Jump to content
CA Steve

The textual transmission of the Book of Abraham.

Recommended Posts

On 1/8/2019 at 4:08 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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:

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).

A trite, ideological answer will not do.  Thank you sir.  I need egyptological answers sir.  I see that you don't have an answer.  Actual Egyptologists on the other hand give the appropriate answer:

Quote

While Egyptian writing made use of all of these different forms of expression in texts and inscriptions, exactly the same communication principles were chosen when hieroglyphic forms were used in the construction of large-scale representations. (Symbol & Magic in Egyptian Art  
by Richard H. Wilkinson, p. 157)

I suggest that you take up some studies in Standard Egyptology.  I sir, challenge you to come up with real quotes to back up your position, and eliminate text characters from being able to be used iconotropically.  I see that you are not schooled in standard Egyptology as much as you claim to be.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, edgoble123 said:

A trite, ideological answer will not do.  Thank you sir.  I need egyptological answers sir.  I see that you don't have an answer.  Actual Egyptologists on the other hand give the appropriate answer:

I suggest that you take up some studies in Standard Egyptology.  I sir, challenge you to come up with real quotes to back up your position, and eliminate text characters from being able to be used iconotropically.  I see that you are not schooled in standard Egyptology as much as you claim to be.

Sounds like you've been to the George Orwell School of Egyptology, Ed.  The same school which accepts pyramidology and wicca as the true basis of reality.  Best wishes.

Share this post


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

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?

But your methodology begins with an assumption of a flow of direction. I don't care to prove or disprove the historicity of the BofA. 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, the narrator said:

But your methodology begins with an assumption of a flow of direction. I don't care to prove or disprove the historicity of the BofA. 

I am now and have always been open to evidence on direction of flow of those terms.  Perhaps you think that there is evidence I am not considering.

Scholarship doesn't begin with bald assumptions.  It begins with a searching and detailed appraisal of the full range of phenomena, after which some tentative conclusions may be in order.  Moreover, the scholarship of a single scholar is never monomaniacal, but is always influenced by the work of other scholars.  I have many times sat in sessions in which other scholars are making presentations, and have learned a great deal from them, as on one occasion at BYU in which Richard Bushman had his summer session students summarize their research -- at which I for the first time met Chris Smith, whose work I have found very important for a variety of reasons.  Being open to the ideas of other scholars is the heart and soul of real scholarship, regardless of the consequences.

At the same time, even those I admire have sometimes fallen short in making their claims -- and I have had to go my own way based on what I regard as better evidence. That give and take is the warp and woof of scholarship.  If you wish, I can give specific examples.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am now and have always been open to evidence on direction of flow of those terms.  Perhaps you think that there is evidence I am not considering.

Scholarship doesn't begin with bald assumptions.  It begins with a searching and detailed appraisal of the full range of phenomena, after which some tentative conclusions may be in order.  Moreover, the scholarship of a single scholar is never monomaniacal, but is always influenced by the work of other scholars.  I have many times sat in sessions in which other scholars are making presentations, and have learned a great deal from them, as on one occasion at BYU in which Richard Bushman had his summer session students summarize their research -- at which I for the first time met Chris Smith, whose work I have found very important for a variety of reasons.  Being open to the ideas of other scholars is the heart and soul of real scholarship, regardless of the consequences.

At the same time, even those I admire have sometimes fallen short in making their claims -- and I have had to go my own way based on what I regard as better evidence. That give and take is the warp and woof of scholarship.  If you wish, I can give specific examples.

No need to lecture me on scholarship. Your asking for evidence assumes that there must be some source material for those names rather than maybe Joseph's own creative abilities. Perhaps those of the BofA are based on some ancient source text and the names in the United Firm revelations are creatively drawn from those and other revealed names. IMO, it seems quite clear that a premise of your methodology is the assumption that the names and terms in Joseph's translations and revelations must have some other basis other than Joseph's own creativity, and working with that premise you then mine for ancient names and terms that share a resemblance to those of Joseph's. Case in point is your discussion of "telestial" I saw while skimming through one of your papers you shared above, where IIRC you propose that it's rooted in "telos." While this could be the case (though I see no reason to think it is), the common assertion that Joseph simply created the term by mixing "celestial" and "terrestrial" together seems to me far more likely--especially when "telestial" seems to have no place in the context of Paul's mention of heavenly and earthly bodies. (I know "telestial" is a pain for the Church's translation department for this very reason.)

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.

×
×
  • Create New...