The Book of Abraham: From Whence was it Derived?

[_Buffalo]

<sigh>

Another non sequitur occasioned by a profound lack of reading comprehension.

I skimmed your post and misread what you were saying. No need for the drama, Will.

So why is it that you are convinced that the Book of Abraham originally came from Abraham, regardless of how Smith produced it?

[_Will Schryver]

Interesting that some are ok with the Book of Abraham being a catalyst and having no Abraham text on it, even though Joseph claimed it did. What's more interesting is that these same people are probably quite certain that the Gold plates could not have been anything other then what Joseph said they were. The difference between the two is that we actually have some of the original from one of them. LOL

There is ample precedence in Joseph Smith's scriptural-production history for such a thing:

• His revision/"translation" of the Bible was a catalyst for the production of texts ostensibly written by Moses and Enoch.
  `
• D&C 7 was "translated" from a parchment no one ever saw, and if it was written in Greek (or any other ancient language), it is almost certain Joseph Smith did not understand it. Yet he produced its translation.
  `
• There is no evidence that Joseph Smith understood "reformed Egyptian" as found on the plates of Mormon. Indeed, the available historical evidence suggests that he rarely, if ever, consulted the plates in the process of producing the Book of Mormon.

That said, I should clarify my initial post on this thread by saying that I personally am inclined to believe there was an Egyptian Abraham text on the papyri. I am so inclined because of the explanations given for the facsimiles included in the canonized Book of Abraham. Whether the explanations Joseph Smith gave for the facsimiles are a simple case of iconotropy, or valid translations of the meaning intended by their original author(s) remains unanswered, but I am inclined to believe that it was the Egyptians who were originally guilty of the iconotropy, in which case Joseph Smith was merely restoring the original meaning of the iconography in question.

[_Buffalo]

but I am inclined to believe that it was the Egyptians who were originally guilty of the iconotropy, in which case Joseph Smith was merely restoring the original meaning of the iconography in question.

Is that the conclusion of Egyptologists who have translated the papyrus?

[_Will Schryver]

but I am inclined to believe that it was the Egyptians who were originally guilty of the iconotropy, in which case Joseph Smith was merely restoring the original meaning of the iconography in question.

Is that the conclusion of Egyptologists who have translated the papyrus?

In the first place, I should think it is quite obvious that no Egyptologists have translated the missing portions of the scrolls once in Joseph Smith's possession.

Secondly, Egyptologists would not be likely to speak to the question of iconotropy. They can only tell us about what the original text says--and often they cannot even do that with much certainty. The average person in 2011 does not appreciate the still-nascent nature of the field of Egyptology. A substantial percentage of the discovered texts cannot be understood, except in part. That's what happens when you're dealing with a language that employed literally thousands of unique glyphs over the course of 3000+ years of use--the meaning of many of which is still not understood.

[_wenglund]

In the first place, I should think it is quite obvious that no Egyptologists have translated the missing portions of the scrolls once in Joseph Smith's possession.

Secondly, Egyptologists would not be likely to speak to the question of iconotropy. They can only tell us about what the original text says--and often they cannot even do that with much certainty. The average person in 2011 does not appreciate the still-nascent nature of the field of Egyptology. A substantial percentage of the discovered texts cannot be understood, except in part. That's what happens when you're dealing with a language that employed literally thousands of unique glyphs over the course of 3000+ years of use--the meaning of many of which is still not understood.

This is a significant point that I hope won't be brushed aside.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

There is ample precedence in Joseph Smith's scriptural-production history for such a thing:

Ya that's the idea, he made it up, therefore he didn't need the Gold plates, papyri, etc. My point is that when we look at the one parchment we do have we do not see anything to do with his claimed revelation about it.

That said, I should clarify my initial post on this thread by saying that I personally am inclined to believe there was an Egyptian Abraham text on the papyri. I am so inclined because of the explanations given for the facsimiles included in the canonized Book of Abraham. Whether the explanations Joseph Smith gave for the facsimiles are a simple case of iconotropy, or valid translations of the meaning intended by their original author(s) remains unanswered, but I am inclined to believe that it was the Egyptians who were originally guilty of the iconotropy, in which case Joseph Smith was merely restoring the original meaning of the iconography in question.

I am aware one can make up what ever one wants to here. I think it is pretty obvious what the Facsimiles were meant to communicate and even who they were for, and it wasn't Abraham. It's interesting that the portions missing in Facsimile 1 on the papyri are the same one Egyptologists identified as incorrect. Not to shabby.

[_Themis]

In the first place, I should think it is quite obvious that no Egyptologists have translated the missing portions of the scrolls once in Joseph Smith's possession.

Secondly, Egyptologists would not be likely to speak to the question of iconotropy. They can only tell us about what the original text says--and often they cannot even do that with much certainty. The average person in 2011 does not appreciate the still-nascent nature of the field of Egyptology. A substantial percentage of the discovered texts cannot be understood, except in part. That's what happens when you're dealing with a language that employed literally thousands of unique glyphs over the course of 3000+ years of use--the meaning of many of which is still not understood.

This is a significant point that I hope won't be brushed aside.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You mean the iconotropy theory which is a theory without substance, only apologetic need. Why do apologists make up so much of this kind of thing? Wait never mind, I already know. How about the facsimiles them selves. I think they know enough to know it's not about Abraham, and don't forget that they were good enough to figure out which parts Joseph and company had to recreate. :)

[_Buffalo]

In the first place, I should think it is quite obvious that no Egyptologists have translated the missing portions of the scrolls once in Joseph Smith's possession.

Secondly, Egyptologists would not be likely to speak to the question of iconotropy. They can only tell us about what the original text says--and often they cannot even do that with much certainty. The average person in 2011 does not appreciate the still-nascent nature of the field of Egyptology. A substantial percentage of the discovered texts cannot be understood, except in part. That's what happens when you're dealing with a language that employed literally thousands of unique glyphs over the course of 3000+ years of use--the meaning of many of which is still not understood.

So they have no opinion about Joseph's ideas about the meaning of the images?

[_wenglund]

I trust not everyone is reticent to explore my suggested starting point, and so let's begin by examining Abraham Chapter 1.

Is there anyone who disagrees that the bulk of the content for this chapter is not contained in the Bible or Josephus?

If so, were there texts, translated into English, reasonably accessable to Joseph Smith in 1835, that do contain the content of Abr. 1?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

So they have no opinion about Joseph's ideas about the meaning of the images?

They have opinions. Are their opinions to be considered and respected. I believe so. Are their opinons the final word? No more so than Newton was the final word on physics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-