Book of Abraham entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism

[William Schryver]

Huh? Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Stephen E. Thompson is LDS?

I try to evaluate the arguments on the merits. I don't care whether the person making them is LDS (Gee), non-LDS (Chris Smith), or something in between.

I have been extraordinarily occupied by my professional obligations today, but I will come back later and respond to some of the comments made by structurecop and others.

It should be noted that Stephen Thompson is not, nor has he been for many, many years, a believing Latter-day Saint. Nor is he even working anymore as an Egyptologist. Nor is he willing to even answer any inquiries about Book of Abraham issues anymore. IIRC, he is the principal of a private Jewish school in Florida. I exchanged e-mails with him a couple years back.

Not only that, but many of his previous criticisms of the Book of Abraham are based on faulty premises or flawed preconceptions. I may elaborate further, if I feel it warranted.

I must leave again now, but I will return later and attempt to reply to some of today's posts on this thread.

[structurecop]

Looks like I may be meeting with Dr. Richard Wilkinson in October, and I'll definitely ask him about "Shinehah," among other things.

[Mortal Man]

It should be noted that Stephen Thompson is not, nor has he been for many, many years, a believing Latter-day Saint.

Do you know when he left the church and under what circumstances? I assume he was a member in good standing when he wrote this.

[William Schryver]

structurecop:

Ah, so if someone isn't convinced that the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation of an ancient book then they are an insincere believer? Nice one.

Actually, I would say that if someone, after reading the Book of Abraham, isn't convinced that it is the word of God, it's because they don't recognize His voice.

So it's not particularly convincing to skeptics.

Of course not. In my experience, the kind of "skeptic" to which you refer can never be convinced of anything whose primary evidentiary components reside in the supernatural realm.

That doesn't mean, of course, that their conviction (that is, the one that derives from their acquisition of intelligence, light, truth, etc., from supernatural sources) cannot be confirmed, and even strengthened after a fashion, by evidence that resides in the realm of the empirical. Therefore (and by way of returning to the original question) I more or less concur with Rhodes' statement that "the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices."

.

.

.

ttribe:

As long as faith is a core requirement, I suspect nothing will be particularly "convincing to skeptics".

Hear, hear.

.

.

.

mrsr:

Perhaps I miss read William, he said that the one that originally made the claim was a non LDS egyptologist and that Gee brought that little bit of information to light to the apologetic front. IOW it wasn't Gee's work that equated Shinehah as being " a bona fide Egyptian term signifying the solar ecliptic" it was a non LDS egyptologist that did.

Correct.

"Shinehah," according to the respected Egyptologist Rolf Krauss, signifies the solar ecliptic.

.

.

.

stn9:

Any chance of someone posting an excerpt or two from Krauss's paper? How does he spell the word? Does he give it with or without vowels?

The paper is currently only available in German, and (to my knowledge) is not presently available online, even in its original language. However, Professor Gee has a soon-to-be-published paper that references Professor Krauss' paper (which, incidentally, is at least 15 years old--Gee simply had not noticed it until quite recently). I will see if John can forward me an English translation of the pertinent portion of the Krauss paper.

.

.

.

structurecop:

I don't care about the divinity of the Book of Abraham, any more than I care about the divinity of any book. I'm concerned about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, a question which should require little to no "faith" to answer.

In other words, "If thou wilt show me a sign, ... then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words."

How little you seem to understand the dynamics of questions such as these. It's no wonder, then, that your own faith has withered so.

That said, I would respond to your request as follows: "Thou hast had signs enough ..."

... you can't subscribe to both the "catalyst" and "missing scroll" theories!

Why not? Just as I do not believe Joseph Smith could have pointed to a particular plate from the Book of Mormon and said, "This is the account of the confrontation between Alma and Korihor," neither do I believe he could have necessarily pointed to column of hieratic text on the scrolls he possessed and said, "This is where Abraham's account of the creation begins."

In other words, I think the evidence is clear that Joseph Smith did NOT "translate" the scrolls in the conventional fashion. Rather, he received by revelation the text of the Book of Abraham; precisely as he had previously received the text of the Book of Mormon.

Nevertheless, I do believe that there was an Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham on the scroll of Horos. Not only that, but I have come to believe that the Document of Fellowship Written by Isis had a logical relationship (in the mind of the scroll's owner) with the Book of Abraham text that I believe followed it on the scroll. I believe that it constituted (in a manner of speaking) Hor's "temple recommend."

Looks like I may be meeting with Dr. Richard Wilkinson in October, and I'll definitely ask him about "Shinehah," among other things.

I'm not quite sure why you think Wilkinson, an archaeologist, will necessarily have any knowledge of, let alone expertise which he might bring to bear on this question. That said, I look forward to your report of the meeting. I would imagine that he can, at the very least, inquire of others as to Professor Krauss' credentials and the meaning of the term "shinehah." As I indicated previously, its meaning, as argued by Krauss, is not in dispute.

.

.

.

Mortal Man:

(speaking of Stephen Thompson)

Do you know when he left the church and under what circumstances?

As for his reasons, I would not presume to speak in his behalf.

As for the time, it was at least as early (1994, IIRC) as the time when his friend David P. Wright was excommunicated for apostasy. Thompson spoke in Wright's behalf at the disciplinary council. It is clear from Wright's account of the episode that Thompson had already become a disbeliever by that point in time.

[structurecop]

structurecop:

In other words, "If thou wilt show me a sign, ... then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words."

Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. Joseph Smith presented us with a "translation" of a document that was physically in his possession. He didn't claim to clairvoyantly receive the text. He translated writing from one language to another. That is a mundane claim. Whether he did it through the power of God, Urim and Thummim, seer stone, mirrors, or whatever else is certainly a spiritual question. But that is not question. My question is: does the translated material match what was originally written on the papyri? In the case of the facsimiles, which we do have, the answer seems to clearly be "no."

How little you seem to understand the dynamics of questions such as these. It's no wonder, then, that your own faith has withered so.

Right, Will, I'm faithless because I'm dumb.

Why not?

I was joking.

I'm not quite sure why you think Wilkinson, an archaeologist, will necessarily have any knowledge of, let alone expertise which he might bring to bear on this question.

Where do you think the research on ancient Egyptian linguistics takes place? It just so happens that Dr. Wilkinson is on the editorial board of the Egyptology journal Kmt where Dr. Rolf Krauss has recently (Summer 2009) published an article on the Nefertiti bust. It is the cover story, no less.

That said, I look forward to your report of the meeting. I would imagine that he can, at the very least, inquire of others as to Professor Krauss' credentials and the meaning of the term "shinehah." As I indicated previously, its meaning, as argued by Krauss, is not in dispute.

I'm sure he won't need to "inquire of others," as I have demonstrated. And whether the meaning is in dispute or not, I will find out whether applying the term to the sun itself is reasonable.

[ttribe]

Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. Joseph Smith presented us with a "translation" of a document that was physically in his possession. He didn't claim to clairvoyantly receive the text. He translated writing from one language to another. That is a mundane claim. Whether he did it through the power of God, Urim and Thummim, seer stone, mirrors, or whatever else is certainly a spiritual question.

I wasn't aware that it was in dispute whether JS claimed to have performed the translation by virtue of the power of God. Assuming that it is not in dispute, do you really believe that his claim remains "mundane" and subject to each and every physical or mental limitation you would seek to place on it?

[structurecop]

I wasn't aware that it was in dispute whether JS claimed to have performed the translation by virtue of the power of God. Assuming that it is not in dispute, do you really believe that his claim remains "mundane" and subject to each and every physical or mental limitation you would seek to place on it?

It is mundane because there is the translation, and there is the material translated from. It's really quite simple. What happened in between is a matter of faith, obviously.

[ttribe]

It is mundane because there is the translation, and there is the material translated from. It's really quite simple. What happened in between is a matter of faith, obviously.

So, same goes for the BoM?

[structurecop]

So, same goes for the BoM?

If we had the plates I suppose, yes, it would be the same.

[ttribe]

If we had the plates I suppose, yes, it would be the same.

So, let's assume for a moment, that it is made evident (and indisputable) that the papyri we have in our possession are NOT the ones used for "translation" of the BoA; how does that change your inquiry on this matter?

[structurecop]

So, let's assume for a moment, that it is made evident (and indisputable) that the papyri we have in our possession are NOT the ones used for "translation" of the BoA; how does that change your inquiry on this matter?

I cease caring because the translation becomes unfalsifiable.

[ttribe]

I cease caring because the translation becomes unfalsifiable.

So then, as a curiosity, is your inquiry an intellectual pursuit or a spiritual one?

[structurecop]

So then, as a curiosity, is your inquiry an intellectual pursuit or a spiritual one?

Intellectual. I've already stated my spiritual feelings about the Book of Abraham.

[Obiwan]

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry about the BOA facsimiles states "the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/EoM,5528

What does it mean that his "explanations . . . accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices?" Does this mean that JS's explanations reflect accurate translations of the facsimilies? Doesn't this fly in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary?

Joseph only indicated a "couple" of things in the facsimiles that do not match the most "accepted" translations. The rest he got right. So, what "mountain of evidence" are you speaking of?

[ttribe]

Intellectual. I've already stated my spiritual feelings about the Book of Abraham.

I'm just trying to clarify...do you really think the two can be separated, given the material at hand?

[structurecop]

I'm just trying to clarify...do you really think the two can be separated, given the material at hand?

I suspect my spiritual feelings/treatment of the BoA have/will be affected by my intellectual inquiries, but not really any more than they have been affected by my inquiries into the development of the biblical canon, pseudepigraphical traditions, midrashes, the Talmud, etc.

[Anijen]

Structurecop we don't have the papyrus portion that contained the BoA it was lost in the Chicago fire. So how is it possible to do a translation from a portion that no longer exists?

[ttribe]

I suspect my spiritual feelings/treatment of the BoA have/will be affected by my intellectual inquiries, but not really any more than they have been affected by my inquiries into the development of the biblical canon, pseudepigraphical traditions, midrashes, the Talmud, etc.

So, again for clarification, are you saying that the influence is not a two-way street? That the intellectual affects the spiritual, but not vice versa?

[structurecop]

Structurecop we don't have the papyrus portion that contained the BoA it was lost in the Chicago fire. So how is it possible to do a translation from a portion that no longer exists?

That's debatable, of course, but you do have the facsimiles. They're in your scriptures.

[structurecop]

So, again for clarification, are you saying that the influence is not a two-way street? That the intellectual affects the spiritual, but not vice versa?

No, I'm not saying that. Of course the spiritual can affect the intellectual.

[ttribe]

No, I'm not saying that. Of course the spiritual can affect the intellectual.

In this case, then, does the spiritual influence your intellectual pursuits insomuch as you are willing to accept something other than the extant criticisms as possible explanations for our obtaining of the BoA?

[structurecop]

In this case, then, does the spiritual influence your intellectual pursuits insomuch as you are willing to accept something other than the extant criticisms as possible explanations for our obtaining of the BoA?

I subscribe to the catalyst theory. Does that answer your question?

[ttribe]

I subscribe to the catalyst theory. Does that answer your question?

Cutting to the chase...cool. Yeah, that answers my question. Just looking for some context.

[structurecop]

Cutting to the chase...cool. Yeah, that answers my question. Just looking for some context.

You bet!

[Obiwan]

Sorry, had to delurke just to remind people how ridiculous this all is. Joseph was clear in his claims.

Clear according to what, your negative ignorance of the entire issue?

The Papyrus was written by the hand of Abraham. There was also a portion written by Joseph.

Neither of these things are true.

The Papyrus most certainly could have been written by Abraham. 1st we don't even have the actual papyrus Joseph translated from, and don't say we do, because facsimiles are a dime a dozen, and the supposed "original" simply wouldn't have ended up in a library to discover later. Clearly what was found was some of the "junk" Joseph gave away, working copies of parchment he MESSED WITH, not the "actual" claimed Book of Abraham. Do you really think he would have "wrote on" the ORIGINAL THING, and it end up in some library clearly donated by someone who got rid of JUNK after someone died???? Duh, McFly!!!

On Facsimile 3, Joseph clearly indicated that the individuals shown were Abraham, Pharoah, a Prince of Egypt, a slave and a butler. None of this is true. Joseph also clearly states that the names of these individuals is written in the characters above their heads or hands. Also patently untrue.

If you actually studied this issue according to ALL of the evidences, you would realize that such "scenes" could have several interpretations ACCORDING TO THE GROUP that was using the imagery. Just because Joseph translated something differently than the "common" modern understanding doesn't mean they never served the purpose he indicated.

Joseph was wrong. The catalyst theory is really the only one left that makes any sense, and even that is flawed because it indicates that either Joseph was lying (the names above their hands are not correct) or that he was self deceived, and believed he was making a true translation when he really wasn't.

Nope, the catalyst theory is not at all the only one left. Maybe in your mind, but not in ours whom have really delved into the materials to find out the truth. We aren't interested in being deceived, but clearly you are by taking "face value" judgments of anti's as if the actual whole truth.

The Facsimiles are referenced in the text of the BOA, so belong to it. They cannot be divorced. And while he may have got lucky and used a word for sun that is similar to an egyptian one for ecliptic, he was wrong on many many others.

Know-one is saying they should be "divorced", but you ignoring that there likely was more than one copy of the facsimiles does not make the attached found parchment as being what was claimed to be the Book of Abraham. There is one other thing you forgot. Joseph was actually studying the language, as well as others. So, clearly if he was trying to pass off the materials as something real when they were a fraud, other's would have figured it out.

Sigh, the BOA is only defensible with the catalyst theory. The facsimiles clearly are not what Joseph claimed them to be.

Again, facsimiles are a dime a dozen..... The important part is the Book itself that was translated.

Further, why are you arguing. Even if it was actually a catalyst, and Joseph simply made a normal human error thinking it was the actual deal, because after all it revealed the book to his mind likely when he touched or was near it, what the flip does it matter???? Ever heard of not condemning the things of God because of the mistakes of men??? Read the book itself, and also read the scholarship on the subjects therein in relation to history. I'm guessing you haven't read much of anything, because if you had, you would find that the book and the subjects therein are consistent in many respects to the history of the period itself, Abraham, etc... Definitely of God, not man or satan.