Understanding KEP and Book of Abraham issues

[_Bret Ripley]

... Larson's "By his own hand" ...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

If you can do without the color foldout (which actually is pretty cool), a free online version of Larson's book is available here:

http://www.irr.org/mit/bhoh-pt1.html

[_Sethbag]

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

Was the Book of Abraham really written in ordinary hieratic text though? What about all that degree stuff, where up to entire paragraphs of information could be inferred from a symbol of the appropriately high degree?

If that degree stuff were actually real, the entire Book of Abraham could have been contained in a very short scroll indeed.

Of course, that degree stuff seems to be a pile of crap that was invented by Joseph Smith and/or his colleagues, so...

[_Fence Sitter]

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

Was the Book of Abraham really written in ordinary hieratic text though? What about all that degree stuff, where up to entire paragraphs of information could be inferred from a symbol of the appropriately high degree?

If that degree stuff were actually real, the entire Book of Abraham could have been contained in a very short scroll indeed.

Of course, that degree stuff seems to be a pile of crap that was invented by Joseph Smith and/or his colleagues, so...

It depends.

If you accept that the degree stuff was actually the method that Joseph Smith used to produce a portion of the Book of Abraham, instead of some really bad attempt by scribes to assign meanings from an existing Book of Abraham text to hieratic characters, then you no longer have any need for a 40'-0" long scroll. The down side is that, as you point out, it is clear he was inventing it as he went and the "translations" just don't work.

If you reject the degree stuff and or view it as another instances where it is the scribe's fault (you know it would make an interesting paper to list all the instances where disagreeable material was blamed on a scribe) then you are left with the long missing scroll theory. I assume it would have to be in hieratic text since as far as I know there are no descriptions of the papyri that indicate anything but hieroglyphics and hieratic text.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Charles Larson's book is a good starting place. Once upon a time, the IRR sent out free copies upon request. Maybe they still do. Worth looking into.

The chapter on the Book of Abraham in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality is pretty good also, and a bit shorter than Larson's book. In fact, Larson's book was largely a ripoff of this chapter.

If you're looking for something shorter still, and easily accessible online, I recommend you just read this and this. Concerning scroll length, I summarize my findings here.

[_Fence Sitter]

CK,

Have I got this in the correct order?

Joseph Smith and scribes first produced the EA & EC manuscripts, then they produced the GAEL from the three EA manuscripts and then the produced the Abraham translation manuscripts which contain Abraham 1-2:18. (I think there are 3 or 4).

Also I know Hauglid has proposed a hypothetical pre-existing Abraham manuscript (Ab0). Does he believe it (Ab0) predates all the above mentioned manuscripts? I am not sure the time frames allow for it to predate the EA manuscripts unless it was revealed before the arrival of the papyri. What can you tell me about it?

Thanks

[_CaliforniaKid]

Have I got this in the correct order?

Joseph Smith and scribes first produced the EA & EC manuscripts, then they produced the GAEL from the three EA manuscripts and then the produced the Abraham translation manuscripts which contain Abraham 1-2:18. (I think there are 3 or 4).

in my opinion, yes. However, the apologists would want to place the production of Abraham 1-2:18 prior to all the Egyptian Alphabet stuff.

Also I know Hauglid has proposed a hypothetical pre-existing Abraham manuscript (Ab0). Does he believe it (Ab0) predates all the above mentioned manuscripts?

I'm not sure where Brian currently stands on the Ab0 issue. As for what the production sequence would be, it would definitely precede the extant translation manuscripts, but I'm not sure whether Brian would date it prior to the EA manuscripts.

I am not sure the time frames allow for it to predate the EA manuscripts unless it was revealed before the arrival of the papyri.

Yeah, it's definitely problematic to date the translation of the Book of Abraham text that early, for a whole bunch of really complicated reasons which I don't think I'll go into. See Mike Marquardt's essay in The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition for some good discussion of manuscript dating.

[_Drifting]

The Church has the papyrus fragments in the vault.

It would be very faith promoting to dust them off and show the membership how what is written on it translates into the contents of the Book of Abraham or at the very least were written by Abraham or one of his contemporaries.

They could produce the fragment with the facsimile on it and enlist the top Egyptologists to show that Joseph's translation is exactly (or even closely) correct.

It would show the world that Joseph was indeed a Prophet of God who restored the one true Church to the earth back in the 1800's.

For the bits that haven't yet been translated, the current Prophet could use his divine authority as Translator to show the world what God wanted preserved from the fire in Chicago so that we, in these latter days, could learn from it.
It would serve as a fuse with which to light 'The Rescue'.

So, why has none of this taken place...?

[_DarkHelmet]

Debating the Book of Abraham is like debating the moon landing or the JFK assassination with conspiracy nuts. The critics have all the physical evidence on their side. The apologists have nothing. It is actually a very simple case of fraud that is quickly obvious to any person who has no reason to believe Joseph Smith was a prophet.

[_Cicero]

Robuchan: I would not put it quite as starkly as Dark Helmet above, but I would recommend that you put in the time to study the matter adequately. in my opinion, the apologists' main tactic when it comes to the Book of Abraham is obfuscation. They love to draw one's attention away from these fairly straightforward facts: we have the facsimiles, we have Joseph's translation (or interpretation) of them and the facsimiles simply do not say what Joseph said they did. It does, however, take a fair amount of study to be able to cut through the smoke screens thrown up by apologists.

I always laugh when I see an apologist say something like "Oh those Book of Abraham issues are old hat now; we dealt with those issues years ago." Like hell you have . . .

[_Tobin]

Apologists who claim the Book of Abraham is a translation of the papyri are nuts anyway. There is NO reason to believe it at all. The fact is the papyri aren't old enough to have been written by the hand of Abrahsm. That should be their first clue. The next clue is the Egyptians, who were pagans, would have no reason to perserve an account by Abraham what-so-ever. The Book of Abraham is a revealed text and Joseph Smith's speculations about the papyri is an entirely different matter (and a foolish endeavor on his and other's part). Apologists need to stop playing game and recognize what they are doing doesn't make any sense and will only make them look foolish in the end.