Robert Ritner and Facsimile 3

[David Bokovoy]

Just thought I would drop a note that I'm posting informal audio presentations on my critique of Robert Ritner's JNES study of facsimile 3.

As always, would enjoy thoughtful comments.

best,

--DB

www.davidbokovoy.com

[e=mc2]

Just thought I would drop a note that I'm posting informal audio presentations on my critique of Robert Ritner's JNES study of facsimile 3.

As always, would enjoy thoughtful comments.

best,

--DB

www.davidbokovoy.com

Yeah Baby! I am soooooooooooooooo there......

[David Bokovoy]

Yeah Baby! I am soooooooooooooooo there......

Cool. To hear the discussion, you simply have to click on the underlined text and your player should open up the audio file. Eventually, I'm going to write all this information up as an official response to Ritner. Maybe I'll even send it to JNES.

[Mortal Man]

The problem here is that Joseph did not claim to interpret the facsimilies in terms of meaning for the Latter-Day Saints, he claimed to translate them "as understood by the Egyptians," "called by the Egyptians" etc. He specifically states that "King Pharaoh", the "Prince of Pharaoh" and "Shulem" are all written in the characters above their head/hands, when in fact the characters he refers to read:

"Isis the great, the god's mother".

"Maat, mistress of the gods."

"The Osiris H

[e=mc2]

The problem here is that Joseph did not claim to interpret the facsimilies in terms of meaning for the Latter-Day Saints, he claimed to translate them "as understood by the Egyptians," "called by the Egyptians" etc. He specifically states that "King Pharaoh", the "Prince of Pharaoh" and "Shulem" are all written in the characters above their head/hands, when in fact the characters he refers to read:

"Isis the great, the god's mother".

"Maat, mistress of the gods."

"The Osiris H

[Mortal Man]

He didn't get the genderwrong. He did it properly under the ancient Egyptian understanding. I wrote a paper exactly on this point, as well as made a series of videos about this for You Tube. Joseph Smith did not muff it here.

Post the link and I'll look at it.

In the mean time, if Osiris and Isis are both male and they are married, then where do you stand on Prop 8?

[USU78]

In the mean time, if Osiris and Isis are both male and they are married, then where do you stand on Prop 8?

Cute. Anubis and Ma'at present the inituate Hor at the throne of Osiris, behind which Isis stands, following the judgment where Hor's heart had been found to weigh less than Ma'at's feather.

The players in the little drama are understood by JSJr to be Abraham, playing the role of Osiris "by the courtesy of Pharaoh/Isis," welcoming the inituate into the presence of G-d. Thus human players depict the g-ds and the decedent. It mattereth not a d@mn whether it's men playing women, women playing men, or dogs playing cats.

What matters is the ritual presentation and acceptance of the initiate into the presence of G-d, Who says, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

This is a representation of the Atonement, albeit in an unfamiliar idiom.

Lord Kerry's done a fair bit of work on this. You should really check out his websites, The Backyard Professor and Shirttail.Mormonis.

[Mortal Man]

Anubis and Ma'at present the inituate Hor at the throne of Osiris, behind which Isis stands, following the judgment where Hor's heart had been found to weigh less than Ma'at's feather.

The players in the little drama are understood by JSJr to be Abraham, playing the role of Osiris "by the courtesy of Pharaoh/Isis," welcoming the inituate into the presence of G-d. Thus human players depict the g-ds and the decedent. It mattereth not a d@mn whether it's men playing women, women playing men, or dogs playing cats.

What play? These are drawings. I once saw Peter Pan played by a girl. Does that mean every time I see a depiction of Peter Pan I should think of him as either male or female? What would Wendy and Tinkerbell think about that?

What matters is the ritual presentation and acceptance of the initiate into the presence of G-d, Who says, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

This is a representation of the Atonement, albeit in an unfamiliar idiom.

What does this have to do with Abraham "reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king's court"?

Lord Kerry's done a fair bit of work on this. You should really check out his websites, The Backyard Professor and Shirttail.Mormonis.

You need to provide links and specific quotes if you want me to check your references.

[USU78]

What play? These are drawings. I once saw Peter Pan played by a girl. Does that mean every time I see a depiction of Peter Pan I should think of him as either male or female? What would Wendy and Tinkerbell think about that?

Actually, this isn't a bad notion: except we're talking about players in a religious drama. In the days before Super 8 mm home movies, you could only represent a story by text or pictures or, as in Facsimile 3, with a bit of both. If a human male can, wearing a headdress representing Anubis (or one of the Hopi pantheon), play the part of Anubis (or Ko'opeli), why not a human female? Or a human male playing the part of a g-ddess, Ma'at or Isis (or Spider Woman).

This is unfamiliar stuff, I know, but try to see it from our (and the presumed early Christian era Christian/Egyptian author of the PoGP Abraham's) perspective. Our most sacred worship contains echoes of these things, so we take them very seriously. We also aren't particularly pleased when people get all smart@rsedly about them, so try to be a bit more respectful.

What does this have to do with Abraham "reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king's court"?

Good question. Given the ritual context of the JSJr commentary and translation, there's no need to assume "Astronomy" as understood by JSJr (and the presumed early Christian era Christian/Egyptian author of the PoGP Abraham) means quite what you and I would normally think. Think "Cosmology," and Man's place therein and his relationship to G-d. These themes are all over the text of the PoGP Abraham.

That is, of course, unless you hold that the Facsimiles are only decoration and not part and parcel of the Book of Abraham.

You need to provide links and specific quotes if you want me to check your references.

Who bit your butt? One tries to be a little helpful, but I frankly am not sure which of Lord Kerry's many, many offerings he had in mind.

I gave you a brief synopsis.

And you're welcome.

[e=mc2]

I will make a pdf of my paper and it has all the goodies. I will try to get it on tomorrow.

[bjw]

David,

I just finished listening to all 3 parts. Great job! I think when the BofA is examined in the light of the Egyptian exaltation imagery it shows pretty well how our beliefs have an ancient origin and were not simply the fantasies of Joseph Smith, as Ritner claimed. That said, I think that the people in Fac. 3 can be seen as playing the roles of those on the Egyptian papyri.

[LDS1973]

Deleted. If you're here for personal attacks, find another board. = mods

[Chris Smith]

Over at MDB I posted the following:

Although I am ordinarily tremendously averse to listening to podcasts, which I consider an extremely awkward medium for presenting scholarly conclusions, I broke down and listened to David Bokovoy's just-posted series on Facsimile 3. There are three parts so far, but I get the impression there will be more. I suppose I'll probably take further notes and post them as he goes, if I can convince myself it's worth investing the time required. Here are notes on the first three parts

Part 1:

• Joseph Smith is not trying to reproduce an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents
  
• Ritner’s criticism is the only critique of the Book of Abraham that isn’t silly. Ritner obviously has an agenda to mock and belittle the Book of Abraham, should not have used the language he used.
  
• Ritner claimed the meaning of the document is “certain”, but David points out that language is symbolic and like all symbols can have more than one meaning. JS gives this document a new Sitz im Leben and thus a new meaning. This is what he is doing when he interprets the figures in Facsimile 3 in something other than the way the ancient Egyptians interpreted them.
  
• This standard Egyptian presentation scene actually derives from Mesopotamia, are seen on cylinder seals. These show a deified figure seated on a throne, often include a symbolic hand clasp, show someone being introduced into the presence of the deified figure. In Sumerian seals, the person on the throne is a human, deified king, just as Joseph Smith interprets Figure 1 in Facsimile 3.
  
• When we consider Joseph’s interpretation of this facsimile, it “comes alive with theological depth and meaning”.
  

Part 2:

• Facsimile 3 shows the deified deceased person “at the veil”, being introduced into the heavenly council or assembly. In Joseph Smith’s interpretation, Abraham is the enthroned god.
  
• During the Ur-III period, Sumerian kings begin to be depicted as deified, and are so presented in the cylinder seals that inspired the Egyptian presentation scenes.
  
• From a Sumerian perspective, this scene is “temple drama”: a person enters the presence of a god with a spiritual guide and clasps the deity’s hand.
  
• The scene is not foreign to the biblical world. In Ps. 73:23, the king claims to be continually with God and to grasp his right hand. This indicates the conferral of privilege and charisma on the king.
  
• In Facsimile 3, Hor clasps hands with lady Ma’at and is introduced at the veil.
  

Part 3:

• According to D&C 132:29, Abraham has entered into his exaltation and sits upon his throne.
  
• Revelation refers to our becoming kings and priests and reigning on the earth.
  
• From this angle, the Facsimile presents a “type” of what would eventually occur for Abraham as a result of his faithfulness: his deification. When Abraham sits on the throne, he becomes the deified Osiris.
  
• The star imagery at the top of Facsimile 3 is reminiscent of the “dinger” symbol on the Mesopotamian cylinder symbols, which was originally a star but later just a web-shaped writing reminiscent of a cross. The stars were connected with deities, were included in the cylinder seals to mark the king as a divine being.
  
• The presence of the stars in Facsimile 3 are interesting because they connect back with the astrological imagery in chapter 3. JS uses this to introduce his material about the divine council.
  
• We find the same sort of view in the Hebrew Bible. There is evidence that some Israelite kings were considered deified, and participated in enthronement rituals that changed them from humans into gods. Enthronement = apotheosis.
  
• When we combine Joseph’s views with Ancient Near Eastern views, we get rich theological implications.
  

My main objection to David's argument is basically that it relies on some assumptions that he does not defend, and that I think are erroneous. Consider the following unsourced claims:

• Joseph Smith is not trying to reproduce an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents
  
• JS gives this document a new Sitz im Leben and thus a new meaning. This is what he is doing when he interprets the figures in Facsimile 3 in something other than the way the ancient Egyptians interpreted them.
  

I see no evidence that Joseph thought he was doing anything other than reproducing an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents. David's claim requires vigorous defense to overcome the prima facie evidence to the contrary. Why should we accept that when Joseph claimed King Pharaoh's name was given in the label above his head, he meant, "I am recontextualizing this document in order to make the labels above the figures' heads mean something other than what they meant to ancient Egyptians"?

Moreover, if David's claim is accepted, then why didn't Joseph make it clearer to his contemporaries what he was doing? Does not presenting his project as conventional translation constitute a fraud of sorts, albeit a "pious" one?

And finally, if Joseph was recontextualizing the document, why on earth should we assume that ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals can shed theological light on his recontextualization? Why not treat it as a nineteenth-century production? David's methodology here appears to be a slightly more reserved version of the Nibley-mish-mash approach to apologetics: cite evidence from times and cultures not directly relevant to the interpreted document in order to produce desirable results.

Best,

-Chris

[why me]

And finally, if Joseph was recontextualizing the document, why on earth should we assume that ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals can shed theological light on his recontextualization? Why not treat it as a nineteenth-century production? David's methodology here appears to be a slightly more reserved version of the Nibley-mish-mash approach to apologetics: cite evidence from times and cultures not directly relevant to the interpreted document in order to produce desirable results.

Best,

-Chris

And here is a better question: Why would JS risk his fraud by providing us with another fraud? And if it were a fraud, he must have known that someone with some expertise would expose him? Seems like a big risk to me, if I were a fraudster. I would have found it much more relaxing just to let sleeping dogs sleep, and continue with the original BoM fraud.

Unless of course, it wasn't a fraud.

[why me]

OMG! You are all nuts! Sorry, but the BoA is a FRAUD.

Really? Has it been proven to be a fraud? I must have missed that one. Where can I find conclusive proof that JS wrote the book? Do you know of a manuscript with rough drafts in his handwriting that would prove it so?

[Joseph Antley]

Moreover, if David's claim is accepted, then why didn't Joseph make it clearer to his contemporaries what he was doing? Does not presenting his project as conventional translation constitute a fraud of sorts, albeit a "pious" one?

My uneducated, faith-based opinion is that Joseph was never fully aware of what all he was doing; not knowing the beliefs and symbolic interpretations of the ancient Egyptians, he simply assumed what he was inspired by God to translate them as were what the ancient Egyptians would have translated them as.

[Chris Smith]

And here is a better question: Why would JS risk his fraud by providing us with another fraud? And if it were a fraud, he must have known that someone with some expertise would expose him? Seems like a big risk to me, if I were a fraudster. I would have found it much more relaxing just to let sleeping dogs sleep, and continue with the original BoM fraud.

Why wasn't Mark Hoffman content with his first fraud?

The first one worked so well; why stop? Why forfeit the benefits of ongoing fraud by letting sleeping dogs sleep, if you've proven you can pull it off?

[why me]

Why wasn't Mark Hoffman content with his first fraud?

The first one worked so well; why stop? Why forfeit the benefits of ongoing fraud by letting sleeping dogs sleep, if you've proven you can pull it off?

For Mark, there was financial reward. But for JS, I see no such incentive. The church was already drawing in members. He was the prophet, seer and revelator. The 'fraud' was working. Why risk success? Then, we need to also understand that Mark was discovered and handed justice. JS was never discovered to be a fraudster. To suddenly risk it all with a book of abraham does not make sense. And then, if the critics go with sidney as author of the BoM, then Sidney would have had a say in the BoA. And he would also be risking his great work--the book of mormon.

The stakes were too high. Something is amiss here.

What would be JS's intent with the book of abraham?

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Chris,

Thanks for listening to my ideas and taking the time to respond. I admit that an audio podcast is cumbersome and not an ideal forum for scholarly exchange, but it provides an opportunity to share some ideas without having to take the time to write them up.

Beside that, I can present my views in the context of playing songs like "Dirty Water," which is always fun.

The problem, of course, is that I may on occasion use a word or two that does not correctly reflect my views, so I recognize that I might at some point need to go back and revise a statement, etc.

However,

I see no evidence that Joseph thought he was doing anything other than reproducing an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents. David's claim requires vigorous defense to overcome the prima facie evidence to the contrary.

Joseph believed that he had in his possession â??the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrusâ? (see History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 248-351).

Hence, Joseph did not assume that he was reproducing an ancient Egyptian understanding of texts such as facsimile 3, Joseph believed that he was restoring the way Abraham used these documents to restore Abrahamâ??s life history and theological views.

Even Oliver Cowdery's attempt to interpret Joseph Smith Papyrus V presents the pictographic portrayals in terms of ancient Israelite tradition, including Satan's influence in the Garden of Eden, Enoch's pillar, etc.

Why should we accept that when Joseph claimed King Pharaoh's name was given in the label above his head, he meant, "I am recontextualizing this document in order to make the labels above the figures' heads mean something other than what they meant to ancient Egyptians"?

Iâ??ll grant that Joseph believed that he could correctly interpret the Hieroglyphics, but that does not equate to Joseph Smith restoring an ancient Egyptian understanding of these texts.

Moreover, if David's claim is accepted, then why didn't Joseph make it clearer to his contemporaries what he was doing? Does not presenting his project as conventional translation constitute a fraud of sorts, albeit a "pious" one?

I believe that Joseph assumed he was producing a literal translation when in fact he clearly was not. I believe that Joseph failed to recognize that he was in fact simply recontextualizing this document to depict ancient Near Eastern and biblical theological views regarding human deification/enthronement, premortal existence, and the divine council of deities, not to mention, obviously, events from the life of Abraham.

And finally, if Joseph was recontextualizing the document, why on earth should we assume that ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals can shed theological light on his recontextualization?

Clearly because the Egyptian drama derives from ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals that in the Ur IIII time period depict human deification. I believe that the deification of kings from this era had a tremendous cultural influence upon the ancient Semitic world, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, which served in part, as a polemical response to the sacred marriage rituals of the Neo-Sumerian time period.

I believe that the Epic of Gilgamesh, in turn, had a direct influence upon biblical myths and that Israelite kings, like their Canaanite counterparts, were deified via the process of enthronement.

These views regarding kingship and deification continue to have significance in the New Testament (see Revelation 1:6; 5:10, etc.).

So when Joseph Smith recontextualizes an Egyptian presentation scene to depict Abraham as the enthroned god/king in facsimile no. 3, Joseph has created an undeniable link between ancient Near Eastern and biblical views regarding enthronement and human deification that reflects Josephâ??s revelation regarding Abrahamâ??s present glorified state: â??[Abraham] hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throneâ? (D&C 132:29).

Why not treat it as a nineteenth-century production? David's methodology here appears to be a slightly more reserved version of the Nibley-mish-mash approach to apologetics: cite evidence from times and cultures not directly relevant to the interpreted document in order to produce desirable results.

Because of course facsimile no. 3 is not a nineteenth-century production, Chris. Historically, the Egyptian scene derives from ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals that depict a temple drama, and which during the Ur III period were connected with human deification, an ancient Semitic belief which in turn is a biblical concept restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

[LifeOnaPlate]

OMG! You are all nuts! Sorry, but the BoA is a FRAUD. Its amazing how deeply one will reach into the recesses of the mind to pull out an answer that rationalizes their faith! Just find me ONE peer reviewed article published in a scholarly journal by a real Egyptologist (LDS need not apply) who supports JS' interpretation!

I have no problem with your faith or beliefs, but here we are talking about actual printed material with JS own interpretation written for all the world to see so please, I'm beggin you to show me that you are not just breathing your own fumes on this one!

Maybe it would be wise to check out what David Bokovoy offered in the thread and then provide a response to actual points rather than simply exploding with ridicule.

[Sargon]

Just find me ONE peer reviewed article published in a scholarly journal by a real Egyptologist (LDS need not apply) who supports JS' interpretation!

Because, of course, no LDS could possibly be a real Egyptologist. What else can a LDS not be?

[Chris Smith]

David,

Before I reply, I'd like to better understand your position. You havenâ??t told us what you actually think the Book of Abraham is. Is it a record of a historical Abraham? Is it inspired pseudepigraphy set in ancient Mesopotamia? Is it an inspired nineteenth century production that parallels ancient Mesopotamian religion because ancient Mesopotamian religion was inspired too? Something else I haven't thought of?

Best,

-Chris

[Mortal Man]

Joseph did not assume that he was reproducing an ancient Egyptian understanding of texts such as facsimile 3, Joseph believed that he was restoring the way Abraham used these documents to restore Abrahamâ??s life history and theological views.

Let's take a look at what Joseph actually said concerning the facsimilies.

"Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians."

"...the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau..."

"...which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh..."

"...called by the Egyptians Oliblish..."

"...also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand..."

"...Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun"

So if I understand you correctly, in order to move beyond a perfunctory understanding of the facsimilies, we must realize that by "Egyptians" JS meant "Mesopotamians" and by "translation" he meant "recontextualization" and by "called in Egyptian" he meant "called in Hebrew"? And when he points to a specific hieroglyph on the papyrus and says, "There, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham," what he really means is "These are signature papyri of the deified Abraham who caused this breathing permit to be encoded with secret temple rites from the ancient Sumerians"?

[Bill Hamblin]

Let's take a look at what Joseph actually said concerning the facsimilies.

"Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians."

"...the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau..."

"...which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh..."

"...called by the Egyptians Oliblish..."

"...also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand..."

"...Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun"

So if I understand you correctly, in order to move beyond a perfunctory understanding of the facsimilies, we must realize that by "Egyptians" JS meant "Mesopotamians" and by "translation" he meant "recontextualization" and by "called in Egyptian" he meant "called in Hebrew"? And when he points to a specific hieroglyph on the papyrus and says, "There, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham," what he really means is "These are signature papyri of the deified Abraham who caused this breathing permit to be encoded with secret temple rites from the ancient Sumerians"?

Which Egyptians? Egyptian Semites? Egyptian Jews? Egyptian Nubians? Egyptian Libyans? Egyptian Greeks?

[e=mc2]

Which Egyptians? Egyptian Semites? Egyptian Jews? Egyptian Nubians? Egyptian Libyans? Egyptian Greeks?

Oh Bill! Quit muddying up the tidy picture of simplicity with the mess of historical facts......