FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies? in ControVerse-E! Archives Forum

Author

Comment

exegete

FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies?

Lead

[-]

Posts: 1915

(02/19/03 01:28:26)

Zlombie Initiate

Tags : None

Remove this ad

Kevin Graham has requested on multiple occasions that I critique his BoAbr analysis published on the FAIR Web site:

Kevin Graham, "The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price"

Under the essay heading "Do We Have the Correct Papyri?" Kevin lists 11 reasons why he believes we do not.

For those unfamiliar with this issue, let me summarize. The BoAbr claims to be a translation of papyrus found in the catacombs of Egypt, which Joseph Smith purchased in 1835 from one Michael Chandler. After Smith's martyrdom in 1844, the papyri traversed through multiple owners until their whereabouts became uncertain. In 1967 much of the papyri resurfaced, including a fragment containing Facsimile 1—an illustration from the BoAbr. As long suspected by scholars, Facsimile 1 was copied from an ancient Egyptian funerary document: a Breathing Permit—written for Hôr, an Egyptian priest. Although important in its own right (perhaps the earliest extant Breathing Permit), scholarly translations failed to show any relationship between the Breathing Permit and Smith's BoAbr.

For many the question was simple: how could Smith be an inspired, reliable translator of ancient texts if the newly discovered papyri translated into nothing resembling the BoAbr? Among the disparate apologetics that emerged, one theory in particular gained currency with devout LDS: the true BoAbr papyrus was still missing. This theory is generally explained one of two ways: 1) the BoAbr papyrus was an autonomous scroll that is lost in its entirety; and 2) the BoAbr was an addendum of sorts on Hôr's Breathing Permit scroll, and this addendum remains lost. This latter explanation best accounted for Facsimiles 1 and 3—two vignettes from the Breathing Permit of Hôr—by claiming that the BoAbr was part of the same papyrus.

Other BoAbr scholars, including me, roundly reject any notion of a missing papyrus from which Smith translated the BoAbr narrative. Reasons for this include:

Facsimile 1 is the opening vignette in the Breathing Permit of Hôr.
Facsimile 3 is the closing vignette in the Breathing Permit of Hôr. (The Hôr papyrus fragment for Fac. 3 is not extant. Still, the Fac. 3 woodcut preserves the identity of the deceased—Hôr—confirming that it too belongs to Hôr's Breathing Permit.)
The BoAbr identifies Facsimile 1 (the opening vignette in Hôr's Breathing Permit) as an illustration placed at the "commencement" (Abr. 1:12) or "beginning" (Abr. 1:14) of patriarch Abraham's record.
Vignette Facsimile 3 (from the Breathing Permit of Hôr), according to Smith, also illustrates scenes from Abraham's life.
In keeping with the BoAbr claim that Facsimile 1 opened the record, all extant dictated BoAbr manuscripts (MS 1a [fldr. 2], MS 1b [fldr. 3], and MS 2 [fldr. 1]) contain authentic hieratic copied sequentially from the contiguous portion of the Breathing Permit of Hôr only. (There are two minor exceptions to sequence, but those characters too originate from Hôr's Breathing Permit. Invented, non-authentic Egyptian characters also appear on the manuscripts at points where the papyrus fragment has a lacuna.)
All authentic Egyptian characters in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language were copied from the Breathing Permit of Hôr.
Aside from hypocephalus Facsimile 2 (the original of which is no longer extant), Hôr's Breathing Permit is the only papyrus that is associated with Joseph Smith's BoAbr—an association that is attested to repeatedly in the BoAbr text and its antecedent manuscripts.

In this thread I hope to investigate whether Kevin's arguments can overcome such formidable obstacles to any theory of a missing BoAbr papyrus.

Cheers,

bReNt

[[ e N t e R Mormon Scripture Studies ]]

exegete

Kevin Graham on Charlotte Haven (#5)

[-]

Posts: 1915

(02/19/03 10:22:05)

Zlombie Initiate

In this installment, I want to consider Kevin Graham's argument number 5:

#5. In 1843, a nonmember named Charlotte Haven visited Lucy Mack Smith and wrote a letter to her own mother about it:
Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a long table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament-and it might have been for anything we knew-but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who-the serpent, I mean-was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear."
The sketch described by Charlotte Haven does not exist in any of the rediscovered papyri. Therefore, it can be concluded that this particular papyri is not extant [K. Graham, "Pearl of Great Price"].

Before I comment, I need a clarification from Kevin.

Hi Kevin,

What do you mean by "sketch" (as in "The sketch described by Charlotte Haven does not exist in any of the rediscovered papyri")?

Let me know, and then I'll offer my perspective.

Cheers,

bReNt

Unregistered(d)

BoA question for Brent

[-]

Posts: 0

(02/19/03 12:42:22)

Not wanting to derail the discussion, have you made arrangements to provide the world with high quality scans of your photos?

Ben

exegete

BoAbr Answer for Ben

[-]

Posts: 1915

(02/19/03 13:24:00)

Zlombie Initiate

Hi Ben,

You asked:

[cromis:] Not wanting to derail the discussion, have you made arrangements to provide the world with high quality scans of your photos?

Ack! You've totally and completely (and redundantly, I might add) derailed this thread. <*just kidding*>

The venue that I've previously alluded to is emerging as the best way to distribute the photos. I'll keep board members apprised as things progress.

Cheers,

bReNt

Unregistered(d)

Re: FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies?

[-]

Posts: 0

(02/19/03 13:39:40)

You've got two statements here, which are hilarious if juxtaposed:

1) "[We] roundly reject any notion of a missing papyrus..."

2) "(The Hr papyrus fragment for Fac. 3 is not extant."

You can't say this one is missing but there's still nothing missing. You've got to try to make it look more coherent, as in, "Well, there's some missing, but not the part I don't want to be missing."

exegete

Re: FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies?

[-]

Posts: 1915

(02/19/03 15:05:22)

Zlombie Initiate

Hi Woodsy,

Yes, a whole lot of clauses can sound quite hilarious when stripped from their context or qualifiers. That's why I clearly specified,

[exegete:] Other BoAbr scholars, including me, roundly reject any notion of a missing papyrus from which Smith translated the BoAbr narrative.

I consider the BoAbr Facsimiles narrative illustrations, not the narrative proper.

Cheers,

bReNt

Lorenzo

missing text theories and missing papyrus facts

[-]

Posts: 252

(02/19/03 15:05:25)

ZLoMBie

There are missing sections of the original papyri JS had--fact.

There is possibly a "missing" *text* from the papyrus scroll on which Hor's breathing permit was written--theory.

The questions are (IMHO):

1. What does the extant evidence say about any connection between Hor's breathing permit and the text of the BoAb? This should *not* be the first question asked, but the final question asked after you grapple with questions 2--5 below.

2. What evidence is there for a second text on the scroll on which Hor's breathing permit was written?

3. Given evidence for question 2, what evidence is there that a Semitic text translated into Egyptian about Abraham ended up as that second text?

4. Why would vignettes (facsimile 1 & 3) that Rhodes, Ritner, Baer, et al, agree not only mention Hor by name, are attached to Hor's breathing permit, and compliment/illustrate that breathing permit's themes--why would they also illustrate a Semitic text copied later on the same roll of payrus after the text of the breathing permit or on the other side of the breathing permit? There is no doubt that Hor's name appears on Facsimile 3 above the head of Shulem toward the front: "Osiris Hor [the dead was associated with Osiris], the justified forever." This is from Rhodes's translation published by FARMS.

5. Why would a hypocephalus of Sheshonq (Rhodes translates his name on the rim of facsimile 2) illustrate a separate text appearing on the front or back of Hor's breathing permit (again, facsimile 2 to the BoAb is a hypocephalus unattached and not a part of the papyrus roll of Hor to which facsimile 1 and 3 were attached) which is a separate piece of papyrus not even of the same original size? (Hedlock woodcuts in the Times & Seasons were made to size--compare Facsimiles 1&3 to 2--they're different sizes).

Unregistered(d)

Re: FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies?

[-]

Posts: 0

(02/19/03 17:58:06)

Brent, thanks for the clarification and reaffirmation.

You posted Charlotte Haven's descriptions yourself; her descriptions strongly indicate that the Book of Abraham roll had NO pictures at all on the outer portion. She enumerated two rolls exhibited by Mother Smith. Mother Smith read from the first one, so she must have learned the meaning from the translation her son made -- sounded like the Old Testament to Charlotte, we might speculate Mother Smith was reading the creation story. This is almost certainly the Book of Abraham roll, and it was LONG, which right away blows away your theory. Charlotte reports that Mother Smith said it was written in Hebrew and Sanskrit; the mention of Hebrew corresponds with Oliver Cowdery's description, that there were modern Hebrew characters. There is not a single modern Hebrew character on JSP X,XI, or I. If you disagree, point out one.

The second roll had all the pictures mentioned by Charlotte, which she called 'hieroglyphics' but it's clear she's talking about pictures; and she did not mention a single 'hieroglyphic' on the first roll.

Her descriptions don't in the slightest allow for a fragmentary, brittle little thing that could not be unrolled and rolled again without destroying it.

JSP 10/11/1 was falling apart at the time of mounting on cardboard; there are lacunae with no glue on the cardboard in those areas. And, that mounting was done in the time of Joseph Smith; hence the map of Kirtland on the back of one of the boards. Charlotte's visit was at Nauvoo.

Papyri of the type and time period of JSP X-XI-I were typically over ten feet long. Even if this was the Abraham roll, there is about 8 feet of it missing, and Joseph F. Smith saw his uncle translating a roll that was at least twice that.

Wood

exegete

Re: FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies?

[-]

Posts: 1915

(02/20/03 00:01:26)

Zlombie Initiate

Hi Woodsy,

You make some interesting points, though I disagree with much of your analysis. I hope you don't mind if I defer my response until Kevin has offered his clarification.

Cheers,

bReNt

Unregistered(d)

Re: FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies?

[-]

Posts: 0

(02/20/03 13:03:14)

_Brent_
Facsimile 3 is the closing vignette in the Breathing Permit of Hr. (The Hr papyrus fragment for Fac. 3 is not extant. Still, the Fac. 3 woodcut preserves the identity of the deceasedHrconfirming that it too belongs to Hr's Breathing Permit.)

_Mike_
How is it determined that Fac. 3 is the "closing vignette" if it is not extant? How is it determined that there could not be a Fac. 4, etc., or additional text between Fac. 1 to Fac. 3? Is part of Fac. 3 at the edges of the lacuna?

Mike Ash
MormonFortress.com

Lorenzo

Additional Vignettes

[-]

Posts: 252

(02/20/03 13:19:51)

ZLoMBie

Remove this ad

Take a look at Rhodes's translation. If you compare the Hor book of breathings to other books of breathings many of them have judgment/presentation scenes at the end similar to facsimile 3. Also, we have an idea how much text is missing by comparing the text missing in between to other books of breathing. Plus, there's a line of text at the bottom of facsimile 3 showing that it's at the end.

exegete

Re: FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies?

[-]

Posts: 1915

(02/20/03 14:56:16)

Zlombie Initiate

Hi Mike,

Thanks for dropping in. You asked:

[Oxymormon:] How is it determined that Fac. 3 is the "closing vignette" if it is not extant? How is it determined that there could not be a Fac. 4, etc., or additional text between Fac. 1 to Fac. 3? Is part of Fac. 3 at the edges of the lacuna?

See Lorenzo's post above. In addition to Mike Rhodes's book, see Robert Ritner's Dialogue essay ("The 'Breathing Permit of Hôr' Thirty-four Years Later," 33.4 [Winter 2000]).

Cheers,

bReNt

Kevinator

Re: Additional Vignettes

[-]

Posts: 1238

(02/20/03 15:19:01)

Novice

Hello Brent,

What do I mean by sketch? How about "description" - does that make it clearer? I didn't mean to imply that she literally drew out a sketch.

As far as the papyri/apologetic issue is concerned, my brain has been in theological mode - reviewing a book by JP Holding among other things - for the past few months as I've put the BoA thing on the back burner. We went through all of this in the past and we came to an agreement to disagree, but primarily I'm still awaiting copies of the KEP. I haven't decided if I'm going to purchase black and white copies from Marquardt or not. I'm also waiting to find out if the new Church DVD set, which is supposed to contain hundreds of graphic images from the archives, is going to include color photos like the ones you have. Until I have these copies for personal analysis, I'd rather hold off any further speculation.

If you recall, my primary concern was that there were two aspects of the missing papyrus theory (a) evidence from the text itself, and (b) evidence from historical accounts. My problem with your presentation is that it dwelled on A, while ignoring the presence of B. I threw down the gauntlet months ago, and challenged you to deal with the historical evidences as presented in my article, so I'm thankful that you finally decided to do so. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to go head to head with you on this until I further extend my resources - especially since you plan to argue using the KEP.

I'm sure you understand.

But I'm sure others here might be willing to kick this topic around with you a bit until then.

Kevin

Unregistered(d)

Re: Additional Vignettes

[-]

Posts: 0

(02/20/03 19:38:31)

The KEP are definitely not on the new Church history DVD set.

Kevinator

Re: Additional Vignettes

[-]

Posts: 1238

(02/20/03 19:42:25)

Novice

Drats. Ok, I guess I'll have to do with B&W.

Thanks Kevin

exegete

Re: Kevin Graham on Charlotte Haven (#5)

[-]

Posts: 1915

(02/27/03 16:00:05)

Zlombie Initiate

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your reply, and my sincere apologies for the delayed response (professional and domestic commitments—to say nothing of book projects and an MSS redesign—have kept me otherwise occupied).

On your usage of "sketch" you remarked:

[Kevinator:] What do I mean by sketch? How about "description" - does that make it clearer?

Well, you tell me. Let's augment your original comments with your new term:

The [description] described by Charlotte Haven does not exist in any of the rediscovered papyri. Therefore, it can be concluded that this particular papyri is not extant [K. Graham, "Pearl of Great Price", emphasis added].

How do you see your redundant "[description] described" as a meaningful clause? Further, why should we expect to find Charlotte's description "in any of the rediscovered papyri"? These are Egyptian texts, I wouldn't expect to find Smith, Cowdery, Appleby, or anyone else's description "in" the papyri. Kevinator: "[D]oes that make it clearer?" No, not at all.

Given your switch of "sketch" with "description," readers are left with no clear antecedent to "this particular papyri" from your second sentence quoted above. Your argument needs a serious rewrite.

[Kevinator:] We went through all of this in the past and we came to an agreement to disagree, but primarily I'm still awaiting copies of the KEP.

Actually, we haven't gone through your Web essay at all, that's why I initiated this thread.

[Kevinator:] I haven't decided if I'm going to purchase black and white copies from Marquardt or not.

You may want to hurry; I recently picked up one of his few remaining copies.

[Kevinator:] I'm also waiting to find out if the new Church DVD set, which is supposed to contain hundreds of graphic images from the archives, is going to include color photos like the ones you have.

As Kevin Barney responded, the LDS historical DVDs (which are imperative reading for any serious student of Mormonism) do not include any manuscripts or papyri from the BoAbr collection.

[Kevinator:] Until I have these copies for personal analysis, I'd rather hold off any further speculation. ... [snip!] ... Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to go head to head with you on this until I further extend my resources - especially since you plan to argue using the KEP.

Then I strongly encourage you to remove your Web essay from circulation until such time that you are more certain of your arguments' soundness.

Hi Woodsy,

I haven't forgotten you. Since Kevin has declined the invitation to discuss his Web essay, I'll consider your take on the evidence—give me a day or so to respond.

Cheers,

bReNt

Kevinator

Brent

[-]

Posts: 1238

(02/27/03 21:52:00)

Novice

Brent,

Perhaps you've overlooked the title and purpose of my article. It is a review of McKeever and Johnson's chapter, which in itself offers very little argument against the BoA. So why would I want to remove it from circulation when it serves its purpose?

== How do you see your redundant "[description] described" as a meaningful clause? Further, why should we expect to find Charlotte's description "in any of the rediscovered papyri"? These are Egyptian texts, I wouldn't expect to find Smith, Cowdery, Appleby, or anyone else's description "in" the papyri. Kevinator: "[D]oes that make it clearer?" No, not at all.

How can I propose to argue that the BoA came from missing papyri if I'm unable to demonstrate that papyri are missing in the first place? If we had all the material which Joseph Smith had at his disposal, then we would expect to find the Haven's description somewhere in them. So there is nothing fancy or exciting about significance of this historical piece of evidence. It simply offers evidence that whatever Haven saw, is no longer around.

== Actually, we haven't gone through your Web essay at all, that's why I initiated this thread.

Right. But you appear to be using this as a reason to go into the KEP issue again.

== You may want to hurry; I recently picked up one of his few remaining copies.

Thanks for the heads up.

== Then I strongly encourage you to remove your Web essay from circulation until such time that you are more certain of your arguments' soundness.

This seems rather silly. I have no doubt or insecurity about the soundness of my argument. You however, have apparently missed what my argument was to begin with. The title itself should speak volumes "A Case for the Phantom Papyri?" Perhaps you need to pick up Mormonism 101 to see how flimsy the McKeever/Johnson argument was to begin with.

Thanks.

exegete

Kevin Graham on Joseph F. Smith (#9)

[-]

Posts: 1915

(04/01/03 00:40:51)

Zlombie Initiate

Time to revive this thread.

Kevin Graham's argument number 9 is one of multiple examples where he is dependent on secondary sources for his primary references. As in other instances, Kevin fails to document his secondary source, and he clearly has not read the primary source that he has borrowed:

#9. In 1906, while visiting Nauvoo, President Joseph F. Smith related to Preston Nibley his experience as a child of seeing his Uncle Joseph in the front rooms of the Mansion House working on the Egyptian manuscripts. According to President Smith, one of the rolls of papyri "when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.[12] This tells us that at least one roll was about 16 feet long.
...
[12] Hugh Nibley, "Phase I," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3/2 (Summer 1968), 101 [K. Graham, "Pearl of Great Price"].

Kevin's argument should be jettisoned because,

There is no evidence that Joseph F. Smith—or any other eyewitness—ever made such a claim about the length of the papyri rolls.

Kevin's argument merely propagates an error made by BoAbr apologist John Gee. In his response to Charles Larson, John maintained that,

In 1906, while visiting Nauvoo, President Joseph F. Smith related to Preston Nibley his experience as a child of seeing his Uncle Joseph in the front rooms of the Mansion House working on the Egyptian manuscripts. According to President Smith, one of the rolls of papyri "when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House. Hugh Nibley, "Phase I," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3/2 (Summer 1968): 101. This would have been sometime between 1843 when the Mansion House was completed and the prophet's death in June 1844, one or two years after other parts of the papyri had been cut up and placed under glass [J. Gee, "A Tragedy of Errors" (review of C. Larson, By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri), FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 4 (1992), 106].

Unfortunately for Gee's argument, his cited source—Hugh Nibley—makes no mention of Joseph F. Smith:

We are told that the papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House [H. Nibley, "Phase I," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3.2 (Summer 1968): 101].

Kevin Graham has done a disservice by resuscitating John Gee's error as if it were true.

Cheers,

bReNt

Pacumeni9

Re: Kevin Graham on Joseph F. Smith (#9)

[-]

Posts: 4088

(04/01/03 22:02:56)

Tyrant Extraordinaire

Brent,

If one were to find the two shortest facing rooms in the mansion house, how many feet would they have been? It seems the length could be ascertained on that basis, since the source claimed that the scroll ran "through" those two rooms.

Am I reading that correctly?

Also, is it possible that Nibley clarifies on this point in another location? Just wondering if anyone has any other evidence on this matter.

Pacumeni

exegete

Re: Kevin Graham on Joseph F. Smith (#9)

[-]

Posts: 1915

(04/03/03 13:53:13)

Zlombie Initiate

Hi Scott,

Great to hear from you; it's been too long. You asked:

[Pacumeni:] If one were to find the two shortest facing rooms in the mansion house, how many feet would they have been? It seems the length could be ascertained on that basis, since the source claimed that the scroll ran "through" those two rooms.

The size of the rooms is irrelevant because evidence suggests that Hugh Nibley has misrepresented his source (see below).

[Pacumeni:] Also, is it possible that Nibley clarifies on this point in another location? Just wondering if anyone has any other evidence on this matter.

Nibley provided no reference in his Dialogue essay, but his assertion is almost certainly a mischaracterization of a recollection attributed to Joseph F. Smith (son of Hyrum Smith) and related by Nibley in the Improvement Era and his essay "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham":

As President Joseph F. Smith stood in the front doorway of the Nauvoo House with some of the brethren in 1906, the tears streamed down his face as he told how he remembered "as if it were yesterday" his "Uncle Joseph" down on his knees on the floor with Egyptian manuscripts spread out all around him, peering at the strange writings and jotting things down in a little green notebook with the stub of a pencil. When one considers that the eleven fragments now in our possession can be easily spread out on the top of a small desk, without straining the knees, back, and dignity, it would seem that what is missing is much more than what we have [H. Nibley, "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham"].

Joseph F.'s reminiscence most closely resembles what Nibley describes in Dialogue. If I'm correct, then we can conclude that in Dialogue Hugh misidentified the Nauvoo House as the "Mansion House" and mistakenly depicted the papyri running through two rooms rather than scattered on the floor of one room. If I'm not correct, then I have no idea what Nibley is referring to in his undocumented remark.

In the Improvement Era, Hugh informs readers that Preston Nibley had supplied the Joseph F. Smith account. Preston published his 1906 encounter with Joseph F. in the early 1940's (if memory serves), but omitted the recollection about the BoAbr papyri. According to Preston, in 1906 Joseph F. was recalling an event that occurred over six decades earlier when Smith was 5 years old, or younger. Four years later, in 1910, Hugh was born. Before Preston died (in the mid 1960's?) he related Joseph F.'s recollection to Hugh. Finally, Hugh published the reminiscence in the mid/late 1960's. Given this transmission history, scholars would be reckless to uncritically appeal to Joseph F.'s story as an unblemished depiction of the BoAbr papyri.

Cheers,

bReNt

exegete

Kevin Graham on Anson Call (#11)

[-]

Posts: 1915

(07/07/03 23:23:18)

Zlombie Initiate

Remove this ad

Typical of Kevin Graham's historical evidences for a now missing BoAbr papyrus, his point number 11 is fraught with interpretive and documentary problems:

#11. Prior to 1838, Anson Call reported that "Joseph ... said to us, 'Sit down and we will read to you from the translations of the book of Abraham.' Oliver Cowdery then read until he was tired when Thomas Marsh read making altogether about two hours." These men read the translated Book of Abraham for two hours, which takes about one half hour to do so now. A conservative estimate would suggest that the book of Abraham material translated at that point was about four times the length of what we have now. Where did it all go? [see here].

Graham provides no documentation and presents the ideas as his own. Now compare the apologetics of John Gee:

In 1838, Anson Call reported that "Joseph ... said to us, 'Sit down and we will read to you from the translations of the book of Abraham.' Oliver Cowdery then read until he was tired when Thomas Marsh read making altogether about two hours." A conservative estimate would suggest that the book of Abraham material translated at that point was about four times the length of what we have now. Where did it all go? [John Gee, "A Tragedy of Errors," FARMS Review of Books 4.1 (1992): 111–12].

Obviously, Kevin lifted John's argument verbatim—sans proper credit. Worse still, Kevin inserted his own sentence ("These men read the translated Book of Abraham for two hours, which takes about one half hour to do so now") smack dab in the middle of Gee's text—again, sans proper credit.

But the thick plottens. I suspect that Kevin actually borrowed the paragraph from Bill Smith's online BoAbr commentary, not directly from Gee, because he preserves one of Smith's errors. Note Kevin's "Prior to 1838" vs. John's "In 1838"—now review how Bill (mis)quotes John:

Prior to 1838, Anson Call reported that "Joseph . . . said to us, 'Sit down and we will read to you from the translations of the book of Abraham.' Oliver Cowdery then read until he was tired when Thomas Marsh read making altogether about two hours." A conservative estimate would suggest that the book of Abraham material translated at that point was about four times the length of what we have now. Where did it all go? [John Gee cited in W. V. Smith, "Appendix V: Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham," A Joseph Smith Commentary on the Book of Abraham: An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Abraham, emphasis added].

Graham's preservation of Bill Smith's misquote also perpetuates a historical error since Anson Call placed the BoAbr reading in 1838 (pace Graham), not prior to 1838.

Graham's plagiarism aside, Anson Call's reminiscence is historically problematic:

Anson said that BoMor witness Oliver Cowdery read from the BoAbr "until he was tired," leaving Thomas Marsh to finish the recital.
According to Call, the reading took place in 1838 at Far West.
Anson's autobiography places his arrival at Far West in late March or early April 1838.
By December 1837, disaffection was brewing for Oliver Cowdery—he and Joseph Smith were at odds on economic and socio-political issues.
By the end of January 1838, Oliver was effectively stripped of his church calling followed by accusations that he had sold land contrary to revelation.
Cowdery responded with legal action against Joseph Smith.
On 12 April 1838, Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Mormon church.
Thomas Marsh testified against Oliver at the excommunication proceedings.

In the midst of so much personal animosity and ecclesiastical estrangement, Anson Call's recollection of a BoAbr recital involving Oliver Cowdery, Thomas Marsh, and Joseph Smith is absurd. A BoAbr reading may have occurred in spring 1838, but it almost certainly did not include Oliver's participation. Anson's tenuous telling is scarcely the type of source that sound theories are built upon.

In the interest of FAIRness, FAIR administrators should carefully reconsider whether Kevin's essay exemplifies the standard of research that they wish to promote.

Cheers,

bReNt

Yuku free message boards

FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies?

FAIR or unFAIR BoAbr Studies?