Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_Dr. Shades]

I never suggested that these two findings, considered in isolation, would "vindicate Joseph Smith's translation of the papyrii."

In that case, I fail to see the importance of the exercise.

However, they do go far to contradicting two popular critical arguments that date clear back to Ashment; arguments that have been accepted as "givens" for many years, and that have been significant components of the larger package of presumed critical supremacy in the world of Book of Abraham studies.

By "arguments," you're referring to the critical claim that two or so of the Book of Abraham translation manuscripts were taken by dictation, right?

Let's say that they were indeed produced by copying an earlier manuscript. How does that help the Book of Abraham in any way?

[_William Schryver]

Shades:

By "arguments," you're referring to the critical claim that two or so of the Book of Abraham translation manuscripts were taken by dictation, right?

That’s not quite accurate, I’m afraid. You would have come closer had you said something like, “… referring to the claim that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers contain the translation manuscripts of the Book of Abraham.”

But you didn’t. And it’s because you don’t really have any grasp of what is, quite admittedly, a complex and somewhat convoluted set of questions.

Let's say that they were indeed produced by copying an earlier manuscript. How does that help the Book of Abraham in any way?

Ask Metcalfe. I’m sure he understands why. But I’m not going to go to any effort to bring you up to speed. At least not here and not now. I do intend to explain, for a more “general audience,” the implications of some of the recent research findings, as soon as I get a break from pressing obligations – you know, making a living and whatnot. I will post that summary in the School of the Pundits on the MAD board, where you will be free, if so inclined, to peruse it.

[_William Schryver]

John:

Anyway, what I'm wondering is, if they were trying to translate the same material that Joseph did, why did they choose the parts of the scrolls that are still extant, that we know have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham?

Sometimes I am convinced that no one pays attention to anything that gets said on this issue. You are so convinced that your position is unassailable, that you don’t even take the time to try to understand what is being said.

First, no one is suggesting that they were trying to “translate the same material that Joseph did.” There would be no logic behind that.

On the other hand, there is some indication that certain of these men, especially Phelps, were extremely taken with the idea of coming to understand this ancient Egyptian stuff. If they had in their hands something they believed to be an actual translation of a portion of the text, I can easily see how they might have been tempted to use that “translation” as a “primer” to help them decipher the corresponding Egyptian text from which the “translation” was drawn.

Why didn't they use the part of the scrolls that actually contained the Book of Abraham?

<sigh>

As I have said at least a hundred times (or more!) during the past three years: The logical answer is that: they didn’t know what Egyptian text was the Book of Abraham. Why would they have known?

I have my doubts that Joseph Smith even knew which Egyptian text corresponded to the Book of Abraham. We know he didn’t when it came to the Book of Mormon. Oh, sure, he knew that the big pile of plates contained the Book of Alma somewhere inside it, but he couldn’t have pointed to a page and said, “There’s Alma’s discourse on faith.”

Similarly, he knew that the scroll contained the Egyptian text of a Book of Abraham. But this long scroll probably contained several texts, and I don’t believe it was deemed necessary for him to know which was which. All he was assigned to do was to be the medium through which the text got rendered into modern English.

[_Kishkumen]

I have my doubts that Joseph Smith even knew which Egyptian text corresponded to the Book of Abraham. We know he didn’t when it came to the Book of Mormon. Oh, sure, he knew that the big pile of plates contained the Book of Alma somewhere inside it, but he couldn’t have pointed to a page and said, “There’s Alma’s discourse on faith.”

Although, at least according to one account, he saw the characters and their accompanying translation. After spending so much time in such a process, there is no way he could have been expected to know the relationship between the language and then text. The Kinderhook incident rather suggests that he did take his Egyptian translation seriously enough.

Similarly, he knew that the scroll contained the Egyptian text of a Book of Abraham. But this long scroll probably contained several texts, and I don’t believe it was deemed necessary for him to know which was which. All he was assigned to do was to be the medium through which the text got rendered into modern English.

Which, of course, raises the question of why a text was needed in the first place. Why not just go with Paul O.?

[_Dr. Shades]

First, no one is suggesting that they were trying to “translate the same material that Joseph did.” There would be no logic behind that.

Why not?

As I have said at least a hundred times (or more!) during the past three years: The logical answer is that: they didn’t know what Egyptian text was the Book of Abraham. Why would they have known?

Because Joseph told them which Book of Breathings characters corresponded to which portions of the English text. They wouldn't've known which characters to write into the left margin otherwise.

I have my doubts that Joseph Smith even knew which Egyptian text corresponded to the Book of Abraham. We know he didn’t when it came to the Book of Mormon. Oh, sure, he knew that the big pile of plates contained the Book of Alma somewhere inside it, but he couldn’t have pointed to a page and said, “There’s Alma’s discourse on faith.”

Actually, he could've done just that. When Joseph looked at the stone in the hat, he saw the current character(s) under scrutiny, and the English equivalent underneath it/them. He couldn't continue until Martin Harris had written the translation down correctly.

[_William Schryver]

Shades:

… Joseph told them which Book of Breathings characters corresponded to which portions of the English text. They wouldn't've known which characters to write into the left margin otherwise.

That’s an interesting assumption.

Unfortunately, I know of no evidence that would support it.

When Joseph looked at the stone in the hat, he saw the current character(s) under scrutiny, and the English equivalent underneath it/them. He couldn't continue until Martin Harris had written the translation down correctly.

It is possible, but not certain, that your recitation of David Whitmer’s story of the Book of Mormon translation is a reflection of what really happened. Of course, we have no way of knowing for sure, since Joseph Smith himself never said anything about it.

Nevertheless, your conclusion is not warranted: just because Joseph Smith saw a character associated with English text does not justify your claim that he would have known where, in the larger text, that character came from.

Of course, you’re not really trying to make sense here, are you?

[_Runtu]

John:
Sometimes I am convinced that no one pays attention to anything that gets said on this issue. You are so convinced that your position is unassailable, that you don’t even take the time to try to understand what is being said.

My position, insofar as I have one, is hardly unassailable. I'm trying to understand your position, and you simply tell me I'm not paying attention. I'm seriously trying to understand, not stake out an unassailable position.

First, no one is suggesting that they were trying to “translate the same material that Joseph did.” There would be no logic behind that.

Seems logical to me for them to try and learn from the translation and therefore duplicate it themselves. We used to do that in my Old English classes at BYU. We would take an existing translation and match it against our own. I see no reason to suggest that they wouldn't have tried the same thing.

On the other hand, there is some indication that certain of these men, especially Phelps, were extremely taken with the idea of coming to understand this ancient Egyptian stuff. If they had in their hands something they believed to be an actual translation of a portion of the text, I can easily see how they might have been tempted to use that “translation” as a “primer” to help them decipher the corresponding Egyptian text from which the “translation” was drawn.

So, your position is that they wrote out the text and then tried to match it to the characters?

<sigh>

As I have said at least a hundred times (or more!) during the past three years: The logical answer is that: they didn’t know what Egyptian text was the Book of Abraham. Why would they have known?

Maybe because Joseph told them. He's the one who had the scrolls and claimed to have translated them. Are you suggesting they wouldn't have asked?

I have my doubts that Joseph Smith even knew which Egyptian text corresponded to the Book of Abraham.

Fair enough.

We know he didn’t when it came to the Book of Mormon. Oh, sure, he knew that the big pile of plates contained the Book of Alma somewhere inside it, but he couldn’t have pointed to a page and said, “There’s Alma’s discourse on faith.”

Why not?

Similarly, he knew that the scroll contained the Egyptian text of a Book of Abraham. But this long scroll probably contained several texts, and I don’t believe it was deemed necessary for him to know which was which. All he was assigned to do was to be the medium through which the text got rendered into modern English.

So why even bother with the kind of apologetics you're attempting to practice? If the process was entirely revelatory, then it doesn't matter what was on the scrolls. It could have been a receipt from the Spudnik tractor supply in Blackfoot, and Joseph still would have gotten the Abraham text. Why even bother with missing scrolls? It simply doesn't matter one whit to your position.

[_Who Knows]

Let's say that they were indeed produced by copying an earlier manuscript. How does that help the Book of Abraham in any way?

Ask Metcalfe. I’m sure he understands why. But I’m not going to go to any effort to bring you up to speed. At least not here and not now.

All it does (trying to prove that the KEP were merely scribal copies of the 'actual' translation documents) is ensure the apologists don't have to resort to even more outrageous apologetic arguments to defend their Book of Abraham.

In other words, if it were proven that the KEP are indeed the translation working documents, the apologists' defense of the Book of Abraham would get even more ludicrous than it already is. They'd rather stay as close to the sanity line as possible (even though they're far removed from it as it is).

[_William Schryver]

JW:

So why even bother with the kind of apologetics you're attempting to practice? If the process was entirely revelatory, then it doesn't matter what was on the scrolls. It could have been a receipt from the Spudnik tractor supply in Blackfoot, and Joseph still would have gotten the Abraham text. Why even bother with missing scrolls? It simply doesn't matter one whit to your position.

I think it mattered a lot. And for a variety of reasons, all of them very similar to the reasons it mattered that there be metallic plates delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel, despite the fact that the plates were largely unnecessary to the "translation" that subsequently occurred.

In fact, I don't think it's that hard at all to see why it would have mattered. The physical and historical reality of these artifacts, as well as the things they represent, are, in my opinion (and this is where David Bokovoy and I sometimes seem to differ) absolutely an essential component in both these episodes.

[_Kevin Graham]

Unfortunately, I know of no evidence that would support it.

Only because you are an idiot. I just bumped a dozen threads where you have been given evidence and you flat out refuse to address them because you can't. Instead you want to answer questions from people who have had virtually zero exposure to this subject so you can come across as informed. Again, this is all about Will's ego.

Humorously, you are wasting all your time and efforts trying to discredit this single coffin nail, seemingly oblivious that dozens of other coffin nails have already hammered it completely shut. We already know Joseph Smith could not translate ancient Egyptian documents. So given this fact there is no rational basis for assuming he could have translated ancient "reformed" Egyptian.

“You tell us there is a dictation going on. But there is no evidence of that, save your assertion.” - Will Schryver, May 12 2006

"There is certainly some evidence in the manuscripts that would tend to support the theory of them being the product of dictation" - Will Schryver, July 2, 2007

Seems like you've allowed me to educate you on at least this much. But I'm the one "behind in the discussion(!)" huh? And we already know I was the one who had to tell you what the KEP were to begin with several years ago. So go back over to MAD and stroke your ego over there with your little echo chamber you call a pundits area. There is nothing here for you except more humiliation.

the fact that the plates were largely unnecessary to the "translation" that subsequently occurred.

ROFL!!!!!

This is how desperate the Book of Abraham apologetic has become. Joseph Smith risked life and limb to find, hide and translate the plates. If only he had Will Schryver back then, to tell him how this was all superfluous. Hell, why did Moroni travel hundreds of miles alone, risking his life to bury the damn thing, if it was "largely unnecessary"? To say nothing of Nephi and the rest of the authors who suffered many trials to make sure the plates arrived in Smith's hands?

We who are not clouded by apologetic agendas can see how idiotic this assertion is, but the funniest thing about it is the way in which Will declares with bombastic certitude that it is a "fact."