Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Book of Abraham, pt. 2
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 21 Aug 1992 15:03:52 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University


3.3  THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM AS AN ANCIENT DOCUMENT.  The
contents of the BOA need to be compared with their possible
relationship to antiquity.  Do the names, events, ideas, practices, etc.
described in the BOA reflect authentic ancient Near Eastern names,
events, ideas, practices, etc?  It should be noted that JS produced the
BOA before any related Abrahamic apocryphal material had become
available in English, and before Champollion had correctly deciphered
hieroglyphics.

The basic studies here include:

Hugh W. Nibley, Abraham in Egypt.  Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981.

Hugh W. Nibley. "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 7, The
Unknown Abraham." Improvement Era 72 (January
1969): 26-33.
 Continued: February 1969, pp . 64-7,

March 1969, pp. 76-84,

April 1969, pp. 66-72,

May 1969, pp. 87-91,

June 1969, pp. 126-32,

July 1969, pp. 97-101.

Hugh W. Nibley. "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 9,
Setting the Stage--The World of Abraham." Improvement Era 72
(October 1969): 89-95.
Continued: November 1969, pp. 116-26,
January 1970, pp. 56-65.

Hugh W. Nibley. "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 10, The
Sacrifice of Isaac." Improvement Era 73 (March 1970): 84-94.

Hugh W. Nibley. "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price: Part 11, The
Sacrifice of Sarah." Improvement Era 73 (April 1970): 79-95.


4.  From all of these issues, two theories have arisen, related to the two
theories of the prophethood (or lack thereof) of JS noted above.

4.1  The basic non-Mormons (NM) theory:
   4.1.1.  Facsimile (Fac.) 1 was originally connected to JS pap. XI and X.
   4.1.2.  The hieroglyphics on JS pap. XI and X are in fact an Egyptian
"Book of Breathings."
   4.1.3.  The KEP place some of the hieroglyphics from JS pap. XI in a
parallel column to manuscript copies of the BOA.  These manuscripts
are in the handwriting of two of JS's scribes.
   4.1.4.  Therefore JS believed (or wanted others to believe) that the
hieroglyphics on JS pap. XI, which follow directly after Fac. 1 (JS pap. I),
was the Egyptian original of the BOA.
   4.1.5.  Since JS pap. XI and X are in fact a Book of Breathings, JS's
interpretation is false, therefore he is a false prophet.

4.2  The basic LDS theory:
   4.2.1   The vast majority of Mormons agree with #4.1.1 to 4.1.3.
   4.2.2.  Mormons generally hold that the hieroglyphs were associated
with the English text of the BOA only after that text had been
completed.  That is, JS received the contents of the BOA by revelation.
Later, for whatever reason, the text of the BOA was aligned in columns
with some of the hieroglyphics.  Theories differ as to why the
hieroglyphs were aligned with the BOA text, and who was responsible
for the alignment.  There are four variations on this theme:
       4.2.2.1  The Scribes did it.  The scribes of JS (W.W. Phelps, Warren
Parrish, and Oliver Cowdrey) attempted to correlate the hieroglyphs
with the text of the BOA which JS had previously dictated to them.
       4.2.2.2  JS did it.  The alignment of the hieroglyphs and the text of
the BOA was done under the direction of JS, or in collaboration with
his scribes.
       4.2.2.3  The alignment represents JS or his scribes' belief that the
text of the BOA derived from those exact hieroglyphics.
       4.2.2.4   The alignment represents experimentation and/or
ornamentation rather than a serious attempt at translation or
interpretation.
   4.2.3  Thus, Mormons agree with modern non-LDS Egyptologists that
JS pap. XI and X are a Book of Breathings, and can not be translated as
the BOA.  The difference of interpretation centers not on JS pap. XI and
X or their interpretation by Egyptologists, but on the KEP and their
implications for what supposedly JS was thinking, and why.
   4.2.4  It is impossible to determine what was really in JS's mind
concerning all of these matters.  Both the NM and the LDS
interpretations account for all of the evidence related to the KEP.
Therefore, the questions revolving around the KEP and their
relationship to the JS papyri are unanswerable, and become a stand-off.

    Now I will admit that, given the Kirtland Egyptian Papers alone, the
non-LDS interpretation makes more sense than the LDS.  But let me
swiftly add - lest the anti-Mormons on the newsnet go into a feeding
frenzy - that the crucial issue now becomes JS's interpretations of the
facsimiles and the contents of the BOA itself (items 3.2 and 3.3).
Assuming that we cannot know how God reveals the meaning of an
ancient hieroglyphic text to someone unless we ourselves have that
experience (if indeed God is limited to one way), we must turn to the
results that JS produced.  While JS's alleged authorship, supposed
ideas, and the ultimate meaning of the KEP are ambiguous, we have
two clear and explicit examples where we know exact what JS thought,
and by which we can test JS's prophetic claims:
    1-  JS claimed that the BOA represents an ancient document which
he translated by the power of God.
    2.  JS presents various interpretations of the three facsimiles.
On both of these matters, there is absolutely no doubt of what JS
thought, and that he is responsible for the ideas contained in the texts.
Therefore, rather than arguing who is responsible for the KEP, and
what those responsible may or may not have been thinking while they
were writing the KEP, and why they did it, etc. (where we will never
find agreement between Mormons and NM), it seems advisable to turn
to the unambiguous issues of JS's interpretations of the facsimiles and
production of the BOA.  This brings us, at last, to specific criticisms of
the facsimiles and the BOA.

William J. Hamblin

(to be continued)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc