How Much Papyri Did Joseph Own? "lost Book Of Abraham"

[Who Knows]

And Facsimile 2, which is presented in the middle of the Book of Abraham comes from an entirely different piece of papyrus. So I am not sure that this is all that significant. An interesting and related question would also have to be whether or not there was intended to be more to the Book of Abraham than we have (i.e. was it complete). If there was, then the idea that Fac. 3 was at the end of the text (based entirely on its placement in the published versions) is quite likely coincidental as opposed to an intentional placement indicating ordering.

My point wasn't that Fac. 3 indicated the end of the BOA. My point was that Fac. 3 came after the referrence in the text to Fac.1 - which is at the beginning.

Could there have been more text after Fac.3? Sure. Could there have been an untranslated portion? Sure.

But that's irrelevant.

Yes, and according to Gee, the additional text would begin following the original of facsimile 3. In fact the text introducing the new material was adjacent to facsimile 3 in his suggestion which is where Seyffarth saw it and translated it. There is little doubt, however, based on Seyffarth's description of what he saw in St. Louis, that there was something that came after the original of facsimile 3. What it was exactly is open to speculation, since we only have it in translation (by Seyffarth) and we know that the translation is wrong. Gee is moving forward based on the idea that we can reverse engineer the Egyptian text based on Seyffarth's translation since he translated other still extent texts and translated other things using the same language he uses here.

I wish him good luck with that. When and if he ever figures it out, I'll check it out.

But again, this is irrelevant. No one is arguing that there wasn't more to the papyri than what exists today.

Personally, it would not surprise me to find that verse 14 was an insertion by Joseph Smith.

Verses 12 and 14 you mean?

Personally, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the whole thing was an insertion by JS.

I don't think that anyone argues that his translation process wasn't unconventional.

I didn't explain my point very well. What I was trying to say, is why would anyone expect a papyrus that really/actually translates into the writings of Abraham, when we can see that what he has translated (from the facsimiles) doesn't match anyways. It just doesn't make sense, and is not consistent. Some type of catalyst theory (or super secret code theory) is the only thing that would make sense here.

There, did that make sense?

Yes. But a secondary issue that you may not be aware of, is that some of the fragments we still have also had holes in them, and the papyrus was repaired by taking fragments from the BoB and inserting them into the holes. Hardly a thing we would expect the prophet to do with the text of the Book of Abraham.

Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you saying that the prophet has no problem destroying the BOB, since he doesn't believe it's the source of the BOA?

As far as I knew, I didn't think they knew the source? Or this would have been cleared up a long time ago.

Yes, but the GAEL contains none of the Book of Abraham. Which tells us what?

I don't believe that's true. I have heard that the first couple of verses of the BOA are in the GAEL.

Additionally, the GAEL mainly comes from the characters that are just to the right of Fac.1 on the BOB.

To be frank, you have a very simplistic view of the whole thing. Mind you it probably works for you, so keep it. As you said, you will probably continue to believe what you want to believe.

Ben

Oh brother, give me a break. Apologetics 101 - make things seem more complicated than they really are.

I have a simplistic view of the whole thing because it is simplistic. It's only complicated to you because it doesn't match up to what you want it to match up to.

I will continue to believe what the evidence tells me to believe - not what I want to believe. Just when I was beginning to think you were one of the better apologists...

[Jerubaal]

I didn't explain my point very well. What I was trying to say, is why would anyone expect a papyrus that really/actually translates into the writings of Abraham, when we can see that what he has translated (from the facsimiles) doesn't match anyways. It just doesn't make sense, and is not consistent. Some type of catalyst theory (or super secret code theory) is the only thing that would make sense here.

Please do tell me what Joseph got wrong with the facsimiles. For example, a non-LDS Egyptologist with no interest in the matter said that Abraham was the Jewish equivalent of Osiris, as he demonstrated by comparing a tale about Osiris on a Demotic text to a parable in Luke 16. Or the 4 canopic jars representing both idolatrous Gods and te 4 corners of the earth. Or the crocodile representing Pharaoh.

Those are just a few things he got right. What did he get wrong on the facsimiles, in your opinion? I don't expect Egyptologists to completely agree with JS because it is still a developing field, and Egyptologists still fight amongst themselves over the meaning of many things, but I think you will find very little that they would disagree with.

[Olavarria]

For example, a non-LDS Egyptologist with no interest in the matter said that Abraham was the Jewish equivalent of Osiris, as he demonstrated by comparing a tale about Osiris on a Demotic text to a parable in Luke 16. Or the 4 canopic jars representing both idolatrous Gods and te 4 corners of the earth. Or the crocodile representing Pharaoh

Who?

[Who Knows]

I didn't explain my point very well. What I was trying to say, is why would anyone expect a papyrus that really/actually translates into the writings of Abraham, when we can see that what he has translated (from the facsimiles) doesn't match anyways. It just doesn't make sense, and is not consistent. Some type of catalyst theory (or super secret code theory) is the only thing that would make sense here.

Please do tell me what Joseph got wrong with the facsimiles. For example, a non-LDS Egyptologist with no interest in the matter said that Abraham was the Jewish equivalent of Osiris, as he demonstrated by comparing a tale about Osiris on a Demotic text to a parable in Luke 16. Or the 4 canopic jars representing both idolatrous Gods and te 4 corners of the earth. Or the crocodile representing Pharaoh.

Those are just a few things he got right. What did he get wrong on the facsimiles, in your opinion? I don't expect Egyptologists to completely agree with JS because it is still a developing field, and Egyptologists still fight amongst themselves over the meaning of many things, but I think you will find very little that they would disagree with.

I'd rather not get into debating the meanings of the facsimiles. However, I think you're grossly overstating what JS 'got right'.

For example, the canopic jars do not refer to the 4 corners of the earth. The God's represented by the jars were 'sent to the 4 corners of the earth', but never in the context of the lion couch scene. Additionally, the names are not right.

Like I said earlier, some have found similarities in some of the facsimiles. That's not even the issue. I was specifically referring to the characters that were translated in the facsimiles (see Fac.3). Please find me one egyptologist that says JS's translation of those characters is correct.

Additionally, even if JS's interpretations of some of the images on the facs. are similar (in some distant ways) to conventional interpretations - that proves the point I was trying to make. That JS's translations of the facsimiles weren't 'conventional' or 'traditional'. Thus, why do people expect his translation of the BOA text to be conventional/traditional, and expect some missing papyrus will translate into the BOA?

[Olavarria]

personally I believe in a Book of Moses-esque type of translation for the BoM.

[e=mc2]

Who Knows:

- JS's translations of the Facs. were clearly wrong. Yes, some have been able to find similarities for a few of his translations. However, they are wrong in the sense of being direct translations. Thus, JS's method of translation (the way he 'translated') was clearly unconventional. I'm assuming the way he translated the Facs. is similar to the way he translated the text of the BOA. In other words, if his translations of the Facs. were not traditional,

Kerry:

Balder-luvin-dash!

Unconventional does not equal wrong. His translations are different, but that has absolutely nothing to do with wrong. And in my studies (which I will blog about in my new blog as well as in podcasts, and have been doing so in my DVD's), show that the Prophet's translations accurately describe the office, or the intention, or the function of the figure when he describes it. The Prophet is correct in MANY ways you would obviously not have a clue about since you know very little about Egyptian religion, myth, or history.

Different or unconventional has absolutely NOTHING to do with being wrong. I seriously will challenge your assumption here.

Best,

Kerry

[e=mc2]

Who Knows:

For example, the canopic jars do not refer to the 4 corners of the earth. The God's represented by the jars were 'sent to the 4 corners of the earth', but never in the context of the lion couch scene. Additionally, the names are not right.

Like I said earlier, some have found similarities in some of the facsimiles. That's not even the issue. I was specifically referring to the characters that were translated in the facsimiles (see Fac.3). Please find me one egyptologist that says JS's translation of those characters is correct.

Kerry:

If Dan Wutherspoon can get with it, this is described in ***detail*** with myriads and myriads of Egyptological sources in my Sunstone paper, "Joseph Smith as an Egyptologist".......................

And you are just plain dead dumb wrong saying the four sons of Horus do not equate to the four quarters of the earth, and their names are wrong. A look into John Gee's partial Master's thesis on these figures, which you can have from FARMS for a nominal fee, will certainly show you how much symbolism is wrapped up in these figures, both earthly and cosmically, and the four quarters of the earth are fundamentally included.

[Who Knows]

Kerry:

Balder-luvin-dash!

Unconventional does not equal wrong. His translations are different, but that has absolutely nothing to do with wrong. And in my studies (which I will blog about in my new blog as well as in podcasts, and have been doing so in my DVD's), show that the Prophet's translations accurately describe the office, or the intention, or the function of the figure when he describes it. The Prophet is correct in MANY ways you would obviously not have a clue about since you know very little about Egyptian religion, myth, or history.

Different or unconventional has absolutely NOTHING to do with being wrong. I seriously will challenge your assumption here.

Best,

Kerry

You took what I wrote out of context. Here's what I wrote: "JS's translations of the Facs. were clearly wrong. Yes, some have been able to find similarities for a few of his translations. However, they are wrong in the sense of being direct translations." And I also wrote: "Thus, JS's method of translation (the way he 'translated') was clearly unconventional."

Which is the point I was trying to make, and which you seem to agree with, as you said "His translations are different".

Kerry:

And you are just plain dead dumb wrong saying the four sons of Horus do not equate to the four quarters of the earth, and their names are wrong. A look into John Gee's partial Master's thesis on these figures, which you can have from FARMS for a nominal fee, will certainly show you how much symbolism is wrapped up in these figures, both earthly and cosmically, and the four quarters of the earth are fundamentally included.

Here is what Stephen Thompson wrote on the subject: "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."

Like I said, "Some have been able to find similarities". But to say they were literal traditional/conventional translations is just wrong.

But like I said, I was in fact referring to the egyptian character translations - specifically in Fac. 3. Let's have a look at 2 of them:

Figure 2 - JS said "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head." So, what do the characters above her head say? "Isis the great, the god's mother"

Figure 4 - JS said "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand." So, what do the characters above her hand say? "Maat, mistress of the gods."

My original point was that however JS 'translated' egyptian, it clearly was not in a traditional/conventional way. Playing the '6 degrees to Kevin Bacon' game is fine for you, but does nothing to challenge what I wrote.

JS obviously saw something different than a literal/conventional translation would show. That is my only point here. Would you agree?

[e=mc2]

Here's what I wrote: "JS's translations of the Facs. were clearly wrong. Yes, some have been able to find similarities for a few of his translations. However, they are wrong in the sense of being direct translations." And I also wrote: "Thus, JS's method of translation (the way he 'translated') was clearly unconventional."

I think we are talking past each other a bit bub. Of course the Prophet did not translate literally, but that does not mean he is wrong. And similarities? I have found many ***exact*** correspondences, which I will throw on my blog as I can. I will also include pics of the evidence.

Stephen Thompson is wrong. It was understood that they represent the earth in its four quarters, and Thompson is desperate to make it into a different context. Gee's contex in his thesis (which was passed and accepted, obviously, as he moved on into a Ph.D) demonstrated quite thoroughly that the Four Sons of Horus can and did represent the earth in its four quarters. Thompson picked and chose his evidence in order to force fit another context, thus attempting to weaken the *exact* connection of the Prophet. He failed.

The Prophet also got his explanation of Facsimile 2 figure on the throne as the "Grand Presidency of Heaven" absolutely ***perfect*** I shall have my podcast up on that this weekend, and you can listen to it where I used almost a dozen modern Egyptologists who contend that Osiris Khent Amenti with that crown is precisely and exactly the "PRESIDENT."

Best,

Kerry

[Who Knows]

The Prophet also got his explanation of Facsimile 2 figure on the throne as the "Grand Presidency of Heaven" absolutely ***perfect*** I shall have my podcast up on that this weekend, and you can listen to it where I used almost a dozen modern Egyptologists who contend that Osiris Khent Amenti with that crown is precisely and exactly the "PRESIDENT."

Best,

Kerry

Do you mean figure 1, Fac. 3? Here's what JS said: "Abraham sitting upon Pharaohâ??s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand."

I'm not going to argue the JS may have been right about the 'Grand Presidency in Heaven' bit. Let's be honest. It's a guy on a throne wearing a crown in a text dealing with the afterlife. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that's not too big of a stretch to come close on that part.

But to say he got figure 1 'absolutely perfect' is stretching it A LOT. Is it Abraham? On Pharoah's throne? With a crown representing the priesthood? With a scepter of justice and judgement in his hand?

[e=mc2]

Who knows:

Let's be honest. It's a guy on a throne wearing a crown in a text dealing with the afterlife. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that's not too big of a stretch to come close on that part.

Which is irrelevant to the fact that Smith's description is the prcise and exact description of Osiris ONLY in this regalia, which is Egyptologically correct. The difficulty is irrelevant, the fact is Smith's identification is correct and fits in perfectly with the Egyptian understanding.

[Who Knows]

Hey, I said this: "I'm not going to argue the JS may have been right about the 'Grand Presidency in Heaven' bit."

I'm not arguing with you there.

I'm only disagreeing that he got figure 1 'absolutely perfect'.

[e=mc2]

How do you know he didn't gt it perfect? Have I played my entire hand yet?

Best,

Kerry