Jump to content
CA Steve

The textual transmission of the Book of Abraham.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I would have suspected that you rejected the black and white thinking common among those in the pews with you, but maybe I'm wrong.

Not sure what you mean by black and white thinking. As I said I reject people being only all in or all out. However I think if someone rejects all the truth claims, doesn't attend or really engage, that they're at best mostly out. I certainly hope they get more involved. And I certainly hope they'll embrace the truth claims. But I don't see that as black and white thinking. Quite the contrary. So there's lots of people I know who doubt many things I accept as true but keep coming to Church. There's people I know who accept most of the truth claims I hold to but don't come to Church for various reasons. But interest in the topic just seems to be a pretty low level of engagement. 

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

if someone rejects all the truth claims,

Well, surely nobody out there would reject all of them. That's absurd. You must be referring to specific ones.

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So there's lots of people I know who doubt many things I accept as true but keep coming to Church. There's people I know who accept most of the truth claims I hold to but don't come to Church for various reasons.

Okay. So they have "left the Church" if they disagree with you. Yeah, that's the thing I'm rejecting and why I dislike that language. But, hey, there is definitely something that you and a lot of PostMormons have in common.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To what both the speaker and hearer interpret as its intended propositional content.

 

So the content is "accurate" "to what both the speaker and hearer interpret as its intended propositional content."

It's "accurate" to what two different people INTERPRET as its "INTENDED PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT"

So this actually requires three people to agree on what squiggly symbols on a page "mean" about what the author INTENDED as something called "propositional content"

And this is how one establishes "accuracy"??  Two other people mindreading - and agreeing about the squiggles made by the third person -about the undefinable "propositional content" INTENDED by said third person.

I don't think that is any kind of test of "accuracy" and that in this context the word "accurate" is virtually meaningless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/7/2019 at 11:59 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The illustrations are not in any way related to Abraham.  They are standard Egyptian documents, and are to be interpreted via standard Egyptology.  Can they be interpreted in light of the BofA?  Of course, and there is no reason why that cannot be done.  Adaptation is not syncretism.  We do not have an Abraham papyrus as the basis of the BofA.  Did one exist?  Certainly possible.  In fact, it is very difficult to imagine Joseph Smith inventing such a document with all the fully accurate claims and interpretations therein.  Now that we know that Joseph did not (and could not) compose the Book of Mormon, we are left with the impossible claim that it is all either happenstantial, or that someone had magical abilities.  Note that the BofM, like the BofA, is based on a no longer available original Egyptian source (plates, papyrus).

Yet that is precisely what Scripture can be.  Someone is the author, creator, or tradent.  In fact, every author/creator is beholden to tradition.  However, close analysis of the content and style of a document can disclose when, where, and by whom it was written.

Ok Robert.  If the pictures on the standard Egyptian documents that are interpreted via standard Egyptology can be interpreted in light of the BofA by way of adaptation, then why cannot the text characters lifted from the Hor Papyrus in the GAEL that are treated one by one in there individually be interpreted in light of the BofA by way of adaptation?

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Well, surely nobody out there would reject all of them. That's absurd. You must be referring to specific ones.

Okay. So they have "left the Church" if they disagree with you. Yeah, that's the thing I'm rejecting and why I dislike that language. But, hey, there is definitely something that you and a lot of PostMormons have in common.

It's not if they disagree with me. It's more what on earth is the connection. Put an other way if I go talk to someone in the Allred group they believe a lot of the same things we do but I'd not consider them Mormon. Upon what basis do I make that judgment about identity? There has to be some critieria even if perhaps the dividing line is somewhat fuzzy. Something must distinguish people in the Church from people out of the Church if only linguistically. 

Certainly I have a lot in common with some post-Mormons. With many of them I agree with a lot of their reasoning even if not their final judgment.

As for what beliefs, I'd probably say those key beliefs that differentiate us from other religions. But of course that alone is not sufficent. As I said I know lots of people who may doubt even God but who attend and serve.

But let me turn the question around. I assume you think some people have left the Church, even if they never say they have. What determines if they have?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So the content is "accurate" "to what both the speaker and hearer interpret as its intended propositional content."

It's "accurate" to what two different people INTERPRET as its "INTENDED PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT"

So this actually requires three people to agree on what squiggly symbols on a page "mean" about what the author INTENDED as something called "propositional content"

And this is how one establishes "accuracy"??  Two other people mindreading - and agreeing about the squiggles made by the third person -about the undefinable "propositional content" INTENDED by said third person.

I don't think that is any kind of test of "accuracy" and that in this context the word "accurate" is virtually meaningless.

How does that involve mind reading? It just involves talking or writing. But if you don't think that's accuracy (not sure what's up with the scare quotes) that's fine. What do you think accuracy means? 

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what you mean by black and white thinking. As I said I reject people being only all in or all out. However I think if someone rejects all the truth claims, doesn't attend or really engage, that they're at best mostly out. I certainly hope they get more involved. And I certainly hope they'll embrace the truth claims. But I don't see that as black and white thinking. Quite the contrary. So there's lots of people I know who doubt many things I accept as true but keep coming to Church. There's people I know who accept most of the truth claims I hold to but don't come to Church for various reasons. But interest in the topic just seems to be a pretty low level of engagement. 

In other words the words "truth claims" become meaningless, right?

THAT is black and white thinking- that such criteria exists and is known.

The only criteria we have is the judgement of the bishop and the individual in a temple recommend interview- and who the bishop decides who gets to go to the temple.  It is not about "truth claims" or anything but the judgment of the bishop.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How does that involve mind reading? It just involves talking or writing. But if you don't think that's accuracy (not sure what's up with the scare quotes) that's fine. What do you think accuracy means? 

I virtually never use the word because it is pretty meaningless, and undefinable just as "truth" is undefinable.   Fitness for a purpose I suppose if you insist on defining it.

The only measure of membership is the temple recommend interview and the baptismal interview

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Something must distinguish people in the Church from people out of the Church if only linguistically.

There isn't any particular thing, or even any particular combination or percentage of combination of things. One's relationship to a community is frequently a form of life and depends largely on their views of that community, their relationships to those within the community, and what the community means to them.

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I assume you think some people have left the Church, even if they never say they have. What determines if they have?

I can't think of anyone who fits that description. The only people I can think of who I would describe as having left the Church have made some sort of statement to that effect. But even with them, I would like to know what they mean by the statement, because (as I said above) their relationship to the community and what it means to have left can vary greatly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How does that involve mind reading? It just involves talking or writing. But if you don't think that's accuracy (not sure what's up with the scare quotes) that's fine. What do you think accuracy means? 

I don't find quotes scary.

I suppose that shows that connotation is changed by little dots that people find scary.  Dots do not scare me at all.  Man am I tough or what?

One uses quotes when one is using someone else's phrase or words.  If one's own words when repeated back are scary, then as usual meaning is in the eye of the beholder.  :)

I think knowing someone's intent involves mind reading.  Same discussion we had with Dan Vogel .

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think knowing someone's intent involves mind reading.  Same discussion we had with Dan Vogel .

So if I say to you, "I'm going to the kitchen because I'm hungry" you think you just read my mind? If so, then how is mind reading problematic? It seems something we do every day.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So if I say to you, "I'm going to the kitchen because I'm hungry" you think you just read my mind? If so, then how is mind reading problematic? It seems something we do every day.

The answer is in "something we do every day."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, edgoble123 said:

Ok Robert.  If the pictures on the standard Egyptian documents that are interpreted via standard Egyptology can be interpreted in light of the BofA by way of adaptation, then why cannot the text characters lifted from the Hor Papyrus in the GAEL that are treated one by one in there individually be interpreted in light of the BofA by way of adaptation?

Why not?  Simple, Ed.  The hieratic symbols do not lend themselves to iconotropy.  The Illustrations do.  One can look at any given icon or illustrative drawing and give it an interpretation, while the hieratic symbols are so unlike drawings of gods or worldly items that it is not possible to associate them with religious meaning.  The Jewish scribe can much more easily come up with adaptive interpretations for the actual images, and that is what he does.  See William J. Hamblin, “Iconotropy and the JS Abraham Facsimilies,” Interpreter Blog, April 7, 2013, online at https://interpreterfoundation.org/iconotropy-and-the-js-abraham-facsimiles/ .  And Mark J. Johnson, “Scriptures with Pictures: Methodology, Unexamined Assumptions, and the Study of the Book of Abraham,” Interpreter 25 (2017):1-59, online at https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/scriptures-with-pictures-methodology-unexamined-assumptions-and-the-study-of-the-book-of-abraham/ .

One can do the same with formal hieroglyphs.  As non-Mormon Egyptologist James P. Allen commented:

Quote

The Egyptians did not distinguish hieroglyphic writing from other representations of reality, such as statues or scenes in relief.  Both were a tjt, “symbol,” rather than an accurate representation of reality.  Hieroglyphic signs were often carved with the same detail as other pictorial elements of a scene.  Conversely, statues or relief representations were themselves a kind of hieroglyph, a phenomenon most often illustrated in the animal-headed Egyptian gods–as, for instance, in the beetle-headed human form representing prj, “the Developing One” (a form of the sun-god).  Allen, “Egyptian Language and Writing,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:190.

In fact, from Herodotus on, Greek visitors to Egypt were certainly not cowed by alien orthodoxy, and handled Egyptian religion in a rough and “Procrustean” manner, readily identifying Egyptian and other foreign gods with their own, e.g., the Stoics saw Zeus, Jupiter, Amun, Ahura (Mazda), and Baal as one entity, just as they did Aphrodite, Astarte, and Isis-Hathor as one universal Mother Goddess.  So R. E. Witt, Isis in the Graeco-Roman World, 21-22; F. E. Peters, Harvest of Hellenism, 479; E. Bleeker, Egyptian Festivals, 18-19; H. I. Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt, 15,19,33; C. H. Gordon in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macropaedia, 12:917-920.

The Egyptians themselves did exactly the same (J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 44).

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, the narrator said:

The assumptions you make are the relationships that the BofA has to the ancient past, and how the BofA can be interpreted to illustrate that relationship.

I am not saying the relationships you see are invalid, nor am I saying that the BofA cannot be based on some source from a couple millennia ago. I'm saying that other ways of reading the BofA (and I would say much straight-forward readings) could just as easily be used to see relationships to 19th century views of Abraham found in contemporary commentaries and Masonic lore. Or, bring the two together, and say that Joseph translated an ancient texts using concepts and understandings contemporary to him.

Well, if that is so, I would be happy to read a piece making that case.  I haven't seen one yet, and I have been working steadily on this issue since around 1969, and have written extensively on it.  My first publication on BofA related matters was in 1973 -- see my “Some ‘Neologisms’ From the Mormon Canon,” 1973 Conference on the Language of the Mormons, paper delivered May 31, 1973, at BYU (Provo: BYU Language Research Center, 1973):64-68.  Copy available in HBLL Special Collections, BX 8600.4 .C76, and online at https://www.scribd.com/document/363522963/SOME-NEOLOGISMS-FROM-THE-MORMON-CANON .

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So if I say to you, "I'm going to the kitchen because I'm hungry" you think you just read my mind? If so, then how is mind reading problematic? It seems something we do every day.

Oh my.

First of all  you have here stated your intention in this example,  totally unlike your previous assertion that "accuracy constitutes what both the speaker and hearer interpret as its intended propositional content" which PRESUMES that the intent is NOT stated.

In one your motivation is stated clearly and the other requires that two different individuals "interpret propositional content" what ever that means and apparently agree on what that "propositional content" means!   The very reason they would need to "interpret" is because of something NOT stated.

But even when you STATE your motivation, I still don't know if you are lying! 

You could be lying going to the kitchen because you needed to do something else of a private nature or simply something undisclosed to the questioner

We have courts set up to examine motivations in someone's action and they still get it wrong after using every form of investigation available to them, but your example does not even come close to that example of the interpretation of highly ambiguous sentences on highly ambiguous and abstract philosophies.

And "something we do every day" of course is a subjective pronouncement.   Maybe it is something "we" do everyday or not.  I seldom state my reasons for doing anything unless questioned- who would care why I am going to the kitchen??

It is not something "we" do.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my.

First of all  you have here stated your intention in this example,  totally unlike your previous assertion that "accuracy constitutes what both the speaker and hearer interpret as its intended propositional content" which PRESUMES that the intent is NOT stated.

I thought it was pretty clear that this was during dialog. That is it presumes expression of intents and interpretation as people attempt to understand each other. (Much as I was asking about meaning) If that wasn't clear let me make it explicit that I'm talking about dialog over time and not a single statement. I'm most expressly not presuming mind reading. Behind all this is Peirce's conception of dialog not to mention Davidson's arguments regarding interpretation and charity.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But even when you STATE your motivation, I still don't know if you are lying

So there's a degree of fallibilism. I'm a fallibilist as you know. I think there's a chance of error in everything. So this isn't much of a critique to my position. Especially since in a dialog where people are attempted to understand each other accurately it'd not make a whole lot of sense to lie. Even if someone was lying, wouldn't for the lie to function as a lie the content of the lie have to be interpreted the way the liar wants? And wouldn't that require some degree of accuracy of the very sort you are critiquing? It seems the very speech act of lying requires what you deny.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And "something we do every day" of course is a subjective pronouncement.   Maybe it is something "we" do everyday or not.  I seldom state my reasons for doing anything unless questioned- who would care why I am going to the kitchen??

I will make no claims of your desire to be understood. I will merely say that most of the rest of us attempt it.

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

The answer is in "something we do every day."

Yup this is essentially social and intersubjective.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Sigh.

Sorry we just seem to not be communicating on this topic, Clark.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not quite.  The Book of Breathings and the hypocephalus would be very important to traditional Egyptians, and placing them in a tomb with a loved one would be a significant and normal gesture.  The BofA would be irrelevant to that consideration from the traditional Egyptian POV.

However, it was entirely normal for unrelated documents to be included on the same papyrus, and such documents could be and were added by others at different times.  In other cases, papyri were erased and reused (we can see under the erasures and read the originals through advanced tech).  Because we do not have the original of the BofA, we do not understand the original configuration of these docs.  However, through close internal analysis of the English BofA, we can be sure that it is an authentic ancient document (some people see it as a pseudepigraphon from late antiquity)

No doubt there are a lot of unknowns regarding the original configuration of the documents but can't we say with some certainty that the same scroll that contained the Hor breathing document was also thought to the "writings of Abraham" and the Ta-sherrit-Min scroll "the writings of Joseph of Egypt" by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries?  If that is true why would those that buried Hor allow the BofA to remain on the Hor scroll when they placed it under his arm? Wouldn't it have been a simple process to simply remove the BofA from the Breathing document?

I am sure you are familiar with Marc Coenen's essay on "The Ownership and Dating of Certain Joseph Smith Papyri" in Robert Ritner's The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition. Marc has identified 19 ancestors of Hor, laid out 7 generations of the Hor family and when they lived, and has found 9 other Documents of Breathing or Books of the Dead that were buried with Hor's family.  (See pages 57-74) While it might of been normal for unrelated documents to be included on the same papyrus, it would not have been normal for a text such as the BofA to be buried with them. As Coenen says on page 67:

Quote

However, concluding that a record of Abraham or any other text foreign to Ptolemaic Egyptian funerary and/or liturgical practice was once attached to the Smith Papyri is an assertion not based upon widely accepted Egyptological analysis.

Asserting that an internal analysis of the BofA is proof that it is an authentic ancient document seems to be an argument from ignorance fallacy in that it depends on knowing what sources Joseph didn't have. 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, if that is so, I would be happy to read a piece making that case.  I haven't seen one yet, and I have been working steadily on this issue since around 1969, and have written extensively on it.  My first publication on BofA related matters was in 1973 -- see my “Some ‘Neologisms’ From the Mormon Canon,” 1973 Conference on the Language of the Mormons, paper delivered May 31, 1973, at BYU (Provo: BYU Language Research Center, 1973):64-68.  Copy available in HBLL Special Collections, BX 8600.4 .C76, and online at https://www.scribd.com/document/363522963/SOME-NEOLOGISMS-FROM-THE-MORMON-CANON .

I really hope Metcalfe publishes his stuff, as I found it quite convincing.

I briefly skimmed your paper. It would be interesting to see the same methodology applied to Joseph's fictionalized rendition of the United Firm revelations. 

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I really hope Metcalfe publishes his stuff, as I found it quite convincing.

I briefly skimmed your paper. It would be interesting to see the same methodology applied to Joseph's fictionalized rendition of the United Firm revelations. 

The  important fact there is that we are not dealing with modern revelation in the BofA, nor are we dealing with code-names designed to keep modern personal identities and places secret.  The code-names were inserted after the revelations were received.  A good place to start on the issue is with Christopher  C. Smith (no relation), "The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations,” Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies, 1/1 (Apr 2011):15-31; and the Joseph Smith Papers online.  

The facts make clear that William W. Phelps began his cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and that he was the “dominant force” in continuing that effort in KEP and in preparation for the 1835 D&C – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88).  We know that because he was already discussing the matter with his wife by letter before the arrival of the papyri and mummies in Kirtland.  We also know that the United Firm revelations were very controversial, some scholars insisting that Oliver Cowdery left the Church over that issue -- which he regarded as an unworkable economic policy.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

No doubt there are a lot of unknowns regarding the original configuration of the documents but can't we say with some certainty that the same scroll that contained the Hor breathing document was also thought to the "writings of Abraham" and the Ta-sherrit-Min scroll "the writings of Joseph of Egypt" by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries?  If that is true why would those that buried Hor allow the BofA to remain on the Hor scroll when they placed it under his arm? Wouldn't it have been a simple process to simply remove the BofA from the Breathing document?

I am sure you are familiar with Marc Coenen's essay on "The Ownership and Dating of Certain Joseph Smith Papyri" in Robert Ritner's The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition. Marc has identified 19 ancestors of Hor, laid out 7 generations of the Hor family and when they lived, and has found 9 other Documents of Breathing or Books of the Dead that were buried with Hor's family.  (See pages 57-74) While it might of been normal for unrelated documents to be included on the same papyrus, it would not have been normal for a text such as the BofA to be buried with them. As Coenen says on page 67:

Coenen is correct to a limited extent, and I have already pointed out on this thread the family nature of those Egyptian docs.  My point is the same as Coenen's.  There is no reason why the Hor family would deposit the BofA with their loved one.  However, Coenen's notion that this was never done is completely false:   In the Middle Kingdom Theban tomb of a lector-priest, were found three magical papyri “which were written on the back of old military dispatches,” the same tomb which disclosed the Semna Papyri (Ian Shaw in David Silverman, ed., Ancient Egypt [London: Duncan Baird Publ., 1997], 78).  In addition, during New Kingdom and even Roman times, texts of the Old Kingdom were recopied and attached to copies of the Book of the Dead spells, e.g., BD 112, 128, 178, etc. (A. Szczudlowksa, “Pyramid Texts Preserved on Sękowski Papyrus,” ZÄS, 99 [1972]:25-29).  Indeed, “John Gee estimates that about 40% of known Sensen texts have other texts attached to them” (https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Video/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD/Book_of_Abraham ).  Just so, papyri such as the Westcar Papyrus (Papyrus Berlin 3033) were applied to a variety of contexts, and were simply reused when necessary! (H. Goe****e, Chronique d’Égypte, 45:244-245; the Westcar Papyrus was thus a palimpsest).

Wes Walters earlier made the very same error that Coenen has since made (Walters, JETS, 16:28, n. 13, rejecting Nibley, BYU Studies, 9:72-78; 11:163; cf. Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 1st ed., 77).  The difference is that Coenen should know better.

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Asserting that an internal analysis of the BofA is proof that it is an authentic ancient document seems to be an argument from ignorance fallacy in that it depends on knowing what sources Joseph didn't have. 

My analysis is readily available, and I can repeat the citation for you if you missed it.  It demonstrates that discoveries made in the almost two centuries since the BofA was produced verify so many of the claims of the BofA that the only conclusion is that Joseph Smith either had access to an authentic record, which he called the Book of Abraham, or he produced it by magic (which is absurd).  Scholars can come to such conclusions via internal analysis of any document.  There is no fallacy in that straightforward approach, and it is incumbent on those claiming that Joseph Smith used early 19th century sources to demonstrate that.  So far they have been unable to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The  important fact there is that we are not dealing with modern revelation in the BofA, nor are we dealing with code-names designed to keep modern personal identities and places secret.  The code-names were inserted after the revelations were received.  A good place to start on the issue is with Christopher  C. Smith (no relation), "The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations,” Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies, 1/1 (Apr 2011):15-31; and the Joseph Smith Papers online.  

The facts make clear that William W. Phelps began his cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and that he was the “dominant force” in continuing that effort in KEP and in preparation for the 1835 D&C – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88).  We know that because he was already discussing the matter with his wife by letter before the arrival of the papyri and mummies in Kirtland.  We also know that the United Firm revelations were very controversial, some scholars insisting that Oliver Cowdery left the Church over that issue -- which he regarded as an unworkable economic policy.

I was the editor for that short-lived journal at Claremont :). My point is that if the same methodology to find an ancient basis for BofA and BofM names can be used to find an ancient basis for the United Firm revelations, then the methodology isn't showing what you think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Coenen is correct to a limited extent, and I have already pointed out on this thread the family nature of those Egyptian docs.  My point is the same as Coenen's.  There is no reason why the Hor family would deposit the BofA with their loved one.  However, Coenen's notion that this was never done is completely false:   In the Middle Kingdom Theban tomb of a lector-priest, were found three magical papyri “which were written on the back of old military dispatches,” the same tomb which disclosed the Semna Papyri (Ian Shaw in David Silverman, ed., Ancient Egypt [London: Duncan Baird Publ., 1997], 78).  In addition, during New Kingdom and even Roman times, texts of the Old Kingdom were recopied and attached to copies of the Book of the Dead spells, e.g., BD 112, 128, 178, etc. (A. Szczudlowksa, “Pyramid Texts Preserved on Sękowski Papyrus,” ZÄS, 99 [1972]:25-29).  Indeed, “John Gee estimates that about 40% of known Sensen texts have other texts attached to them” (https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Video/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD/Book_of_Abraham ).  Just so, papyri such as the Westcar Papyrus (Papyrus Berlin 3033) were applied to a variety of contexts, and were simply reused when necessary! (H. Goe****e, Chronique d’Égypte, 45:244-245; the Westcar Papyrus was thus a palimpsest).

Wes Walters earlier made the very same error that Coenen has since made (Walters, JETS, 16:28, n. 13, rejecting Nibley, BYU Studies, 9:72-78; 11:163; cf. Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 1st ed., 77).  The difference is that Coenen should know better.

Coenan is very clear that he is only referring the Ptolemaic era, the era from which both the Hor and Ta-sherit-Min scrolls date.(See pg 67 in Ritner's book.) What percentage of scrolls from that era were known to have texts attached to them? And of that percentage, how many of these added texts were foreign to Egyptian funerary practices?

If there was no reason the Hor family would have deposited the BofA with their loved one, can the same be said of the Min family? Is there any reason they would of deposited any Jewish texts with her? 

Edited by CA Steve

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Coenan is very clear that he is only referring the Ptolemaic era, the era from which both the Hor and Ta-sherit-Min scrolls date.(See pg 67 in Ritner's book.) What percentage of scrolls from that era were known to have texts attached to them? And of that percentage, how many of these added texts were foreign to Egyptian funerary practices?

Since the Book of Breathings is a late formulation (the earliest known is about 350 BC), I would say that Gee's comment applies specifically to the Graeco-Roman era (the Ptolemaic and later Roman era), and there is no reason why such practices would have changed in any era.  I cited specific instances in which the nature of the docs was incompatible.  Indeed, syncretism increased in the late Egyptian period.

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

If there was no reason the Hor family would have deposited the BofA with their loved one, can the same be said of the Min family? Is there any reason they would of deposited any Jewish texts with her? 

No.  Not at all.  The point I and others have made still obtains:  Despite there being no reason to deposit such a text with those Egyptian families, that sort of thing was done repeatedly.  My own opinion is that many Egyptians were not very literate and that the presence of foreign or unrelated texts on the papyrus they were inserting into the tomb did not present a problem to them.  This happened regularly.  Why Coenen doesn't understand that seems odd to me.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, the narrator said:

I was the editor for that short-lived journal at Claremont :). My point is that if the same methodology to find an ancient basis for BofA and BofM names can be used to find an ancient basis for the United Firm revelations, then the methodology isn't showing what you think it is.

The question, Loyd, is really whether the basis of the BofA onomasticon is authentic, and whether the derivation of the United Firm revelation code-names is taken from those authentic sources.  The direction of flow, as it were.  I have argued very specifically for the authenticity of the BofA onomasticon.  Has anyone demonstrated the opposite?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×