Jewish adaptation of Egyptian sources Book of Abraham

[_Joseph Antley]

Joseph your comment is interesting. Since this thread was started I reread Kevin Barney's paper and it got my gears turning. There are many problems with Barney's thesis, not the least of which is that there is profuse evidence that Joseph Smith himself thought that the papyri were from Abraham instead of from a ancient redactor.

I think Joseph Smith was wrong. I don't consider his opinion as proof against an ancient redactor.

Also problematic is why an ancient redactor would include the facsimile without making any obvious changes to make it represent the Abraham story.

I don't know, but I can see potential explanations.

Personally, I think an ancient redactor is unlikely while a modern redactor in the form of Joseph Smith is entirely likely. This of course begs the question, why would Joseph Smith expect Egyptian documents to contain biblical stories in the first place?

Likely the same reason he thought Jews c. 600 B.C. would have spoken and written in Egyptian.

[_George Miller]

I think Joseph Smith was wrong. I don't consider his opinion as proof against an ancient redactor.

Smile ... Of course his opinion is not proof against an ancient redactor. However, I think the assumption made by some apologists on this matter is suspect. For example Barney thinks that this is the work of an ancient redactor. At the same time he thinks that God accurately revealed to Joseph the text of this ancient redactor. But why would God reveal to Joseph the text of the ancient redactor accurately but allow Joseph to inaccurately portray the history of the text?

Additionally there are other problems with Barney's thesis. Barney is correct that Egyptian religion influenced Jewish and Christian religions in many ways. This influence can be seen in both our canonical texts as well as the pseudepigraphical works. But if in fact the ancient redactor of the Book of Abraham was influenced by the Egyptian drawings then then is no reason not to assume that the text of the Book of Abraham is wholly pseudepigraphical like all of the other similar works. If it is pseudepigraphical then frankly why any importance in restoring them? Of course Barney hedges on this possibility by saying that the ancient redactor also had an ancient text which was passed down to him from Abraham. Of course IF he had a text then why would he need any influence from the facsimiles to structure the text? Barney's thesis just doesn't add up.

I don't know, but I can see potential explanations.

Joseph I am interested in hearing some potential explanations. And how does facsimile 2, which is not included in the same text, fit into this model?

Likely the same reason he thought Jews c. 600 B.C. would have spoken and written in Egyptian.

Agreed ... But why would he have thought that?

[_zeezrom]

There are many problems with Barney's thesis, not the least of which is that there is profuse evidence that Joseph Smith himself thought that the papyri were from Abraham instead of from a ancient redactor.

I think Joseph Smith was wrong. I don't consider his opinion as proof against an ancient redactor.

But if Joseph was wrong, why did he seem to be desirous to make people think he was right? Was he deceived?
If he was deceived, was it the power of Satan that deceived him? Why didn't God try to correct this deception? Why didn't the Church try to correct this deception? Is the Church perpetuating deception?

[_Joseph Antley]

But if Joseph was wrong, why did he seem to be desirous to make people think he was right? Was he deceived?

No. I think he probably just made a logical but incorrect assumption.

[_Paul Osborne]

But if Joseph was wrong, why did he seem to be desirous to make people think he was right? Was he deceived?

No. I think he probably just made a logical but incorrect assumption.

Like it was logical for Joseph Smith to see the name Shulem in the writing and he assumed others would buy it?

Paul O

[_Mortal Man]

This of course begs the question, why would Joseph Smith expect Egyptian documents to contain biblical stories in the first place?

Michael Chandler used a couple of placards to advertise his collection. One of them read, in part,

EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES

These Mummies, with seven others, were taken from the Catacombs of Egypt,...

These strangers illustrious from their antiquity, may have lived in the days of Jacob, Moses, or David, and of course some thousand years have elapsed since these bodies were animated with the breath of life!

The most prominent Biblical prophets associated with Egypt are Abraham, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith had already written a Book of Moses, so that left Abraham and Joseph. Visual inspection of the Hôr and Tshenmîn rolls suggested that the Hôr scroll was older; hence, he assigned the Hôr scroll to Abraham and the Tshenmîn scroll to Joseph.

Joseph incorporated the opening line of the placard into his Book of Abraham introduction in the Times and Seasons. http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n09.htm

Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs 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.

[_zzyzx]

But if Joseph was wrong, why did he seem to be desirous to make people think he was right? Was he deceived?

No. I think he probably just made a logical but incorrect assumption.

Antley, this is one of the dumbest things ever posted on these boards... and that is saying a lot.

Joseph Smith pointed out to others the personal writings of Abraham, Moses and Aaron. How would he even come up with this baloney unless he was given the information by Inspiration from The Lord as he translated the ancient record by The Gift and Power of God?

Liars often get caught in their lies and sometimes even get caught up in them. Joseph was a liar. Yes, it really is just that simple.

[_George Miller]

This of course begs the question, why would Joseph Smith expect Egyptian documents to contain biblical stories in the first place?

Michael Chandler used a couple of placards to advertise his collection. ...
The most prominent Biblical prophets associated with Egypt are Abraham, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith had already written a Book of Moses, so that left Abraham and Joseph. Visual inspection of the Hôr and Tshenmîn rolls suggested that the Hôr scroll was older; hence, he assigned the Hôr scroll to Abraham and the Tshenmîn scroll to Joseph.

These are very good point Mortal Man. I think your analysis is fascinating and largely correct. However, the fact that Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was written in reformed Egyptian suggests that there was a source from which Joseph was drawing prior to the arrival of Michael Chandler.

[_Joseph Antley]

Joseph Smith pointed out to others the personal writings of Abraham, Moses and Aaron. How would he even come up with this baloney unless he was given the information by Inspiration from The Lord as he translated the ancient record by The Gift and Power of God?

I believe Joseph translated the record by the gift and power of God and knew the contents. Since he knew what the contents were -- or at least what was being revealed to him about Abraham -- then he logically assumed that the record had belonged to Abraham.

[_Trevor]

This of course begs the question, why would Joseph Smith expect Egyptian documents to contain biblical stories in the first place?

Because he thought that Egyptian was akin to Adamic. It was a purer language from a primordial age. It contained the great secrets of the hierophants.