Facsimiles Do Not Match Translation?

[kamenraider]

LifeOnaPlate's question above reminded me of another one. Where is Studies in Scripture Vol. 2?

In other words, why were all the other volumes in the "Studies in Scripture" series reprinted, except for Vol. 2 which was on the Pearl of Great Price? Were any of the articles unsatisfactory for some reason?

[BishopRic]

Thinking's review of Gee's review:

Articles like this give Mormon apologists a bad name.

And I will answer Gee's question with a question. If the LDS Church claims that the writings on the papyrus were written by Abraham's own hand,why does Gee claim that the facsimiles were drawn by Egyptians?

Yes, and I think apologists could benefit by being reminded about Occam's Razor:

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one," or alternately, "the simplest explanation tends to be the right one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities."

Following that approach, it still seems to come down to "was the papyrus written by the hand of Abraham?" If not, end of discussion, no?

[cksalmon]

In other words, why were all the other volumes in the "Studies in Scripture" series reprinted, except for Vol. 2 which was on the Pearl of Great Price? Were any of the articles unsatisfactory for some reason?

I'm curious, too, why it hasn't been reprinted. Though, to be sure, it is available in the LDS 2006 Library CD-ROM collection.

Best.

CKS

[Jan]

Has anyone here read Barney's article that is reference by Gee on a previous page of this thread.

Thoughts?

[Jan]

Thinking's review of Gee's review:

Articles like this give Mormon apologists a bad name.

Gee starts by identifying the question.

Then he discusses the questions which Fletcher will ask about each figure on the facsimiles and gives the reader a preview of the remainder of the article with the following statement.

This is my favorite quote.

So Fletcher and Gee agreed on two interpretations. Don't you think then that Fletcher would say that Gee was certainly correct on only two interpretations? Also, why are the remainder "quite likely wrong?" Is this a tacit assumption for which Gee criticizes Fletcher in the following statement?

And then Gee avoids the original question with a question of his own.

And I will answer Gee's question with a question. If the LDS Church claims that the writings on the papyrus were written by Abraham's own hand,why does Gee claim that the facsimiles were drawn by Egyptians?

Thinking, I think you've missed a lot. What do you think of Gee's suggested methodology? The quote you provide does not demonstrate that the Church believes that the papryus are autographs of Abraham.

If you are going to critique the scholars, you need to at least have a grasp of the relevant scholarship.

[ruski_canuk]

If that was what Gee said, you might have a point. But what Gee actually said was, "why do Joseph Smithâ??s interpretations need to match ancient Egyptian interpretations at all?" IOW, the question is not whether Joseph Smith's translations match ancient Egyptian interpretations, but why should they match.

Can you elaborate ?

[Jan]

Can you elaborate ?

Sure. Have you read and understood Gee's article? Have you read and understood the sources, particularly Barney, that he cites in it (some are in other languages so you are excused from those. )?

Return and report.

[cksalmon]

Can you elaborate ?

My read of the statement:

"Okay, they don't match. So what? Why would we even expect them to do so?"

But, I could be misreading...?

CKS

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I trust this does not come as a surprise to anyone. The translations do not even remotely match. Nor were there such Gods as Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash in the Egyptian pantheon.

But does this really matter? Can't the Book of Abraham be viewed as a worthwhile part of the Mormon canon even as unhistorical allegory?

This might be late in the debate. I aalways thought that Abraham was talk more about the Chaldean Gods here that use the Egyptian symbols?

[Lachoneus]

Can you elaborate ?

In addition to Jan's suggestions, you might want to read either Chapter 3 in "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri" or Chapter 15 in vol 2 of "Studies in Scriptures," (essentially the same article).

[Jan]

So whaddya all think of the J-red theory?

[cksalmon]

If the LDS Church claims that the writings on the papyrus were written by Abraham's own hand,why does Gee claim that the facsimiles were drawn by Egyptians?

I think most sophisticated LDS thinkers (who don't hold to the catalyst theory) would suggest that the issue is whether or not the papyri represent an authentic tradition dating back to Abraham (despite whoever might have copied the MSS in question down through the centuries--missing scroll or not).

Best.

CKS

[Lachoneus]

My read of the statement:

"Okay, they don't match. So what? Why would we even expect them to do so?"

But, I could be misreading...?

CKS

Maybe reading the entire paragraph would help.

Earlier in this review I referred to the desire to know the answer to the question: Does the interpretation of Joseph Smith match the interpretation of the ancient Egyptians, or does X=Y? We know that the interpretations of the Egyptologists typically do not match either those of the ancient Egyptians (Z=Y) or Joseph Smith (Z=X) and so they are simply irrelevant to the issue. But the unquestioned assumption is that the interpretation of Joseph Smith has to match the interpretation of the ancient Egyptians (X=Y). This assumption is related to assumptions and theories (both formal and informal) about the nature of the facsimiles. Several such theories do not require Joseph Smithâ??s interpretation to be the same or even close to that of the ancient Egyptians. For example, ancient Jewish interpretations for various Egyptian scenes are known that differ considerably from the ancient Egyptian interpretations and to which Egyptological methods give us no clue. Before any conclusions can be drawn from any comparisons between the two, one needs to have an answer to the question: why do Joseph Smithâ??s interpretations need to match ancient Egyptian interpretations at all? I do not intend to answer the issue here but merely to raise it. Critics should note that unless they can answer this question satisfactorily, they have no case.

Does that help?

[cksalmon]

Maybe reading the entire paragraph would help.

Does that help?

I think that's essentially what I wrote. Have I misread something? Ancient Egyptian readings don't match JS's translation. Gee asks, "Why should they?" in light of the fact that "several...theories" don't require such a match.

Best.

CKS

[Jan]

Maybe he's going po-mo nova on us. You know, the old Derridean "who cares what the author intended; let's read it however we want to read it" idea. That, I believe, was Machiko Takayama's approach to it in her Sunstone presentation.

The idea doesn't make sense to me, but then I'm one of those ugly positivists who believes that there's actually a real world beyond the edges of my consciousness.

-CK

I don't believe that's the approach being taken by Gee or Barney at all. Do you really think that is the proposition?

[cksalmon]

I don't believe that's the approach being taken by Gee or Barney at all. Do you really think that is the proposition?

I think Gee's position is the much more apologetically-useful one of "Who on earth really knows what was intended?" Ancient writers probably don't. Modern Egyptologists probably don't. Who knows?

Do you read something different out of the article? I read the suggestion that nothing definitive has been confirmed, so we shouldn't count JS out as of yet.

What am I missing?

Best.

CKS

[Jan]

I think Gee's position is the much more apologetically-useful one of "Who on earth really knows what was intended?" Ancient writers probably don't. Modern Egyptologists probably don't. Who knows?

Do you read something different out of the article? I read the suggestion that nothing definitive has been confirmed, so we shouldn't count JS out as of yet.

What am I missing?

Best.

CKS

I don't think what CalifKid said is what Gee is saying. I don't think he's saying "Whatever the reader wants..." Gee's article is about (1) methodology in giving interpretations to the facsimiles. It is a collateral point in asking the question: Why there should be an expectation that they match. Which I don't see anyone giving a serious answer to yet. The only one I can come up with is if someone assumes that Abraham actually drew facsimiles that are on the papyrus and that JS was literally translating them. Is there another answer?

CKS, What do you think of Barney's theory?

[cksalmon]

(1) The only one I can come up with is if someone assumes that Abraham actually drew facsimiles that are on the papyrus and that JS was literally translating them. Is there another answer?

(2) CKS, What do you think of Barney's theory?

Hi Jan--

(1) I think I've already addressed this, as far as I, as merely a concerned reader and not a professional scholar in this area, can. This is not the issue at hand, to my mind. Informed readers know that we don't possess the autographical writings of Abraham in the papyri. I think we can forego that issue altogether.

(2) This is an interesting question. I take the following to be Barney's main thesis:

When we, together with the 1912 respondents, properly reject the autographic assumptions about the papyri [i do], we find other possibilities concerning the origins and history of the Book of Abraham. For instance, that book may have had its origin as a Semitic text that experienced the normal transmission processes of copying, translation, and redaction from the time of Abraham in the Middle Bronze Age until the Greco-Roman era when the Egyptian papyrus copies were made.

Indeed, it may have. It's certainly logically possible. But logical possibilty is a distinctly low bar to meet. I find Barney's theory, frankly, ad hoc. While logically possible, it is not, apparently, likely. And that's the real issue here, to my mind. Is it likely (or probable) that BoA "had its origin as a Semitic text that experienced the normal transmission processes of copying, translation, and redaction from the time of Abraham in the Middle Bronze Age until the Greco-Roman era when the Egyptian papyrus copies were made?"

I don't think so.

In the interest of truth, is it useful to posit that BoA underwent a process of going from a Semitic text through the process of "copying, translation, and redaction" such that the papyri that we have today bear no resemblance to either ancient interpretation or modern Egyptological analysis? I'd say no. Barney would say, Yes.

But, it's a necessary (i.e., seemingly ad hoc) interpretation of the relevant data to suggest that, despite the fact that what we have doesn't match ancient sources or modern sources, what we have may match some hypothesized process for which we have no evidence.

I don't find it compelling, I suppose, is what I'd answer.

Best.

CKS

[Jan]

Thanks, CKS.

(1) Thanks. I agree. I guess I read CalifKid differently than you did. You seemed to defer to him earlier.

(2) I don't think it can be considered ad hoc if he's found evidence of the same happening? What did you think of those examples?

[Thinking]

Thinking, I think you've missed a lot. What do you think of Gee's suggested methodology?

I agree with Gee that the first question, "What does this figure represent in the world of the Egyptians?" should be the focus.

Basically Gee attempts to show that not all Egyptologists agree on the interpretations of the facsimiles (Z), thus begging the question, "Who knows what they really mean (Y)?" So if we don't know what they really mean (Y), how do we know if Joseph Smith's interpretation (X) matches what they really mean (Y)? That's a good plan, but his focus is on Fletcher's methods, not whether his methods lead to the true interpretation. Gee then goes on to claim that since Fletcher and others do not follow his own published methodology, "...to date few Egyptologists have produced a methodologically valid explanation of the facsimiles..."

His chart was worthless because it only gave a sample size of four. A better chart would have given the different interpretations and the percentage of Egyptologists which agree with that interpretation. But what's really interesting (and it's very disappointing to see this) is how some apparent contradictions really aren't.

If you look at figure 5 in the chart, the interpretations are: Mehetweret or Hathor (Speelers), a cow (Varga), the great cow who bore the sun (Gee), and Hathor (Fletcher).

I love the internet.

"Hathor was an ancient goddess, worshipped as a cow-deity...An alternate name for Hathor, which persisted for 3,000 years, was Mehturt (also spelt Mehurt, Mehet-Weret, and Mehet-uret)..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor

It seems that there was no disagreement after all.

Gee claims that Fletcher only interpreted two out of twenty-seven figures correctly, "two are certainly correct while eight are certainly wrong; the remainder are quite likely wrong." Why does Gee assume that "the remainder are quite likely wrong" when at the end of the article he states,"Much more work needs to be done before we can understand the facsimiles in their ancient Egyptian setting..."? If there is still much more to understand, why should his interpretation be accepted as more valid than Fletcher's?

The quote you provide does not demonstrate that the Church believes that the papryus are autographs of Abraham.

That's right, after 1967 a new definition of "by his own hand" needed to be created.

If you are going to critique the scholars, you need to at least have a grasp of the relevant scholarship.

I love personal attacks. They validate the strength of my argument.

[e=mc2]

LarryP:

On one occasion as a graduate student, I took a class in physical biochemistry where a friend of mine's answer to one of the questions on the final, based on a hypothetical experiment, was marked as wrong. When my friend showed the professor a published paper where the experiment was actually carried out and the answer given by my friend was shown to be correct, the professor refused to change the grade with the statement that only the answers he wanted were the right ones.

OHMYGOODLIVINGHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOLOL! That is hilarious, except that it's so serious, that it's not even funny. In a nutshell, this has been the attitude of the Egyptologists when they approach the Joseph Smith Book of Abraham and the facsimiles. Wow, what an amazing living example of the idiocy of authoritarianism. If that had been my professor, I would have petitioned and demanded that MORON be removed from teaching.

[Jan]

QUOTE(Jan @ Aug 20 2007, 04:49 PM) *

If you are going to critique the scholars, you need to at least have a grasp of the relevant scholarship.

I love personal attacks. They validate the strength of my argument.

Umm, that wasn't a personal attack. One could have used the word "one" in my sentence. And the content of your previous post did not engage any of the scholarship (how's that for nonpersonalization?).

PS You don't really think that if someone does in fact makes a "personal attack" that it logically follows that your argument is necessarily strong, do you? That's not good thinking.

[Jan]

I agree with Gee that the first question, "What does this figure represent in the world of the Egyptians?" should be the focus.

Which Egyptians? The ancients or the moderns? And why so? Do you disagree with Gee's other questions? Why or why not?

QUOTE(Jan @ Aug 20 2007, 04:49 PM) *

The quote you provide does not demonstrate that the Church believes that the papryus are autographs of Abraham.

That's right, after 1967 a new definition of "by his own hand" needed to be created.

That would be incorrect. Check it out - it's on the internet.

[Thinking]

PS You don't really think that if someone does in fact makes a "personal attack" that it logically follows that your argument is necessarily strong, do you? That's not good thinking.

Pun intended I'm sure.

Have you ever heard of inductive reasoning? When something happens repeatedly (i.e. night follows day follows night...), you may conclude that it (the pattern) will continue.

[Severian]

Does the interpretation of Joseph Smith match the interpretation of the ancient Egyptians, or does X=Y?

This is a good basic question. Did we ever find out if X=Y? What were the variables?

X=The Book of Abraham

Y=The Breathing Permits

If one could say what the Book of Abraham was doing disguised as the various Breathing Permits from thousands of years after Abraham, then you would have an answer. Or you could say the Breathing Permits were the McGuffin and a direct channeling of the BoA occurred. Even better, you could not rely upon such far fetched thinking and simply regard it as worthwhile allegory.