Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[kolipoki09]

During my week break between semesters I've had lot of time on my hands.......most recently spending time discussing various apsects of the truthfulness of the Gospel on the unofficial "FAIR: Defending Mormonism" facebook page. One particular critic that tends to troll on the page is named Doug Keller, who's raised some challenging arguments which sound reasonable, but I'm sensing there are more answers out there than he's leading up to. Most recently the comment was made:

"In the case of the papyri rediscovered in 1966, is it the official stance of the LDS church now that those fragments were not the original papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham?

Even if that's the case and it's just a copy and not the original, what about the portions that line us with Smith's translation notes - and the real English translation of those Egyptian characters, now that we know how to translate from ancient Egyptian into modern English? Even if it's a copy, rather than the original, why don't the English version from Smith's notes match the real translation?"

Facebook Thread

There are a few other discussion topics that have been brought up......feel free to browse and make suggestions.

[ttribe]

I'd start here: FAIR Link

[Eldwynn]

During my week break between semesters I've had lot of time on my hands.......most recently spending time discussing various apsects of the truthfulness of the Gospel on the unofficial "FAIR: Defending Mormonism" facebook page. One particular critic that tends to troll on the page is named Doug Keller, who's raised some challenging arguments which sound reasonable, but I'm sensing there are more answers out there than he's leading up to. Most recently the comment was made:

"In the case of the papyri rediscovered in 1966, is it the official stance of the LDS church now that those fragments were not the original papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham?

Even if that's the case and it's just a copy and not the original, what about the portions that line us with Smith's translation notes - and the real English translation of those Egyptian characters, now that we know how to translate from ancient Egyptian into modern English? Even if it's a copy, rather than the original, why don't the English version from Smith's notes match the real translation?"

Facebook Thread

There are a few other discussion topics that have been brought up......feel free to browse and make suggestions.

Just shut your eyes. Pray, and never go to that facebook page again. On a serious note, does anyone have an explanation for the following?

If I open a Book of Abraham, and turn to one of the three Facsimile I can read a description underneath. I would imagine that Joseph Smith had something to do with those descriptions underneath? If not, who does?

Now, I don't know anything about the Egyptian language, but according to many bright people in the field, whoever wrote that, was dead wrong. The names of the God's are wrong, the scenes depicted are wrong. Here is an article, that while it has many faults, I think it at least does a good job showing them side by side with experts opinions.

http://www.mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm

It's been a couple months since I read FAIR's or FARMS work on this... do they explain the obvious discrepancy? Why has the church not changed the Book of Abraham?

[William Schryver]

Just shut your eyes. Pray, and never go to that facebook page again. On a serious note, does anyone have an explanation for the following?

If I open a Book of Abraham, and turn to one of the three Facsimile I can read a description underneath. I would imagine that Joseph Smith had something to do with those descriptions underneath? If not, who does?

Now, I don't know anything about the Egyptian language, but according to many bright people in the field, whoever wrote that, was dead wrong. The names of the God's are wrong, the scenes depicted are wrong. Here is an article, that while it has many faults, I think it at least does a good job showing them side by side with experts opinions.

http://www.mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm

It's been a couple months since I read FAIR's or FARMS work on this... do they explain the obvious discrepancy? Why has the church not changed the Book of Abraham?

There has actually been a considerable amount of material generated just recently concerning the nature of Facsimile #3 as an ancient enthronement scene; or in other words, the individual is being introduced to the king (god), who takes him in a ritual clasp, and then places him upon the throne. Nibley wrote about this to some degree, and now the topic has been taken up by Kerry Shirts, and most recently, David Bokovoy. There is a thread not too far back on the list where David discusses this very thing. It is quite fascinating.

The bottom line is that there is much misinformation about the KEP and the BoA out there right now, on both sides of the argument. Sifting through the garbage to find the occasional jewel is not a simple undertaking. I will, as soon as I can find the time to finish it up, be commencing a new thread with an essay that will discuss another aspect of the relationship between the KEP and the Book of Abraham.

[Chris Smith]

There has actually been a considerable amount of material generated just recently concerning the nature of Facsimile #3 as an ancient enthronement scene; or in other words, the individual is being introduced to the king (god), who takes him in a ritual clasp, and then places him upon the throne. Nibley wrote about this to some degree, and now the topic has been taken up by Kerry Shirts, and most recently, David Bokovoy. There is a thread not too far back on the list where David discusses this very thing. It is quite fascinating.

I don't believe David argued this was an "enthronement scene". Rather, he argued that the Sumerian precedent for this Egyptian scene shows a person being introduced into the presence of a deified king. Since Abraham is on the throne, he plays the part of the deified king. David's argument is basically, "how could Joseph have known that making Abraham be the figure on the throne would mean he was deified?" or something to that effect. Frankly, David's argument is pretty hard to swallow. The scene Joseph was interpreting was Egyptian, not Sumerian, the explanation says nothing really about Abraham being deified, and David's explanation does not solve the problem of the misinterpretation of the labels. In fact, David's view of the translation process here is extremely non-literal and liberal. Once you've gone that far, you might as well just give up the "ancient context" apologetic altogether and set the darn thing in the nineteenth century.

Just my 2 cents.

-Chris

[David Bokovoy]

I don't believe David argued this was an "enthronement scene". Rather, he argued that the Sumerian precedent for this Egyptian scene shows a person being introduced into the presence of a deified king. Since Abraham is on the throne, he plays the part of the deified king. David's argument is basically, "how could Joseph have known that making Abraham be the figure on the throne would mean he was deified?" or something to that effect. Frankly, David's argument is pretty hard to swallow. The scene Joseph was interpreting was Egyptian, not Sumerian, the explanation says nothing really about Abraham being deified, and David's explanation does not solve the problem of the misinterpretation of the labels. In fact, David's view of the translation process here is extremely non-literal and liberal. Once you've gone that far, you might as well just give up the "ancient context" apologetic altogether and set the darn thing in the nineteenth century.

Just my 2 cents.

-Chris

It appears that there is still a bit of confusion concerning my views, which is to be expected since I have not produced much of it via a written form.

In sum, I maintain that for Latter-day Saints, there exist two separate layers to facsimile 3. One is as an ancient Egyptian presentation scene that derives from Mesopotamia. From an Egyptian perspective, the portrayal presents the deceased, albeit fully deified, Horus entering the presence of Osiris. There is no enthronement in this layer.

The second layer is the inspired reinterpretation of the scene given via the Prophet Joseph Smith which adapts these Egyptian symbols as a depiction of an event that occurred in Abraham's life. In so doing, Joseph places Abraham upon the throne.

From an ancient Near Eastern perspective, Joseph's adaptation of this scene presents Abraham as a deified king. Mesopotamian artisans from the Ur III time period did the exact same thing, placing their rulers in the position of the enthroned deity. Hence, Joseph's inspired adaptation of these symbols presents the facsimile as a prefiguration of Abraham's deification and enthronement discussed in D&C 132 in a manner consistent with Near Eastern and biblical tradition.

In addition, both layers feature a number of ancient Near Eastern temple themes connected with modern LDS worship.

I do not maintain that any of this information proves that Joseph was a true prophet on the basis that Joseph could not have known that by adapting the Egyptian presentation scene to depict an event from Abraham's life, Joseph created a type for Abraham's exaltation consistent with Near Eastern imagery.

I could see how some could view this information as evidence to the fact, however, my interest is purely interpretive. Evidence means nothing to me. I believe Joseph was a true prophet, inspired of God, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

best,

--DB

[Nyal]

Evidence means nothing to me. I believe Joseph was a true prophet, inspired of God, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

Wow.

[volgadon]

David, what you are saying in essence is that the facsimilies are illustrations, much like illustration in Bible study guides (or history books for that matter) where what is important is that it illustrates a principle or event, even if it bears no direct relation to the events?

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Volgadon,

David, what you are saying in essence is that the facsimilies are illustrations, much like illustration in Bible study guides (or history books for that matter) where what is important is that it illustrates a principle or event, even if it bears no direct relation to the events?

That's a nice analogy, as long as we remember that with any metaphor, if we push the analogy too far, the connection eventually breaks down.

The facsimiles in the BofA are an example of syncretism. From start to finish, the Bible itself derives from this same process. Without Babel there would be no Bible. I'm convinced that a familiarity with Akkadian and the literary sources from ancient Mesopotamia, for example, are just as important for properly understanding the Bible (especially the Pentateuch) as a knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic.

Much like the Prophet Joseph Smith, biblical scribes simply adopted and adapted these foreign sources as a means of conveying their own theological perspectives.

[John Williams]

Hello Volgadon,

That's a nice analogy, as long as we remember that with any metaphor, if we push the analogy too far, the connection eventually breaks down.

The facsimiles in the BofA are an example of syncretism. From start to finish, the Bible itself derives from this same process. Without Babel there would be no Bible. I'm convinced that a familiarity with Akkadian and the literary sources from ancient Mesopotamia, for example, are just as important for properly understanding the Bible (especially the Pentateuch) as a knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic.

Much like the Prophet Joseph Smith, biblical scribes simply adopted and adapted these foreign sources as a means of conveying their own theological perspectives.

So, let me see if I'm understanding you, David. You are suggesting that Joseph took the papyri and adapted the depictions (in an inspired way, of course) to convey his own theological perspective.

If that's true, then the Book of Mormon is not, then, a "translation" (at least in any sense we would understand) of the papyri but rather a creative adaptation with origins in the nineteenth century and reflecting Joseph Smith's mind and inspiration.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello John,

So, let me see if I'm understanding you, David. You are suggesting that Joseph took the papyri and adapted the depictions (in an inspired way, of course) to convey his own theological perspective.

If that's true, then the Book of Mormon is not, then, a "translation" (at least in any sense we would understand) of the papyri but rather a creative adaptation with origins in the nineteenth century and reflecting Joseph Smith's mind and inspiration.

Book of Abraham Yes, that's exactly correct. If we're simply talking about evidence, then I don't believe there is enough evidence to support the idea that Abraham even existed, let alone that he or a group of Hellenistic Egyptian Jews produced a record of Abraham's life that Joseph Smith translated.

Don't get me wrong. Evidence is important for establishing historical meaning and the proper dating and interpreting of texts and as an academically trained Biblicist, I place considerable emphasis upon the process of creating knowledge via evidence.

However, evidence is irrelevant to my spiritual convictions.

[John Williams]

Hello John,

Book of Abraham Yes, that's exactly correct. If we're simply talking about evidence, then I don't believe there is enough evidence to support the idea that Abraham even existed, let alone that he or a group of Hellenistic Egyptian Jews produced a record of Abraham's life that Joseph Smith translated.

Yeah, you got me. I meant Book of Abraham.

Don't get me wrong. Evidence is important for establishing historical meaning and the proper dating and interpreting of texts and as an academically trained Biblicist, I place considerable emphasis upon the process of creating knowledge via evidence.

However, evidence is irrelevant to my spiritual convictions.

I really appreciate that clarification, David. Surfed any lately? Alas, nothing for me until I go home this summer.

[David Bokovoy]

David. Surfed any lately? Alas, nothing for me until I go home this summer.

Alas, no. And to make matter worse, Spring and Fall are the two best seasons for surfing in New England. I've been trying to push through and finish my PhD this year. Still, heading to Florida next week with the family for a little beach break.

best,

--DB

[Mormon Questioner]

So David you are saying that Joseph used the Book of Abraham "source" as inspiration for an inspired revelation? And that it wasn't a translation of anything? And when Joseph said that the papyri held the writings of Joseph and Abraham he was wrong, or mistaken?

That is a new one, and really puts into question Joseph's abilities as a translator. If that is true, then an argument could easily be made that the Book of Mormon is not historical either, that whatever plates he had were irrelevant or were just a catalyst for revelation.

That is a HUGE change from standard Mormon positions on Joseph's translations.

But honestly your position is about the only one that TBM's have left really, it is obvious that he was totally wrong with the facsimiles.

[dblagent007]

My sense is that many pro-Mormon theories are migrating from something that was once testable to something that cannot be tested. For example, the original theory of the BoA was that Joseph Smith actually translated the markings on the papyri. This theory can be tested and proven (at least now it can). The new theories that supplant these earlier, incorrect theories - e.g., David's theory given in this thread - cannot be realistically tested. My prediction is that most of the current controversies surrounding Mormonism will end up in a stalemate of this nature (untestable theories will support the faith).

Edited to clarify that I when I say "new" I am referring generally to theories proposed in the last half of the 20th century up through to today.

[Mighty Curelom]

"In the case of the papyri rediscovered in 1966, is it the official stance of the LDS church now that those fragments were not the original papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham?

I just want to point out that there is no "official stance" with respect to the JS papyri (or any apologetic/controversial topic, for that matter). Church leaders are more than happy to benefit from lay-apologists floating theories; they're less enthusiastic about accepting the risk that comes from attachment to any distinct position.

[Jason]

I sure hope that, 150 years from now, someone doesn't take my notebook where I doodled around and wrote scraps of poetry and call this absolute proof that I knew nothing about writing.

[Nyal]

My sense is that many pro-Mormon theories are migrating from something that was once testable to something that cannot be tested. For example, the original theory of the BoA was that Joseph Smith actually translated the markings on the papyri. This theory can be tested and proven (at least now it can). The new theories that supplant these earlier, incorrect theories - e.g., David's theory given in this thread - cannot be realistically tested. My prediction is that most of the current controversies surrounding Mormonism will end up in a stalemate of this nature (untestable theories will support the faith).

This is quite good. Excellent synopsis.

[ttribe]

My sense is that many pro-Mormon theories are migrating from something that was once testable to something that cannot be tested. For example, the original theory of the BoA was that Joseph Smith actually translated the markings on the papyri. This theory can be tested and proven (at least now it can). The new theories that supplant these earlier, incorrect theories - e.g., David's theory given in this thread - cannot be realistically tested. My prediction is that most of the current controversies surrounding Mormonism will end up in a stalemate of this nature (untestable theories will support the faith).

Interesting...I was first introduced to the "catalyst" idea for the papyri 20 years ago in seminary class...maybe this isn't such a new idea after all?

[Jason]

My sense is that many pro-Mormon theories are migrating from something that was once testable to something that cannot be tested. For example, the original theory of the BoA was that Joseph Smith actually translated the markings on the papyri. This theory can be tested and proven (at least now it can).

Not unless we're sure we have all the papyri he supposedly used, which we aren't.

[dblagent007]

Interesting...I was first introduced to the "catalyst" idea for the papyri 20 years ago in seminary class...maybe this isn't such a new idea after all?

I think the last 20 years would certainly qualify as new and prossibly even back further than that. The original BoA theory came from Joseph Smith so a theory proposed in the last while could certainly be considered new.

[ttribe]

I think the last 20 years would certainly qualify as new and prossibly even back further than that. The original BoA theory came from Joseph Smith so a theory proposed in the last while could certainly be considered new.

Whatever floats your boat, but it would do you well to clarify in your latest criticism that this idea didn't just pop up yesterday in response to the latest round of "BoA is a fraud" exclamations.

[John Williams]

Whatever floats your boat, but it would do you well to clarify in your latest criticism that this idea didn't just pop up yesterday in response to the latest round of "BoA is a fraud" exclamations.

Of course the catalyst theory has been around a long time, but I must say I was surprised that David has resigned himself to it. If, as David says, the BofA is a creative reinterpretation of the papyri done by Joseph Smith, then it is no longer falsifiable as "fraud" or not because there's nothing objective by which to validate or invalidate it. Essentially, we're left with determining whether it was inspired or not. David's spiritual experiences lead him to believe it was inspired.

[William Schryver]

My sense is that many pro-Mormon theories are migrating from something that was once testable to something that cannot be tested. For example, the original theory of the BoA was that Joseph Smith actually translated the markings on the papyri. This theory can be tested and proven (at least now it can). The new theories that supplant these earlier, incorrect theories - e.g., David's theory given in this thread - cannot be realistically tested. My prediction is that most of the current controversies surrounding Mormonism will end up in a stalemate of this nature (untestable theories will support the faith).

For the record, I don't believe along those lines. Nor do Professors Gee and Hauglid, and many others who are presently studying the original sources.

I understand David's posture on this, but I think it is: 1) being somewhat misunderstood by readers on this thread; and 2) flawed and somewhat uninformed. And I say that with all due respect for David.

I do disagree that there is any such thing as a "theory" that "Joseph Smith actually translated the markings of the papyri." I don't believe Joseph Smith ever did such a thing, whether with the Book of Mormon, D&C 7, or the Book of Abraham. That said, I absolutely do believe that Joseph Smith produced modern renditions of authentic ancient texts. Furthermore, I am convinced that, in the case of the Book of Mormon, the text produced is an English facsimile of the "Reformed Egyptian" original text that appeared on actual metallic plates. I am also convinced that, in the case of the Book of Abraham, the text produced is an English facsimile of an Egyptian original written on papyrus by Hellenistic Egyptian Jews, and that that original text was in Joseph Smith's possession at the time he produced his "translation".

I am also persuaded that the existing facsimiles have a definite relationship to that Abraham text, albeit one not currently appreciated by any but a few students and professors of Egyptology and Hebrew adaptations of Egyptian/Mesopotamian iconography.

I believe that the debate has been dominated far too long by inaccurate and incomplete information. I hope to see that change dramatically in the coming few years. Indeed, it has already changed, but it will take time for those changes to become evident to the public at large.

[ttribe]

Of course the catalyst theory has been around a long time, but I must say I was surprised that David has resigned himself to it. If, as David says, the BofA is a creative reinterpretation of the papyri done by Joseph Smith, then it is no longer falsifiable as "fraud" or not because there's nothing objective by which to validate or invalidate it. Essentially, we're left with determining whether it was inspired or not. David's spiritual experiences lead him to believe it was inspired.

Frankly, that's pretty much true of any writing which claims to be "scripture".