The Specter of the Book of Abraham Continues to Haunt Mopologetics

[_Bret Ripley]

... the proof that the papyri is missing is itself, missing?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

There was a paper written (and ready for publication). I reviewed it personally. I still have my correspondence with Will on this issue. I have never felt that I had the right to release this material.

Will was given direct access to the papyri fragments for the purpose of measuring them. Because of the "preservation" techniques that were used on the fragments, measuring the thickness of the papyri directly is impossible. So he used a magnetic eddy current thickness gauge to measure the thickness of the papyri. His measurements - both in the width of the winding of the papyri, and more particularly in its thickness, were substantially different from the previously published estimates by Cook and Smith, leading to a very different conclusion about the potential length of the original papyrus roll.

Having said that, getting direct access to these materials in the Church archive is not an easy process. Among other things, you have to sign a contract with regard to publication (when, and where, and to some extent what). When the MI refused to publish the article, the only way for the paper to get published was to go back to the Church and go through the process again with a new proposal for publication. I don't remember whether or not Will tried to do this (we only discussed that aspect of it once or twice and it was years ago). But in any case, publication of the article became nearly impossible for several reasons, including some of the issues that have been raised in this thread.

At the same time, this issue (the length of the papyri) isn't all that important to me because I don't believe it is all that relevant to the question of what the Book of Abraham is. We tend to get bogged down in this issue over the Book of Abraham because many believers view the text of the Book of Abraham as a literal (whatever that is supposed to mean) translation from the papyri (I am not one of those who believe this). And so the effort on one side is to try and make this argument as plausible (if not as likely) as possible that the text came directly from the papyri. And the response on the other side is to show how unlikely it is, that the text of the Book of Abraham comes directly from the papyri. Part of this is simply because of a desire to make the debate over issues which can be tested and examined rather than deal with what what is (at least for believers) the more controversial questions of textual construction and intertextual linkages.

[_Shulem]

We tend to get bogged down in this issue over the Book of Abraham because many believers view the text of the Book of Abraham as a literal (whatever that is supposed to mean) translation from the papyri (I am not one of those who believe this).

You wouldn't have gotten along with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery at all. You wouldn't have survived early Mormonism.

[_Craig Paxton]

Cooke and Smith demolished the longer scroll theory.

Can anyone provide a link to the Cook and Smith paper? While I'm fairly certain that I've read their paper, I would like to revisit it. Was their work published in Sunstone? I do remember a refutation of the longer scroll being published in Sunstone many years ago. Any how a link would be nice if available.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dialogue

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf

[_Craig Paxton]

Dialogue

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf

Thank you. Yes this is the paper I remember reading. Dialogue not Sunstone. Thanks again

[_Symmachus]

Part of this is simply because of a desire to make the debate over issues which can be tested and examined rather than deal with what what is (at least for believers) the more controversial questions of textual construction and intertextual linkages.

Are you making a distinction between

1) physical objects (that can be tested and examined) vs. intangible features of the text (many of which can be examined and tested as well),

or are you making a distinction between

2) scholarly discussions (which depend on something to be examined and tested to occur in the first place) vs. faith claims (which can be examined but not tested)?

[_Shulem]

And so the effort on one side is to try and make this argument as plausible (if not as likely) as possible that the text came directly from the papyri. And the response on the other side is to show how unlikely it is, that the text of the Book of Abraham comes directly from the papyri.

Both sides can agree that the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are derived from the hieroglyphic texts written on the original vignette. An appeal to authority from world experts prove the Explanations are not what the text say. It's an open and shut case. The experts have proven Smith wrong. There is nothing further to discuss. There is no debate. There is nothing the apologists can say to validate Smith's false claims. Mormon cultists are simply shielding themselves in self-deception and deluded thinking. Don't you think it's time for the cult to give it up and join the rest of the world in rational thinking?

Please, it's time to give it up and join the world.

[_Fence Sitter]

So he used a magnetic eddy current thickness gauge to measure the thickness of the papyri. His measurements - both in the width of the winding of the papyri, and more particularly in its thickness, were substantially different from the previously published estimates by Cook and Smith, leading to a very different conclusion about the potential length of the original papyrus roll.

Ben,

Do you recall why Will was so focused on the thickenss? I ask, because one of the issues that Gee and maybe Will, depending on why he was measuring thickness, kept misunderstanding on the scroll length work that Cook and Smith did was the fact that their (Cook & Smith) measurements did not depend at all on thickness. It derived it, or at least it could predict the maximum thickness possible, but it did not need it to figure out the length.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Are you making a distinction between

1) physical objects (that can be tested and examined) vs. intangible features of the text (many of which can be examined and tested as well),

or are you making a distinction between

2) scholarly discussions (which depend on something to be examined and tested to occur in the first place) vs. faith claims (which can be examined but not tested)?

What I mean is closer to the first.

I think that in general Mormonism wants to use a paradigm of Biblical scholarship to investigate their scriptures. But, they also want to make an illicit movement that makes their source material the equivalent of original manuscripts. So with the Book of Mormon, there isn't a real push to try and piece together a potential urtext or to extrapolate sources (although some of us have done this sort of thing). Instead, the most visible work and the work most often discussed among believers is the search for the original Book of Mormon (the work that Skousen has done) with the implicit expectation that having found the original Book of Mormon text, we have recovered its potential ancient source. And the efforts to try and place the Book of Mormon within a geographical and historical context (Sorenson) tend to start from this assumption that the Book of Mormon is identical (at least functionally) with its alleged sources. This can't be done as easily with the Book of Abraham, which, as Paul points out, contains the facsimiles, for which we have part of the originals. But the desire is the same - to assert that there is an original text, that the Book of Abraham is identical (at least functionally) to that original text, and to try and contextualize the Book of Abraham as if it was identical.

This point of view is not interested in discussing the Book of Abraham (or the Book of Mormon) as a text with its own history and modern antecedents. The Book of Abraham clearly relies on the King James text (and potentially other modern sources). It contains, I believe, material written by Joseph Smith or his associates. And the tools that are used to evaluate these kinds of issues are not always viewed with favor (especially from that King James only crowd). I don't think that most Mormons have a terribly elevated view of higher criticism.

Perhaps more simply, I think that many Mormons (historically and in the present) would be quite happy to use the papyri as evidence for a historical source and not worry at all about the content. The existence of a source becomes proof. And the push then is to try and defend the existence of a source, rather than argue too much about how closely the content aligns.