Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Book of Abraham, pt. 4
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 21 Aug 1992 16:20:20 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University

2.  Karl's second point is that JS pap. XI matches with JS pap. I (fac. 1).  As

noted above, Mormons agree; JS pap. I, XI, and X originally formed part of a
single scroll.

3.  The issue of the damaged or undamaged state of JS pap. I (fac. 1) cannot be

resolved, since the decisive evidence (the missing parts) is gone.  JS's
reconstruction of fac. 1 does not match what most Egyptologist think it should
be, however:
   3.1  This is assuming that the JS pap. I (fac. 1) is an ordinary
mummification/resurrection scene.  In other words, it begs the question.  If it

is not an ordinary scene then we would not expect the ordinary
interpretations.
   3.2  Since the parts in question are missing, they can't prove that JS's
interpretation is wrong.
   3.3  The parts which remain are absolutely unique, indicating that it is not

just an ordinary funerary scene as most Egyptologists claim.  Nibley explores
the absolutely unique nature of fac. 1 in his series of articles in the
Improvement Era, mentioned above.

4.  I don't have time to rehash Nibley's arguments concerning fac. 3.  They
can be read in his _Abraham in Egypt_.  Sorry, but there is a limit to my time.

5.  The last half of Karl's posting essentially contains arguments that the JS
pap. I (fac. 1), XI, and X were one scroll, and JS thought they were the source
 of
the BOA because of the relationship between some hieroglyphs on JS pap. XI
and some manuscripts of the BOA in the KEP.  These questions have been
largely addressed above.  However, there is one last issue which deserves
some additional attention.  Karl basically argues that JS would have known
which papyri the BOA was on, and would have told the scribes, so no matter
who is directly responsible for the KEP and EAG, the ultimate source for the
association of the BOA with JS pap. XI is JS himself.  I can agree with the
basics of Karl's arguments on this subject with the following caveats:
     5.1  JS had at least two, and probably three or more scrolls.  If God simp
ly
revealed to JS the text of the BOA, without showing him exactly which scroll
the text came from, JS would not have known, and would therefore have
have had to guess which papyrus the original text was on.  This may be
stretching matters a bit.
    5.2  The original papyrus scrolls, of which only a few fragments survive (J
S
pap. I-XI), were very long.  Thus, it is possible God revealed to JS the conten
ts
of the BOA, but did not reveal it to him character by character, but
conceptually.  JS knew that the BOA was found in a particular scroll, but did
not know which specific part of the scroll contained the text; in other words,
he knew the book, but not the page number.  Thus, JS or his scribes turned to
that scroll, and began to attempt to figure out the meaning of Egyptian based
on the English text of the BOA which had been previously revealed to JS.  In
fact, however, the actual Egyptian text of the BOA was in the middle or latter
part of the scroll, not at the first, which was occupied instead by the Book of

Breathings.  Thus the KEP represent ordinary human attempts (of the scribes
or of JS himself) at decipherment of hieroglyphics based on the assumed
relationship between the BOA and the hieroglyphs.  These efforts didn't get
very far and were quickly abandoned.
    5.3  There is good evidence that JS felt that the BOA was not to be found i
n
the same scroll of fac. 1.  (for a full discussion and sources, see John Gee,
"Review of Larson ..." in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 1992, #4,
pp. 106-109, and Willard Smith's FAQ on Abraham)
       5.3.1  In 1842 fac. 1 had been cut up and mounted for display.  A year l
ater,
in 1843, Lucy Smith (JS's mother) showed some people a different papyrus
scroll which she claimed contained the text of the BOA (Gee, "Review," p. 107
for original sources and references).
       5.3.2  JS described the source of the BOA as "[1] beautifully written up
on
papyrus, with black, and [2] a small part red, ink or paint, [3] in perfect
preservation." (DHC 2:348).  JS pap. I, XI, and X are scribbled, not well writt
en,
have no red ink (rubrics), and were damaged.
      5.3.3  Willard Smith's FAQ provides additional arguments.
    Thus, we have two conflicting sets of data: the KEP would lead us to believ
e
that JS/the scribes felt that the BOA was related to JS pap. I, XI and X.  The
written statement of JS and his mother's statements would lead us to believe
that the BOA derived from a different papyrus which is now lost.  There are
two possible explanations for these anomalies.  First, JS might have been
lying, making up different stories as he went along.  In that case, however,
why would he have attempted to "translate" the documents at all?  If he
knew he was a fraud, he would have no reason to think that the BOA had
anything whatsoever to do with the papyri, and he could only get himself in
trouble by trying to associate his English forgery with the papyri.  His behavi
or
becomes very mystifying under this theory.  Second, JS might have had
nothing to do with the KEP.  Rather, the KEP represent the independent
attempts by JS's associates and scribes to take the English text of the BOA and

relate it with JS pap. I, XI, and X, which they erroneously thought was the
source of the BOA.  This is Nibley's interpretation.  Given all the data, this
seems the best explanation.

6.  As to Karl's lack of access to LDS sources on these subjects:

    6.1  Many of the articles mentioned above are available in reprints from:
          FARMS
          P.O. Box 7113
          University Station
          Provo, UT, 84602
Anyone interested can write for a free catalog, and order the articles at cost.

     6.2  As to the requested summary of the Nibley _A New Look at the Pearl
of Great Price_, I don't have time to summarize it.  Nibley was writing in
monthly installments over the course of two and a half years.  The material
ranges widely, and is very complex and would take a great deal of time to
reread and summarize.  Karl can contact local LDS missionaries or Church
authorities in Pittsburgh, who can give him the address of a local LDS Church
library which would probably have back copies of the Improvement Era.
Sorry, but I don't have time to do more than that.


My concluding remarks on this subject are, that there is enough evidence for
a reasonable person to conclude that there might be more to JS's claims of
producing an ancient document by revelation are worth serious
consideration.  What is clear is that the anti-Mormon claims that the papyri,
the KEP, the facsimiles, and the BOA prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
JS was a false prophet, are grossly overstated.

William J. Hamblin