Well, unlike the previous responses, this one does deal with the issues. Thank you. I will respond as succinctly as I can.
Significant Text
The term “significant” has many meanings. It can, for example, mean “important” as in “significant argument.” It can mean “large,” but it does not define size. So, while it is reasonable to think that the papyrus could have been much longer, it is completely unreasonable to think that there is “no question that this papyrus roll was significantly longer than the fragments still extant.” It could have been just slightly larger. The greater weight of the evidence tells us that it was as long as the standard Book of Breathings.
After this, your response really seems to derail from the tracks of logic.
Multiple Texts
You give examples of ancient Egyptian religious papyri with multiple texts on them:
Papyrus Vandier - Book of the Dead on one side of the papyrus and a tale of a Meryre on the other side
The Book of the Dead of Psenmines also contains a temple ritual
The Book of the Dead of Pawerem also contains a temple ritual
And two demotic funerary papyri, Papyrus Harkness and BM 10507 “contain several different texts”
This argument is pure misdirection. In order to attach any significance to the point you try to make, you and I would both need to know a great deal more about the documents you listed. First, we have no evidence that anything was written on the reverse side of the Joseph Smith papyri. Next, I suspect that the “temple rituals” you mention are closely related to the Book of the Dead passages.
Your conclusion bears no rational relation to these examples. The Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the Book of Breathings. You in essence say, “Well, once we found a papyrus with something written on the back and we also found a papyrus with related text, so, “Abraham” could have been on this scroll even though there was nothing on the back and even though it is unrelated. I suppose there could have been a recipe for Egyptian oatmeal cookies in the papyrus as well, but it sure does not seem likely!
Drawings with Double Meaning
Next, you claim that two common Egyptian illustrations, with well-known meanings, are actually hidden messages. Cold Steel, this one is really a stretch. It does not just skirt around logic, it flees from it.
Here you have the common Egyptian scene of the deceased being led into the underworld, depicted hundreds of times in different ancient Egyptian documents, but this scene all of a sudden has a double meaning?? It is a judgement scene in the underworld court of Osiris.
Read Joseph Smith's detailed explanation of this scene! Now, compare that to how a real Egyptologist, Klaus Baer describes facsimile No. 3 in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 126-127:
I'm sorry, but Smith mistakes Isis for Pharaoh! He mistakes Anubis for the ridiculous invented name of a "slave" named "Olimlah." ( Did you notice that "Olimlah" is black? I wonder why Joseph decided he was a slave?? )
Cold Steel, you are beter than this!
Full Retreat
Finally, your argument ABANDONS everything above and asserts that Joseph did not really translate the papyrus but rather just received revelation from God that was somehow sparked by the scroll. In other words, you say, " what direct connection, if any, do the papyri have to the Book of Abraham? "
Stunning! We are now to ignore all the prior attenuated arguments and just accept that Joseph got it right.
The problem with this argument is that 1) It ignores what Joseph Smith said he did; 2) It ignores 100 years of Mormon belief; and 3) It ignores the strong evidence we have that Joseph was engaged in a literal alphabet translation.
Once again, I am out of time. Please forgive me and allow me to complete this post later.
Significant Text
The term “significant” has many meanings. It can, for example, mean “important” as in “significant argument.” It can mean “large,” but it does not define size. So, while it is reasonable to think that the papyrus could have been much longer, it is completely unreasonable to think that there is “no question that this papyrus roll was significantly longer than the fragments still extant.” It could have been just slightly larger. The greater weight of the evidence tells us that it was as long as the standard Book of Breathings.
After this, your response really seems to derail from the tracks of logic.
Multiple Texts
You give examples of ancient Egyptian religious papyri with multiple texts on them:
This argument is pure misdirection. In order to attach any significance to the point you try to make, you and I would both need to know a great deal more about the documents you listed. First, we have no evidence that anything was written on the reverse side of the Joseph Smith papyri. Next, I suspect that the “temple rituals” you mention are closely related to the Book of the Dead passages.
Your conclusion bears no rational relation to these examples. The Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the Book of Breathings. You in essence say, “Well, once we found a papyrus with something written on the back and we also found a papyrus with related text, so, “Abraham” could have been on this scroll even though there was nothing on the back and even though it is unrelated. I suppose there could have been a recipe for Egyptian oatmeal cookies in the papyrus as well, but it sure does not seem likely!
Drawings with Double Meaning
Next, you claim that two common Egyptian illustrations, with well-known meanings, are actually hidden messages. Cold Steel, this one is really a stretch. It does not just skirt around logic, it flees from it.
Here you have the common Egyptian scene of the deceased being led into the underworld, depicted hundreds of times in different ancient Egyptian documents, but this scene all of a sudden has a double meaning?? It is a judgement scene in the underworld court of Osiris.
Read Joseph Smith's detailed explanation of this scene! Now, compare that to how a real Egyptologist, Klaus Baer describes facsimile No. 3 in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 126-127:
quote:
Fascimile No. 3 shows a man (5) his hand raised in adoration and a cone of perfumed grease and a lotus flower on his head (ancient Egyptian festival attire), being introduced by Maat (4), the goddess of justice, and Anubis (6), the guide of the dead, into the presence of Osiris (1), enthroned as king of the Netherworld. Behind Osiris stands Isis (2), and in front of him is an offering-stand (3) with a jug and some flowers on it. Over the whole scene is a canopy with stars painted on it to represent the sky.
The scene comes from a mortuary papyrus and is similar to, but not identical with the scenes showing judgement of the deceased before Osiris such as P. JS III. It is a summary in one illustration of what the Breathing Permit promised: The deceased, after successfully undergoing judgement is welcomed into the presence of Osiris.
The texts, poorly copied as they are, carry us one step further. As far as it can be made out, the line of hieroglyphics below the scene reads.
'O Gods of ..., gods of Caverns, gods of the south, north, west, and east, grant well-being to Osiris Hor, justified, ...'
The characters above and to the left of the man are probably to be read: 'Osiris Hor, justified forever.' Even though Hor is a relatively common name in Greco-Roman Egypt, this does suggest 'Fascimile No. 3' reproduces part of the same manuscript that 'Facsimile No. 2' does. Hor's copy of the Breathing Permit would then have had two vignettes, one at the beginning and another ('Facsimile No. 3) at the end, an arrangement that is found in other copies of the same text."
I'm sorry, but Smith mistakes Isis for Pharaoh! He mistakes Anubis for the ridiculous invented name of a "slave" named "Olimlah." ( Did you notice that "Olimlah" is black? I wonder why Joseph decided he was a slave?? )
Cold Steel, you are beter than this!
Full Retreat
Finally, your argument ABANDONS everything above and asserts that Joseph did not really translate the papyrus but rather just received revelation from God that was somehow sparked by the scroll. In other words, you say, " what direct connection, if any, do the papyri have to the Book of Abraham? "
Stunning! We are now to ignore all the prior attenuated arguments and just accept that Joseph got it right.
The problem with this argument is that 1) It ignores what Joseph Smith said he did; 2) It ignores 100 years of Mormon belief; and 3) It ignores the strong evidence we have that Joseph was engaged in a literal alphabet translation.
Once again, I am out of time. Please forgive me and allow me to complete this post later.
