Book of Abraham -Skousen CV unavailable.

[hauslern]

https://humanities.BYU.edu/wp-content/u ... A.18-7.pdf

Skousen in his CV expressed an opinion that the facsimiles should be dropped from the Book of Abraham. Has he been told to drop his comments?

Jeff Lindsay cites it on this page https://www.arisefromthedust.com/royal- ... theory-on/

Will this disappear. Skousen's point of view has spread across social media.

[drumdude]

Under the heading “scriptural studies,” Dr. Skousen proposes the following:

The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book.

Jeff Lindsay’s take:

https://www.arisefromthedust.com/royal- ... theory-on/

[Moksha]

Why didn't Skousen simply recommend abandoning the entire Book of Abraham?

[hauslern]

I had an exchange here with Kerry Muhlestein but had foregotten about. I was trying to argue that Facsimile 2 had been incorrectly restored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci9bg0rH-ok

[Rivendale]

Did you email him?

[hauslern]

No not then but I should. I had forgotten that exchange perhaps because I get into to many debates. Its either Pathos Sic or Mormondialogue (from which I have been blocked). I did get a reply from Skousen.

[hauslern]

Skousen to me

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <royalskousen45@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: Book of Abraham
To: Noel Hausler <hauslernoel@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Peterson <danielcarlpeterson@gmail.com>, Debbie Peterson <dspegypt@gmail.com>, <John_gee@BYU.edu>


Dear Noel,



I definitely do NOT hold a positive view of Joseph Smith’s “interpretation” of the facsimiles. Here’s what’s on my curriculum vitae, at the end in the section entitled “Fundamental Scholarly Discoveries and Academic Accomplishments by Royal Skousen from about 1970 to 2020; first placed online in 2014”, on page 39:



“The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book.”



Yes, the facsimiles are shameful “reproductions” and have been so from the 1840s when first published in Times and Seasons. Yes, the engraver took a part from elsewhere on the hypocephalus and used it to fill up the missing part. I myself would like to see the Book of Abraham with the two secondary insertions in the first chapter removed that connect the text with the papyri and, in fact, no facsimiles or any connection with the Kirtland papyri. The actual text of the Book of Abraham has many interesting things, but the whole discussion has been hijacked by the papyri.



I am sending on my views to Dan Peterson and John Gee. I give you permission to post online what I have written in the ending section of my vita.



With best wishes, Royal

[hauslern]

The question I would like to ask Kerry is "Was Facsimile incorrectly restored in some registers?
We do not have the original but there is a sketch.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f7Y ... 4Sbbg/edit

This is included in Tamas Mekis' book on the hypocephalus Plate XVI No. 62 p. 289.
In the gap in the upper right hand corner of the published version there is a register that does not appear in other examples of the hypocephalus
This seems to have been taken from another piece of the Joseph Smith papyri. see bottom right hand corner
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-87 ... Dge0E/edit

If checks other examples of the papyri in that corner there seems to be a figure in a boat with an insect.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYq ... Um8lg/edit
For other examples Google British Museum Hypocephalus.
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 5hzRooFkQA

[I Have Questions]

“The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1.

I find that fascinating. How could Joseph be sat there thinking he was translating the papyri, when he wasn’t? Why did Hod allow him to preface the Book of Abraham with the testimony that it was a translation of the papyri? Is Joseph’s witness testimony about the Book of Abraham less credible that the witnesses testimony about the Book of Mormon? If so, why?

It sounds to me like an apologetic instrument to try and mitigate the fact that the papyri has been shown to be something other than the Book of Abraham. What evidence does Skousen have that it was a revelation, rather than Joseph simply making stuff up?

It must be difficult though, knowing it’s been proven to be something other than what Joseph himself said it was, yet still needing to believe in it. How do you knit that fog into something you can hang your faith on?