Anoter Chapter In The Seyffarth Chronicles

[Chris Smith]

It kind of looks like Kimball is the man responsible for the elipses, and given that BYU Studies and Deseret Book both published articles or books that contain the exact quote or a good paraphrase from the museum catalogue (and given that both Kimball and Peterson refer their readers to one or more of those books and articles), it's hard to argue that someone was intentionally obfuscating to protect the Church; however, I see a more benign explanation. At the bottom of the first page of Kimball's article in Dialogue, we have his biographical information--history professsor at Southern Illinois University and all that--and then this little sentence:

In oral presentations, verbal elipses are the norm, often for brevity's sake. At least they are when I talk. Maybe the elipses were an editorial decision on either Kimball's part for brevity's sake or on the part of the Dialogue editors to preserve the "style of oral presentation."

I suppose that's a possibility, but don't you think it's more than a little convenient that the bit of information that's excluded is the part that could falsify Kimball's inference?

That the quote had been published in full before does not exclude the possibility that this is intentional obfuscation.

In any case, my point in the original post was primarily to correct an error, not to engage in character assassination. That's why I took great pains to emphasize my respect for Donl Peterson and his work. Much though I dislike the omission of evidence and the drawing of irresponsible inferences, I'm aware that it happens and that even the best scholars occasionally make mistakes or succumb to the temptation to withhold data that don't support their case.

More important than the question of whether Peterson, Kimball, or some other party intentionally obscured disconfirming evidence is the question of whether the missing papyrus theory is viable. More and more, I think we can answer in the negative.

-CK

[Olavarria]

Long and irrelevant personal insult deleted.

Watch it, JNclone.

But cutting to the chase:

CK

So to this extent the Missing Papyrus explanation of the startling incongruity between the Book of Abraham and what Egyptologists read in the Joseph Smith papyri is LESS plausible than before.

That makes the other explanations more plausible, and they appear to be either:

1. Joseph Smith made it all up.

2. God decided for some unaccountable reason to pass the BoA to JS's mind while allowing him to believe he was translating from papyri which bore no relation to it.

On another thread I pointed out that there were grounds for believing that JS wanted people to think he knew the ancient Egyptian language, since he appears to have published (in Times and Seasons and elsewhere) alleged Egyptian phrases in transliteration and gave English equivalents for them. However my impression that these bore no resemblance to any known Egyptian was confirmed by my consultation of a professional Egyptologist at a reputable university. Mindful of the fact that opinions on such subjects may differ, I suggested that it was open to anyone else to find another professional Egyptologist to say JS's strange phrases might actually be Egyptian. But no direct answer was forthcoming.

So for the moment I can only conclude that the facts in the last paragraph strengthen the case for (1) as the explanation for the BoA, and that every bit of evidence against the missing papyrus theory makes the case stronger. Of course new facts may be discovered in time. But that seems to be the present state of the question.

Just because a word is not readily identifiable or translatable by an egyptologist, that doesnt mean that it didnt mean something to the egyptians that owned the BoA.

"AIDIO ORICH THAMBITO, Abraham who at... bind her and the whole soul for her, NN [whom NN bore]... the female body of her, NN [whom NN bore], I conjure by the... [and] to inflame her, NN whom [NN bore] [Write these] words together with this picture [the lion couch vignette] on a new papyrus "

If Aidio Orich Thambito is egyptian what does it mean? Is Abraham an egyptian name? Yes and no. According to Gee Adio Orich Thambito may be a deformed greek "let them be astonished". I think Ebingoondosh may be egyptian in the same sense that adio orich thambito is. . Unfortunatly the Prophet didnt tell us WHEN, this vocab was used or by HOW MANY egyptians, or for HOW LONG. Ebingoondosh might be egyptian in the sense that buckaroo is english. Buckaroo comes from vaquero(cowboy). Bust dont ask someone in Bangaloor or Hong Kong to know what it means.

Lets not forget chapter 162 of the BoD. A document which actually deals with hypocephali

"I am the Ihet-cow; your name is in my mouth and I shall utter it; Penhaqahagaher is your name, Iuriuiaqrsainqrbaty is your name, tail of the lion is your name, Kharsati is your name: I adore your name. .........Atum is his name, Barkatitjawa is his name."(pg 125) from

http://www.amazon.com/Egyptian-Book-Dead-G...h/dp/0811807673

What are those wierd names:Penhaqahagaher , Barkatitjawa, Iuriuiaqrsainqrbaty and Kharsati? Perhaps we can tackle that together. According to Michael Rhodes, some egyptologists think they are loan words from semetic or nubian. Whatever Ebingoondosh, Floesee or Kaevanrash is, I think they fit into this category of wierd and unrecognizable words we find in BoD chap 162, words that mean nothing to us, but might have meant something to the owners of the BoA.

If Enshgndsh, or its syllables ar/ is a loan word(s), I dont know what it/they are. But they/it may very well be. Remember Kokobeam and Kolob(Qlb) have very good semetic etymologies, kokobeam being "stars" in hebrew and Qlb being "heart" in arabic, and qarab being "near unto" in hebrew. Its all the more interesting that sufi's described God as living in the Qlb of man.

I think the BoA was composed by Abraham, and then passed down as esoterica among a very limited number of egyptian priests. Why would they like the BoA? Perhaps they were crazy prideful and liked the fact that it underminded Pharoah's priesthood. As possesors of this secret knowledge it would have, at least secretly, given them a leg up on their lord.

As for BoBreathings having nothing to do with the BoA, I beg to differ. Anyone who has read thru Ritner's, Nibley's or Rhodes translation and is temple worthy should be able o realize that the BoB's asencion of a dead priest, can easily be seen as a remnant of that old deformed priesthood Abraham described.

IF the BoA was attached to the BoB(I am currently a catalyst man, though flexible) it would make perfect sense to do so, for it could have served as a memorization aid for a real endowment or the reminder of a hope for the real one.

[Olavarria]

bump

[Chris Smith]

Her Amun,

While you weren't particularly addressing me, I will respond anyway.

1) Your hypothesis doesn't particularly make sense. You suggest that the Book of Breathings was a corruption of the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith restored to its original form. You then suggest that the non-Egyptian words like floees, enishgoondosh, etc. may be nonsense words (like the ones we find in Ptolemaic magical papyri) imported into the text by Ptolemaic priests. Now, if Joseph Smith's translation restored this text to its original form, why are there still Ptolemaic nonsense words in it? And why don't these nonsense words actually appear on the papyri?

2) Arabic Qlb does mean "heart" or "center", but there's a reason you haven't seen this bandied about by the apologists lately: they've all converted to the geocentric astronomy model. In the geocentric understanding of the BoA, Kolob isn't at the heart of the system. Earth is. Kolob, in fact, is almost as far away from the heart or center of the system as one can get! It is still near to the throne of God (which you say is Hb. Qrb), but why would it then be transliterated with an "l" rather than an "r"? This puts the apologists in an interesting spot. Either they have to toss out one of their most interesting Semitic-language parallels, or they have to admit that the BoA has a Newtonian (read 19th c.) astronomy. Either way, they're admitting that some of their most interesting evidences are so weak as to be disposable if they don't fit one's paradigm.

3) You already know that I am not particularly impressed by the appearance of the name Abraham in conjunction with a lion couch. Abraham at the time was considered a magical name, and this was a magical funerary papyrus. The "connection" between Abraham and this lion couch vignette very probably begins and ends there. The suggestion that the pairing of this name with this vignette somehow means that the lion couch scene is a corruption of a now-lost BoA human-sacrifice vignette is, in my opinion, totally unwarranted.

Best wishes,

-CK

[gtaggart]

2) Arabic Qlb does mean "heart" or "center", but there's a reason you haven't seen this bandied about by the apologists lately: they've all converted to the geocentric astronomy model. In the geocentric understanding of the BoA, Kolob isn't at the heart of the system. Earth is. Kolob, in fact, is almost as far away from the heart or center of the system as one can get! It is still near to the throne of God (which you say is Hb. Qrb), but why would it then be transliterated with an "l" rather than an "r"? This puts the apologists in an interesting spot. Either they have to toss out one of their most interesting Semitic-language parallels, or they have to admit that the BoA has a Newtonian (read 19th c.) astronomy. Either way, they're admitting that some of their most interesting evidences are so weak as to be disposable if they don't fit one's paradigm.

CK, they've all converted? First, not all of them argue for the geocentric view--see Rhodes and Moody in A,P&C, for example. Second, what's with the word "converted"? Have Gee, Hamblin, and Peterson argued elsewhere and before for a helio or post-Einstein view? Finally, according to Nibley, qlb has more meanings than just heart and center, including the names of certain stars and constellations (see Jeff Lindsay and do a word search for qlb). In any event, it's Rhodes, who argues for a post-Einstein rather than a geocentric cosmology for the BOA, who makes the argument for qlb equating to the center or heart of the universe. Though his argument makes sense in view of the cosmology he finds in the BOA, it seems to me that the words heart and center could also describe a place near where God lives under any cosmology--He is the center of all. But I'm no Arabist, so what do I know?

[JNclone]

I am afraid that I can't see the sense in Her Amun's 'nonsense words' suggestion either. That's how I felt when I first looked at it, but I still feel the same after putting it to one side and looking again. Since Her Amun evidently wants a response from someone, I hereby respond.

In my OP on Joseph Smith's wish to present himself as knowing Egyptian (which means he either thought he did, or wished to deceive others into thinking so) I referred to the fact that he publicly gave transliterations of words in Egyptian, and then said what they meant in English. These were not, as he presented them, nonsense words.

'By his own hand upon papyrus' at http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh4.html has the following:

On November 13, 1843, Smith wrote a letter that appeared in the newspaper Times and Seasons (of which he had served as editor) which stated in part:

Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.]

There seems no way of getting out of this with a claim that JS thought these words were nonsensical. He presented them as making good sense. But as I said, when I asked a professional Egyptologist at a reputable university to examine JS's quoted 'Egyptian' phrase. I was told that my contact would (like me) have a very hard time indeed to identify any of it as Egyptian. I issued a challenge to find another professional Egyptologist at a reputable university to say something counter to that: I think the challenge is still unanswered.

gtaggart:

CK, they've all converted? First, not all of them argue for the geocentric view--see Rhodes and Moody in A,P&C, for example. Second, what's with the word "converted"? Have Gee, Hamblin, and Peterson argued elsewhere and before for a helio or post-Einstein view? Finally, according to Nibley, qlb has more meanings than just heart and center, including the names of certain stars and constellations (see Jeff Lindsay and do a word search for qlb). In any event, it's Rhodes, who argues for a post-Einstein rather than a geocentric cosmology for the BOA, who makes the argument for qlb equating to the center or heart of the universe. Though his argument makes sense in view of the cosmology he finds in the BOA, it seems to me that the words heart and center could also describe a place near where God lives under any cosmology--He is the center of all. But I'm no Arabist, so what do I know?

I think there may be some confusion here. CK's reference to a 'Newtonian' view points to the idea that there is a 'power of attraction' at work, which is certainly reminiscent of a world view that is aware of universal gravitation (which is a distinctively Newtonian idea). By the 19th century, the time of JS, that was a commonplace. But not in ancient Egypt.

I don't see what Einstein has to do with the matter at all. Whatever his relevance, it was not Einstein who put forward a heliocentric view of the solar system; this had been a commonplace idea since Copernicus.

[Chris Smith]

CK, they've all converted?

When I said this I meant it in the sense that the apologetic community at large seems to have moved substantially in the direction of a geocentric astronomy. Contrast this with Rhodes, who holds what I would consider (and what Peterson et. al. describe as) a more conventional TBM view.

Though his argument makes sense in view of the cosmology he finds in the BOA, it seems to me that the words heart and center could also describe a place near where God lives under any cosmology--He is the center of all. But I'm no Arabist, so what do I know?

I disagree. (And I don't think being an Arabist is particularly relevant here. I've never particularly understood why an Arabic connection to Kolob would be significant when dealing with a Hebrew writing in Egypt.) In any case, in a geocentric astronomy God resides in the heavens, the highest sphere. I'm not sure in what sense he could be thought to be located at the "center of all".

-CK

[gtaggart]

When I said this I meant it in the sense that the apologetic community at large seems to have moved substantially in the direction of a geocentric astronomy. Contrast this with Rhodes, who holds what I would consider (and what Peterson et. al. describe as) a more conventional TBM view.

I disagree. (And I don't think being an Arabist is particularly relevant here. I've never particularly understood why an Arabic connection to Kolob would be significant when dealing with a Hebrew writing in Egypt.) In any case, in a geocentric astronomy God resides in the heavens, the highest sphere. I'm not sure in what sense he could be thought to be located at the "center of all".

-CK

To be clear, you agree that Rhodes argues that the cosmology of the BOA appears "to be consistent with modern scientific understanding of physics and astronomy. Moreover, they match modern concepts better than those of either the nineteenth century [heliocentric--Metcalfe, Vogel] or ancient [geocentric--Gee, Hamblin, Peterson]," right? Because it's not Gee, et. al. -- the geocentrists -- who argue that God is the center of all (qlb) as far as I'm aware. It's Rhodes.

[Chris Smith]

Because it's not Gee, et. al. -- the geocentrists -- who argue that God is the center of all (qlb) as far as I'm aware. It's Rhodes.

Yes, that's my point. The geocentric model is not compatible with the use of Qlb as a linguistic evidence of the antiquity of the text.

[Olavarria]

1) Your hypothesis doesn't particularly make sense. You suggest that the Book of Breathings was a corruption of the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith restored to its original form.

I made no such suggestion and I donnot believe the BoB to be a corrupted BoA. How could it be? I simply said that given the similiarity of the BoB to LDS temple theology, it makes a nice companion t0 a book about priesthood(the BoA).

You then suggest that the non-Egyptian words like floees, enishgoondosh, etc. may be nonsense words (like the ones we find in Ptolemaic magical papyri) imported into the text by Ptolemaic priests.

I made no such suggestion. I never said they were nonsense words. All I am saying is that just because a word does not mean something to an egyptologist that does not mean that it doesnt mean anything to an ancient egyptian priest. I used the Leiden papyrus as an example of how this haapends. The same goes for the BoD reference.

Both the BoA and the 162nd chapter of the BoD have esoteric elements to them. The end of the 162nd chapter of the BoD(related to hypocephali) says "This is a book of great secrecy-let no one see it for that would be an abomination. But the one who knows it and keeps it hidden shall continue to exist. The name of this book is 'Mistress of the Hidden Temple'". When referring to the the text of the hypo the Prophet says, "Contains writings that cannot be revealed to the world but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God". These writings are references to the Osiris-Sheshonk being deified, which has a very subtle connection to the mormon temple cult. The esoteric nature of the hypocephali's meaning and the 162nd chap of BoD would explain why Penhaqahagaher , Barkatitjawa, Iuriuiaqrsainqrbaty and Kharsati dont have any readily availble etymologies. I think the same goes for Obilish, Enishgoondosh and the like.

Now, if Joseph Smith's translation restored this text to its original form, why are there still Ptolemaic nonsense words in it?

again, that assumes I believe the BoB to be a corrupted BoA, I donot. I do believe how ever that egyptian priesthood initiation rituals, and the related BoB have their roots in true temple ordinances revealed to Father Adam. The BoB makes a nice companion to a text(BoA) that talks about Pahorah's priesthood having its roots in true priesthood and that it was close enought to fool Terah.

Noting more noting less.

And why don't these nonsense words actually appear on the papyri?

Because the BoA didnt come form these papyri.

2) Arabic Qlb does mean "heart" or "center", but there's a reason you haven't seen this bandied about by the apologists lately: they've all converted to the geocentric astronomy model.

Kolob is also close to the hebrew qarab, meaning "near unto". Ive been sucked into that model too. But I dont think anyone is arguing that Kolob is arabic Qlb or hebrew Qrb, but rather that is shares a common root sound and meaning with those 2 words.

In the geocentric understanding of the BoA, Kolob isn't at the heart of the system. Earth is. Kolob, in fact, is almost as far away from the heart or center of the system as one can get! It is still near to the throne of God (which you say is Hb. Qrb),

Kolob may not be at the center of the geocentric system, but it is at the center of the hypo, which kolob is used to describe the image of a creator god, his four heads(seen in other hypos) representing the first 4 generations of creation. "Heart/Center the first creation...".

But why would it then be transliterated with an "l" rather than an "r"? This puts the apologists in an interesting spot. Either they have to toss out one of their most interesting Semitic-language parallels, or they have to admit that the BoA has a Newtonian (read 19th c.) astronomy. Either way, they're admitting that some of their most interesting evidences are so weak as to be disposable if they don't fit one's paradigm.

Joseph as translator can transliterate it how ever he wants. After all Pappy Abe wasnt egyptian and I dont think God spoke to him in egyptian either. That being said, Kolob(center/heart) is usd to describe he figure in the center of the hypo. So the name is totally apropriate. If Kolob is nearest to the throne of God, even in the geocentric model, the name is fitting for it is at the practical heart of things, and is at the center of cosmic signifigance even if it isnt at the center spacially, from our perspective that is.

3) You already know that I am not particularly impressed by the appearance of the name Abraham in conjunction with a lion couch.

Despite what ever evidenciary value Leden 384 may or may not have it does show 3 things: 1) the Prophet Abraham was known in ancient egypt, we know this because the same author mentions Abraham and Jehovah in another papyrus. 2)He was connected with a lion couch, anubis and mummy, we know this because the author said "this picture with these words on another papyrus".

The BoA was the only text to our knowledge to attach a lion couch scene to a text mentining Abraham,before Leidin came along.

Now, what the author thought Abraham had to do with a lion couch is anyones guess, after all there is a break in the text. ABraham "who to this/who upon" what? We may never know.

Abraham at the time was considered a magical name, and this was a magical funerary papyrus.

So what? Ive never disagreed with that.

The name was in a cartouche, it is a personal name. What does the papyrus have? A magical spell, which among other things, connects Abraham to the lion couch. How is he connected? We dont know because there is a break in the text.

The "connection" between Abraham and this lion couch vignette very probably begins and ends there.

How do you know this? We dont really know how he is connected one way or the other. There is a break in the text and unless we have the whole text we dont know exactly how Abe fits in.

The suggestion that the pairing of this name with this vignette somehow means that the lion couch scene is a corruption of a now-lost BoA human-sacrifice vignette is, in my opinion, totally unwarranted.

And putting words in my mouth is unwarranted also.

You know, its kinda wrong to expect people to defend things they dont belive in.

1) When I brought up Leiden 384 in the context of JD's slam on the BoA vocab, I did so along with other egyptian texts as an example of non-egyptian words being used by egyptians, or as in the case of ch. 162 of the BoD, "egyptian" words which mean nothing to us, but did to them.

2) Leiden 384 is evidence of only 2 things: a) some ancient egyptian priests knew about Abraham He has connected to a lion couch,Anubis and mummy. Thats it!!!!! How that connection, and why it is made are tottally seperate issues.

All I have ever talked about is the "WHAT", not the "WHY".

I nor anyone else to my knowledge has ever suggested that "the pairing of this name with this vignette somehow means that the lion couch scene is a corruption of a now-lost BoA human-sacrifice vignette". Never. Those are your words bud.

All I ever said was that the pairing of this name with this lion couch means that the name and the lion couch scene are connected, if even only in a limited scope.

May you have Shalom in your Home

[Olavarria]

I am afraid that I can't see the sense in Her Amun's 'nonsense words' suggestion either.

Nonsense words? When did I ever say that the vocab in BoD 162, and the BoA were nonsense?

[Chris Smith]

Hello Her Amun,

My apologies if I misunderstood you. My reading of your post hinged upon what was apparently a misinterpretation of the following statements:

I think the BoA was composed by Abraham, and then passed down as esoterica among a very limited number of egyptian priests. ...

As for BoBreathings having nothing to do with the BoA, I beg to differ. Anyone who has read thru Ritner's, Nibley's or Rhodes translation and is temple worthy should be able o realize that the BoB's asencion of a dead priest, can easily be seen as a remnant of that old deformed priesthood Abraham described.

I took this to mean that the BoA had been passed down by Egyptian priests and that the BoB was a remnant of it. But apparently you meant that the BoA had served as the basis for some Egyptian religious ideas, and that the BoB reflects those ideas. Is that an accurate statement of your view? Frankly, you present something of a moving target, and it's hard to keep track of exactly what you're arguing for. As an example, I present the following quotation:

I made no such suggestion. I never said they were nonsense words. All I am saying is that just because a word does not mean something to an egyptologist that does not mean that it doesnt mean anything to an ancient egyptian priest. I used the Leiden papyrus as an example of how this haapends. The same goes for the BoD reference.

Both the BoA and the 162nd chapter of the BoD have esoteric elements to them. The end of the 162nd chapter of the BoD(related to hypocephali) says "This is a book of great secrecy-let no one see it for that would be an abomination. But the one who knows it and keeps it hidden shall continue to exist. The name of this book is 'Mistress of the Hidden Temple'". When referring to the the text of the hypo the Prophet says, "Contains writings that cannot be revealed to the world but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God". These writings are references to the Osiris-Sheshonk being deified, which has a very subtle connection to the mormon temple cult. The esoteric nature of the hypocephali's meaning and the 162nd chap of BoD would explain why Penhaqahagaher , Barkatitjawa, Iuriuiaqrsainqrbaty and Kharsati dont have any readily availble etymologies. I think the same goes for Obilish, Enishgoondosh and the like.

Chapter 162 and the hypocephalus show up fairly late... something like 600 BC, if I recall correctly. Given that, where exactly do you think they fit into the Prophet's translation effort? You say that the Prophet specifically referred to writings about Osiris-Sheshonk, but in other cases he doesn't seem to have dealt with the Egyptian documents in a straightforward way. Why should this be any different? I'm just looking for some sort of organizing principle.

In any case, the use of seemingly-nonsensical magical phrases in late-date papyri doesn't necessarily tell us about scribal practice in Abraham's day. Do we find the same phenomenon in 1500 BC?

Nibley alaways bated around the concept that semetic "l" becomes "r" in egyptian, being that egyptian doesnt have "L" sound. In egyptian, foreign "l" become "r". So I dont think Kolob is an egyptian word at all. After all Pappy Abe wasnt egyptian. That being said, Kolob(center/heart) is usd to describe he figure in the center of the hypo. So the name is totally apropriate. If Kolob is nearest to the throne of God, even in the geocentric model, the name is fitting for it is at the heart of things, and is at the center of cosmic signifigance even if it isnt at the center spacially from our perspective.

Pappy Abe wasn't an Arab either.

I disagree about Kolob, as the closest star to the throne of God, being near the "center of cosmic significance" from a geocentric perspective. I simply don't think an ancient person would have expressed things this way. It seems like a real stretch to me.

Despite what ever evidenciary value Leden 384 may or may not have it does show 3 things: 1) the Prophet Abraham was known in ancient egypt,

How ancient?

2)He was connected with a lion couch, anubis and mummy, we know this because the author said "this picture with these words on another papyrus".

His name was connected by this author, at this time with a lion couch. This is the distinction I'm trying to get across. One author's association of the name of Abraham with a lion couch scene does not tell us that in all of ancient Egypt Abraham was connected with a lion couch.

I nor anyone else to my knowledge has ever suggested that "the pairing of this name with this vignette somehow means that the lion couch scene is a corruption of a now-lost BoA human-sacrifice vignette".

All we ever said was that the pairing of this name with this vignette means that the name and the lion couch scene are connected.

If you're not drawing a broader inference, then why the frequent postings on this subject?

-CK

[JNclone]

Nonsense words? When did I ever say that the vocab in BoD 162, and the BoA were nonsense?

I was referring back to CK's characterisation of your hypothesis - of course you do not use the word 'nonsense' yourself. But I don't care much what you call the words in question, which are as you say 'wierd [sic] and unrecognizable.' Magical texts in many cultures do often contain such words, made up or borrowed from elsewhere, and the most economical and likely hypothesis to explain them is usually that they are there to impress the customer - for magic is usually a service provided for money. See what for instance is said in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review at:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-09-25.html

This paradox is resolved through application of David Frankfurter's model of "stereotype appropriation."3 According to Dieleman, Frankfurter argues that, due to the anti-Temple economic policies of Roman rule, Egyptian priests sought to supplement their incomes by marketing themselves to a Hellenistic audience, molding themselves to that group's fantasies and preconceived notions about exotic Egyptian magic (287). Though conceding that this model might explain features of the Greek-language corpora, Dieleman finds it lacking for the Demotic spells and bilingual texts overall, which he assumes would be inaccessible to anyone outside the priestly circle and thus, in his reading of Frankfurter, immune from stereotype appropriation.

Frankfurter's position is more carefully nuanced than Dieleman's summary acknowledges, since stereotype appropriation occurs on both the external level and on the level of internalization -- of understanding one's heritage and potentialities through the lens of the blended or hegemonic outside culture and of conforming behavior to this idea. Frankfurter also argues that the degree to which this occurs is directly related to the intensity of contact with these other cultures, and so the phenomenon is generally more intense in towns and cities. Though the specific Roman economic measures discussed would have had an immediate effect, there is more involved here than the cold-blooded branding or labeling one's ritual wares to obtain the highest prices in the magical marketplace, though of course that probably did occur. But along with this, comes the phenomenon of the adoption -- appropriation -- of the stereotypes from the blended culture for internal use, whether the valence is negative or positive; and this is also part of Frankfurter's basic model.

This in fact is exactly the dynamic that Dieleman ultimately suggests for the creation of the bilingual papyri, though he does not use these terms (293-4). Dieleman concludes that the composition and compilation of materials of this kind began in the culturally blended but Greek-language environment of Alexandria, where Egyptian priests were seeking "Greek" customers and modified traditional materials to meet the needs and expectations of that group. Though he does not link the two, Dieleman himself, in his discussion of the Ptolemaic pseudo-ciphers that actually call attention to themselves, notes this dynamic long before the specific time of the formularies: the internalization of the Ptolemaic expectation of mystification is externalized and celebrated, and it is used by the priests themselves. Later, Theban priests encountered such materials in their travels and brought some back with them to Thebes, whereupon they began to compose their own ritual texts (in Demotic), rooted in their own training but heavily influenced by these Greek texts, some of which were translated into Demotic, as noted above. Dieleman's commitment to the idea that Demotic was intelligible only to the priests leads to the conclusion that, while the Greek texts may have had an external marketplace, these Demotic ones were intended for "priestly circles" (294), but what the priests were going to do with the texts is not specified. If the priests in Alexandria needed to market themselves to the Hellenistic environment, did the Theban priests also seek a market, even if it is one that is more exclusively and knowledgeably Egyptian, as the advertising introductions seem to suggest? This is a question to which I hope Dieleman will turn in future work.

But that is by the by. None of what you say, at considerable length, goes to my point, which is based on what Joseph Smith wrote over his own name in a newspaper he had edited:

Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.]

Joseph Smith, who is known to have made much of his knowledge of languages, here offers us a specimen of Egyptian, not magical gobbledegook, but a fairly meaningful reference to the earth, moon and sun. It is however completely unrecognisable as Egyptian - see my challenge above to those who dispute this. Hence Joseph was either deluded himself in this regard, or seeking to delude others.

I could add that JS's words in Times and Seaons are troubling beyond their face value, since they link back directly to the Egyptian Grammar, which is so embarrassingly removed from the wildest fantasy about real Egyptian that some apologists have, I believe, tried to suggest that he had nothing to do with it. But that would be going off topic.

Edited to add:

Her Amun

Despite what ever evidenciary value Leden 384 may or may not have it does show 3 things: 1) the Prophet Abraham was known in ancient egypt,

CK

How ancient?

Indeed. Her Amun's favorite papyrus is VERY late - about 2,000 years later than the conjectural date of Abraham, if he ever really existed.

[gtaggart]

Yes, that's my point. The geocentric model is not compatible with the use of Qlb as a linguistic evidence of the antiquity of the text.

So then we're back to this statement of yours (with my emphasis, insertions, etc.):

2) Arabic Qlb does mean "heart" or "center" [among other things--see Nibley], but there's a reason you haven't seen this bandied about by the apologists lately: they've all converted to the geocentric astronomy model. In the geocentric understanding of the BoA, Kolob isn't at the heart of the system. Earth is. Kolob, in fact, is almost as far away from the heart or center of the system as one can get! It is still near to the throne of God (which you say is Hb. Qrb), but why would it then be transliterated with an "l" rather than an "r"? This puts the apologists in an interesting spot. Either they have to toss out one of their most interesting Semitic-language parallels, or they have to admit that the BoA has a Newtonian (read 19th c.) astronomy [not what Rhodes argues]. Either way, they're admitting that some of their most interesting evidences are so weak as to be disposable if they don't fit one's paradigm.

Maybe the following will help you see why I'm confused by your argument:

1. The geocentrists--Gee, Hamblin, Peterson, aka "not all"--aren't tied to Qlb in its "center/heart sense," at least to my knowledge. (Have they ever advocated Qlb and if they have, did they use it in some sense other than heart/center?)

2. Rhodes is.

3. But he's not Newtonian (read 19th c.--the Metcalfe/Vogel position).

4. He (and a fellow named Moody, a professor of physics and astronomy at BYU) believes that the cosmology in the BOA is modern, post-Einsteinian if you will (where Qlb fits just fine).

5. Which you apparently agree is the TBM view (as apparently Gee et. al. do, though they don't use TBM).

6. Therefore, what's the point of that part of your earlier post I just quoted above?

No offense, but there doens't seem to be any there there.

Edited to add more to the parenthetical in my #1, begining with "and if."

[Chris Smith]

gtaggart,

I just wrote a reply and then my internet died and I lost it. Suffice it to say, if Her Amun holds to a geocentric astronomy and to the view that Qlb as "heart, center" is evidence for the BoA (as indeed his posts have confirmed) then it would appear that my point

The geocentric model is not compatible with the use of Qlb as a linguistic evidence of the antiquity of the text.

is relevant.

In any case, please note that it was Nibley who invented the Qlb parallel, not Rhodes. Nibley was once the single-handed staple of BoA apologetics. He remains a staple for many on this board, including Her Amun. If Nibley's arguments are incompatible with the present paradigm, I think that's worth pointing out.

Are you just fishing for a "gotcha", or do you have a point?

-CK

[JNclone]

gtaggart:

2. Rhodes is.

3. But he's not Newtonian (read 19th c.--the Metcalfe/Vogel position).

4. He (and a fellow named Moody, a professor of physics and astronomy at BYU) believes that the cosmology in the BOA is modern, post-Einsteinian if you will (where Qlb fits just fine).

I am really puzzled here, but I don't want to miss a trick. So please excuse this query. I take it that by 'post-Einsteinian' you simply mean 'after the work of Einstein had been published'.

What do you think is the difference between Newton's cosmology and Einstein's cosmology that is relevant to discussion of the Book of Abraham? Please could you refer to something specific relating to the difference between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, and show how the text of the BoA points to that? I have just re-read the text of the BoA with some care, and find it very hard to see what you could be referring to, although I do have a fairly good level of training in physics.

[Chris Smith]

Hi JNclone,

You might want to read Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe's essay Joseph Smith's scriptural cosmology in the book The Word of God if you get a chance. The Newtonian paradigm he sees in the BoA encompasses more than just the "power of attraction". Among other things, the Alphabet and Grammar makes it very clear that the sun (called flos-isis) is at the center of our solar system. The Newtonian system of the 1830's also included a plurality of inhabited worlds, including potentially the sun and the moon, which jives with what Joseph Smith seems to have believed. More specific to the Book of Abraham, Thomas **** (whose book JS owned) said that the throne of God is at the center of the universe. Kolob is "nearest to the throne of God". It's difficult to make sense of the astronomy in the GAEL, Facs 2, and the BoA, since it's really pretty convoluted. However, it does seem to place the throne of God at the center of the universe, with a series of stars revolving round about. This doesn't even begin to exhaust the things that can be said about BoA astronomy from a 19th-c Newtonian perspective, but I think you get the idea. Michael Dennis Rhodes, rather than reading Joseph Smith's astronomy from a 19th-c Newtonian perspective, reads it through the lens of modern astronomy in order to try to demonstrate that it is a true description of the universe. You can read his article here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...&chapid=162

[JNclone]

Hi JNclone,

You might want to read Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe's essay Joseph Smith's scriptural cosmology in the book The Word of God if you get a chance. The Newtonian paradigm he sees in the BoA encompasses more than just the "power of attraction". Among other things, the Alphabet and Grammar makes it very clear that the sun (called flos-isis) is at the center of our solar system. The Newtonian system of the 1830's also included a plurality of inhabited worlds, including potentially the sun and the moon, which jives with what Joseph Smith seems to have believed. More specific to the Book of Abraham, Thomas **** (whose book JS owned) said that the throne of God is at the center of the universe. Kolob is "nearest to the throne of God". It's difficult to make sense of the astronomy in the GAEL, Facs 2, and the BoA, since it's really pretty convoluted. However, it does seem to place the throne of God at the center of the universe, with a series of stars revolving round about. This doesn't even begin to exhaust the things that can be said about BoA astronomy from a 19th-c Newtonian perspective, but I think you get the idea. Michael Dennis Rhodes, rather than reading Joseph Smith's astronomy from a 19th-c Newtonian perspective, reads it through the lens of modern astronomy in order to try to demonstrate that it is a true description of the universe. You can read his article here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...&chapid=162

Thanks CK. I should only like to comment that I think most historians of science would like to keep the word 'Newtonian' for the broad physics background of typical 19th century cosmologies (such as the three laws of motion and the inverse-square law of universal gravitation), rather than associating Newton with doctrines of whether there were or were not other habitable planets. And of course Newton was a heliocentrist so far as the solar system was concerned.

I have looked at the Rhodes essay. It seems to me about on a par with similar things I have seen claiming that the Quran is in tune with the latest findings of modern science. The approach of the essay is summed up in these words in the introductory section (my emphasis added]:

Our purpose is to try to understand the eternal truths about astronomy and the creation that God revealed to Abraham and these other prophets. We then want to compare the information thus obtained with the findings of modern science. This attempt is made with the explicit faith that the truths of revealed religion will agree with the truths of science. As Brigham Young said, "The idea that the religion of Christ is one thing, and science is another, is a mistaken idea, for there is no true religion without true science, and consequently there is no true science without true religion."1

The emphasis, of course, must be on true science and true religion. When there seems to be a conflict between the two, obviously the revealed word of God must take precedence.

I am neither impressed nor convinced by the result, and can see nothing in this essay to convince me that I have to believe the author of the BoA had any certain knowledge of the cosmos that might not have been common knowledge in the earlier part of the 19th century. The only reference to Einstein or relativity is wholly imported into the discussion by the author:

Spirit matter is also eternal and self-existent (D&C 131:7). Thus God's creative work involves organizing three eternally existing constituents: physical matter (D&C 93:33), spirit matter (D&C 131:7), and intelligences (D&C 93:29, Abraham 3:18). To these could be added energy, but that is simply another form of matter, as Einstein's well-known equation E = mc2 makes clear.

In other words, since Joseph Smith does not mention energy, a concept essential to the world-view of modern physics, let us assume he is in effect aware of matter-energy equivalence. Really?

BTW, isn't it odd that when we are talking about the Flood (or similar topics) in other threads we are always told how everything that scientists think they know is just a temporary and provisional conclusion, and that it could all be overturned tomorrow? But when occasion suits, as in the Rhodes essay, the whole thing is turned on its head, and an ancient text is validated precisely because it allegedly agrees with current scientific views. Of course that has a wonderful corollary: since modern cosmology agrees with the Book of Abraham, which represents unchanging eternal truth - therefore the conclusions presently reached by present-day cosmologists (as Rhodes understands them) must also be unchanging eternal truth, exempt from any essential change by future research.

Wonderful!

[gtaggart]

gtaggart,

I just wrote a reply and then my internet died and I lost it. Suffice it to say, if Her Amun holds to a geocentric astronomy and to the view that Qlb as "heart, center" is evidence for the BoA (as indeed his posts have confirmed) then it would appear that my point

is relevant.

In any case, please note that it was Nibley who invented the Qlb parallel, not Rhodes. Nibley was once the single-handed staple of BoA apologetics. He remains a staple for many on this board, including Her Amun. If Nibley's arguments are incompatible with the present paradigm, I think that's worth pointing out.

Are you just fishing for a "gotcha", or do you have a point?

-CK

Yeah, my point if that your claim that apologists were running from Qlb because of their new-found geocentric position doesn't hold water.

And I think I've mentioned Nibley, what, at least three times relative to Qlb, and not once did I say the idea originated with Rhodes.

And Nibley is now dead, so he's hardly part of the group of "all" apologists who are running from Qlb now is he?

Speaking of Nibley, and his "invention," at the very end, the very last sentence of his six-paragraph argument for Qlb, he wrote

Every one of the "Explanations" given to Facsimile No. 2 has specific reference to the "Kolob" concept which lies at the heart of Hebrew and Egyptian Cosmology. (emphasis supplied)

[gtaggart]

gtaggart:

I am really puzzled here, but I don't want to miss a trick. So please excuse this query. I take it that by 'post-Einsteinian' you simply mean 'after the work of Einstein had been published'.

What do you think is the difference between Newton's cosmology and Einstein's cosmology that is relevant to discussion of the Book of Abraham? Please could you refer to something specific relating to the difference between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, and show how the text of the BoA points to that? I have just re-read the text of the BoA with some care, and find it very hard to see what you could be referring to, although I do have a fairly good level of training in physics.

Jclone, I don't have time to respond to CK, let alone you. Sorry. So I'll just say this: I'm not arguing for or against Newtonian or geocentric or post-Einstein (modern) astronomy, and I'm not much of an expert in any of them. I'm simply trying to do two things: 1. put the advocates of each in their proper camps, and 2. have CK explain how the #2 argument in his initial post to Amun on this subject makes sense. I think I've done the 1st. I don't think CK has done #2 yet.

Nevertheless, I'm bailing on this conversation for now. I've other things to do.

Bye now.

[Kevin Christensen]

A geocentric cosmology for the Book of Abraham does not mean that the earth is the center of the heavens.

I wrote up something on the Qalb/Kolob connection in a Dialogue essay many years ago, pulling together some information from Nibley (The Three Facsimiles of in the Book Abraham), Hamlet's Mill, Joseph Campbell, and an interesting essay on archaic astronomy.

Nibley's essay is here:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/TrFac.html

The relevant page in my essay is here:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document....;CISOSHOW=13918

According to de Santillana and Von Dechund, what makes Qalb special is that alone among all the stars in the heavens, it does not participate in the heavenly wobble (26000 years long) that we call the precession of the equinoxes. It is still useful for satellites to point a camera at a stable star, relative to our viewpoint. Canopus, in the rudder of the constellation of the Argo can serve this purpose.

Elsewhere Joseph Campbell argued that the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis concealed a reference to numbers related to that knowledge, implying that Genesis as we have it is a late redation (post-exilic), that something older than Genesis recognized the precession, and hence, can plausibly be linked to the Qalb idea.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[T-Shirt]

Are you just fishing for a "gotcha"

-CK

Isn't that, exactly, what you have been trying to do all along with all of this BOA stuff?

T-Shirt

[JNclone]

According to de Santillana and Von Dechund, what makes Qalb special is that alone among all the stars in the heavens, it does not participate in the heavenly wobble (26000 years long) that we call the precession of the equinoxes. It is still useful for satellites to point a camera at a stable star, relative to our viewpoint. Canopus, in the rudder of the constellation of the Argo can serve this purpose.

Elsewhere Joseph Campbell argued that the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis concealed a reference to numbers related to that knowledge, implying that Genesis as we have it is a late redation (post-exilic), that something older than Genesis recognized the precession, and hence, can plausibly be linked to the Qalb idea.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I am sorry, but I suspect you do not understand what the precession of the equinoxes is, or what its physical cause is. The only thing that 'wobbles' over 26,000 years is the earth's axis of rotation, which precesses like the axis of a spinning top as a result of an the effect of the sun's gravitational attraction on its equatorial bulge. For this reason, the north and south celestial poles (which represent the intersections of the earth's axis with the imaginary celestial sphere) describe circles against the background of the stars every 26,000 years. The positions of the stars relative to one another do not change as a result of this process (leaving aside the matter of 'proper motion'). Another result of this phenomenon is that the sun's equinoctial and solstitial positions shift steadily along the ecliptic and perform a cycle round it in the same period - hence 'precession of the equinoxes' .

As a result of precession, the celestial coordinates of all stars change cyclically. I do not see what you can mean by suggesting that one star is exempt from this.

[Kevin Christensen]

JNclose writes:

I am sorry, but I suspect you do not understand what the precession of the equinoxes is...

Your suspicion in this case is unfounded, and your explaination therefore not necessary.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[JNclone]

JNclose writes:

Your suspicion in this case is unfounded, and your explaination therefore not necessary.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Well, all I can say is that your understanding of the issue of precession does not seem to me to emerge very clearly from your post. But I for one am happy not to be drawn further into a discussion of the two writers you quote.