The Book of Abraham

[_Brackite]

Hi There,
Most LDS Apologists of the Book of Abraham believe and maintain that the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text) is Not the source from which the Book of Abraham. Hugh Nibley maintained this. John Gee maintains this. Even Daniel C. Peterson maintains this.
Here is what Daniel C. Peterson wrote in the January 1994 Ensign:

Critics have long attempted to make a case against the book of Abraham. They argue that some ancient texts do not support the book. They point to the fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri that we now possess and claim that since the contents of these papyri bear little obvious relationship to the book of Abraham, the book is a fraud; but Hugh Nibley has made an exhaustive study of these claims and has shown that the papyri we now have were probably not the ones from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham. 29

( http://library.LDS.org/nxt/gateway.dll? ... efault.htm )

Despite Daniel C. Peterson wanting the readers of the Ensign to not believe that the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text) is not the source for the Book of Abraham (by providing a footnote to some of Hugh Nibley Book of Abraham Apologetics which had a lot of it already been refuted before the year of 1994 (1)), the evidence is very overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text is indeed the source for the Book of Abraham.

Here is what Kevin Graham wrote and quoted from Brent Metcalfe on the “FAIR” Message Board several months ago there:

We also get all these wild excuses as to how the Breathings text couldn`t have possibily been the source for the Book of Abraham translation, but not one single LDS apologetic even acknolwedges the many reasons to believe it was. Here is a list provided by Metcalfe:

1. Facsimile 1 is the opening vignette in the Breathing Permit of Hôr.

2. Facsimile 3 is the closing vignette in the Breathing Permit of Hôr. (The Hôr papyrus fragment for Fac. 3 is not extant. Still, the Fac. 3 woodcut preserves the identity of the deceased—Hôr—confirming that it too belongs to Hôr's Breathing Permit.)

3. The BoAbr identifies Facsimile 1 (the opening vignette in Hôr's Breathing Permit) as an illustration placed at the "commencement" (Abr. 1:12) or "beginning" (Abr. 1:14) of patriarch Abraham's record.

4. Vignette Facsimile 3 (from the Breathing Permit of Hôr), according to Smith, also illustrates scenes from Abraham's life.

5. In keeping with the BoAbr claim that Facsimile 1 opened the record, all extant dictated BoAbr manuscripts (MS 1a [fldr. 2], MS 1b [fldr. 3], and MS 2 [fldr. 1]) contain authentic hieratic copied sequentially from the contiguous portion of the Breathing Permit of Hôr only. (There are two minor exceptions to sequence, but those characters too originate from Hôr's Breathing Permit. Invented, non-authentic Egyptian characters also appear on the manuscripts at points where the papyrus fragment has a lacuna.)

6. All authentic Egyptian characters in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language were copied from the Breathing Permit of Hôr.

7. Aside from hypocephalus Facsimile 2 (the original of which is no longer extant), Hôr's Breathing Permit is the only papyrus that is associated with Joseph Smith's BoAbr—an association that is attested to repeatedly in the BoAbr text and its antecedent manuscripts.

Point #5 is the true kicker, and to explain exactly how this worked, here is a photo of a KEP manuscript to the right.


( The Bold Emphasis Mine here, is Kevin quoting from Brent. )

Here is the URL To that Discussion Thread there: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?sho ... 15210&hl=#

Well Anyways then, despite what Daniel C. Peterson and John Gee believing and wanting a lot of people to believe that the Book of Breathings test ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text) is Not the source for the Book of Abraham, the evidence is indeed very overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text is indeed the source for the Book of Abraham.

1. Please See for example: [URL=http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/resscri3.htm] 'Reducing Dissonance:
The Book of Abraham as a Case Study'
by Edward H. Ashment[/URL]

[_Polygamy Porter]

Ya see Brackie, Mormons always work from the left side of the equation.

Never touch the result of the equation, that being the choich is twwwoooo.

Find something on the left that might cause the church to NOT be true? Twist it, contort it, bend it till it breaks, or just remove it!


Where is our resident BofS err Book of Abraham expert Paul O?

Now is your chance to show us how much bigger and better your work is than what Gerald Tanner did!!

C'mon! Theres like tens of people waiting!

[_Brackite]

Hi There again,
Now let’s go to what is stated on the FAIRwiki Article about the Book of Abraham. Here is this part of the FAIRwiki Book of Abraham Article:

Of these five scrolls, only eleven fragments of two scrolls have survived. The "Scroll of Hor" (the Egyptian Book of Breathings) from where we get Facsimile 1 (and almost certainly Facsimile 3 (http://scriptures.LDS.org/abr/fac_3)—which didn't survive) is incomplete.

Dr. Nibley writes:

We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.[9] (http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_ ... te_nibley2)

( http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_ ... pyri_(long) )

Brent Metcalfe has already responded to the High Nibley bit about the papyrus being long enough that it extended to through two rooms of the Mansion House. Here is what Brent Metcalfe wrote:

Joseph F.'s reminiscence most closely resembles what Nibley describes in Dialogue. If I'm correct, then we can conclude that in Dialogue Hugh misidentified the Nauvoo House as the "Mansion House" and mistakenly depicted the papyri running through two rooms rather than scattered on the floor of one room. If I'm not correct, then I have no idea what Nibley is referring to in his undocumented remark.

In the Improvement Era, Hugh informs readers that Preston Nibley had supplied the Joseph F. Smith account. Preston published his 1906 encounter with Joseph F. in the early 1940's (if memory serves), but omitted the recollection about the BoAbr papyri. According to Preston, in 1906 Joseph F. was recalling an event that occurred over six decades earlier when Smith was 5 years old, or younger. Four years later, in 1910, Hugh was born. Before Preston died (in the mid 1960's?) he related Joseph F.'s recollection to Hugh. Finally, Hugh published the reminiscence in the mid/late 1960's. Given this transmission history, scholars would be reckless to uncritically appeal to Joseph F.'s story as an unblemished depiction of the BoAbr papyri.

Cheers,

bReNt

( http://p080.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =447.topic , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

Now let us go to what else that FAIRwiki Article about the Book of Abraham and its apologetics states. Here it is:

Nothing like this has survived today. Dr. Gee estimates that the Scroll of Hor (likely the putative [supposed] source for the Book of Abraham) may have been ten feet long[10] (http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_ ... dnote_gee2) and that in all, Joseph may have had eight times as much papyri as what is currently extant.[11] (http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_ ... dnote_gee3) A number of scholars contend that the reason that the extant papyrus fragments don't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham is because we don't have that portion of the papyrus that served as the text from whence Joseph translated the Book of Abraham. At the very least, the critics ought to be cautious if only 13% of the ancient scrolls are currently known![12] (http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_ ... note_gee23)

( http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_ ... pyri_(long) )

That FAIRwiki Article mentions that John Gee believes that the Scroll of Hor was about 10 feet long. However, Dr. Robert Ritner disagrees with John Gee on about that. Here is what Dr. R. Ritner wrote:

There is no justification for Gee's unsubstantiated attempt to more than double this figure to '320 cm (about 10 feet)' in Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 10 and 12–13. Gee presumably wishes to allow space for a supposedly 'lost hieratic text' of The Book of Abraham; his figure derives from the average length of a manufactured (blank) Ptolemaic papyrus roll—not comparable, individual documents cut from such a roll. [R. Ritner, "Among the Joseph Smith Papyri," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62.3 (July 2003): 166n33]

Well anyways then, despite what the Mormon Apologists Daniel C. Peterson, John Gee, and Juliann R. likely thinking that the FAIRwiki Article about the Book of Abraham contains good apologetic arguments that the Book of Breathings Text is not the source of the Book of Abraham, the fact is that the FAIRwiki article does Not contain any good apologetic arguments that the Book of Breathings Text is not the source for the Book of Abraham. Despite what Daniel C. Peterson thinks, John Gee thinks, and what Juliann R. thinks, the evidence is very overwhelming that the Book of Breathings Text is indeed the source for the Book of Abraham.

[_Brackite]

The FAIRwiki Article about the Book of Abraham then after falsely assuming that the Book of Breathings Text Scroll was really about 10 feet long goes on with this tidbit:

And while it's true that the extant portions of the JSP are from the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings and do not, according to Egyptologists, translate to anything like the LDS Book of Abraham, this doesn't necessarily mean that the translation didn't derive from Joseph's papyri.

There are other scenarios that are compatible with Joseph's claims. We know from other sources, for instance, that sometimes scrolls were attached together. To quote Gee:

Some people assume that if the documents [JSP] are funerary they cannot contain anything else. Some Book of the Dead papyri, however, do contain other texts. For example, a fragmentary Eighteenth-Dynasty Book of the Dead in Cairo...contains account texts on the front side (recto) [with the Book of the Dead on the back side]. Papyrus Vandier also has a Book of the Dead on the verso (back side), but the recto contains the story of Meryre, who was sacrificed on an altar (an intriguing similarity to the Book of Abraham). The Book of the Dead of Psenmines...and Pawerem...both contain temple rituals. Both Papyrus Harkness and BM 10507 (demotic funerary papyri) contain several different texts. Just because the preserved sections of the Joseph Smith Papyri are funerary in nature does not mean that they could not have had other texts, either on the verso or on missing sections of the rolls.[13] (http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_ ... dnote_gee4)

It is therefore possible that the Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings. But why? Why would an important Semitic document be attached to a pagan (Egyptian) funerary text?

Is it really possible that there was a Book of Abraham manuscript? Here is what our friend here, LDS Apologist Paul O., wrote about this on Kevin Graham Discussion Forum:

I think it’s quite safe for people to assume that funerary documents never contain stories that are victoriously antagonistic towards the gods of Egypt! If John Gee can provide an example of that caliber then perhaps his point has merit. This business about a sacrifice on an altar described in the Vandier papyrus is nothing more than a scholarly trick to appease the less informed. Does the story pit two ancient religions (Israel & Egyptian) against each other?

It is Egyptologically incorrect to suggest that the Book of Abraham could be found on a religous scroll containing sacred spells and images of the Egyptian gods. Shall we put the Koran on the altars of the Mormon temple? Shall we include a chapter of Charles Larson's book in the covers of the Doctrine & Covenants?

I contend that funerary scrolls would not have contained a story that tells about Jehovah slaying an Egyptian priest and overthrowing the gods of Egypt. I think John Gee has pushed this little example too far. He is comparing apples with oranges and too many people have fallen for it.

( http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14 )

It is very, very extremely unlikely that there would have been a Book of Abraham manuscript attached to the Book of Breathings Text. LDS Apologist John Gee is so off base and ridiculous about this, that it is really that funny and that laughable.

[_Dr. Shades]

I agree that the "Missing Papyrus Roll" theory is insane. Convenient how we have found all these Egyptologically-related fragments, but none from the Book of Abraham scroll itself?

Plus, Gee's wild theory completely discounts the fact that the Book of Breathings characters are written down the left margins of the Book of Abraham manuscripts. If there really was a missing scroll, why aren't those characters running down the margin?

[_Gazelam]

Early on Oliver Cowdery reported that "When the translation of these valuable documents will be completed, I am unable to say; neither can I give you a probable idea how large volumes they will make; but judging from their size, and the comprehensiveness of the language, one might reasonably expect to see a sufficient to develop much upon the mighty acts of the ancient men of God, and of his dealing with the children of men when they saw him face to face." In 1838 Anson Call visited the prophet in Far West. Joseph invited him in and said, "Sit down and we will read you from the translations of the Book of Abraham". Oliver Cowdery then read until he was tired when Thomas marsh read" - now note this comment - "making altogether about two hours. I was much interested in the work."

The manuscripts and the translation were much larger than we know of, and have in our possesion, today.

Gaz

[_Brackite]

Hi Gazelam,

The following is from Brent Metcalfe from the Zion Lighthouse Message Board:

...Anson Call's reminiscence is historically problematic:


Anson said that BoMor witness Oliver Cowdery read from the BoAbr "until he was tired," leaving Thomas Marsh to finish the recital.


According to Call, the reading took place in 1838 at Far West.


Anson's autobiography places his arrival at Far West in late March or early April 1838.


By December 1837, disaffection was brewing for Oliver Cowdery—he and Joseph Smith were at odds on economic and socio-political issues.


By the end of January 1838, Oliver was effectively stripped of his church calling followed by accusations that he had sold land contrary to revelation.


Cowdery responded with legal action against Joseph Smith.


On 12 April 1838, Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Mormon church.


Thomas Marsh testified against Oliver at the excommunication proceedings.
In the midst of so much personal animosity and ecclesiastical estrangement, Anson Call's recollection of a BoAbr recital involving Oliver Cowdery, Thomas Marsh, and Joseph Smith is absurd.
A BoAbr reading may have occurred in spring 1838, but it almost certainly did not include Oliver's participation. Anson's tenuous telling is scarcely the type of source that sound theories are built upon.

[_Gazelam]

Interesting Brak. I wonder why his journal would read as it does if that were true. brings in to question dates and such. But all journal entries I have seen and heard testify to there being a great deal of writeings and other scrolls. A question of who was in town when because of this date and that doesent hold up to a mans journal entry regarding something that at the time would not even of been questionable.