Does Gee Have a Testimony of the Missing Papyrus Theory?

[_Enuma Elish]

I think we should take Em's words under consideration, but ultimately, I do believe that Gee is bearing testimony here.

And I also think that John is bearing testimony here (just not a spiritual one). The ironic point is that Chris can bear that same witness. With John Gee, Chris can testify that we do not have a copy of the papyrus scroll from which the Book of Abraham was translated.

For Chris, however, that scroll never existed; for John it's simply missing.

I see nothing controversial with simply stating the obvious: we do not have a copy of the papyrus roll from which the Book of Abraham was translated.

Now if John had testified that we do not have a copy of the papyrus scroll that was used to produce the Book of Abraham we would clearly have something interesting to debate.

best

[_CaliforniaKid]

And I also think that John is bearing testimony here (just not a spiritual one). The ironic point is that Chris can bear that same witness. With John Gee, Chris can testify that we do not have a copy of the papyrus scroll from which the Book of Abraham was translated.
[...]
I see nothing controversial with simply stating the obvious: we do not have a copy of the papyrus roll from which the Book of Abraham was translated.

Hi David,

This is what I meant by fundamentalist assumptions. There are those-- yourself included, I had thought-- who have argued that "translation" meant for Joseph something other than conventional, literal translation as we usually conceive it. Gee's testimony that "we do not have a copy of the papyrus roll from which the Book of Abraham was translated" seems to me to assume a conventional, literal meaning for the word.

I would not bear the testimony you described above, if only because I don't believe the Book of Abraham was 'translated' at all. So when I speak of the translation of the Book, I am always referring to alleged or ostensible translation. And we do, in fact, have the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was allegedly translated.

Best,

-Chris

[_Runtu]

Hi David,

This is what I meant by fundamentalist assumptions. There are those-- yourself included, I had thought-- who have argued that "translation" meant for Joseph something other than conventional, literal translation as we usually conceive it. Gee's testimony that "we do not have a copy of the papyrus roll from which the Book of Abraham was translated" seems to me to assume a conventional, literal meaning for the word.

I would not bear the testimony you described above, if only because I don't believe the Book of Abraham was 'translated' at all. So when I speak of the translation of the Book, I am always referring to alleged or ostensible translation. And we do, in fact, have the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was allegedly translated.

Best,

-Chris

Yes, and the facsimiles with their attendant translations suggest that Joseph understood the word "translation" as you describe.

[_dartagnan]

I hope you're still on top of the Book of Abraham issue Chris, because I don't have time anymore to keep up with it. Not that there is much to keep up with anymore. Any word of when Brent's book will be published?

[_CaliforniaKid]

I hope you're still on top of the Book of Abraham issue Chris, because I don't have time anymore to keep up with it. Not that there is much to keep up with anymore. Any word of when Brent's book will be published?

It sounds like his book is a ways out yet. He expects Brian's to be published first. For what it's worth, I just submitted to JWHA a paper titled "The Dependence of Abraham 1:1-3 on the Kirtland Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet." The translation timeline paper had become unmanageably long, so Don and I agreed that I should split some of my work off and publish it separately as a sort of preliminary piece. Assuming my proposal to Sunstone West gets accepted, I will also be presenting there an argument against the missing papyrus theory.

[_CaliforniaKid]

By the way, Kevin, there's also an essay by Sam Brown on the KEP coming out in Church History next month.

[_dartagnan]

I think both parties are waiting for the other to make the first publication.

This stalemate is boring.

How long will it go on?

It was two years ago when both sides were talking about their "upcoming" publication on the subject. I talked to Brent more than a year ago and he said he was just waiting on Ritner to come up with the final draft of his essay, so I figured that everything else was pretty much set and ready to go.

[_Daniel Peterson]

By the way, Kevin, there's also an essay by Sam Brown on the KEP coming out in Church History next month.

It's already out.

A pretty good article.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Kevin,

That may be, but my impression is that it's Brent's own work that's holding the project up.

Dan,

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have to run down to Sac State and make a copy!

-Chris