Joseph Smith correctly identified this hieroglyph

[consiglieri]

We are all familiar with Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham.

(I am not savvy enough to be able to reproduce it here, but am giving the link. If somebody could reproduce the actual facsimile, I would be most appreciative!)

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1

The Book of Abraham uses this facsimile to illustrate the specific place in the story where Abraham is laid upon the altar, about to be sacrificed, at which point he prays to God for deliverance, and God responds by sending his angel, loosing Abraham's bands, and striking dead the priest.

Abraham 1:12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record. . . .

15 And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands;

This thread seeks to focus on the figure of Abraham in Facsimile 1.

We first note the person who represents Abraham is not dead; in fact, he is very much alive.

He has both his hands raised in front of his body, and his right leg raised above his left.

This is a strange position for Abraham to be in considering he is lying prostrate on the altar at the time.

What may account for this?

According to E.A. Budge in his 1899 book, Easy Lessons in Egyptian Hieroglyphics with Sign List, p. 43, the figure denominated as Abraham in Facsimile 1 is the "hieroglyphic character" meaning "to pray, to praise, to adore, to entreat."

(I am once more not savvy enough to reproduce the actual characters here, but give the link below, and invite anyone who is able to reproduce it in this thread.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=a9inZ4CD9...7&ct=result

In short, Joseph Smith correctly identified this person as praying, or entreating, or as translated in the text, "I lifted up my voice unto the Lord, my God."

This seems a remarkable coincidence.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[dblagent007]

Edited to add the characters as a file attachment

[consiglieri]

Well, that's a start!

Thanks, doubleagent, man!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "computer illiterati")

[JeffM]

We are all familiar with Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham.

(I am not savvy enough to be able to reproduce it here, but am giving the link. If somebody could reproduce the actual facsimile, I would be most appreciative!)

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_1

The Book of Abraham uses this facsimile to illustrate the specific place in the story where Abraham is laid upon the altar, about to be sacrificed, at which point he prays to God for deliverance, and God responds by sending his angel, loosing Abraham's bands, and striking dead the priest.

This thread seeks to focus on the figure of Abraham in Facsimile 1.

We first note the person who represents Abraham is not dead; in fact, he is very much alive.

He has both his hands raised in front of his body, and his right leg raised above his left.

This is a strange position for Abraham to be in considering he is lying prostrate on the altar at the time.

What may account for this?

According to E.A. Budge in his 1899 book, Easy Lessons in Egyptian Hieroglyphics with Sign List, p. 43, the figure denominated as Abraham in Facsimile 1 is the "hieroglyphic character" meaning "to pray, to praise, to adore, to entreat."

(I am once more not savvy enough to reproduce the actual characters here, but give the link below, and invite anyone who is able to reproduce it in this thread.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=a9inZ4CD9...7&ct=result

In short, Joseph Smith correctly identified this person as praying, or entreating, or as translated in the text, "I lifted up my voice unto the Lord, my God."

This seems a remarkable coincidence.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'm really not sure what's remarkable about interpreting a picture of a man with his hands in the air to mean he's praying. What need is there to know hieroglyphics? Perhaps the more important thing to know is that in the papyri from which facsimile 1 was taken, this section is missing. Professional reconstructions show only one arm elevated. It's also important to know that the man in the original papyri is not Abraham. How is the reputation of Joseph Smith benefited if he gets the symbol for praying right but the whole story told by the picture wrong?

[consiglieri]

How is the reputation of Joseph Smith benefited if he gets the symbol for praying right but the whole story told by the picture wrong?

Because a translator who is demonstrably right in one thing is more likely to be right in another.

And if this entire segment is missing in the original, do you not find it even more remarkable that Joseph Smith translated it correctly?

It appears Joseph Smith had the capacity to correctly translate ancient languages even without looking; like having his face in a hat.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Urloony]

It's also important to know that the man in the original papyri is not Abraham.

But the important question to ask is:

Is it really Osiris?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But the important question to ask is:

Is it really Osiris?

Or what does Osiris in context represent here?

[JeffM]

Because a translator who is demonstrably right in one thing is more likely to be right in another.

And if this entire segment is missing in the original, do you not find it even more remarkable that Joseph Smith translated it correctly?

It appears Joseph Smith had the capacity to correctly translate ancient languages even without looking; like having his face in a hat.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The "Abraham" figure in the original document, as reconstructed by scholars who are familiar with these types of funerary documents, actually has one arm raised - not two. The other "arm" is part of a bird's wing. If Joseph Smith's facsimile of the "Abraham" with two arms raised correctly approximates the hieroglyph for prayer, then at most it represents a correct interpretation of an incorrect reconstruction.

More importantly, shouldn't the fact that Smith's whole description of the scene is inaccurate count for something? Why is one "right" thing (that could easily be coincidence) significant while the many wrong things mean nothing?

Your other posts on this board show you to be an intelligent person, Consiglieri. What is the point of defending Joseph Smith to this exaggerated degree? I can understand loyalty to one's family and tradition, but when a "prophet" is exposed as false, what genuine good is done by perpetuating him?

[lostindc]

The "Abraham" figure in the original document, as reconstructed by scholars who are familiar with these types of funerary documents, actually has one arm raised - not two. The other "arm" is part of a bird's wing. If Joseph Smith's facsimile of the "Abraham" with two arms raised correctly approximates the hieroglyph for prayer, then at most it represents a correct interpretation of an incorrect reconstruction.

More importantly, shouldn't the fact that Smith's whole description of the scene is inaccurate count for something? Why is one "right" thing (that could easily be coincidence) significant while the many wrong things mean nothing?

Your other posts on this board show you to be an intelligent person, Consiglieri. What is the point of defending Joseph Smith to this exaggerated degree? I can understand loyalty to one's family and tradition, but when a "prophet" is exposed as false, what genuine good is done by perpetuating him?

Wow, real nice post

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The "Abraham" figure in the original document, as reconstructed by scholars who are familiar with these types of funerary documents, actually has one arm raised - not two. The other "arm" is part of a bird's wing. If Joseph Smith's facsimile of the "Abraham" with two arms raised correctly approximates the hieroglyph for prayer, then at most it represents a correct interpretation of an incorrect reconstruction.

More importantly, shouldn't the fact that Smith's whole description of the scene is inaccurate count for something? Why is one "right" thing (that could easily be coincidence) significant while the many wrong things mean nothing?

Your other posts on this board show you to be an intelligent person, Consiglieri. What is the point of defending Joseph Smith to this exaggerated degree? I can understand loyalty to one's family and tradition, but when a "prophet" is exposed as false, what genuine good is done by perpetuating him?

Sweet so you believe that Charles Larson's "expert" got it right when no other hieroglyphics have ever been found that mach what the supposed expert recreated? That is really impressive.

[Lachoneus]

The other "arm" is part of a bird's wing.

This old canard has been refuted by at least one expert with an actual name who has examined the original papyri instead of pictures and photocopies; see, Michael Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary 19 (2005).

[Chris Smith]

Hi, Consig!

I don't pretend to be able to answer the question of whether this figure had one arm raised or two. If the alleged "hand" is a bird wing, then it is not drawn in the most usual style; but that the style of the Hor Book of Breathings is crude and somewhat irregular is well-known. A very close examination of the disputed "hand/wing" reveals what may be speckling at the damaged edge of the papyrus. Speckling would be consistent with a wing rather than a hand. Based on other vignettes of this kind, we have more reason to expect a bird in this scene than for the figure to be in the position of prayer, but I do not think the latter is necessarily out of the question. It may be one of those issues that is never really resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Joseph's reconstruction is correct, and the figure is in the position of prayer. If you saw a drawing of an Egyptian priest about to sacrifice a holy man on an altar, and you saw that the holy man had his hands raised to heaven, what would you conclude the holy man was doing? I mean, is it really all that extraordinary that Joseph would interpret this as prayer?

Best,

-Chris

[J.S. Mill]

In related news, I recognized my little cousin's drawing to be of a dinosaur. Where's my 11 million member church?

[lostindc]

In Facsimile 1 (the lion couch scene), for instance, under the floor there is a crocodile. Under the crocodile are numerous vertical lines. Joseph interpreted these lines as representing the "pillars of heaven." Egyptologists, however, tell us that this is incorrect. These lines really signify the palace fa

[T-Shirt]

If you saw a drawing of an Egyptian priest about to sacrifice a holy man on an altar, and you saw that the holy man had his hands raised to heaven, what would you conclude the holy man was doing?

First of all, how is one supposed to know this is a "holy man"? Secondly, I would never view this and think that his hands are "raised to heaven". To my untrained eye, it looks like the man who is lying down, is trying to kick the man with the knife, and raising his arms to defend himself.

Best,

T-Shirt

[consiglieri]

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Joseph's reconstruction is correct, and the figure is in the position of prayer. If you saw a drawing of an Egyptian priest about to sacrifice a holy man on an altar, and you saw that the holy man had his hands raised to heaven, what would you conclude the holy man was doing? I mean, is it really all that extraordinary that Joseph would interpret this as prayer?

Best,

-Chris

Hi, Chris!

I think that if we are in agreement that this facsimile depicts an Egyptian priest about to sacrifice a (holy) man on an altar, we have come leaps and bounds from the early years of the dispute, when the experts held this was merely an embalming scene of someone already deceased.

Hope you have a great weekend!

--Consiglieri

[Chris Smith]

Hi Consig and T-Shirt,

You have misunderstood me. This vignette does not actually depict the sacrifice of a holy man. But once Joseph Smith had interpreted it that way, having the holy man pray for divine assistance is only natural.

Joseph Smith, by the way, does not actually say "this hieroglyph means prayer". What he says is that Abraham prayed. The claim that he correctly identified the hieroglyph requires inferring a connection that the prophet himself did not explicitly make.

Best,

-Chris

[AmorLibertas]

If I look at some illustrations in from an Egyptian papyrus roll or hypocephallus and what I say they mean happens to be correct, or arguably close for at best 10-20% of the image and at best 2-5% of the characters, but what I say the majority of the characters or images mean isn't even close, much less accurate, would you really say I can translate Egyptian correctly?

[Anijen]

Hi, Consig!I don't pretend to be able to answer the question of whether this figure had one arm raised or two. If the alleged "hand" is a bird wing, then it is not drawn in the most usual style; but that the style of the Hor Book of Breathings is crude and somewhat irregular is well-known. A very close examination of the disputed "hand/wing" reveals what may be speckling at the damaged edge of the papyrus. Speckling would be consistent with a wing rather than a hand. Based on other vignettes of this kind, we have more reason to expect a bird in this scene than for the figure to be in the position of prayer, but I do not think the latter is necessarily out of the question. It may be one of those issues that is never really resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Joseph's reconstruction is correct, and the figure is in the position of prayer. If you saw a drawing of an Egyptian priest about to sacrifice a holy man on an altar, and you saw that the holy man had his hands raised to heaven, what would you conclude the holy man was doing? I mean, is it really all that extraordinary that Joseph would interpret this as prayer?Best,-Chris

I tend to see the hands not a wing. It appears to have thumbs which a wing would not and Professor Gee has said that if they were wings that style was not yet used. It also goes with the idea of him praying. BTW Chris you do not have to exhaust all your free time to find away to say a hand is a wing, just to add a notch in the BoA was not inspired contest.

If I look at some illustrations in from an Egyptian papyrus roll or hypocephallus and what I say they mean happens to be correct, or arguably close for at best 10-20% of the image and at best 2-5% of the characters, but what I say the majority of the characters or images mean isn't even close, much less accurate, would you really say I can translate Egyptian correctly?

no

[AmorLibertas]

If I look at some illustrations from an Egyptian papyrus roll or hypocephallus and what I say they mean happens to be correct, or arguably close, for at best 10-20% of the image and at best 2-5% of the characters, but what I say the majority of the characters or images mean isn't even close, much less accurate, would you really say I can translate Egyptian correctly?

no

Then why persist in the belief that Joseph understood Egyptian or by revelation gave a correct interpretation of the various facsimile and the characters thereon from the papyrus as indicated in the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price? What possible justification is there for such a belief when the evidence supports the opposite?

[Anijen]

Then why persist in the belief that Joseph understood Egyptian or by revelation gave a correct interpretation of the various facsimile and the characters thereon from the papyrus as indicated in the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price? What possible justification is there for such a belief when the evidence supports the opposite?

Oh I'm sorry because you couldn't translate Egyptian were you comparing yourself to Joseph? Wow you got me there.

Sorry for the sarcasm. Joseph is a prophet of God plus he knew a little about the translating thing, you don't know anything about the process (as per your own post). He translated the Book of Mormon what fruits may I ask have you to judge you by?

[Chris Smith]

BTW Chris you do not have to exhaust all your free time to find away to say a hand is a wing

I'm in no danger of that!

[AmorLibertas]

Oh I'm sorry because you couldn't translate Egyptian were you comparing yourself to Joseph? Wow you got me there.

Actually, I never said that I couldn't translate Egyptian. I was merely laying out a hypothetical scenario; kinda like writing: If my native language were Hindi and I didn't know a word of English, but I happened to guess the meaning of 10-20% of the road signs in a Driving manual, and 2-5% of the words therein... Clearly the fact that I am writing this in English would not imply that I do not actually know English.

Sorry for the sarcasm. Joseph is a prophet of God plus he knew a little about the translating thing, you don't know anything about the process (as per your own post).

I'm not saying that I'm anything remotely close to an expert at translating Egyptian, or that I wouldn't rely heavily on those scholars who have paved the way before me, but I do know "a little about the translating thing" despite your hasty misapprehension to the contrary. Furthermore, I wouldn't consider it to be overstating it in the slightest to suggest that I know far more than Joseph ever did about translating Egyptian.

He translated the Book of Mormon what fruits may I ask have you to judge you by?

You mean he CLAIMED to have translated the Book of Mormon. If you really are sincere about wanting to see some "fruits" by which to judge my claims about translating Egyptian, than I will consider humoring you; although given your propensity for sarcasm as well as your apparent defensiveness on the subject, it will take a fair amount of convincing.

[Ron Beron]

This old canard has been refuted by at least one expert with an actual name who has examined the original papyri instead of pictures and photocopies; see, Michael Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary 19 (2005).

Just for the record...

[JeffM]

This old canard has been refuted by at least one expert with an actual name who has examined the original papyri instead of pictures and photocopies; see, Michael Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary 19 (2005).

What has been refuted is that the picture in the papyri from which the facsimile came ever had anything to do with Abraham. Joseph Smith's claim that it did was wrong.