Question - Since we're on the topic of the Book of Abraham...

[_Who Knows]

What is the apologetic as to why Korash was not included in the earlier manuscripts, but added later? Whenever the '4 gods' are referred to in the early mss, korash is not included, but 'the god of pharoah' is - like he was the 4th.

[_William Schryver]

What is the apologetic as to why Korash was not included in the earlier manuscripts, but added later? Whenever the '4 gods' are referred to in the early mss, korash is not included, but 'the god of pharoah' is - like he was the 4th.

I'm not aware of any "apologetic" about Korash. I don't think there's any controversy attached to it. Do you view its later addition as evidence one way or the other? If so, why?

(By the way, I started a thread on the MAD board that you'd like, but since I don't think you can participate there, I will start an identical thread in the "Off-topic Forum" here.)

[_Who Knows]

I'm not aware of any "apologetic" about Korash. I don't think there's any controversy attached to it. Do you view its later addition as evidence one way or the other? If so, why?

Well, it's not exactly a small typo, or oversight, or scribal error. If we're to assume that these are the words that Joseph Smith received via 'translation' or 'revelation', I guess I just wouldn't expect to see this type of error.

The libnah/zibnah thing also raises questions.

I mean, what else is wrong with this 'book of scripture'?

(By the way, I started a thread on the MAD board that you'd like, but since I don't think you can participate there, I will start an identical thread in the "Off-topic Forum" here.)

Yeah, thanks for stealing my thread. Granted, yours is more interesting, but still...

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi William,

Granted, the Korash issue isn't the kind of knock 'em dead critique that, say, the labels above the figures in facsimile 3 is. But it does raise some really interesting questions, and poses some real problems for non-catalyst concepts of translation. Here's a good place to start:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... sh&start=0

-Chris

[_Who Knows]

Hi William,

Granted, the Korash issue isn't the kind of knock 'em dead critique that, say, the labels above the figures in facsimile 3 is. But it does raise some really interesting questions, and poses some real problems for non-catalyst concepts of translation. Here's a good place to start:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... sh&start=0

-Chris

lol. Thanks CKid. I knew my memory was bad, but not this bad. As a result of the other recent thread here, I was looking through williams mss., and noticed Korash wasn't there. I guess i now know why that stuck out.

[_Who Knows]

...poses some real problems for non-catalyst concepts of translation.

Why are you excluding the catalyst theory?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Well, it's pretty obvious that the pharaoh-shaped canopic jar "catalyzed" the idea of a "god of Pharaoh" the same way that an upside-down question mark in the KEP gets labeled an "interrogative pronoun" and a little figure with a staff gets interpreted as "Abraham". In a catalyst theory the story doesn't have to be true, as long as it's "true" (in a moral or spiritual sense). So the addition of an extraneous god really doesn't falsify this wonderfully unfalsifiable theory.

Any other theory, though, like the missing roll for example, has to reckon somehow with the facts of the matter.

[_Who Knows]

Well, it's pretty obvious that the pharaoh-shaped canopic jar "catalyzed" the idea of a "god of Pharaoh" the same way that an upside-down question mark in the KEP gets labeled an "interrogative pronoun" and a little figure with a staff gets interpreted as "Abraham". In a catalyst theory the story doesn't have to be true, as long as it's "true" (in a moral or spiritual sense). So the addition of an extraneous god really doesn't falsify this wonderfully unfalsifiable theory.

Any other theory, though, like the missing roll for example, has to reckon somehow with the facts of the matter.

Well, my understanding is that the catalyst theory still requires 'revelation' from god - god gives Joseph Smith the words that he then dictates to the scribes. The only real difference between it and the other theories is that there is no 'scroll' containing the actual words of the Book of Abraham. Catalyst doesn't mean that Joseph Smith gets to pick and choose what the text of the Book of Abraham is. It is what it is. It's coming from god, but without there being a supporting text (whereas the Book of Mormon translation would be similar - words coming from god - but there IS a supporting text - the gold plates).

I see problems either way (catalyst or non-catalyst).

[_William Schryver]

Account for the Book of Abraham however you will -- and I agree there are justifiable reasons to doubt the "I translated it from the papyri" story -- I am still utterly amazed by passages like the following. Not only does this passage touch upon things that are found in other ancient texts that I don't believe Joseph Smith drew upon, but it does it in an extremely fluent and almost poetic fashion. At least in my opinion.

Abraham 3

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

20 The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah.

21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

I discern eternal truths -- many of them! -- within those lines. I think the Book of Abraham is an amazing piece of work -- whatever you want to call it: literature, fantasy, or scripture.

If some people's current faith walk cannot accommodate the Book of Abraham, or any of the other works of its author, that's fine with me. But I feel like the Book of Abraham is the source of several of the core principles of my entire theological and philosophical paradigm.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Well, it's pretty obvious that the pharaoh-shaped canopic jar "catalyzed" the idea of a "god of Pharaoh" the same way that an upside-down question mark in the KEP gets labeled an "interrogative pronoun" and a little figure with a staff gets interpreted as "Abraham". In a catalyst theory the story doesn't have to be true, as long as it's "true" (in a moral or spiritual sense). So the addition of an extraneous god really doesn't falsify this wonderfully unfalsifiable theory.

Any other theory, though, like the missing roll for example, has to reckon somehow with the facts of the matter.

Well, my understanding is that the catalyst theory still requires 'revelation' from god - god gives Joseph Smith the words that he then dictates to the scribes. The only real difference between it and the other theories is that there is no 'scroll' containing the actual words of the Book of Abraham. Catalyst doesn't mean that Joseph Smith gets to pick and choose what the text of the Book of Abraham is. It is what it is. It's coming from god, but without there being a supporting text (whereas the Book of Mormon translation would be similar - words coming from god - but there IS a supporting text - the gold plates).

I see problems either way (catalyst or non-catalyst).

Hi WK,

Are you familiar with the modern expansion theory of translation and the arguments adduced in its favor? It utilizes a very postmodern theory of inspiration, namely that the divine message is so thoroughly channelled through the categories of the seer's thoughts that what "comes out" is as much or more his work than it is the work of inspiration. Any workable catalyst theory would have to be along the same lines in order to explain why Joseph Smith did not at all understand the process he was engaged in. Which means that ultimately the details of the text produced don't matter, so long as the "inspiration" manages to shine through the human overlay of the text.

If Will's to be believed, maybe it does. I personally don't find anything especially profound in the passage he quoted, but then I'm a slimy anti-Mormon, so I suppose that's to be expected. ;-)

-Chris