The Prophet Joseph himself has supplied us with the most conclusive evidence that the manuscript today identified as the Book of Breathings, J.S. Papyri X and XI, was not in his opinion the source of the Book of Abraham. For he has furnished a clear and specific description of the latter: 'The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is (1) beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and (2) a small part red, ink or paint, (3) in perfect preservation.'...
Since Joseph Smith actually possessed quite a number of perfectly preserved, beautifully written Egyptian manuscripts adorned with rubrics [red characters], there is no reason to doubt that he was describing such a document as the source of 'the record of Abraham and Joseph.' And there can be no doubt whatever that the manuscript he was describing was and is an entirely different one from that badly written, poorly preserved little text, entirely devoid of rubrics, which is today identified as the Book of Breathings. One cannot insist too strongly on this point, since it is precisely the endlessly repeated claim that the Book of Breathings has been 'identified as the very source of the Book of Abraham' on which the critics of Joseph Smith have rested their whole case...."
Hugh W. Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975, pp. 2-3).
The problem with this apologetic is that it is patently false on several points:
1) This statement didn’t derive from “the Prophet.” It comes from Oliver Cowdery’s passing description.
2) Nibley doesn’t understand that Cowdery describes the entire collection consisting of two different records (Abraham’s record and the other from Joseph)
3) Nibley doesn’t acknowledge that among the papyri that were rediscovered in 1967, rubrics do appear on fragments IV and VIII.
According to Nibley’s logic, since the papyri (Sensen text) commonly identified as the record of Abraham, is “badly written, poorly preserved little text, entirely devoid of rubrics,” then the real record of Abraham must be missing. The problem here is that Nibley is twisting the citation to say something it doesn’t. This is where point #2 comes in. This description doesn’t strictly refer to this record. It is a general statement about the collection of records, which also included the record of Joseph.
Now according to William Appleby, “there is a perceptible difference between the writings [of Abraham and Joseph]. Joseph appears to have been the best scribe.” This piece of evidence pretty much slams the door on Nibley’s argument because it accounts for the evidence mush better than Nibley’s shot in the dark apologetic. Among the extant records we have today, Appleby’s description fits perfectly because he makes the clear distinction between two records and he says the record of Abraham is inferior in quality to that of Joseph’s. And as I have already noted, the rubrics do appear on two of the better preserved fragments.
It is also worth noting that this “red ink” argument stood the test of time for decades. And because the Church refused to publish color copies of the papyri, we had no other choice but to take Nibley’s word for it that the papyri were void of rubrics. It wasn’t until Charles Larsen published his book, that the world could see the papyri in all their glory.
And who is responsible for making Nibley look like an idiot here? In 1990 Edward Ashment, another dastardly anti-Mormon, researched this issue thoroughly to show the world why Nibley cannot be trusted: http://www.buchabraham.mormonismus-onli ... onance.htm
Now this lame argument still lives on at the Jeff Lindsay museum of failed apologetics, but it is good to know some LDS apologists have admitted the error in Nibley’s argument. Take for example, Kevin Barney, who back in January of 2002, made the following comment: “I am a believer in the Book of Abraham, but personally I don't put much stock in this ‘description’ argument.” And then again in June of 2003, “…the Nibley rubrics argument doesn't hold water.”
But the “hide the color” game played by LDS scholars continued with Nibley’s successor, John Gee. This time the color was shaded out to support his argument regarding the significance of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. The KEP provide us with manuscripts of the Book of Abraham written by Joseph Smith’s scribes. The natural conclusion here is that these were the translation manuscripts. The problem for the apologists is that these manuscripts contained Egyptian characters lined up on the left margins – characters which are identical and in sequence, to those found on the Sensen text (the text the apologists cannot accept as the source for the Book of Abraham).
So what does Gee do here? After trying to figure out a way to explain how these characters could be on these manuscripts, yet have nothing to do with the actual translation process, he thinks that maybe if he can show that these characters were added after the text had been written, then maybe he could support the crazy Nibley scenario that some mysterious twit came along and added them to the texts, erroneously thinking they actually had something to do with the Book of Abraham translation.
Enter the two ink argument.
First let me not that Juliann informed us at FAIR how important Gee was. John Gee we were told, should be trusted. John Gee, we were told, had access to what the “weekend warriors” could only dream about. John Gee, we were told, had been Yale trained and had the required critical tools. Quite simply, John Gee was the hero we so desperately needed.
So at a time when apologetics needed it the most, John Gee published his “A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri.” On page 22 we find the following argument with “color” illustrations of the KEP:
When I first read this I couldn’t help but notice there was something strange about the coloring. Each photo seems to have been changed with a different hue. I then realized that maybe this is actually what the manuscripts looked like. The problem was that Gee’s argument about different inks was based on evidence provided in these photos. From these photos it does seem like the characters to the left were in a much darker ink, perhaps a different color.
More crucial to Gee’s argument, however, was his assertion that it the Egyptian characters sometimes “run over… the English text.”
Enter Brent Metcalfe, deceitful apostate, friend to Mark Hoffman, former security guard at the LDS archives (working undercover for the Tanners), a man who was out to destroy the Church at all costs, and a man who couldn’t tell the truth if his wife’s life depended on it. At least that was the impression most LDS apologists liked to spread.
Brent kindly pointed out that Gee’s apologetic on this point was entirely without merit. How would Metcalfe know? Well, Metcalfe had previously obtained color photos of the KEP from Steve Christensen, who was commissioned by the Church to photograph them before he was killed by Mark Hoffman. To support his counter-argument, Brent kindly shared some of the photos. I’ll present one just to prove the point:
Notice that a full blown color image of the same section provided by Gee, reveals that the ink used for the Egyptian characters is the same exact ink used in the English text to the right. The reason some points are darker than others has everything to do with the double stroke using the quill. Notice the lower portion of the “s” shows that it is just as dark as the Egyptian to the left. So Gee’s argument relies heavily on the ignorance of his audience. He wasn’t counting on anyone out there actually having the means to disprove his presentation, but that was his fault. Ultimately, the apologists want to blame Metcalfe and derail by accusing him of obtaining the photos illegally or whatever, but the fact is these photos prove Gee was being dishonest. He was manipulating the evidence to try saving the Book of Abraham. And the “run over” the English text argument is equally bankrupt. The characters do not “sometimes” run over the text. Gee was called to the carpet and decided to respond while hiding behind Dan Peterson. This was so embarrassing: http://www.lds-mormon.com/gee_abraham.shtml
Now all I have seen since this time are attempt to explain how Gee could have made an honest mistake.
I don’t think so.
Remember, we were told he should be trusted because he had first hand access to the materials. This was Juliann’s trump card and she still pulls it out whenever Brent shows his face.
The point here is that FARMS reviews have been pointing out errors by critics that are not even close to being as egregious as the errors committed by Nibley-Gee duo. If anti-Mormon critics should be rejected because of errors far minor than these, then how much more so should we reject Nibley and Gee?