Specifically, we will suggest that the facsimiles may not have been drawn by Abraham's hand but may have been Egyptian religious vignettes that were adopted or adapted by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the Book of Abraham. We will illustrate general processes of Jewish adaptation of Egyptian sources and then describe in detail three specific examples from the Greco-Roman period (the same period when the Joseph Smith Papyri were produced) that each relates in some way to Abraham. We will suggest that such Jewish adaptation of Egyptian sources was common during this time period and would explain the adaptation of the facsimiles to illustrate the Book of Abraham, which may have come under this redactor's care as part of the ancient transmission of the text.
Greater minds than mine, who post regularly on this board will discuss a more academic line on this issue. For me, it's the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. No matter what style of clothing, the Apologist's use to dress the Book of Abraham up in, it will always appear naked. If you try and make a silk purse out of a Sow's ear, you can only end up with a deaf pig. No one, but no one, knows the truth, but most historian's would say that the Book of Abraham was a fairy story from day one.
We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. T.S.Eliot
The Saints of this hypothetical situation, stunned by these disclosures, scramble for answers. A big debate ensues, the results of which are inconclusive. Over time, defenders of the church claim that the explanations are "generally" consistent with Egyptological understanding, while critics discount any "lucky guesses" and characterize Joseph's explanations as completely incorrect and made up.
And so the matter sits. Now, from our perspective outside of this hypothetical, we can see that people are looking at Facsimile P as if they were in Plato's cave, forced to view mere shadows on a wall. From where we sit, however, we can see clearly that Joseph's explanations are completely correct. The Egyptologists are also correct enough, but only as to the meaning of Facsimile P in its Egyptian context. But Facsimile P has another, a Semitic context, as an illustration of the Testament of Abraham. That context cannot be appreciated by studying Facsimile P in isolation (which leads to the tendency to think of it in purely Egyptian terms); rather, the facsimile must be considered together with the text it purports to illustrate, the Testament of Abraham. When viewed in that light, the plausibility of Joseph's explanations is made manifest. If, by some chance, an actual manuscript of the Testament were to be discovered in this hypothetical situation, the mystery would be completely solved, and the people would be able to see clearly (as do we) just how Joseph's explanations relate to the facsimile.
Can anyone explain this to me? The arugement is we are suppose to translate the facsimiles into Jewish (give them a Jewish meaning) and then we see Joseph smith was correct. It least that's what I think the arugement is. I tried reading the related link and I can't understand it because I don't know enough about the topic.
Is this just some mental gymnastics or do the facsimiles make sense if you translate them into Jewish. Did Joseph get it right?
I will try to explain this to you as I understand it. Apologists have a problem. The facsimiles in the Book of Abraham appear to have nothing to do with Abraham. They are relatively unremarkable Egyptian funerary documents dated to a few centuries before Christ (much later than the Biblical Abraham).
This wouldn't matter except that Joseph Smith interpreted the facsimiles as depicting Abraham, etc. (see interpretations of the facsimiles in the LDS standard works). Apologists must now explain how ordinary Egyptian funerary documents bear any relation to Abraham.
One theory to overcome this problem and still maintain the prophetic status of Joseph Smith is the Jewish redactor theory. It posits that a Jewish writer who lived around the time the facsimiles were made (a few centuries before Christ and long after Abraham) took these Egyptian vignettes and adapted them to a new context - to illustrate the story of Abraham. Essentially, some old Jew took vignettes depicting pagan Gods and began using them to illustrate tales about Abraham.
The modern day equivalent of this would be me taking van Gogh's starry night painting and using it to illustrate the history of one of my ancestors crossing on the Mayflower. Van Gogh's painting, in its original context, has nothing to do with the crossing of the Mayflower. However, I am writing a history of my ancestor crossing on the Mayflower and I think starry night can be used to illustrate various aspects of my ancestor's story. For example, I may describe starry night as depicting my ancestor's assurance from God that he would reach the new world as depicted by the exaggerated stars in the heavens. The dark structure rising up represents Satan and the minions of hell trying to thwart my noble ancestor's journey to the new land.
dblagent007 wrote:I will try to explain this to you as I understand it. Apologists have a problem. The facsimiles in the Book of Abraham appear to have nothing to do with Abraham. They are relatively unremarkable Egyptian funerary documents dated to a few centuries before Christ (much later than the Biblical Abraham).
This wouldn't matter except that Joseph Smith interpreted the facsimiles as depicting Abraham, etc. (see interpretations of the facsimiles in the LDS standard works). Apologists must now explain how ordinary Egyptian funerary documents bear any relation to Abraham.
One theory to overcome this problem and still maintain the prophetic status of Joseph Smith is the Jewish redactor theory. It posits that a Jewish writer who lived around the time the facsimiles were made (a few centuries before Christ and long after Abraham) took these Egyptian vignettes and adapted them to a new context - to illustrate the story of Abraham. Essentially, some old Jew took vignettes depicting pagan Gods and began using them to illustrate tales about Abraham.
The modern day equivalent of this would be me taking van Gogh's starry night painting and using it to illustrate the history of one of my ancestors crossing on the Mayflower. Van Gogh's painting, in its original context, has nothing to do with the crossing of the Mayflower. However, I am writing a history of my ancestor crossing on the Mayflower and I think starry night can be used to illustrate various aspects of my ancestor's story. For example, I may describe starry night as depicting my ancestor's assurance from God that he would reach the new world as depicted by the exaggerated stars in the heavens. The dark structure rising up represents Satan and the minions of hell trying to thwart my noble ancestor's journey to the new land.
That is the basic theory as I understand it.
That's a pretty good explanation dblagent007, but is there enough room on Van Gogh's canvas to write the history of your ancestor?
The thesis of the article is pretty much the position I subscribe to, although I'm not sure if the inspired adaptation of the facsimiles was done by an ancient redactor or by Joseph Smith.
"I'd say Joseph, that your anger levels are off the charts. What you are, Joseph, is a bully." - Gadianton "Antley's anger is approaching...levels of volcanic hatred." - Scratch
Joseph Antley wrote:The thesis of the article is pretty much the position I subscribe to, although I'm not sure if the inspired adaptation of the facsimiles was done by an ancient redactor or by Joseph Smith.
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. Also problematic is why an ancient redactor would include the facsimile without making any obvious changes to make it represent the Abraham story. 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?
"Apologists must now explain how ordinary Egyptian funerary documents bear any relation to Abraham."
Very easy to understand. You stand back about 8 feet with your hand out in front of you with thumb extended up. (don't worry about sign of the square at this point) Then, focus on the thumb with the papyrus drawing over it in the background. Listen to Dr Hooks version of 'cover of the Rolling Stone' and 'Can't get no satisfaction' by The Rolling Stones as you look at the thumb. Think 'egyptian' as you listen and look... it will all start to make sense if you do it long enought without eating anything.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.