Enjoyed this post.

Sorry about the mistake. After reading the blog post I realized I had made a mistake. Unfortunately it was to late to correct. Thanks for the link.

I look forward to reading your article.

For all us Book of Abraham geeks, there will be at least one book and possibly three in the near future that will give us high resolution photos of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Unfortunately so much of the discussion has been manipulated by or exclusive to those who have had access to the photo or original documents. Once one of these books is available people will have the ability to discuss the KEP is a more informed way.

The blog post by me that you linked was not my response to Gee’s missing papyrus theory. Rather, it was a report on an encounter I had with Gee on a web forum a few years back that got pretty personal and heated.

I do not have a comprehensive statement of my argument against the missing papyrus theory online, but you can get a pretty good thumbnail of it here: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7342&start=0

Thanks,

-Chris

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=670

My full response is in moderation. I believe it has to do with all the links I provided.

Thompson
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=26881&CISOSHOW=26807&REC=5

Gee
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=47&chapid=268

This is not the article I was thinking for. I can’t find it now. This seems to be a pretty good example of Gee’s work though. The one I remember reading was about one of the facsimile’s 1 or 3, or the hydrocephalus. I can’t find it now.

I found a response by Christopher Smith to Gee while looking for Gee on google. I have not read this yet, so I have no comment.

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-gee-and-egyptian-test.html

I would like to respond MH to your comment “written in the hands of Phelps and Parrish”. This could be a slippery slope. With this reasoning we would have to throw out all of Smith’s revelations, speeches, talks and lectures, pretty much all of his journals, and his private conversations with Clayton, Woodruff, Richards, Young and everyone else. We would have to discount all but the first account of the First Vision and Moroni’s visit.

For me the GAEL is actually quite interesting to see Smith’s mind working. For me it shows his creativity and brilliance. As you read the GAEL and the first chapters of Abraham the developing theology is startling and impressive. I recall a friend saying to me, “look at the theology, it is quite enlightening”.

As for wading in to this subject. The volume of writings is over whelming. That is why most people have Nibley sitting on the shelf and feel all the answers have been given. Nibley alone produced thousands of pages of material. You have to be selective and pace yourself. I started reading about the Book of Abraham in 1985. Many times I was turned off by the lack of my own understanding. I just kept plowing along. It really was not until I read Thompson that the light bulb went on. I then understood what I was doing wrong.

Interesting that Bushman mentions Josephus and the Book of Jasher specifically, since the Messenger and Advocate in 1835 uses Josephus to help interpret the papyri, and the Times and Seasons in Sep. 1842 uses the Book of Jasher to help verify part of the Book of Abraham translation. Since 1835 and 1842 are the two years that Book of Abraham translation was occurring, it seems that Smith and his scribes had access to these texts at more or less the time of translation. I wonder if Bushman realized when he named these two specific texts that they are the very ones to which Joseph Smith had access. I suspect he probably did.

I am actually personally inclined to think that Joseph Smith did not use Jasher during the actual translation process. I don’t see good evidence for Jasher’s influence on the BoA text, and it didn’t get mentioned in the T&S until a few months after the BoA translation was finished and published. The similarities between Jasher and the Book of Abraham are few, whereas the differences are vast. Josephus, however, I feel quite certain was used as a source. In fact, Josephus’s Greek rendering of the Hebrew name for Egypt actually shows up (albeit modified) in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. The King James Bible and JST are also obvious Book of Abraham sources. These sources account for pretty much all of the most interesting parallels between the Book of Abraham and ancient Abrahamic traditions. (There’s no reason to think that those ancient Abrahamic traditions contain any accurate information about the historical Abraham, anyway.)

As for attributing the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to the scribes, I believe that to be a fallacious apologetic. Keep an eye out for my article in the JWHA Journal this Fall, which among other things will rebut that view. The missing papyrus theory is another fallacious apologetic, as a responsible reading of the eyewitness and manuscript evidence shows. I presented a rebuttal of the missing papyrus theory at this year’s Sunstone West. My sessions should eventually be available for MP3 download at the Sunstone website.

But more importantly, the Egyptian Grammar sections that I alluded to have the symbols, in chronological order, as they appear in the papyrus. The Grammar document lists, to the right of those symbols, the “translation” as it appears in our modern day scriptures. Were my current scriptures the work of Cowdery and Phelps?

And how do you explain the facsimiles? We know that those are common funeral scenes…..not according to Joseph’s “translation” as it appears in the scriptures I got for Christmas last year.

Joe, do you have a link to that article?

I should learn not to read Bushman, my blood pressure sky rockets. I went to Jesse’s “Papers” and read the revelation to Parrish in context and found it completely different than Bushman intimates. In the part you quote Bushman writes that Smith did not translate the characters of the Book of Mormon and then in another part he writes Smith did translate characters. For me, Bushman is playing games. Nibley did the same thing. Nibley admitted it was “all a game”. Nibely’s theories became a moving target. When his theory became so outlandish he had to throw it away, he then came up with another to fit his model.

After reading many works on the “Book of Abraham” I finally realized scholars like Gee, Nibley and Bushman were trying to stick a round peg in a square whole. The Book of Abraham is not an ancient Egyptian text and the scrolls Joseph had in his procession are fifth to first century BCE funerary texts. Once I realized this, the explanations and data fell into place. Stephen Thompson’s “Egyptology and The Book of Abraham” in Dialogue Spring 1995 helped place the Book of Abraham in perspective. I highly recommend it if a person is interested in this subject.

The churches position has been to take the Book of Abraham as scripture from God. To believe this one has to take it on faith. To twist the mind around Bushman and Nibley’s theories causes headaches.

when you look at the pattern of prior efforts to bring forth scripture (Book of Mormon, D&C Revelations, JST Bible), it seems to be consistent that Joseph was open to receiving revelation spurred by language, characters, and crystals but more heavily dependent on his reliance on the Spirit and gift of seer and revelator.

D&C 1:29 reads:
“29 And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.”

The “translations” were not of men, by a learned man, but of God by a young and inexperienced man who was an instrument in God’s hand to do some miraculous things. It is a mysterious thing. One that requires faith to understand, IMO.

To me, the amazing content is more important than the origins, although I admit my brain would like to have some confirmation the origins are conceivable. My guess is the efforts to prove or disprove the BoM and BoA will continue as they have for over 100 years.

Without starting a whole new topic, what were the origins of the JST version of the bible and are they similar to how you can explain BoA? In other words, was JSmith looking at the bible in Hebrew and his mind was opened to the important meanings and parts missing in our current KJV that may or may not have been a literal “translation”? If so, is this similar to looking at papyri and his mind opened to the important meanings God wants delivered through his propeht?

I guess this is actually a more straight forward test….Joseph copied (or had copied) facsimiles that he believed described Abraham’s life from the papyrus. The facsimiles are in our scripture, today. Joseph’s “translation” of those facsimiles is in our scritpure today. The “translation” is wholly inaccurate. End of story?

The JEAG contains a copy of some of the characters, in order, from the fragments of the papyrus that we do HAVE…IN ORDER. Joseph’s translation of those characters, appears on the right. The JEAG is like a glossary of what each character, in Egyptian, means to JS.

The “translation” of these specific characters (Joseph’s glossary) is not even close. This proves several things. First, Joseph was working from primary characters on the scrolls we have, not some faded, recycled paper, text written in invisible ink, or scripture published on what used to be funeral paper, vice versa. Second, since the characters in the JEAG are in order as they appear on a portion of the scroll we have, we know that those were the portions of the scrolls Joseph used….not some mysterious “missing scrolls” destroyed in fire. We also know how Jospeh translated those specific characters……and we are told by experts that Joseph’s translation of those specific characters are not even close. Those specific characters actually describe a common funeral theme…..to Joseph, they equated to the BOA. No matter how you slice it, Joseph did not seem to “translate” those specific characters correctly.