Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_Runtu]

I'm no expert, but here are the current theories off the top of my head:

1. Direct translation. This, the de facto church position for 130-plus years, tells us that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham directly from the papyri. Since 1967, when the papyri were rediscovered, this theory has lost pretty much all its adherents, except for Paul Osborne and maybe a few others.

2. Mnemonic device. This theory, once held by such folks as John Tvedtnes, suggests that the characters on the papyri were mnemonic keys for deeper, more complex ideas and words (hence the GAEL's having multiple paragraphs of text represented by a single character).

3. Missing scroll. This theory insists that the source scroll for the Book of Abraham has been lost and therefore cannot be compared for Joseph's ability to translate. This is the current fashionable theory to hold (see Gee's 41 feet of missing scroll, for example).

4. Catalyst. This theory holds that Joseph, upon seeing the papyri, was inspired to write the Book of Abraham, even though it wasn't a translation at all of the papyri.

5. Reinterpretation. This is David B's position, so far as I can tell, and it's not all that different from the catalyst theory. David says that Joseph simply reinterpreted the vignettes on the papyri to suit his own theological aims.

[_harmony]

I'm no expert, but here are the current theories off the top of my head:

1. Direct translation. This, the de facto church position for 130-plus years, tells us that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham directly from the papyri. Since 1967, when the papyri were rediscovered, this theory has lost pretty much all its adherents, except for Paul Osborne and maybe a few others.

2. Mnemonic device. This theory, once held by such folks as John Tvedtnes, suggests that the characters on the papyri were mnemonic keys for deeper, more complex ideas and words (hence the GAEL's having multiple paragraphs of text represented by a single character).

3. Missing scroll. This theory insists that the source scroll for the Book of Abraham has been lost and therefore cannot be compared for Joseph's ability to translate. This is the current fashionable theory to hold (see Gee's 41 feet of missing scroll, for example).

4. Catalyst. This theory holds that Joseph, upon seeing the papyri, was inspired to write the Book of Abraham, even though it wasn't a translation at all of the papyri.

5. Reinterpretation. This is David B's position, so far as I can tell, and it's not all that different from the catalyst theory. David says that Joseph simply reinterpreted the vignettes on the papyri to suit his own theological aims.

6. He made it all up. (which is essentially what David proposes.)

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

If memory serves, the photos were delivered in Kodak boxes (there are over 100 images). And, yes, the photographs are generally truer to the documents because they were color corrected (I'll see if I can do the same with the images that I posted).

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

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Harmony,

My apologies to the good Dr.—I must have been typing in PM mode.

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

[Guest]

I'm no expert, but here are the current theories off the top of my head:

1. Direct translation. This, the de facto church position for 130-plus years, tells us that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham directly from the papyri. Since 1967, when the papyri were rediscovered, this theory has lost pretty much all its adherents, except for Paul Osborne and maybe a few others.

2. Mnemonic device. This theory, once held by such folks as John Tvedtnes, suggests that the characters on the papyri were mnemonic keys for deeper, more complex ideas and words (hence the GAEL's having multiple paragraphs of text represented by a single character).

3. Missing scroll. This theory insists that the source scroll for the Book of Abraham has been lost and therefore cannot be compared for Joseph's ability to translate. This is the current fashionable theory to hold (see Gee's 41 feet of missing scroll, for example).

4. Catalyst. This theory holds that Joseph, upon seeing the papyri, was inspired to write the Book of Abraham, even though it wasn't a translation at all of the papyri.

5. Reinterpretation. This is David B's position, so far as I can tell, and it's not all that different from the catalyst theory. David says that Joseph simply reinterpreted the vignettes on the papyri to suit his own theological aims.

6. He made it all up. (which is essentially what David proposes.)

Is there any reason to employ these theories other than to defend Joseph's title as a prophet? In other words, why go any further than the most simple, obvious, logical explanation?

[_William Schryver]

Hi Will,

If memory serves, the photos were delivered in Kodak boxes (there are over 100 images). And, yes, the photographs are generally truer to the documents because they were color corrected (I'll see if I can do the same with the images that I posted).

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

Thanks for your reply.

That's very interesting. I'm betting it was 100 or 200 ASA Kodacolor Gold. Hard to say for sure, without looking at the negatives. But if they used relatively long exposure times, they could have used some very low speed film with very fine grain. I'll bet you could blow the things up considerably. Have you ever tried?

You also wrote:

Smith may have dictated the BoAbr proper in as little as four or five days.

I'm very intrigued that you think so!

I agree entirely, by the way. I just didn't think you would have reached that conclusion.

Interesting ...

[_Inconceivable]

Smith may have dictated the BoAbr proper in as little as four or five days.

How do you arrive at this speculation?

If he did dictate it in such a short time, why was the book not shared immediately? Wasn't anyone interested? I think I would have, mummy story and all.

Before Smith even received the golden plates, he spoke of the stories the work alledgedly contained (for several years even). I site this as a feature of his character or an expectation of what he would have done in regards to what he claimed was contained within the writings of the Papyri. He was not one to keep non-secrets secret.

He also mentioned at the onset that the scrolls contained the record of Joseph. This translation must have died inside of his head. If it were so important, why not take a few more hours and bang that out? Evidently he didn't figure anyone else was interested in additional revelations from his God?

[_Inconceivable]

I'm no expert, but here are the current theories off the top of my head:

1. Direct translation.
2. Mnemonic device.
3. Missing scroll.
4. Catalyst.
5. Reinterpretation.

Good grief.

ok, all you theorlogeans,

Cut the crap.

Which one of you apologists actually fasted and prayed about which one of these has God's finger pointing to it? What did He say?

I'm mean, c'mon. Some of you dedicate your entire lives (at least careers) in coming to the knowledge of the truth of such things. Yet, you claim the entitlement to continuous (not sporatic) revelation as representatives of the Lord Jesus Christ?

What is the more important answer to prayer, finding your car keys or settling an issue that has caused contentions and destruction of faith for at least 40 years?

Aren't you guys righteous enough? If so, anyone here ever petition your prophet to ask?

..or would it ruin your craft (book deals, speaking engagements, tenure, self importance..)?

Meldrum is one of the few I have a notion to respect. At least he claims that his God inspired him.

[_Brackite]

Thanks for the links, Brackite,

Seems there is always a reference to something that has been lost or otherwise misplaced.

You wonder why it is nearly always the important stuff and not the inconsequencial musings of a lowly uninspired scribe.

You are Welcome, Inconceivable!

As this thread shows, Gee's attempt to use a formula to derive an original scroll length of anything like 1200 cm does not hold water at all.

(I don't care, by the way, whether the formula was originally derived by Santa's elves: Gee decided to use it, and Gee must stand by the results. Mathematics stands or falls by itself; it is not a topic where appeals to authority have any value or relevance.)

Thanks for the Hyperlink, Chap!

[_William Schryver]

As this thread shows ...

Look, I'm as much an advocate of autodidactics as the next guy. But it just strikes me as somewhat ironic that a bunch of untrained amateurs posting on an obscure message board can proclaim to have so easily contradicted the published findings of a respected Egyptologist ("As this thread shows ...") via their potent powers of rhetorical fiat.

John said it well:

... someone who merely publishes in academic journals cannot hope to compete with those who can actually get their ideas out on internet message boards.