Meditations on Vogel, Appendix H: "Purporting to Be"

The header for the original 1842 printing of the Book of Abraham reads:

"A TRANSLATION

 "Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

The word "purporting" indicates there is more going on than meets the eye. Here we have a situation where the words “purporting to be” are inserted to indicate something, yet the word “purporting” has negative connotations. That word was only used in the Times and Seasons in reference to things that had not been verified as true, and usually it was used as a means of denying the authenticity of the items in question.

For instance, the December 1, 1842 edition contains the following excerpt, which uses the word to cast doubt on a “lost book,” which parallels the Book of Abraham:

"We have lately seen a pamphlet, written, and published by James C. Brewster; purporting to be one of the lost books of Esdras; and to be written by the gift and power of God. We consider it a perfect humbug, and should not have noticed it, had it not been assiduously circulated, in several branches of the church.

Another example (out of several which exist) is found in the September 2, 1844 edition:

 "Whereas Elders James J. Strang and Aaron Smith have been circulating a "revelation." (falsely called) purporting to have been received by Joseph Smith on the 18th of June, 1844: and through the influence of which they have attempted and are attempting to establish a stake, called Voree, in Wisconsin Territory, thereby leading the saints astray: therefore, the said James J. Strang and Aaron Smith are cut off from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this 26th day of August, 1844."

So, what should we make of the use of the word “purporting” in the Book of Abraham header? Well, we know Joseph is not trying to cast doubt on the authenticity of Abraham's writings which he translated. But he does seem to be casting doubt on the idea that the ancient records in his possession are themselves the plain writings of Abraham.

This is consistent with my theory: Joseph of Egypt would not have had to clarify in the text that his record was a redaction, since the Pharaoh already knew this. But without that clarification, the papyrus represents itself as being written by Abraham himself, from the very start (see Abraham 1:1) even though it is actually a redaction. Thus, the redacted version is "purporting to be the writings of Abraham..."

While my theory accounts for this, the critic needs to account for the word "purporting," since every time that word was used in Times and Seasons, it had negative connotations. How does the critic reconcile this?

On that point, I should also note that my theory does not preclude the possibility of Joseph of Egypt attaching some of Abraham's own handwriting (papyrus can be mashed together into one roll) since he would have presumably had access to records his family brought with them when they moved to Egypt. Even in this case, Joseph's redacted Book of Abraham would still be "purporting" to be written by Abraham's own hand while actually being written by Joseph. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Meditations on Dan Vogel's Responses

Image
I want to thank Dan Vogel for offering a few initial responses to some of my meditations about his "Truth of the Book of Abraham"  video series . Thanks in part to Dan's responses, I have made a few modifications to my post, " Meditions on Vogel ," with a link near the top of the post, where people can still access the original version. If I become aware of more responses from Dan, I will post them as well, accompanied by any commentary I may decide to offer. Meditation on Dan's First Responses Below are Dan's set of initial responses, followed by my replies.  (click image to enlarge) --- Vogel Begins: (click image to enlarge) The way Dan phrases this sounds like he's pointing to one observation I made, which I called a "clue," and he is suggesting I held up that one clue as something which, by itself, could overturn the Egyptological assessment of Joseph Smith's relationship with the Egyptian language. I
Read more

Meditation on Dan Vogel's Response of 5/15/2020

Image
Meditation on Dan Vogel's Response of May 15, 2020 Thank you, Dan, for your response. Below is a picture of your response, followed by my reply. First, I agree with you that Parrish and Williams usually were writing at the same time. But we need to account for the fact I drew attention to in my last meditation , that Williams did not write the word "was" and did not write the word "Egyptians," both of which Parrish did write, in the corresponding part of his text, and both of which Parrish had to cross out. Joseph Smith apparently dictated the words, then stopped and corrected them. I believe we agree up to that point. You propose that the reason Williams did not write down those words is that he may have been writing slower and thus he had fallen far enough behind that he did not get to that point until after the correction had been made and so he therefore knew not to write the words. However, the word "was" came just three syllables bef
Read more

Meditations on Vogel, Appendix A: How The Kinderhook Translation Relates

Image
The Kinderhook Plates explanation put forth by Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee makes sense, although I believe they overlooked some profound implications, and their conclusion is premature.  I do not believe Joseph Smith attempted a translation of the Kinderhook Plates. We have very good reason to believe William Clayton took something Joseph Smith said about the papyri and extrapolated it to the KP, based on Joseph telling Clayton about a character which Joseph had derived from the papyri which was similar to a prominent character on a Kinderhook Plate.  We actually have Bradley and Ashurst-McGee showing us that the translation referred to by Clayton was derived from the papyri, but they stop short of realizing that this creates a dependence of Clayton’s journal, on the papyrus. The translation not only was derived from but is a correct description of the content of a piece from the papyri collection.  The first thing we should do is familiarize ourselves with their theory.  
Read more