Critics ignore the real 800 pound Book of Abraham Gorilla in the room

[_Jersey Girl]

I realize that I seem to have descended into a severe case of massive stupidity lately but having said that....what possible darn difference does it make how long a scroll was or what might be missing from it or what the heck ever when...

the Facsimilies are right there in the Book of Abraham along with Joseph Smith's "translation" of them, when the "translation" backs the text of the Book of Abraham and when Egyptologists themselves state that said "translation" is totally out to lunch to begin with?

That makes two stupid questions in the last few days. I'm going for 3 so please stay tuned.

[_Jersey Girl]

And then...if you present that to apologists, the next thing you're gonna get is well, Joseph was looking at the Facsimilies with his spiritual eyes or some such thing and it just never ends, does it? So, now we've got to predict the size of a scroll because we think that parts are missing.

Uh huh.

And if parts truly are missing how does that change the fact that Egyptologist totally discredit Joseph's "translation" of the Facsimilies that back the text of the Book of Abraham.

Well, it's because there might be more you see....but parts are missing....how big were those rolls?

Is the whole purpose of apologetics to consistently redirect the focus of thought on ALL of these issues?

Never mind. Rhetorical question that.

It would be nice just once....to see a Labyrinth instead of a Maze.

[_Droopy]

Coggins,

I'm impressed that you've apparently taken the time to familiarize yourself with some of the sources (or, at least, to duplicate here some missing papyrus theorist's arguments). You are of course mistaken in several respects, and I may return here in a couple days to explain why (as I am short on time at the moment). But in the meantime, I really think you should familiarize yourself with the prima facie argument for PJS XI as the source of the Book of Abraham. That we do not have Joseph's entire collection is really irrelevant if the source of the Book of Abraham is not among the missing material. Cf. http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_5.html

1. I've been familiar with the general evidence regarding the historical case for the rather large quantity of missing text for many years.

2. I am not mistaken. The eyewitness accounts stand as they are. The mistakes reside in the highly detailed arcana of the textual and forensic evidence from which critics have built up a body of critical minutia with which they believe they have demonstrated the source for the Book of Abraham, and the KEP as a primary working template for the translation process.

3. The problem with this, as I have followed if here and in other forums is really quite straightforward: the text critical and forensic evidence on both sides is plausible, at least given some legitimate previous body of assumptions, but neither, including most definitely the critics arguments, are in any way conclusive. The historical as well as empirical (the fragments we have do not match the descriptions given of Book of Abraham source material in historical accounts) evidence for the present material not being the source are quite substantial. The critics historical reconstructions are purely theoretical in nature, and, while there is nothing wrong with this, the reliance of such an approach matched with a determined and stubborn ignoring of what actual eyewitnesses to the original texts say, bespeaks something else at work here.

4. We may conveniently forget Graham's emotion charged denunciations of anyone who disagrees with him and his master at arms, Brent Metcalfe, as Graham is clearly bringing psychological and emotional baggage into the debate that implies far more at stake for him then the technical details of the origins of a historical religious text. He can't even debate Will for very long without the inevitable slide into smarmy pokes at his intelligence and intellectual competence. He can't stand me because I can see through his Horse nuggets at stand off range. What is that? Simple. Graham's claims for his own theory (and Metcalfe's) go well beyond what could legitimately be said for them empirically or inferentially. They are very far from the cock sure air of certitude that is Graham's forté when discussing issues for which the actual facts and evidence fall far short of what KG would prefer.

So, the debate over the Book of Abraham continues (as it should), while some keep up the pose in its wake.

[_Jersey Girl]

Coggins,

I'm impressed that you've apparently taken the time to familiarize yourself with some of the sources (or, at least, to duplicate here some missing papyrus theorist's arguments). You are of course mistaken in several respects, and I may return here in a couple days to explain why (as I am short on time at the moment). But in the meantime, I really think you should familiarize yourself with the prima facie argument for PJS XI as the source of the Book of Abraham. That we do not have Joseph's entire collection is really irrelevant if the source of the Book of Abraham is not among the missing material. Cf. http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_5.html

1. I've been familiar with the general evidence regarding the historical case for the rather large quantity of missing text for many years.

2. I am not mistaken. The eyewitness accounts stand as they are. The mistakes reside in the highly detailed arcana of the textual and forensic evidence from which critics have built up a body of critical minutia with which they believe they have demonstrated the source for the Book of Abraham, and the KEP as a primary working template for the translation process.

3. The problem with this, as I have followed if here and in other forums is really quite straightforward: the text critical and forensic evidence on both sides is plausible, at least given some legitimate previous body of assumptions, but neither, including most definitely the critics arguments, are in any way conclusive. The historical as well as empirical (the fragments we have do not match the descriptions given of Book of Abraham source material in historical accounts) evidence for the present material not being the source are quite substantial. The critics historical reconstructions are purely theoretical in nature, and, while there is nothing wrong with this, the reliance of such an approach matched with a determined and stubborn ignoring of what actual eyewitnesses to the original texts say, bespeaks something else at work here.

4. We may conveniently forget Graham's emotion charged denunciations of anyone who disagrees with him and his master at arms, Brent Metcalfe, as Graham is clearly bringing psychological and emotional baggage into the debate that implies far more at stake for him then the technical details of the origins of a historical religious text. He can't even debate Will for very long without the inevitable slide into smarmy pokes at his intelligence and intellectual competence. He can't stand me because I can see through his Horse nuggets at stand off range. What is that? Simple. Graham's claims for his own theory (and Metcalfe's) go well beyond what could legitimately be said for them empirically or inferentially. They are very far from the cock sure air of certitude that is Graham's forté when discussing issues for which the actual facts and evidence fall far short of what KG would prefer.

So, the debate over the Book of Abraham continues (as it should), while some keep up the pose in its wake.

I rest my frickin' case. At least a portion of the source material is straight up in the Book of Abraham with comments from Joseph Smith. Egyptologists nailed it as out to lunch back in the 1800's and continue to do so to this very day.

[_William Schryver]

Jersey Girl:

I realize that I seem to have descended into a severe case of massive stupidity lately but having said that....what possible darn difference does it make how long a scroll was or what might be missing from it or what the heck ever when...

the Facsimilies are right there in the Book of Abraham along with Joseph Smith's "translation" of them …

There is actually a lively and growing debate about just how “incorrect” Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles really are. Of course, no one on this board reads Egyptological journals, so they aren’t aware of the discussion being had there concerning the way Ptolemaic-era Egyptians would have used and interpreted the classic vignettes from the Book of the Dead; therefore they aren’t even in a position to consider the implications of that debate on the questions surrounding the Joseph Smith Papyri.

And I’m quite content to let them continue in their state of “bombastic certitude.”

… when the "translation" backs the text of the Book of Abraham …

I’m not certain what you mean by this, but I think you are making reference to the long-insinuated connection between the text of the Letter of Fellowship Made by Isis (the so-called “Book of Breathings”) and the English text of the Book of Abraham. That is the larger issue that is impacted by the discussions we’ve been pursuing both here and on the MAD board for the past two years. And contrary to the “bombastic certitude” expressed by several “experts” here and there, the jury is still very much out when it comes to that issue.

[_Droopy]

In 1906, President Joseph F. Smith, while visiting Nauvoo, told Preston Nibley of a childhood experience in which he observed "Uncle Joseph" working on a copious quantity of papyrus roll, which "when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.

This Point has already been addressed, dealt with, and refuted on this Discussion Board, a while ago. The Following is from the Discussion Thread Titled, 'In Search for the Missing Papyrus', Here on MD Board, a while ago:

Hi There,
The Following is from Brent Metcalfe [who] wrote several years ago about this, on the Zion Lighthouse Board:

In the Improvement Era, Hugh informs readers that Preston Nibley had supplied the Joseph F. Smith account. Preston published his 1906 encounter with Joseph F. in the early 1940's (if memory serves), but omitted the recollection about the BoAbr papyri. According to Preston, in 1906 Joseph F. was recalling an event that occurred over six decades earlier when Smith was 5 years old, or younger. Four years later, in 1910, Hugh was born. Before Preston died (in the mid 1960's?) he related Joseph F.'s recollection to Hugh. Finally, Hugh published the reminiscence in the mid/late 1960's. Given this transmission history, scholars would be reckless to uncritically appeal to Joseph F.'s story as an unblemished depiction of the BoAbr papyri.

( Brent Metcalfe, Zion Lighthouse Message Board, 2003 )

Man, it is even worse than I thought. And that, friends, is probably the best evidence for the missing text. Feast your eyes and gasp in amazement.

It's worse still. Nibley published two different versions of the same reminiscence:

"President Smith (as Elder Nibley recollected with his remarkable memory) recalled with tears the familiar sight of 'Uncle Joseph' kneeling on the floor of the front room with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, weighted down by rocks and books, as with intense concentration he would study a line of characters, jotting down his impressions in a little notebook as he went." --Hugh W. Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," Improvement Era (March 1968): 17–18

"We are told that they were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House." - Hugh W. Nibley, "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri - Translations and Interpretations - Phase One," Dialogue 3:2 (Summer 1968): 99-105

In the latter case he doesn't even identify his source, and he just sort of throws it out there randomly. Given Nibley's laziness about citations and the frequency with which he worked from his somewhat faulty memory, it seems altogeter probable that the Preston Nibley account gradually became amplified in his mind as it took on greater significance in terms of being able to answer certain critics' arguments.

-Chris

Here is the Hyperlink to this whole Discussion thread: Please Click Here:

The problem with this entire exercise is, of course, that it does nothing to refute the existence of such a roll of text or President Smith's recollection of them. Its a variable that should be taken into consideration, but as it stands alone, without any other substantive proof that such a roll did not exist (and, as I have already posted, there were at least several such rolls, not just two, and at least to book-like texts, all of which are not now extent)), its something to take into consideration, but nothing more.

Metcalfe makes a big deal (as he, of course, must) out of the transmission history, while conveniently forgetting that such a recollection is perfectly plausible given what we already know about the original texts, there being at least three rolls of papyrus and at least two book-like texts.

Metcalfe's technique here is to cast doubt, as a lawyer would, by impugning the evidence by implying the possibility of some kind of error in transmission (including, by innuendo, that President Smith, being only five years old, imagined the entire thing) without really having any substantive historical evidence with which to do so.

[_Droopy]

I rest my frickin' case. At least a portion of the source material is straight up in the Book of Abraham with comments from Joseph Smith. Egyptologists nailed it as out to lunch back in the 1800's and continue to do so to this very day.

Neither you, nor KG, nor Metcalfe, nor any Egyptologist on this planet has any such conclusive knowledge.

And that is where the rubber really need to begin hitting the road here. Critics really, really need to begin setting certain limits on their claims, regardless of how they feel about the Church per se, about the state of their own evidence. They really need to begin defining much better the boundaries between fact, theory, hypothesis, and pure guesswork.

The debate would proceed much more productively were this to be the case.

[_Jersey Girl]

I rest my frickin' case. At least a portion of the source material is straight up in the Book of Abraham with comments from Joseph Smith. Egyptologists nailed it as out to lunch back in the 1800's and continue to do so to this very day.

Neither you, nor KG, nor Metcalfe, nor any Egyptologist on this planet has any such conclusive knowledge.

And that is where the rubber really need to begin hitting the road here. Critics really, really need to begin setting certain limits on their claims, regardless of how they feel about the Church per se, about the state of their own evidence. They really need to begin defining much better the boundaries between fact, theory, hypothesis, and pure guesswork.

The debate would proceed much more productively were this to be the case.

Let me begin by saying that you're a first class idiot who can't think his way out of a paper bag, Loran. Having said that, my remarks had nothing whatsoever to do with the evidences of critics. They have to do with the evidences found in your own Book of Abraham. You would rather throw the whole of Egyptology, Egyptian history and archaeology straight out the window than put the development of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon into cultural context and realize that your whole entire religion is based on the fraud of Joseph Smith and others.

Egyptologists can read the characters as you presumably can read the words in this post.

Instead of coming to terms with that fact, people like you would rather attempt to distort Egyptian history and even go to the desperate lengths of throwing your own Prophet and everything he claimed as well as what the so called witnesses claimed about him and the Book of Abraham directly under the bus in order to protect yourself from the obvious truth that Joseph Smith and others spun a lie and you yourself are living it.

The public tap dance that your church did on Manuscript Story should be just a little bit of a tip off that nothing comes to you straight up and honestly from your church.

[_Droopy]

In all actuality, the real 800 pound Gorilla in the room isn't the missing textual material. The real problem for any critic of the Book of Abraham is the manner in which the Book of Abraham appears to have restored numerous aspects of First Temple Judaism; the ancient, pre-Babylonian exile religion of the Israelites that included the themes and motifs of celestial ascent, plurality of gods, the Great Angel (Yahweh, son of El), an anthropomorphic God who could appear directly to human beings, the heavenly hosts ("sons" of God in the heavenly realms), and a coming messiah.

Further are the quite astonishing parallels between the picture of Abraham we have in the Book of Abraham and that we now have through the discovery of ancient documents that Joseph simply did not have, and no one even suspected existed. Of course, numerous other ancient texts, including, most importantly, the Enoch literature (especially 1 Enoch), a variety of ancient Pseudopigraphal texts, and a fascinating corpus of early Christian documents, including Christian Gnostic texts, supply us with amply evidence that what Joseph claimed to have restored was hardly anthying new, either in the early Christian or ancient Judaic context.

Lost, forgotten, suppressed, and stamped out yes, but hardly any concoction of Joseph's imagination.

[_Jersey Girl]

In all actuality, the real 800 pound Gorilla in the room isn't the missing textual material. The real problem for any critic of the Book of Abraham is the manner in which the Book of Abraham appears to have restored numerous aspects of First Temple Judaism; the ancient, pre-Babylonian exile religion of the Israelites that included the themes and motifs of celestial ascent, plurality of gods, the Great Angel (Yahweh, son of El), an anthropomorphic God who could appear directly to human beings, the heavenly hosts ("sons" of God in the heavenly realms), and a coming messiah.

Further are the quite astonishing parallels between the picture of Abraham we have in the Book of Abraham and that we now have through the discovery of ancient documents that Joseph simply did not have, and no one even suspected existed. Of course, numerous other ancient texts, including, most importantly, the Enoch literature (especially 1 Enoch), a variety of ancient Pseudopigraphal texts, and a fascinating corpus of early Christian documents, including Christian Gnostic texts, supply us with amply evidence that what Joseph claimed to have restored was hardly anthying new, either in the early Christian or ancient Judaic context.

Lost, forgotten, suppressed, and stamped out yes, but hardly any concoction of Joseph's imagination.

I disagree. The 800 pound Gorilla in the room is the denial of people like you who instead of making attempts at church reform will sit idly by and spin your wheels in this circular and intellectually bankrupt lunacy at the expense of every member in your church.