Alternate Authorship Bom Theories-problems

[Who Knows]

It occurs to me that this discussion has become quite surreal. OK, suppose I were to concede your point:

OK, Joseph Smith added the wrong vowels when he translated "NHM".

OK, are you happy now? So the Book of Mormon is false because he put the wrong vowels in "Nahom" when he translated it?

I never claimed that.

This started out with me asking why you found NHM compelling evidence for the BOM. I just don't see it. However, I can certainly see that it may be plausible.

Maklelan - if you were to write Nahom in the same script (Sabaen?), how would you write it?

And then, how about Hebrew?

[Irondukesteve]

lol...

Didnt need to add vowels because it would have been irrelevant in ancient arabic or hebrew. So Therefore JS would have got it right if he had put Nahum Nihem NHM etc etc.

So Joseph got another one right. Personally I wish there was more of this. Looking at the Hypochephalus I think he was pretty right with No. 3 and then the Four jars as being 4 directions. But I must say that he got an awful lot....umm......wrong.In the BoA and in The GAEL which to me is complete gobbleygook, yet JS believed that he was translating a document in which the Lord was uncovering hidden things.

But I find it fascinating that Nephi actually had a Pentateuch with him when infact they were not compiled for about another 50 to 100 years.

[SolarPowered]

GAEL

It's Friday night, and I need a little help decoding that acronym...

But I find it fascinating that Nephi actually had a Pentateuch with him when infact they were not compiled for about another 50 to 100 years.

Why IDS, I had no idea that you were old enough to remember back that far...

[Irondukesteve]

GAEL---Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language. Search for it under Hugh Nibley and Fair wikipedia have a good article on it. I didnt read Nibley's article as his general gist seemed fairly weak to me.

ummm.....Documentary Hypothesis about the origins of the pentateuch and the E, J, P, and D writers. Quite interesting reasonable. The general biblical scholars and academics adopt this hypothesis, that the Pentateuch was not compiled until the Jews were in Babylonian captivity, which is after Nephi left to go to America.

[Who Knows]

and then the Four jars as being 4 directions.

CFR. Please show me where the 4 canopic jars have referred to directions.

[SolarPowered]

GAEL---Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.

OK, now I know what you are referring to.

Still, I'm not at all clear what copies of the BoA, made by various people at unknown times, of unknown provenance, have to do with anything.

[Irondukesteve]

Sorry my bad, I meant number 6 of the Hypochephalus. The 4 sons of Horus are Gods of the 4 quarters of the earth. Guardians of the dead and their heads are on the canopic jars (in facimile 1) that contain the internal organs of the person being mummified.

I think JS got close with number 4 and the baboons as well. But they are more speculative, though they are symbolically quite interesting. For number 4 read Hugh Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri.

Still, I'm not at all clear what copies of the BoA, made by various people at unknown times, of unknown provenance, have to do with anything.

Do you mean anything specifically or with the present thread?

I was trying to say that Joseph hit the bullseye with NHM but his endorsement and handwriting in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was gobbledygook.

[SolarPowered]

I was trying to say that Joseph hit the bullseye with NHM but his endorsement and handwriting in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was gobbledygook.

What does the GAEL have to do with Joseph? My understanding is that those copies of the BoA were all made by others.

[Who Knows]

Sorry my bad, I meant number 6 of the Hypochephalus. The 4 sons of Horus are Gods of the 4 quarters of the earth. Guardians of the dead and their heads are on the canopic jars (in facimile 1) that contain the internal organs of the person being mummified.

First of all, the figures are the same figures as in Fac. 1 - the canopic jars. In Fac. 2 #6, JS does not refer to them as Gods, in fact, he makes no connection between the 2.

Also,

LDS Egyptologist Stephen E. Thompson had this to say: "...it has been repeatedly claimed that Figure 6 in Facsimile 2, which is a depiction of the four sons of Horus (also found as Figures 5-8 in Facsimile 1) 'could indeed 'represent this earth in its four quarters' in the ancient world, as the explanation to the facsimile in the Book of Abraham says.' As far as ancient Egypt was concerned, there is no evidence currently available to support this claim. There is only one context in which the sons of Horus are associated with the cardinal directions, i.e., the 'earth in its four quarters.' They were sent out, in the form of birds, as heralds of the king's coronation. In this setting, Duamutef (Facs. 1, Fig. 6) went to the East, Qebehsenuef (Facs. 1, Fig. 5) to the West, Amset (Facs. 1, Fig. 8 ) to the South, and Hapi (Facs. 1, Fig. 7) to the North. I must emphasize that it is only in this context, and in the form of birds, that these gods were associated with the cardinal points. In a funerary context no such relationship is evident. Furthermore, the fact that these gods were sent to the four quarters of the earth does not mean that the Egyptians equated them with these directions. There is no evidence that they did so."

Ok, I've sidetracked enough. And I need to get off this dang computer!

[Irondukesteve]

That is what Nibley proposes, but in my mind that argument of distancing Joseph from them is very weak. Infact his handwriting is on one of them. And he worked with his scribes on them.

I am referring to the Egyptian manuscripts and not the Book of Abraham manuscripts.

Hugh Nibley-The Meaning of the Kirtland Papers

Transcription of the Egyptian Papers by Marquadt

[Irondukesteve]

Cheers for the evidence Who Knows.

According to Michael Rhodes and John Gee the idea of them representing the 4 quarters is supported by:

• Bonnet, Reallexikon, 315-16:LdA 5:53
  
• Gee, Notes on the Sons of Horus
  

However due to inconsistencies and frankly downright awful scholarship about the the name of Abraham appearing in magical texts when infact it was not the name of Abraham but a secret word similar to Abracadabra (or something like that) I have become distrusting of their material.

Your evidence seems more sound and in keeping with the orignal egyptian.

[SolarPowered]

That is what Nibley proposes, but in my mind that argument of distancing Joseph from them is very weak. Infact his handwriting is on one of them. And he worked with his scribes on them.

I am referring to the Egyptian manuscripts and not the Book of Abraham manuscripts.

Hugh Nibley-The Meaning of the Kirtland Papers

Transcription of the Egyptian Papers by Marquadt

Thanks for the links. I guess I'd agree that they're not a "bullseye" for Joseph Smith. On the other hand, it's not at all clear to me what they are. I think the word "enigmatic" applies quite well to them. They're something one can make all kinds of wild guesses about, but that's probably about all that one can do.

[Irondukesteve]

lol I think enigmatic is right. Yet, from these and other historical evidence I choose to believe that Joseph did not know and was unable to translate reformed Egyptian or Egyptian characters. This came as quite a shock to me...but yet I still see him as being inspired in others ways by looking at his work holistically and in what the church represents now.

[SolarPowered]

Yet, from these and other historical evidence I choose to believe that Joseph did not know and was unable to translate reformed Egyptian or Egyptian characters.

That would be consistent, actually. He was given the ability to translate by the gift and power of God. It is quite possible that that spiritual gift does not include having intellectual knowledge about the details of languages poured into his head. When he needed to translate, and God wanted him to translate, then he would be given an understanding of the meaning of what he was to translate. The rest of the time, he might well have known no more about these languages than you or I would know.

[Irondukesteve]

That is interesting you say that. I read this passage from JS journal today and was quite intriqued as to what kind of hidden language he was talking about:

Saturday, November 14, 1835 â?? "Thus came the word of the Lord unto me saying: â??Verily thus saith the Lord unto my servant Joseph concerning my servant Warren Parrish â?¦. Behold it shall come to pass in his day that he shall see great things show forth themselves unto my people. He shall see much of my ancient records and shall know of hidden things and shall be endowed with a knowledge of hidden languages . And if he desires and shall seek it at my hand, he shall be privileged with writing much of my word as a scribe unto me for the benefit of my people.â??" (An American Prophetâ??s Record, p.58).

However with all the other accounts I still stick to my hypothesis that he did not know egyptian but felt he should write what made most sense perhaps through spiritual impressions.

[freakin a man]

It will be nice that Mormon apologists would just accept the fact that Joseph Smith borrowed his ideas from the Book of Mormon from Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass" published in 1855. Don't let the fact that the Leaves of Grass was published 25 years after the Book of Mormon was published disturb you. What we should be concerned about are parallels and Jeff Lindsay notes the evidence http://www.jefflindsay.com/bomsource.shtml

[why me]

That is interesting you say that. I read this passage from JS journal today and was quite intriqued as to what kind of hidden language he was talking about:

Saturday, November 14, 1835 â?? "Thus came the word of the Lord unto me saying: â??Verily thus saith the Lord unto my servant Joseph concerning my servant Warren Parrish â?¦. Behold it shall come to pass in his day that he shall see great things show forth themselves unto my people. He shall see much of my ancient records and shall know of hidden things and shall be endowed with a knowledge of hidden languages . And if he desires and shall seek it at my hand, he shall be privileged with writing much of my word as a scribe unto me for the benefit of my people.â??" (An American Prophetâ??s Record, p.58).

However with all the other accounts I still stick to my hypothesis that he did not know egyptian but felt he should write what made most sense perhaps through spiritual impressions.

Of course in your quotation it was not Joseph speaking but rather god speaking through Joseph Smith. I think that this would make a difference in your interpretation if I understood you correctly. Did I understand your remarks correctly?

[Irondukesteve]

i am more of a naturalist....It could have been God...it could have been Joseph Smith.

However, I think Joseph was convinced that he was a conduit of God.

The quote threw me back because it made me think....perhaps the hidden language is more than just Egyptian but could mean something more mystical. i.e mnemonics etc.

[maklelan]

However due to inconsistencies and frankly downright awful scholarship about the the name of Abraham appearing in magical texts when infact it was not the name of Abraham but a secret word similar to Abracadabra (or something like that) I have become distrusting of their material.

Your evidence seems more sound and in keeping with the orignal egyptian.

Perhaps you are aware of research that has excaped my gaze, but Dr. Gee has a addressed this problem at length in the following article:

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=OTg1...p;type=cmV2aWV3

It is my understanding that this whole idea is based on one polemic book. I believe it is called â??The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham: A Critical Review.â? If I am unaware of something more recent than the Gee article, please inform me. Here are some of his conclusions:

-"The fundamental issue is whether or not the name Abraham appears in Egyptian papyri. To this the answer is without question in the affirmative."

He cites the following texts in the footnote as containing references to Abraham:

"The texts cited were PGM V.460â??80; PDM xii.6â??20; PGM XII.270â??321, PGM XII.474â??95 + PDM xii.135â??64; PDM xiv.228â??29; PGM XXXVI.295â??310."

He then cites a few more:

"PGM I.219; IV.2209; VII.315; VIII.8; XIII.778, 817, 976; XXIIb.6; XXXV.14; 2a.7; 21.31; PGM Suppl. 2:6; 29:18; 75:[21]; 88:11."

Gee refers to texts containing the names Isaac, Jacob, Solomon, Eve, Seth and Moses. He quotes the text containing the name Moses thus: â??reveal thyself to me here today in the type of form of revealing thyself to Moses which thou didst on the mountain upon which thou createdest the darkness and the light.â?

Then he says this:

"To my knowledge, the only person who doubts that the name Abraham exists in the papyri is Edward H.

Ashment. Ashment, who finds himself outside the mainstream of scholarship on this point, must give some convincing evidence to support this denial...Ashment argues that the name is not Abraham, and certainly not the biblical Abraham, because (1) the demotic name identified as Abraham is not spelled the same way in demotic as the name of the construction worker Abram;49 (2) the demotic name identified as Abraham is spelled similarly to the name Abrasax; Ashment thinks that the two names are etymologically related and that, therefore, the demotic name is not that of the biblical Abraham since he has constructed a different etymology. Unfortunately Ashmentâ??s argument from etymology will not bear scrutiny."

There follows a bunch of technical stuff that bores most people. You can refer to the article if you want to read it. It is made pretty clear that the author of the above mentioned book is just wrong, and that no one in Egyptology stands up for his argument. If I'm out of date then please let me know.

[Irondukesteve]

Why do I always find Farms articles to be pretensious.

Unfortunately, Ashmentâ??s and the

Tannersâ?? discussions of the evidence are preoccupied with mindreading

and characterized by muddled thinking. But since they

are not particularly adept in the theory and practice of magic, and

emphatically reject notions of divine revelation in modern times,

they fail miserably as mind-readers.

Ashment and the Tanners show a large amount of confusion

on at least four fundamental theoretical issues that makes their

work unintelligible and thus an unreliable guide

The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham- Michael Ashment

I got halfway through the article and got bored. Ummm....from what I read I think I will stick eith Michael Ashment's explanation. He is a very well qualified chap and from my small study of egyptian funeral spells I know that they place many of these odds names on them. That seems more probable to me than Abraham being mentioned considering the context of the magical spells.

How about other people read the two links and say what they think is a more probable explanation. From what I could also see from the half I read, it took Gee ages to get into the material after attacks on methodology and character. This termed me off, and then with him not providing sufficient evidence of the parapyi with the word "abraham" and the context it was used in I think again I will lean towards Ashment.

[cdowis]

>That seems more probable to me than Abraham being mentioned considering the context of the magical spells.

Judging on context is a tricky thing. For example, within what context do we associate a decorated pine tree, balls and strings of popcorn, with the birth of Christ?

Some scholar in the distant future may draw the same conclusion as you did, there is no association at all.

[Pahoran]

Why do I always find Farms articles to be pretensious.

I've got no idea, Steve. But since you raised the subject, why do I always find the use of big words by people who cannot spell them to be pretentious?

I got halfway through the article and got bored. Ummm....from what I read I think I will stick eith Michael Ashment's explanation. He is a very well qualified chap and from my small study of egyptian funeral spells I know that they place many of these odds names on them. That seems more probable to me than Abraham being mentioned considering the context of the magical spells.

How about other people read the two links and say what they think is a more probable explanation. From what I could also see from the half I read, it took Gee ages to get into the material after attacks on methodology and character. This termed me off, and then with him not providing sufficient evidence of the parapyi with the word "abraham" and the context it was used in I think again I will lean towards Ashment.

So Steve, on the strength of your short attention span, you have decided to let Ashment and the deceitfully-named "Institute for Religious Research" make your mind up for you. Got it.

BTW, Ashment's first name is Edward, not Michael. That attention span again!

Had you bothered to actually read the article, you might have got as far as this:

That the name refers to the biblical Abraham is both undisputed and indisputable when the papyrus mentions â??Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

This fact, BTW, is what gave Gee his choice of a title: "Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob," since Ashment insists that there are no actual occurrences of Abraham, but that each of them is just "a secret word similar to Abracadabra," to borrow your phrase.

So I have to ask: what was the basis for your rather dismissive verdict of "frankly downright awful scholarship about the the name of Abraham appearing in magical texts?" As of this moment, the only person showing "frankly downright awful scholarship about the the name of Abraham appearing in magical texts" is Edward H. Ashment, who, as Gee points out, is the only qualified person who disputes the existence of the name "Abraham" in the papyri in question. It's simply there, and everyone else who is qualified to read them can see it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Who Knows]

Maklelan - if you were to write Nahom in the same script (Sabaen?), how would you write it?

And then, how about Hebrew?

Bumping my post since Maklelan may have missed it.

[Irondukesteve]

Pahoran you star!!

Take a look on the date and time of my writings....it was 3 in the morning on a Saturday night after I had just come back from a social event. Of course I am not going to care how to spell pretentious or read a boring and superfluous article about how the Old Testament fathers all appear on Magical Spell manuscripts from Egypt when I am half asleep u goon. Talk about people being pretentious...u could write for FARMS!! The whole notion of it is absurd. However, even if the names did appear on them, it still wouldnt change the fact that Joseph didnt have a clue what those manuscripts said.

As of this moment, the only person showing "frankly downright awful scholarship about the the name of Abraham appearing in magical texts" is Edward H. Ashment, who, as Gee points out, is the only qualified person who disputes the existence of the name "Abraham" in the papyri in question. It's simply there, and everyone else who is qualified to read them can see it.

Type "Abraham" and Egyptian Papyri or Egyptian book of the dead or anything like that.....and you tell me what you find.....All lds articles....nothing from non-mormons scholars.

Tell you what....I am going to go to London this Friday...I will take articles from Gee to the Egyptian Museum and I will chat to people there to see what they say. I will ask them to read both articles by Gee and the one by Ashment and ask them which one they think is probable. Dont forget that these guys are going to be Cambridge and Oxford graduates matey without a faith-promoting agenda.

[cdowis]

>But what does that have to do with the Southern Arabic word NHM (pronounced by the locals as Nihm) meaning stone-cutting?

Look up the meaning of "gift" in English and then in German. Same word, different meanings.

Finally, stone cutting could have evolved from the many graves in the area, for example.