Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_bcspace]

You might want to avail yourself of Book of Abraham for Dummies

The Book of Abraham IS for dummies!

Only dummies copy one of the comments.

[_truth dancer]

I know you don’t realize that you’re asking silly questions, but you are. And I guess it’s just fine for you to do so. After all, it’s proven to be a fruitful field for amateurs and ignorant people of all stripes. Look at me! The field was so absent of cutters, that even I was able to find something to talk about when I waded into the long grass.

Asking questions is the way to learn. I'm not really concerned if you think my questions are silly or not. I'm just trying to make sense of it all. Personally, I think people should ask more questions than they do.

The “originals” of what? Do you know what you’re asking?

I'm asking if the LDS church is in possession of the original papyri from which the photos were taken? Are they not available to whomever the LDS church wishes to share them?

He was the last one to work with the “originals” until the 21st century.

Is there some reason the LDS church has not allowed experts and scholars to view the original papyri? Again, the actual writings of Abraham must certainly be one of the most amazing discoveries of our time. Why not send the papyri to the Smithsonian or Nat Geo or somewhere?

~td~

[_TAK]

Only dummies copy one of the comments.

Not when spot on..

[_William Schryver]

td:

Asking questions is the way to learn. I'm not really concerned if you think my questions are silly or not. I'm just trying to make sense of it all. Personally, I think people should ask more questions than they do.

Fair enough.

I'm asking if the LDS church is in possession of the original papyri from which the photos were taken? Are they not available to whomever the LDS church wishes to share them?

The “photos” that Metcalfe has had are not of the papyri. There is only a small fraction of the original papyri that has survived to the present time. What Metcalfe has had photos of, and what I have scans of a portion of, are what is called the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. No matter what anyone says at this point in time, and I mean everyone, no one has a good explanation for what the KEP are.

Is there some reason the LDS church has not allowed experts and scholars to view the original papyri?

Several people, including experts and scholars, have examined the papyri over the years.

Again, the actual writings of Abraham must certainly be one of the most amazing discoveries of our time.

There are no writings of Abraham on the surviving papyri.

I have assumed that you are asking your questions sincerely. I have responded in a similar fashion. I hope it helps you understand some part of the issue and its accompanying complicating factors.

[_Dwight Frye]

I follow Book of Abraham threads (here and at MAD) even when I don't fully grasp the significance of what is being discussed (which is most of the time), but I guess I need the bottom line spelled out for me: What, exactly, is at stake when definitive conclusions can be drawn on things like oral dictation, or cc as opposed to c, or interlinear insertions at Abr. 1:12, or what can be duplicated with a quill pen? (I could go on listing more topics with significance that eludes me, but you get my drift.)

I imagine my grasp of Book of Abraham issues is more or less at a By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus-level, so I honestly have difficulty in understanding what the critics have at stake (or the LDS have to gain) if and when the above conflicts (and others) are resolved in the mopologists' favor. with regard to to those Book of Abraham issues that are discussed by Will, Chris, and Brent (and Prof Hauglid on rare occassion) on the innerwebz, is there a place to which one can turn for a primer on these topics so one can easily see their impact on determining the authenticity of the Book of Abraham? A book? A website? It'd be awesome if someone brilliant compiled a "Book of Abraham Issues for Dummies" for the Dwight Fryes of the world who're new to the game and trying to catch up.

[_Brackite]

Could it be because all you really understand about the debate is how to cut and paste links to message board threads?

Dear William,

Was I right or not when I stated that; Most of the LDS Apologists believe in the Missing Papyrus Theory for the Book of Abraham.?

Two of the Links, I gave out was to the FAIR Wiki Web Sites.

[_Kishkumen]

I also remain persuaded that these papyri have a relationship to Ptolemaic Jewish thought and practices, and that an Abraham text did appear on the lost portion of papyrus (the extant portion representing only a mere fraction of the original whole). That, of course, differs from Bokovoy's thinking in a very significant way.

And that's about as much of an answer as you'll ever get from me on this particular message board ...

What is the basis for your belief that these papyri and the Book of Abraham "have a relationship to Ptolemaic Jewish thought and practices" (and a roughly contemporaneous one)?

What, other than the existence of the supposed translation of the Book of Abraham, suggests that the missing portion of the papyrus contained the Book of Abraham? If it is missing, one cannot know with any confidence what was on it!

Personally, I'll go with David Bokovoy on this one.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I only have a minute, but please note that you are mistaken when you claim,

The “photos” that Metcalfe has had are not of the papyri. There is only a small fraction of the original papyri that has survived to the present time. What Metcalfe has had photos of, and what I have scans of a portion of, are what is called the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

My photographs (why the quotation marks around "photos"?) are—with the exception of two or three pages—full-color, actual-size reproductions of the entire BoAbr collection, papyri and all...

... recto...





... and verso...





Cheers,

</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

[_Brackite]

Hi Will,

I only have a minute, but please note that you are mistaken when you claim,

The “photos” that Metcalfe has had are not of the papyri. There is only a small fraction of the original papyri that has survived to the present time. What Metcalfe has had photos of, and what I have scans of a portion of, are what is called the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

My photographs (why the quotation marks around "photos"?) are—with the exception of two or three pages—full-color, actual-size reproductions of the entire BoAbr collection, papyri and all...

... recto...





... and verso...





Cheers,

</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

Nice Photographs, Brent.

[_William Schryver]

BM:

My photographs (why the quotation marks around "photos"?) are—with the exception of two or three pages—full-color, actual-size reproductions of the entire BoAbr collection, papyri and all...

Sure enough!

I did not know that.

Or maybe I once did and then forgot.

In any case, I was clearly wrong on that point. I stand corrected.

And, to tell you the truth, I don't know why I put quotes around "photos." Just quote happy, I guess. I've always maintained that your photos are of the finest quality. I've seen nothing to persuade me otherwise. In fact, just out of curiosity, what kind of film stock was used for them? Do you know? I only ask because, the only thing "negative" (pardon the pun) that I would ever say (and this is a very minor criticism) is that I don't think the film stock and lighting were perfectly matched. The white balance seems biased towards the red end of the spectrum. Then again, I've only ever seen them on a computer monitor. Perhaps the actual photos don't manifest that.