Hello Truth dancer,
Most LDS Apologists believe in the Missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham. The Following is from part an interview that the Chief LDS Apologist, Daniel C. Peterson gave with PBS.
The last one is -- and this has come up for a number of people who really were sort of shattered for a while -- is the problem of the Book of Abraham. Could you talk about that and your own understanding of it? ... ( Link: http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/interviews/peterson.html , Bold Emphasis Mine. )
The Book of Abraham is a lesser-known text in the Mormon canon of Scripture. It's part of what's called the Pearl of Great Price, and it purports to be a document written by the hand of Abraham that was recovered by Joseph Smith, translated [from] a group of papyri that he recovered while living in Kirtland, Ohio. The papyri were lost for a long time, ... and eventually the papyri came back to the church, and people were saying, now this is a real chance to test Joseph Smith's claims as a translator, as a prophet: Do the papyri match up with what Joseph Smith gave us? And the answer is no; ... they don't, if you translate them in a conventional Egyptological way, give you the text of the Book of Abraham.
Now, there are several possible responses to that. The one that I personally find the most persuasive is we only have a small part of the collection. We have possibly about 11 or 12 percent of the papyri that belonged to that collection, ... so it's very possible that there was a text that would be translatable, even by a conventional Egyptologist, into the Book of Abraham, but we don't have it now. But even that seems to me not altogether necessary. We know that Joseph didn't translate in the way that a scholar would translate. He didn't know Egyptian, ... so he was getting it by revelation. That even opens up the possibility to me that even if Joseph thought he was getting it from the papyri, he may not have been. How would he have been able to know? I'm not saying he wasn't. My own preferred solution to this is to say that he was, and the papyrus is missing. ...
What they ought to be focusing on is the book itself, which I think is a remarkable thing. It has ties to the ancient world all over the place in very interesting ways, which I think Joseph wouldn't have come up with. ... I would defend it by saying, look, we've got this translation; let's look at the content of the book itself. Does it hold up? My argument would be yes, it does, and that that's where people ought to be focusing. The papyri were a deceptively clear indicator; in fact, they may not indicate anything. ...
However, The Following is from what Egyptologist Professor,
Robert K. Ritner stated:
The original width of the papyrus was correctly estimated by Baer as being about 150–55 cm, allowing for textual restorations and the now lost Facsimile 3.33( Link: http://www.bookofabraham.com/ritner_article.pdf )
33 Baer, p. 127, n. 113. There is no justification for
Gee’s unsubstantiated attempt to more than double this
figure to “320 cm (about 10 feet)” in Gee, A Guide to
the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 10 and 12–13. Gee presumably
wishes to allow space for a supposedly “lost
hieratic text” of The Book of Abraham; his figure
derives from the average length of a manufactured
(blank) Ptolemaic papyrus roll—not comparable, individual
documents cut from such a roll.
Here are some other Links for some more information about this important Topic: SOLVING THE MYSTERY OF THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPYRI:http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no82.htmChapter 5 - Do Papyri Fragments=Book of Abraham?: http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_5.htmlConventional Translation Denies All Evidence: http://web.archive.org/web/200710280536 ... /id622.htmThe Book of Abraham II:viewtopic.php?f=1&t=656Has John Gee Pulled Another Fast One?:viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3650Why Nibley and Gee cannot be trusted:viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3715A General FYI on missing papyrus and such:viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3942Book of Abraham/Papyri/Long article:http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraha ... ng_articleBook of Abraham/Size of missing papyrus:http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraha ... ng_papyrusNew Book of Abraham Thread on MAD:viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8646
Great job, moderator by harmony. Do not use real names of posters who do not use their real names as their nickname
! You provided a long list of message board threads
from mostly hostile venues which you apparently believe represent the final arbiter of the "facts" concerning the Book of Abraham controversy. All those "experts". So little time.
Oh, you do provide Mr. Ritner's overused quote, which is really irrelevant, since Baer was only estimating the total width of the scroll if all it contained was the Sensen text and the two facsimiles (#1 and #3). Besides, if Ritner wants to dispute Gee's calculations about the length of the scroll (which now place the total length of the scroll not at 320cm, but rather 1200cm!), as based on the lacunae, his argument is not with Gee, but rather with Hoffman, whose widely-accepted calculations Gee is using.
Also, you still didn't answer my one question to you from the other thread. Why is that? Could it be because all you really
understand about the debate is how to cut and paste links to message board threads?