Understanding KEP and Book of Abraham issues

[_robuchan]

I know enough about the Book of Abraham issues to know it's seriously jacked up, but not enough to speak intelligently. And it's time I understood the issues better. What's the best primer?

Way back when I ready a summary which was similar to the information in this thread

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/552 ... challenged

But it showed the full text of the KEP with the symbol and matched it up with the verse in Book of Abraham. I couldn't find that article or something like it when I searched. Suggestions where to find that write up?

I watched Will Schryver's 2010 FAIR presentation and studied the document Wade Englund posted at the bottom of this thread

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/588 ... e-the-kep/

Those are two hours of my life I wish I had back.

I started to digest this

viewtopic.php?p=350403

But frankly it's over my head and a little intimidating.

I've done some research on the length of scrolls issue. What is the best summary on that? How much do the critics think is missing and how much do the apologists think is missing? And this should be understood in terms of the total amount or vs the total amount found. My take on that so far is that it doesn't matter because we've seen plenty (KEP and facsimiles) that did survive and they ain't what Joseph says they are.

I've read a little on what the apologists call hits on Abraham and apocryphic writings credited to Abraham, and I think I understand that issue well enough. Just like the Book of Mormon and the temple/masonry issues, you can find other contemporary sources that are more likely sources.

What about the issue of whether the KEP is used in translation or used to reverse engineer? And does it matter?

[_robuchan]

PS, I've seen Chris Smith referenced a lot and I watched his youtube reaction video where he does the awkward handshake with the interviewer. Where can I find Chris's material?

[_Bob Loblaw]

PS, I've seen Chris Smith referenced a lot and I watched his youtube reaction video where he does the awkward handshake with the interviewer. Where can I find Chris's material?

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/

[_robuchan]

PS, I've seen Chris Smith referenced a lot and I watched his youtube reaction video where he does the awkward handshake with the interviewer. Where can I find Chris's material?

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/

Thanks, duh, that was easy. This will keep me busy a while.

[_Fence Sitter]

There are so many issues with the Book of Abraham it is difficult to know where to start. If I were to recommend a starting point it would be (besides Chris's site) Larson's "By his own hand" though that is quite dated. It does give a good overview and, maybe even more helpful, it has a color foldout of the papyri. You can pick up a used copy at Amazon for 12.00 plus delivery here

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=by+his+own+hand+upon+papyrus&sprefix=by+his+own+hand+u%2Cstripbooks%2C271

It is difficult to follow the discussions because there are so many acronyms that are used and in many cases they have changed over the years. For example I know of three different systems to identify the KEP papers and two different systems to identity the papyri.What the hell does JPS 1.1 mean or AB5a or GAEL? Just figuring out the terminology is a headache.

Based on your posts on the other board I think you might want to spend some time on what the KEP is, not an easy task.

[_Themis]

I've done some research on the length of scrolls issue. What is the best summary on that? How much do the critics think is missing and how much do the apologists think is missing?

Good luck with your studies. It can be a bit daunting. As to scroll length. Why does it even matter? We have some from different parts, and none of them contain anything about the Book of Abraham. We have the facsimiles and they don't translate into any Book of Abraham story. Why should it even be remotely possible there is some missing section that does contain the Book of Abraham story. It really smells of desperation. I think Chris and Mortal Man have done some good work in this area though.

[_Fence Sitter]

I've done some research on the length of scrolls issue. What is the best summary on that? How much do the critics think is missing and how much do the apologists think is missing? And this should be understood in terms of the total amount or vs the total amount found. My take on that so far is that it doesn't matter because we've seen plenty (KEP and facsimiles) that did survive and they ain't what Joseph says they are.

Length of scroll

You have to start with a few assumptions for scroll length to be an issue.

1. First and foremost would be that the Book of Abraham was derived by Joseph Smith from the Hor scroll. There seems to be a general agreement on this but I have seen claims it was from a different scroll.
2. That there are missing pieces that Joseph Smith had from the Hor scroll. Not much disagreement here because we know that facsimile #3 was attached to the end (inner most point) of the Hor scroll and it is missing. Most people agree that the missing section in question is after PJS 1.3 (there are those annoying acronyms again, in this case it means Papyri Joseph Smith 1 part three and refers to one of the 3 extant pieces of the Hor scroll the church has. Nibley labeled this piece PJS X.) The missing scroll issue is focused here on this area.
3. Finally that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the extant pieces of the Hor scroll. Here we have a big disagreement because there are portions of the KEP that (in my mind) clearly indicate that the first part of the Book of Abraham was translated from pieces that are still around.

So the argument, given the above assumptions, is how long was the missing piece after PJS 1.3?
The length of the extant pieces is around 2 to 3 feet. Estimates of overall scroll length range from 5'-0 +- (Smith-Cook-Ritner) to 40'-0"+- (John Gee).

It is worth noting that the Book of Abraham, in its present form would require 8-12' of papyri written in hieratic text.

[_Fence Sitter]

I've done some research on the length of scrolls issue. What is the best summary on that? How much do the critics think is missing and how much do the apologists think is missing?

Good luck with your studies. It can be a bit daunting. As to scroll length. Why does it even matter? We have some from different parts, and none of them contain anything about the Book of Abraham. We have the facsimiles and they don't translate into any Book of Abraham story. Why should it even be remotely possible there is some missing section that does contain the Book of Abraham story. It really smells of desperation. I think Chris and Mortal Man have done some good work in this area though.

Themis,

I see the missing scroll theory as a tacit admission that what we have does not relate to Abraham and it gives members, who even bother to look into the issue, an answer to that problem.

[_Fence Sitter]

.

I've read a little on what the apologists call hits on Abraham and apocryphic writings credited to Abraham, and I think I understand that issue well enough. Just like the Book of Mormon and the temple/masonry issues, you can find other contemporary sources that are more likely sources.

Here is a quote from Edward Ashment that I think summarizes well the problems with the parallelomania TBMs use to defend the Book of Abraham.

After attempting to explain away the dissonance between the evidence and the Book of Abraham,
Nibley tries to shift the focus by declaring that "it is the Book of Abraham that is on trial, not Joseph
Smith" and that Smith's "reputation must rest on the bona fides of the book, not the other way
around."44 And he issues the challenge: "Is [the Book of Abraham] an authentic autobiography of
Abraham the Patriarch, or is it not?"45
Efforts to establish the historical authenticity of the Book of Abraham face major obstacles. For
instance, even Nibley acknowledges that one means used to establish the authenticity of a document is
to compare it "with documents known to be authentic coming from that same time and place, and to
weigh the points of conflict or agreement among them."46 Assuming Abraham's historicity, there is no
agreement about when he would have lived.47 Nibley uses this advantageously, because he wants as
much latitude as possible, and accordingly postulates that Abraham could have lived anytime during a
comfortable span of two thousand years.48 Because there can be no way of discerning which documents
come "from that same time"--sometime within Nibley's two thousand years--it is impossible to make
any valid comparisons with the contents of the Book of Abraham.
These obstacles are ignored by Nibley, however, who is determined to "make up for the absence of
reliable dates to give us texts contemporary with Abraham" by accepting as valid any old documents
"actually bearing the name of Abraham."49 Thus by "the [p.230] study of parallels"50 he can refer to
documents which are temporally and/or culturally disparate in the extreme.51 Here is an illustration of
this commonly used "parallelomania"52 methodology in Nibley's writings.
To show how "typically Egyptian" the first several verses of the Book of Abraham are, Nibley
juxtaposes them against several quotations which range from the Egyptian Old Kingdom (2575 B.C.)
through the Christian Period, including quotations from Plutarch and Plato. In this manner, he asserts
that the Book of Abraham and Egyptian inscriptions "confirm and support each other."53
Unfortunately, this methodology does violence to the historical integrity of the documents used in the
Mormon CENTRAL - JOSEPH SMITH - LDS TEMPLES - BOOK ... http://user.xmission.com/~research/central/resscri3.htm
6 of 9 11/4/2011 9:42 PM
manner described.
As with the writings of noted nineteenth-century British anthropologist James Frazer, there is a
"complete absence of historical consciousness"54 in the "parallel school" of Book of Abraham
apologetics. For it is an anathema to it to rely on a method that "insists that the essential requirement
for interpretation of a text is to read it in context: not merely in literary context, but in the wider,
deeper social and cultural context in which both author and audience lived, and in which the language
they employed took on the connotations to which the interpreter must seek to be sensitive."55

[_Themis]

It is worth noting that the Book of Abraham, in its present form would require 8-12' of papyri written in hieratic text.

And Joseph hadn't finished with the text.