DiscussMormonism.com

Gee then notes that Jews had emigrated to Egypt many times in the past. Some Jews fled to Egypt in the sixth century B.C. before and after the time that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon. Others fled to Egypt during the Persian period (525-399 B.C.), during the reign of Ptolemy I (320-301 B.C.), and several more times prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, when another wave of refugees fled to Egypt (A.D. 70-73). A discussion of this topic can be found in The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt by Aryeh Kasher, Tübingen, Morh [Siebeck], 1985, and other sources cited by Gee [Gee, 1995a, p. 72]. Jewish refugees would have brought some writings with them, and at least parts of Jewish scriptures had been written in demotic script by the Persian period. Gee continues:

Nothing compels us to assume that the book of Abraham must necessarily have been written by Abraham in Egyptian and preserved in Egyptian hands the entire time; it may also have passed through the hands of Abraham's posterity and been taken to Egypt only much later, where it was translated....
What the Anastasi priestly archive shows is that Egyptian priests (in Thebes) freely borrowed from Jewish and Christian sources; thus they must have had some sort of access to them....A minimal historical argument from this is that the existence of a Book of Abraham in Egypt at the time of the Joseph Smith Papyri were produced is well within the scope of reasonable scholarship.

Interestingly, the Egyptian connections in the Testament of Abraham allow E.P. Sanders to "postulate Egyptian provenance for the original story," saying "it seems best to assume a date for the original of c. A.D. 100, plus or minus twenty-five years" [Charlesworth, 1983, 1:875]. What, then, is so ridiculous about an Egyptian papyrus of similar date presenting information about Abraham? The Book of Abraham has not been proven true by any of this, but several common allegations have been disproven. Egyptian writings about Abraham are a legitimate possibility.

( http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml )

The record is now in course of translation by the means of the Urim and Thummim, and proves to be a record written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and finished by Joseph when in Egypt. After his death, it is supposed they were preserved in the family of the Pharaohs and afterwards hid up with the embalmed body of the female with whom they were found. Thus it is, indeed, true, that the ways of the Lord are not as man's ways, nor his thoughts as our thoughts.

( http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf And: http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... 61&stop=80 )

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 is Mine here; It is Kevin quoting from Brent. )

Brackite wrote:I do Not see how one can reconcile with what the LDS Apologist Jeff Lindsay believes and maintains about how the text of the Book of Abraham came about to Joseph Smith versus what LDS Apostle Parley P. Pratt believed and maintain how the text of the Book of Abraham came about to Joseph Smith. They definitely do seem to very much with conflict each other.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:And I have yet to see any apologist get around this troubling statement at the beginning of the Book of Abraham (bold mine for emphasis):

"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

So what do I think about the real source of the Book of Abraham? I personally feel that Joseph had a scroll (in red and black) which really contained writings about Abraham. That scroll is not the Book of Breathings, but was probably part of the collection that A. Combs sold, which ultimately may have perished in the 1871 Chicago Fire. There are still questions I can't answer, but I certainly see no reason to reject Joseph Smith because of the Book of Breathings. To those who insist that no legitimate translation of the Book of Breathings could possibly result in the Book of Abraham, I agree!

( http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml , Bold emphasis mine. )

When Joseph published the Book of Abraham, he did so under the following heading:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands, from the catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he
was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have seen some apologist’s try to “make hay” with the inclusion of the word “purporting”. The only thing we can positively derive from the use of that word is that the writings on the actual papyrus claim to have been written by Abraham himself.

H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1995], 150 – 151 (bold emphasis mine):
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Prophet dictated a statement to Willard Richards to be included in the March 1, 1842, edition of the Times and Seasons, outlining his objectives as editor. He planned to publish various documents in serial form, including the Book of Abraham, for the benefit of the Church. This is his statement:

"A considerable quantity of the matter in the last paper was in type before the establishment came into my hands.—Some of which went to press without my review or knowledge and a multiplicitty of business while entering on the additional care of the editorial department of the Times and Seasons must be my apology for what is past.—
In future I design to furnish much original matter which will be found of inestimable advantage to the saints,—& all who desire a knowledge of the kingdom of God,—and as it is not practicable to bring forth the new translation of the Scriptures & various records of ancient date & great worth to this generation in the usual form by books I shall permit specimens of the same in the Times & Seasons as fast as time and space will admit,—so that the honest in heart may be cheered and comforted and go on their way rejoicing,—as their souls become expossed.—& their understanding enlightened by a knowledge of God's work through the fathers in former days as well as what He is about to do in latter days to fulfill the words of the fathers.—
In the present no. will be found the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham which I shall outline to translate & publish as fast as possible till the whole is completed and as the saints have long been anxious to obtain a copy of these records those [who] are now taking this Times & Seasons will confer a special favor on their brethren who do not take the paper by informing them that they can now obtain their hearts."

However, that statement was not published. Rather, the following brief statement addressed "to Subscribers" and signed by Joseph Smith appeared in the March 1 edition of the paper:

"This paper commences my editorial career, I alone stand responsible for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper: the matter did not come under my supervision."

( http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... 61&stop=80 , Bold emphasis mine.)

Interestingly, the Egyptian connections in the Testament of Abraham allow E.P. Sanders to "postulate Egyptian provenance for the original story," saying "it seems best to assume a date for the original of c. A.D. 100, plus or minus twenty-five years" [Charlesworth, 1983, 1:875]. What, then, is so ridiculous about an Egyptian papyrus of similar date presenting information about Abraham? The Book of Abraham has not been proven true by any of this, but several common allegations have been disproven. Egyptian writings about Abraham are a legitimate possibility.

( http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml )

Critics such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner have long argued that the Joseph Smith Papyri and related Egyptian documents (from the Anastasi priestly archive of ancient Thebes) could have no possible connection to a book of Abraham because they are nothing but pagan magical writings from the Greco-Roman period. Now that documents from that source have been found with the name Abraham on them, they argue that such writings can't have anything to do with Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham because they are nothing but pagan magical writings from the Greco-Roman period. But they miss the point: these recent discoveries show that the Egyptian writers of those documents did know something about Abraham. As John Gee notes [Gee, 1995a, p. 72]:

That a Greco-Roman period priest wrote the name Abraham directly under a lion-couch scene and noted that they should both be copied together may simply be coincidence - why it is there has never been satisfactorily explained - but the idea of connecting a lion couch scene found in a Greco-Roman period Egyptian papyrus from Thebes with Abraham can no longer be dismissed as absurd, as critics have done for years. Therein is and always has been the significance of the Anastasi priestly archive for the book of Abraham; not that the archive authenticates the book of Abraham - for it does not and no one has claimed that it did - but that it shows that the idea that a Greco-Roman period Egyptian priest might have had a copy of the book of Abraham is not completely out of the question....

( http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml )

The response of the Church was to disappoint such critics, however. Back in the original Times and Seasons article of 1842, the text of the papyri translation had been preceded by the heading:

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus. THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM.

This same heading had been used in the (first) 1851 edition of The Pearl of Great Price, the source that had been available to the critics. But in 1878, when the second edition was being prepared for publication in Salt Lake City, Apostle Orson Pratt edited out the words "purporting to be" from the heading. This emphasized even more strongly the Church's position that the book was nothing less than the divinely translated record of Abraham, and not merely some pagan funeral text as the non-Mormon scholarly world was asserting.3

The following year (1879) George Reynolds, a president of the LDS Council of Seventy, wrote an article for the Church entitled, "The Book of Abraham: Its Authenticity Established as a Divine and Ancient Record." In it Reynolds suggested that the papyrus,

. . . had at least two (but more probably three) meanings, the one understood by the masses -- the other comprehended only by the initiated, the priesthood and others; which latter conveyed the true though hidden intent of the writer.*

The following year the Book of Abraham was officially recognized as scripture. The position of the Saints was firm: Deveria's 20-year-old conclusions were misleading and lacked the authority of Latter-day Saint enlightenment. This was, after all, the only real authority the Saints could properly recognize.


( http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh1.html )

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH
A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348—351.

( http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/abr/1 )