intemperate / uncivil / unprofessional remarks.  That's all.

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

As was also pointed out at your link, the Gospel topics essay on the BoA relies heavily on Hauglid and much less so than Gee and Muhlestein. He has disavowed several key footnotes attributed to views he no longer agrees with. I wonder if part of his anger is that he doesn't want to be connected with that any more. 

Dunno.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is it his comment about the Gee/Muhlestein "scholarship" abhorrent, which offends?  What do we do when we find someone's methods abhorrent?  Should we say their "scholarship" is just really really bad, instead?  Should he not have named them?  Maybe he just have said the "scholarship" of some LDS scholars on the topic is really really bad?  

I think he should have presented an evidence-based, reasoned argument.  Instead, he publicly maligned his professional peers with conclusory and provocative (and offensive) cheap shots.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think he should have presented an evidence-based, reasoned argument.  Instead, he publicly maligned his professional peers with conclusory and provocative (and offensive) cheap shots.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think he's presented his research as evidence-based, reasoned argument.  That's why he points readers to it.

It is a rough condemnation though.  Perhaps he could have done it in a nicer way.  

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Your source is merely the source of the quote. 

I provided an additional one as well.

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There's nothing in it, that I can find, that defines any Mormon nor non-Mormon sources that shows anyone named a long scroll, opposed to any other fragments, as the source for the BoA.  Do you see any?  

Perhaps you could do a little more research for yourself, rather than repeatedly asking me to do it for you?

And perhaps your efforts to study this matter could consist of more than two minutes using CTRL+F in a pdf file (since you posted the above only three minutes after I posted mine)?

Thanks,

-Smac