Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_Kishkumen]

It is Egyptologically incorrect to suggest that the Book of Abraham could be found on a religous scroll containing sacred spells and images of the Egyptian gods. Shall we put the Koran on the altars of the Mormon temple? Shall we include a chapter of Charles Larson's book in the covers of the Doctrine & Covenants?

It is a fact that Alexandrian Jews identified the Hellenistic-Egyptian god Sarapis with Joseph of Egypt. Would Paul O. say that this didn't happen because he finds it "Egyptologically incorrect"? His argument is flawed and relies on a vision of religious segregation that was not consistently observed in antiquity. I like Paul, but he's wrong on this one.

[_Ray A]

When Steve Christensen hired me to coauthor a commentary on the BoAbr in the mid '80s, the documentary evidence persuaded me that Joseph Smith likely dictated the BoAbr narrative over approximately five (or so) days split between 1835 and 1842.

Which would mean that the Book of Abraham is really the Book of Joseph.

[_William Schryver]

BM:

When Steve Christensen hired me to coauthor a commentary on the BoAbr in the mid '80s, the documentary evidence persuaded me that Joseph Smith likely dictated the BoAbr narrative over approximately five (or so) days split between 1835 and 1842.

Yes, that's what I expected you to say.

Well, I suppose it wasn't possible for us to agree in toto. I agree on the total time expenditure, however the documentary evidence persuades me that the published portion of the Book of Abraham all dates to 1835; that there was more planned for publication, but that various circumstances conspired to prevent the publication of the rest. That's too bad, because the Book of Abraham, as it currently stands, clearly ends in medias res.

By the way, whatever became of the "commentary" you planned to coauthor? And, who (out of curiosity) was the other author?

[_CaliforniaKid]

I agree on the total time expenditure, however the documentary evidence persuades me that the published portion of the Book of Abraham all dates to 1835; that there was more planned for publication, but that various circumstances conspired to prevent the publication of the rest. That's too bad, because the Book of Abraham, as it currently stands, clearly ends in medias res.

Frankly, there's basically nothing in the documentary evidence that could possibly lead to this conclusion. You have swallowed one of Gee's whales, my friend.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi "CaliforniaKid" (sorry for the formality, I just don't want Harmony to edit my post),

You comment on Will's remarks...

Frankly, there's basically nothing in the documentary evidence that could possibly lead to this conclusion. You have swallowed one of Gee's whales, my friend.

I concur—Will's position lacks evidentiary merit.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_ludwigm]

[_quote="harmony"]
[_quote="Runtu"]
1. Direct translation.
2. Mnemonic device.
3. Missing scroll.
4. Catalyst.
5. Reinterpretation.
[_/quote]
6. He made it all up.
[_/quote]

Is there any reason to employ these theories other than to defend Joseph's title as a prophet?
No.
In other words, why go any further than the most simple, obvious, logical explanation?
Because faith Trump's any simple, obvious, logical explanation.

[_Chap]

Runtu:

Has John published in an academic journal about the Book of Abraham?

Mmmmm ... how best to answer this question?

I guess I'll answer in this fashion: Yes, he has.

But only someone able to read between the lines would realize it at this point.

As I stated earlier, John is patient and methodical -- even subtle, if you will, and I, for one, can appreciate what he's doing and why. Beyond that, I will say nothing more. John has a long-term strategic objective that he is working on, and so far I can detect no tactical missteps in his approach.

Gotta go now. My guitar is calling me ...

(truth dancer, if no one else answers your questions before I return, I'll give it my best shot at that time.)

This reminds me of the people like (If I recall correctly) the Jehovah's witnesses who say that the Second Coming really has happened already, only it was so sacred (or was that secret?) that none of us unholy people noticed it ...

[_EAllusion]

When creationists, or intelligent design theorists if you prefer, claim to have published ID papers in the peer review lit they often are misleading in one of the following ways:

1) They are referring to papers that they published in their normal, non-apologetic line of work that have nothing to do with ID.

2) They are referring to papers that they think contain information that supports ID even though the papers themselves are not in anyway making an explicit case for ID (and are not actually supportive of ID). This almost invariably takes the form of pointing to papers they think argue against the sufficiency of an evolutionary hypothesis.

3) They are referring to papers published in their own in-house incestuous journals that lack any real academic impact and are filled with dubious publishing standards meant to bias in favor of their views. There are lots of "peer-reviewed" creationist journals out there of this type.

In this thread, I think we are looking at a classic example of 2.

[_Some Schmo]

I’m often struck with amazement at the effort critics put into debunking the Book of Abraham. I honestly don’t understand the point. By arguing about it, you actually lend it credibility it doesn’t deserve.

I mean, to seriously contemplate the validity of the Book of Abraham, you have to make an assumption that Joe Smith was actually something more than a con man. Once you realize he was a charlatan, there’s no point in delving into the details, is there?

It’s like taking the time to seriously debunk leprechauns at the end of rainbows. Rainbows are an illusion themselves; knowing that, you don’t need to even consider what at “the end” of them. Why would anyone waste their time, especially when the people who actually believe in leprechauns or the physicality of rainbows can’t be all that bright in the first place? Why expend the effort attempting to change their minds?

[_Chap]

I’m often struck with amazement at the effort critics put into debunking the Book of Abraham. I honestly don’t understand the point. By arguing about it, you actually lend it credibility it doesn’t deserve.

I mean, to seriously contemplate the validity of the Book of Abraham, you have to make an assumption that Joe Smith was actually something more than a con man. Once you realize he was a charlatan, there’s no point in delving into the details, is there?

It’s like taking the time to seriously debunk leprechauns at the end of rainbows. Rainbows are an illusion themselves; knowing that, you don’t need to even consider what at “the end” of them. Why would anyone waste their time, especially when the people who actually believe in leprechauns or the physicality of rainbows can’t be all that bright in the first place? Why expend the effort attempting to change their minds?

Why try to catch fish that you have to throw back into the river afterwards? But people do it for fun.

I have spent a long day far (very far; I couldn't get further) away from home, negotiating matters that will have results that matter a lot to me and to others (it all worked out fine). I have eaten, talked to my folks and sent all my emails, and I need some harmless amusement. Would you rather I watched an 'adult' movie?