Look at Joseph's WORDS, not the pictures.

[LA Ute]

As for the translation, no one knows how it was done, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no position on how the Book of Abraham was translated or from what papyrus. Since there is no official position, members of the church divide into four opinions about the translation of the Book of Abraham. The smallest group, comprising about 0.5 percent of members—according to my informal, admittedly unscientific surveys—thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the existing fragments that were in the Met. The next largest group thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus fragments that are no longer in existence. About one-third think that there is or was no connection between the Book of Abraham and any papyrus fragments. The largest group, more than half of members, do not care where the Book of Abraham came from. As Egyptologists, however, we routinely assert that the Mormon position is the one that is actually the least popular of all positions. The only eyewitness to the translation process to describe it was Joseph Smith's scribe, Warren Parrish, who claimed, after he left the church, "I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven."

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=r...9&num=2&id=670

It's a pretty interesting piece by John Gee, who's probably the foremost living LDS scholar on the papyri. I'm sure many here have strong opinions about Gee.

[jay santos]

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=r...9&num=2&id=670

It's a pretty interesting piece by John Gee, who's probably the foremost living LDS scholar on the papyri. I'm sure many here have strong opinions about Gee.

I'm not completely up to speed on all the BoA and KEP issues. My general understanding of the issue is the following:

1. Scholars, both LDS and non, generally agree the scrolls found in the 60's are the same scrolls Joseph had. There are pieces missing, but it's complete enough for all, both LDS and non, that the scrolls Joseph had most likely were burial texts dated to a couple thousand years after Abraham would have lived.

2. The new favorite angle for apologists is to acknowledge the scrolls had nothing to do with Abraham, but it was important for Joseph to think they were, so he could tap into his prophetic abilities. possibly unfair sidenote: my God is a mighty God and I have trouble thinking he's so inept he has to trick his prophet in this way in order to fulfill his will on Earth.

3. The whole KEP thing gets more bizarre the more you look at it, but apologists somehow find faith in it and critics predictably find more evidence of malarkey.

4. I don't understand Gee's argument exactly, but I seem to recall he's still in the literal camp, apart from most other serious LDS apologists, and is holding onto the assumption that the scrolls actually are ancient and from Abraham, we just haven't figured out how to translate them yet.

Do i have it right?

[CardiacCoug]

Henry Eyring was with FAIR?

No, but they are putting that quote on their website.

Even the most irrational and apologetic mullahs with FAIR are conceding that the papyri have nothing to do with Abraham. It's only the ignorant average Church members that are being kept in the dark (or lied to?) regarding this issue.

[CardiacCoug]

4. I don't understand Gee's argument exactly, but I seem to recall he's still in the literal camp, apart from most other serious LDS apologists, and is holding onto the assumption that the scrolls actually are ancient and from Abraham, we just haven't figured out how to translate them yet.

Do i have it right?

I think Gee is implying that he is in the camp that thinks there were other portions of the papyrus that were destroyed which may have represented the Book of Abraham.

Nobody can prove there WEREN'T other papyri that were from Abraham and were 2000 years older that just happened to be mixed in with the Book of Breathings. When all else fails, the apologists can always fall back on the "you can't prove a negative" strategy, no matter how improbable and illogical.

[jay santos]

I think Gee is implying that he is in the camp that thinks there were other portions of the papyrus that were destroyed which may have represented the Book of Abraham.

Nobody can prove there WEREN'T other papyri that were from Abraham and were 2000 years older that just happened to be mixed in with the Book of Breathings. When all else fails, the apologists can always fall back on the "you can't prove a negative" strategy, no matter how improbable and illogical.

OK. I thought he was making a case that the translation was in question and that what we already have and can analyze might actually be Abraham's writings and not the Book of Breathing. Most of this BoA and KEP stuff goes over my head. I don't have the patience to analyze all the details. I was reading another theory that seems to be catching on that the Egyptian was somehow coded and Joseph created a key to unlock the code. ? I don't know.

[CardiacCoug]

OK. I thought he was making a case that the translation was in question and that what we already have and can analyze might actually be Abraham's writings and not the Book of Breathing. Most of this BoA and KEP stuff goes over my head. I don't have the patience to analyze all the details. I was reading another theory that seems to be catching on that the Egyptian was somehow coded and Joseph created a key to unlock the code. ? I don't know.

Yeah, the apologetic spin for the Kirtland Egyptian Papers "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" is that it was written by Joseph's uninspired scribes who had gone rogue and strayed away from the Prophet.

Really you have to admire the creativity and imaginative strategies that LDS apologists have come up with to deal with this stuff.

They are pros at coming up with the least parsimonious arguments possible as long as they keep open the possibility of a literal approach to this stuff.

[Moliere]

I just staple the pages of the BoA together.

[LA Ute]

I'm not completely up to speed on all the BoA and KEP issues. My general understanding of the issue is the following:

1. Scholars, both LDS and non, generally agree the scrolls found in the 60's are the same scrolls Joseph had. There are pieces missing, but it's complete enough for all, both LDS and non, that the scrolls Joseph had most likely were burial texts dated to a couple thousand years after Abraham would have lived.

2. The new favorite angle for apologists is to acknowledge the scrolls had nothing to do with Abraham, but it was important for Joseph to think they were, so he could tap into his prophetic abilities. possibly unfair sidenote: my God is a mighty God and I have trouble thinking he's so inept he has to trick his prophet in this way in order to fulfill his will on Earth.

3. The whole KEP thing gets more bizarre the more you look at it, but apologists somehow find faith in it and critics predictably find more evidence of malarkey.

4. I don't understand Gee's argument exactly, but I seem to recall he's still in the literal camp, apart from most other serious LDS apologists, and is holding onto the assumption that the scrolls actually are ancient and from Abraham, we just haven't figured out how to translate them yet.

Do i have it right?

I don't think so, Jay, but I am far from a scholar on the B of A. You need to read Gee's entire piece. At places it becomes a bit of a slog because of all the Egyptology jargon, but it is quite interesting, especially where he relates the (known) history of the papyri. Unlike my friend Cardiac, I'm more willing to give JS the benefit of the doubt (this will come as a great shock to everyone here ). I heard someone talking yesterday about Edmund Burke's thoughts on "epistemological modesty," which I think means being modest about how much we know or can really know. I think both sides of the B of A debates (or maybe all 11 sides, or however many sides there are) could benefit from more of that modesty. I know I can.

[Pheidippides]

No, but they are putting that quote on their website.

Even the most irrational and apologetic mullahs with FAIR are conceding that the papyri have nothing to do with Abraham. It's only the ignorant average Church members that are being kept in the dark (or lied to?) regarding this issue.

The Gospel Principles manual says that the Book of Abraham was translated from the papyri. Those words almost exactly. It posed a minor problem for me in teaching that lesson. But hedged by saying that nothing JS did is what I consider translation in the slightest (as a former professional translator myself) so I dislike the use of the term.

[jay santos]

I don't think so, Jay, but I am far from a scholar on the B of A. You need to read Gee's entire piece. At places it becomes a bit of a slog because of all the Egyptology jargon, but it is quite interesting, especially where he relates the (known) history of the papyri. Unlike my friend Cardiac, I'm more willing to give JS the benefit of the doubt (this will come as a great shock to everyone here ). I heard someone talking yesterday about Edmund Burke's thoughts on "epistemological modesty," which I think means being modest about how much we know or can really know. I think both sides of the B of A debates (or maybe all 11 sides, or however many sides there are) could benefit from more of that modesty. I know I can.

Give us a cliff notes of the Gee article. I've tried to read his articles a few times and I don't know if he's intentionally obtuse, but I can never fully grasp what he's asserting. Bottom line is he both thinks Joseph was translating actual ancient text written by Abraham and that the papyri found in the 60's was indeed the same thing (at least partially) Joseph was translating. Is that right?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is where the FAIR people are taking the argument these days because there is no possible way to consider any part of the Book of Abraham any sort of translation whatsoever:

Isn't this pretty much the same issue as the head-in-the-hat translation of the BOM? JS had no capability to translate Egyptian so (except for symbolic reasons) what is the function of the papyri anyway?

[DapperDan]

Isn't this pretty much the same issue as the head-in-the-hat translation of the BOM? JS had no capability to translate Egyptian so (except for symbolic reasons) what is the function of the papyri anyway?

The problem with the "If the only function of the scrolls was to awaken the Prophet to the idea of receiving such inspiration, they would have fulfilled their purpose." idea is that there is evidence to suggest that JS was engaging in standard translation. If JS was writing inspired words that did not exist in the papyri, even he wasn't aware of it.

Joseph also wrote in July 1835: "The remainder of this month I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients" (HC 2:238).

On 1 October 1835, he noted: "This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps, and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter" (HC 2:286).

In May 1844, just forty-three days before his martyrdom, the Prophet entertained in Nauvoo Josiah Quincy, a member of the famous Quincy family of Massachusetts and soon-to-be mayor of Boston. During that visit, which so impressed Quincy that he wrote an unusually favorable report about the Prophet which is often cited by the Church as evidence of the Prophet's good character and personal magnetism (see C HC 2:349-50), Joseph Smith showed Quincy the mummies and the papyri. Quincy reported about the visit: "Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. 'That is the handwriting of Abraham, the father of the Faithful,' said the prophet. 'This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation from which Moses composed the First Book of Genesis' " (1883, 386).

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte...V23N04_169.pdf

[LA Ute]

1. A basic point:

As for the translation, no one knows how it was done, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no position on how the Book of Abraham was translated or from what papyrus.

It seems pretty clear (but again, I am no expert) that the surviving papyri do not include all the papyri JS had.

2. The commonly accepted story of the surviving papyri's provenance is all wrong. (I'd quote Gee here but my iPad isn't letting me copy from the article.)

3. The commonly accepted story of how JS originally got the full set of papyri also contains several errors.

4. There is abundant evidence that the surviving papyri are not the ones JS used, or was influenced by (or whatever happened) when he put the B of A on paper.

5. His "advice" section is actually pretty funny. Too long to summarize, and I can't copy. Sorry!

6. What we do know about the papyri and how they resulted in the B of A is a lot less than what we don't know.

7. "Anyone approaching the Joseph Smith Papyri should be prepared to wade through much nonsense in the form of commentaries and analyses."

[Jeff Lebowski]

The problem with the "If the only function of the scrolls was to awaken the Prophet to the idea of receiving such inspiration, they would have fulfilled their purpose." idea is that there is evidence to suggest that JS was engaging in standard translation. If JS was writing inspired words that did not exist in the papyri, even he wasn't aware of it.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte...V23N04_169.pdf

Sure. I am not advocating anything, just pointing out the similarity of the two cases.

[Joe Public]

The problem with the "If the only function of the scrolls was to awaken the Prophet to the idea of receiving such inspiration, they would have fulfilled their purpose." idea is that there is evidence to suggest that JS was engaging in standard translation. If JS was writing inspired words that did not exist in the papyri, even he wasn't aware of it.





https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte...V23N04_169.pdf

Also, consider Mosiah 8:13, which suggests a seer is someone who can "translate all records that are of ancient date."