Missing Papyrus

[_CaliforniaKid]

I think JSM is probably referring to Gustavus Seyffarth, who viewed the missing papyrus in 1856 and declared that it was not a record, but an invocation to the deity Osiris in which appeared the name of the person Hor. Gee's response to this is essentially to misrepresent it, whether intentionally or unintentionally I cannot claim to know. (Gee claims by an outrageous series of inferences that what Seyffarth really meant was that there was another text on the roll after the Book of Breathings that started with the phrase "Beginning of the Book of". Go figure.) No other apologist has really addressed the issue, so far as I know.

[_Kevin Graham]

I want our readers to understand that Gee's measurements of the winding lengths confirm that the JSP are quite thin -- like traditionally-manufactured papyrus. If the papyrus were 500 microns thick, as you would like us to believe, then Gee's measurements are not just incorrect, they would have to be outright misrepresentations. Is that what you're going to argue? That Gee is a liar, or (at the very least) an incompetent bungler?

Duh!

This has already been established.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I admit that I haven't been following this issue very closely, but what is the apologetic explanation for the fact that even when Egyptologists had access to the complete scroll, they still declared Joseph Smith's "interpretation" to be fraudulent?

That's the whole point to the missing papyrus theory. The apologsts would prefer that the source for the Book of Abraham be either "missing or destroyed." This is important to them because it puts the Book of Abraham back into the unfalsifiable category; with respect to Joseph Smith's ability to translate ancient documents.

So when Abraham 1:12 refers explicitly to the extant papyrus, Will argues that this particular comment was a later insertion and cannot be used to connect the canonized translation with the extant papyri.

And when the Kirtland Egyptian Papers prove that several of Joseph Smith's hired scribes, clearly believed the extant papyri were the source for the Book of Abraham, Will argues that they were just confused and that Joseph Smith cannot be connected to the project.

Interesting. Will doesn't think that the Book of Abraham is entirely accurate? I'll have to hear him clarify his position himself.

[_Kevin Graham]

Here is his argument about Abr 1:12 http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=35608

It seems hs argument is that the verse doesn't really connect the translaton with this papyrus, because this was just a later insertion. He doesn't even begin to address the plethora of problems he creates by asserting this.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Yeah, it's pretty bizarre of him to bite that bullet. Are there any other texts in Mormon canon that were not translated correctly?

[_Yong Xi]

Yeah, it's pretty bizarre of him to bite that bullet. Are there any other texts in Mormon canon that were not translated correctly?

Based on what is known about Joseph Smith translation abilities or more specifically lack thereof, we would have to assume that he translated everything incorrectly. For all we know, Joseph Smith actually found some plates and pretended to translate, thus producing the Book of Mormon.

[_William Schryver]

Yeah, it's pretty bizarre of him to bite that bullet. Are there any other texts in Mormon canon that were not translated correctly?

I only have a moment, but I did want to note that you are misunderstanding my argument.

I'm not suggesting that it was "translated" incorrectly, but that it is most likely a 19th-century redaction: a clarification added by Joseph Smith to tie the text of the Book of Abraham in reference to the anticipated location of Facsimile #1 in the envisioned publication of the work.

If, as we suspect, the Book of Abraham text was on the uncut portion of the scroll of Horos, it was not adjacent to the vignette in question. But Joseph Smith knew that it would be when the book was ultimately published, hence his clarification -- which appears as a later, interlinear insertion in the document.

OK, carry on ....................

[_JohnStuartMill]

The difference between "redaction" and "mistranslation" is mostly one of characterization, so allow me to put it another way:

Are there any other "clarifications" (i.e., admittedly non-ancient writings) in the Mormon canon?

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm not suggesting that it was "translated" incorrectly, but that it is most likely a 19th-century redaction: a clarification added by Joseph Smith to tie the text of the Book of Abraham in reference to the anticipated location of Facsimile #1 in the envisioned publication of the work.

Will probably thinks his statement above is coherent. The fact is Joseph Smith claimed the published portion was a translation of Egyptian papyri. He didn't say it was a translation fo Egyptian papyri including arbitrary "redactions" made for "clarification" purposes.

And what exactly would this phrase "clarify" anyway? Its existence, whether original or subsequent insertion, still makes the same point: The source for the Book of Abraham followed immediately after Facsimile #1. That is the message that is conveyed. That is how the Church understood it and continues to understand it. But Will knows more than LDS leaders, including Joseph Smith. He also knows more than the scribes whow were involved in the translation process. That's what Will wants us to believe.

[_Who Knows]

Sorry if i've missed this (since i don't care to read the minutiae) but what were these scrolls wrapped around? I'm assuming there's some sort of core rod or something. Were these always a standard diameter? How does anyone know what this was wrapped around?