The Book of Abraham: From Whence was it Derived?

[_Buffalo]

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-

It appears to be based mainly on a 19th century man's very poor understanding of ancient history.

[_Buffalo]

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-

Do any of them indicate that Joseph was on to something?

[_wenglund]

It appears to be based mainly on a 19th century man's very poor understanding of ancient history.

What was the alleged basis for the 19th century man's understanding of ancient history (poor or otherwise)? In other words, where did he get the ancient history that he supposedly poorly understood?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Do any of them indicate that Joseph was on to something?

Michael D. Rhodes does.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

As I stated in my 2010 FAIR conference address:

Which is one of your favorite straw man arguments, while presenting it as if it is supposed to be a jewel of enlightenment.

Of course no one believes Joseph Smith engaged in an " academic" translation. Meaning, that he understood these languages and translated to English based on his knowledge of these languages. No one ever argued this. Ever.

What Will is trying to do however is argue that Joseph Smith never believed his English translations represented a literal translation of the ancient documents. All the evidence clearly points to the fact that he did believe this. He made it perfectly clear what he was doing and what he was translating. Relying on the translations of the JST and the Book of Mormon is just diversionary techniques that assume all translations are equal. They're not. Anyone remotely familiar with his method knows that he used the Gold Plates to translate the Book of Mormon. Yet, William has gone on record to say that the plates were not needed at all. The Nephites went through hell for 600 years to preserve and pass down a record that, in Will's view, was never really needed to begin with. This is how absurd his apologetic theory has become. He uses the JST as an example so he can say, "Look, this translation doesn't derive from any ancient Hebrew documents so maybe the Book of Abraham didn't either." Sure, but with the JST Joseph Smith never claimed to be translating biblical papyri either. He did claim to be able to translate Egyptian and reformed Egyptian from their source documents. "By revelation"? Yes, of course, but this doesn't change the fact that he took one character from language X and translated it to English.

It is a sad thing that after all these years, William is still pushing these easily refutable apologetic pieces. I just wish he'd commit them to publication for once.

[_Kevin Graham]

Do any of them indicate that Joseph was on to something?

Michael D. Rhodes does.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Rhodes is a nobody in the field. He is a committed apologist with some knowledge of Egyptian. No Egyptologist outside BYU would ever say Joseph Smith was on to something.

[_Joseph]

"The evidence also strongly suggests that the text of the Book of Abraham must have been translated by Joseph Smith in the same way he had produced the text of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the translated parchment of John known as Doctrine & Covenants Section 7: by revelation."

*****************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^++++++++++++++^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Revelation from what source? How did he 'revelator' get the facsimilies wrong? Strange mistake for Gods right hand man on earth to make, isn't it?

How did the one doing this end up with an Egyptian grammar that not one Egyptologist agrees is at all accurate?

Maybe his 'revealer' is just more of his black magic? Lies, more lies and deceit?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

This seems like a rather dubious approach to me. What exactly is so profound in the Book of Abraham that would suggest that it was ancient or divine?

Deconstructing the work of any author is difficult, especially if they are works of fiction. Why do Mormon apologists assume that JSJr couldn't have had any creativity whatsoever? If he did, we would expect that there would be some ideas and concepts that originated in his imagination.

[_wenglund]

This seems like a rather dubious approach to me. What exactly is so profound in the Book of Abraham that would suggest that it was ancient or divine?

Deconstructing the work of any author is difficult, especially if they are works of fiction. Why do Mormon apologists assume that JSJr couldn't have had any creativity whatsoever? If he did, we would expect that there would be some ideas and concepts that originated in his imagination.

I can see your point were we talking about known fiction. However, unlike the Book of Mormon, the story of Abraham is demonstrably historical, predating Smith by thousands of years. Because it is historical, then determining how or whether Joseph could have written that history when he may not have been privy to certain key detals of the history, isn't the least bit dubious an approach, but a perfectly reasonable issue to pursue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_thews]

The evidence also strongly suggests that the text of the Book of Abraham must have been translated by Joseph Smith...

The papyrus used to "translate" the Mormon Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith (who paid $2400 for it) was nothing more than a common funerary text from the pagan book of the dead... do you deny this?