The Book of Abraham - Complex or Simple?

[_Trevor]

Yep, this is the Chewbacca Defenseat its best. The simple answer is that in the places where we have a surviving facsimile and Joseph's "translation" of said facsimile, the translation is bogus. The papyrus in question come from the wrong time and place and have no relation to the story of Abraham. But folks like Will Schryver will tell us that our understanding is really shallow. Why? Because we haven't bought the Chewbacca Defense.

You nailed it. Brilliant.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Mad Viking,

Part of the problem with the Book of Abraham is that there are many scrolls and documents associated with it, produced by many scribes. I think the Book of Abraham is a pretty simple KO, but to have a full understanding of the issues takes a little work. This is especially true since the apologists have worked so hard to sow confusion.

An excellent place to start is By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles Larson. Alternatively, roughly the same material is covered in Kevin Mathie's online book, Examining the Book of Abraham. Another great book on the subject is H. Donl Peterson's Story of the Book of Abraham. Peterson avoids the controversial stuff, but gives lots of helpful historical information. I also enjoyed the Tanners' chapter on the Book of Abraham in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? Larson basically plagiarized the Tanners' work. And while he made it more accessible, quite a bit gets lost in translation. The Tanners had a way of exposing apologists' folly that makes for fun reading.

Best,

-Chris

[_Mad Viking]

Mad Viking,

Part of the problem with the Book of Abraham is that there are many scrolls and documents associated with it, produced by many scribes. I think the Book of Abraham is a pretty simple KO, but to have a full understanding of the issues takes a little work. This is especially true since the apologists have worked so hard to sow confusion.

An excellent place to start is By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles Larson. Alternatively, roughly the same material is covered in Kevin Mathie's online book, Examining the Book of Abraham. Another great book on the subject is H. Donl Peterson's Story of the Book of Abraham. Peterson avoids the controversial stuff, but gives lots of helpful historical information. I also enjoyed the Tanners' chapter on the Book of Abraham in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? Larson basically plagiarized the Tanners' work. And while he made it more accessible, quite a bit gets lost in translation. The Tanners had a way of exposing apologists' folly that makes for fun reading.

Best,

-Chris

Charles Larson's book is one of my most prized books. If it weren't for that damn last chapter, that is. My original point was to poll others as to their impressions about the complexity of the issue. I used to get caught up in arguing about lost scrolls, what the scribes said, what the KEP contain, and what the papyrii say. The whole thing is fascinating and I think one could spend a lifetime studying it. BUT, if one wants to determine whether Joseph could translate Egyptian or not, I think one needs to look no further than Facsimile #2 & #3. They need only compare this with what someone who can actually read Egyptian says the translation is.

Incidentally, my wife asked me how we know whether Egyptologists can really translate Egyptian. I asked her how she knows her brother spoke Spanish on his mission.

[_Brackite]

Simple. Joseph made it up. Or wrote what God inspired him to write. Whatever it was, it wasn't a translation of the scroll.

Amen, Harmony!!.

[_Droopy]

Simple. Joseph made it up. Or wrote what God inspired him to write. Whatever it was, it wasn't a translation of the scroll.

It wasn't a translation from the materials we now have, that's pretty much a settled issue. The real issue is what the text actually says, and the parallels within that text to what numerous ancient texts, now available but unavailable in Joseph's day, also say...about a number of interesting things.

But harmony cares not to pursue a knowledge or education in these matters past Brent Metcalf's facile forensic dabblings.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Ask your favorite female MA&D apologist!


Or male mopologist!

[_sunstoned]

Simple. Joseph made it up. Or wrote what God inspired him to write. Whatever it was, it wasn't a translation of the scroll.

It wasn't a translation from the materials we now have, that's pretty much a settled issue. The real issue is what the text actually says, and the parallels within that text to what numerous ancient texts, now available but unavailable in Joseph's day, also say...about a number of interesting things.

But harmony cares not to pursue a knowledge or education in these matters past Brent Metcalf's facile forensic dabblings.

The real issue is did Joseph Smith do what he claimed he did. Pure and simple. He claimed to translate a document that was written by Abraham. This claim was stated very clearly by Joseph Smith many times. We have Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the facsimile #2 and #3, and we have the original papyrus of these facsimiles. Guess what? The Joseph Smith translation is bogus. Not even close. Conclusion? HE LIED. This evidence alone would be enough to convict him of fraud in any court in the land. Missing scrolls and catalyst theories are just smokescreens made up by desperate people.

[_Chap]

Simple. Joseph made it up. Or wrote what God inspired him to write. Whatever it was, it wasn't a translation of the scroll.

It wasn't a translation from the materials we now have, that's pretty much a settled issue. The real issue is what the text actually says, and the parallels within that text to what numerous ancient texts, now available but unavailable in Joseph's day, also say...about a number of interesting things.

But harmony cares not to pursue a knowledge or education in these matters past Brent Metcalf's facile forensic dabblings.

The real issue is did Joseph Smith do what he claimed he did. Pure and simple. He claimed to translate a document that was written by Abraham. This claim was stated very clearly by Joseph Smith many times. We have Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the facsimile #2 and #3, and we have the original papyrus of these facsimiles. Guess what? The Joseph Smith translation is bogus. Not even close. Conclusion? HE LIED. This evidence alone would be enough to convict him of fraud in any court in the land. Missing scrolls and catalyst theories are just smokescreens made up by desperate people.

The facsimiles nail it.

Smith told us what the labels above the figures' heads allegedly say, but the actual hieroglyphs say something quite unrelated. There is absolutely no doubt about which pictures he was talking about. since the facsimiles were published in Times and Seasons under his editorship. He was a liar and a fantasist: we shall never be quite sure which of those was the major ingredient of his character, but it doesn't matter much for our present purposes.

Given that, there is as much point in searching for ancient parallels in the Book of Abraham as there is in looking for them in the Book of Zelph:

http://www.bookofzelph.com/

[_Runtu]

Simple. Joseph made it up. Or wrote what God inspired him to write. Whatever it was, it wasn't a translation of the scroll.

It wasn't a translation from the materials we now have, that's pretty much a settled issue.

The problem for apologists like you is that some of materials we now have (particularly the facsimiles) have clear and unequivocal "translations" from Joseph Smith. He even helpfully numbered the figures so we would know which part translates to what. The translation is bogus, not even close, way off. Case closed.

The real issue is what the text actually says, and the parallels within that text to what numerous ancient texts, now available but unavailable in Joseph's day, also say...about a number of interesting things.

The reason the apologists tell us this is the "real issue" is that they know the game is over when you look at the actual translations of the facsimiles. You might as well be asking us to find parallels between ancient Sumerian kingship rituals and a UTA bus pass. But you know that already. Hence your adoption of the Chewbacca Defense.

But harmony cares not to pursue a knowledge or education in these matters past Brent Metcalf's facile forensic dabblings.

"Facile dabblings." That's so beautiful, coming from you. I daresay that Brent has spent a hell of a lot more time with the Book of Abraham and the papyri than you have.

[_Mad Viking]

Simple. Joseph made it up. Or wrote what God inspired him to write. Whatever it was, it wasn't a translation of the scroll.

It wasn't a translation from the materials we now have, that's pretty much a settled issue. The real issue is what the text actually says, and the parallels within that text to what numerous ancient texts, now available but unavailable in Joseph's day, also say...about a number of interesting things.

But harmony cares not to pursue a knowledge or education in these matters past Brent Metcalf's facile forensic dabblings.

This is exactly what my original post was driving at. I assume that you feel that the validity of the Book of Abraham is a complicated matter.

The parrallels you bring up are interesting. I won't deny that. But, if Joseph couldn't translate the Egyptian on a couple of small vignettes, how are we to expect him to translate the Egyptian (or any language for that matter) on a missing scroll that may or may not exist.

The Book of Abraham "question" can be boiled down to one very simple inquiry. Take a look at Facsimile #3. There is an individual sitting on a throne/chair. Is that Osiris as any Egyptologist who has looked at the facsimile says it is? OR, is that Abraham as Joseph Smith said it was? It really is that simple.

Unless of course, Joseph Smith just has to be a prophet.