Jump to content

The Facsimilies


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

Ok, let me first say that I know the Book of Abraham is the word of God. Whatever we can say about the English version of the text(catalyst,missing papyri), it does have an Abrahamic core. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Here is the heretical proposition, what if the Prophet Joseph Smith "over reached" with the explanatiuons of the facsimilies. What if the explanations are uninspired nonsense? Regardless of how the BoA was given to us by God, through the Prophet, isn't it possible that Joseph simply messed up with his identifying of the facsimilies?

I'm not making any definitive statements, just asking questians.

Link to comment

As for the BoA itself, I find it's description of Egyptian priesthood, geocentric astronomy and description of the Divine Council to be evidence of it's antiquity.

Also, I'm not certain that the OP is correct, it's just a possibility. It maybe that Joseph's explanations are correct, Egyptian and ancient and that they simply aren't represented in the surviving corpus of Egyptian materials.

lpext.jpg

... AIDIO ORICH THAMBITO, Abraham who at... PLANOIEGCHIBIOTH MOU ROU and the whole soul for her, NN [whom NN bore]... the female body of her, NN [whom NN bore], I conjure by the... [and] to inflame her, NN whom [NN bore] [Write these] words together with this picture [the lion couch vignette] on a new papyrus.

Notes

The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, Volume 12d edition

Link to comment

Ok, let me first say that I know the Book of Abraham is the word of God. Whatever we can say about the English version of the text(catalyst,missing papyri), it does have an Abrahamic core. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Here is the heretical proposition, what if the Prophet Joseph Smith "over reached" with the explanatiuons of the facsimilies. What if the explanations are uninspired nonsense? Regardless of how the BoA was given to us by God, through the Prophet, isn't it possible that Joseph simply messed up with his identifying of the facsimilies?

I'm not making any definitive statements, just asking questians.

It

Link to comment

"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." Abraham 1:12

Link to comment

"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." Abraham 1:12

Wow, I never saw that :P

Under the paradigm espoused in the OP, that verse, would be the cause of Joseph's possible confusion.

Link to comment

Ok, let me first say that I know the Book of Abraham is the word of God. Whatever we can say about the English version of the text(catalyst,missing papyri), it does have an Abrahamic core. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Here is the heretical proposition, what if the Prophet Joseph Smith "over reached" with the explanatiuons of the facsimilies. What if the explanations are uninspired nonsense? Regardless of how the BoA was given to us by God, through the Prophet, isn't it possible that Joseph simply messed up with his identifying of the facsimilies?

I'm not making any definitive statements, just asking questians.

Flip your paradigm: What if the facsimiles were imperfect in their state and watered down like parts of the Bible (under reached in their accounts) and the Spirit through Joseph Smith helped fill in the blanks?

Link to comment

Wow, I never saw that :P

Under the paradigm espoused in the OP, that verse, would be the cause of Joseph's possible confusion.

As I have argued repeatedly (and there is an entire thread in the Pundit's forum on this topic) the entire phrase: "I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record" is clearly a later, secondary emendation, inserted inter-linearly into the text. This may very well indicate that it is a 19th century redaction, rather than part of the original text.

Link to comment

Ok, let me first say that I know the Book of Abraham is the word of God. Whatever we can say about the English version of the text(catalyst,missing papyri), it does have an Abrahamic core. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Here is the heretical proposition, what if the Prophet Joseph Smith "over reached" with the explanatiuons of the facsimilies. What if the explanations are uninspired nonsense? Regardless of how the BoA was given to us by God, through the Prophet, isn't it possible that Joseph simply messed up with his identifying of the facsimilies?

I'm not making any definitive statements, just asking questians.

Unfortunately most of our knowledge and available material relating to the BoA just leads to more questions. It is not heretical to ask questions, especially if you maintain a connection with the spirit. And I think your question is a very good one. Joseph may have tried to apply the text to the images. There are tons of theories about it. The J-red theory, missing pages explanations, more mystical theories or even the view that Joseph just made it up. The view that Joseph made it up has got to be the weakest theory out there. It only has one main argument and that is that the facsimile explanations don't match modern Egyptology. It gives no explanation for similarities with other ancient texts and the presence of old world cosmology, Egyptian priesthood and divine council. It also looks past things that Joseph got right in his facsimile explanations, like names being listed over figures hands and four quarters of the earth representation etc. etc..

Your introduction of an overstepping bounds theory has just added to my list of possible explanations that I await answers for in the millennium.

Link to comment

How is it impossible to divorce the 2?

Since you and Kerry have studied this more than just about anyone on this board, I'm sure you can answer this for yourself.

I'll simply say that Kolob is central to both the central chapter and the central facsimile. There's also the fact that facsimile 3 marks the end of both books.

If Joseph is imperfect and fallible, then it is possible that he gave us Abraham's book, but messed up by incorrectly assuming the HBOB vignettes belonged to the BoA.

Once again, I must point out this thread, in which your fellow apologists vilified me for pointing out that sometimes people say what you just said.

If Abraham wrote a book with vignettes attached to it and Joseph incorrectly belives he is translating the Hor scroll,as he recieves the BoA via revelation, how is it impossible for Joseph to incorrectly assume that the Hor scroll contained the vignettes described in the BoA? He sees idols, bedsteads a figure hovering over some guy on a bed stead and says: "of course, here it is".

I've yet to see a good explanation as to why the Lord would dictate 5 entire chapters verbatim, yet fail to tell Joseph, "Oh BTW, that first section of the scroll isn't the BoA."

If the BoA was attached to the HorBOB, then it all makes sense. That BTW, is why I think Will, you, Ck and others are fighting over scroll length(long scroll=plausability).

If Will can prove that the snsn roll was long enough to accomodate a hieratic BoA, I will prostrate myself at his feet and beg his mercy.

Link to comment

Ok, let me first say that I know the Book of Abraham is the word of God. Whatever we can say about the English version of the text(catalyst,missing papyri), it does have an Abrahamic core. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Here is the heretical proposition, what if the Prophet Joseph Smith "over reached" with the explanatiuons of the facsimilies. What if the explanations are uninspired nonsense? Regardless of how the BoA was given to us by God, through the Prophet, isn't it possible that Joseph simply messed up with his identifying of the facsimilies?

I'm not making any definitive statements, just asking questians.

Just for the record, Pedro, I myself have gone back and forth on this question. That said, I believe there is very good reason to give Joseph Smith the benefit of doubt for the time being. I am of the firm opinion that there is much of the iconography that appears--just on the surface--to lend itself to the kind of adaptation alluded to in Kevin Barney's 2005 article that can be found here.

Despite the often confident pronouncements of critics of Mormonism that we now know how to "translate Egyptian," the fact is that our current ability to contextualize ancient Egyptian is effectively rudimentary at best, and utterly without clues in many, many instances, especially the more ancient the text. So, there ought to be some recognition of the fact that our understanding is still quite nascent and incomplete concerning Egyptian generally, and the use and meaning of temple liturgy in particular.

Link to comment

As I have argued repeatedly (and there is an entire thread in the Pundit's forum on this topic) the entire phrase: "I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record" is clearly a later, secondary emendation, inserted inter-linearly into the text. This may very well indicate that it is a 19th century redaction, rather than part of the original text.

The same can't be said for the "at the beginning" bit, though.

Link to comment

Just for the record, Pedro, I myself have gone back and forth on this question. That said, I believe there is very good reason to give Joseph Smith the benefit of doubt for the time being. I am of the firm opinion that there is much of the iconography that appears--just on the surface--to lend itself to the kind of adaptation alluded to in Kevin Barney's 2005 article that can be found here.

Despite the often confident pronouncements of critics of Mormonism that we now know how to "translate Egyptian," the fact is that our current ability to contextualize ancient Egyptian is effectively rudimentary at best, and utterly without clues in many, many instances, especially the more ancient the text. So, there ought to be some recognition of the fact that our understanding is still quite nascent and incomplete concerning Egyptian generally, and the use and meaning of temple liturgy in particular.

I agree. The way I see it, art and religion exist in what people say, write,do and think. Egyptology can only tell us what ancient Egyptians wrote and to lesser extant what they did. All of which is based on what has survived, as opposed to a totality of what existed anciently. Egyptology cannot tell us what was said or thought, anymore than reading my mission journal can tell you how I interpreted X scripture in the BoM through out the course of my life.

I never said the Prophet was wrong; I am merely entertaining the possibility.

If the BoA was attached to the Hor scroll, then there is nothing to talk about. It's an ancient readction all the way. If the BoA wasn't attached then I can't see any way around my OP.

Link to comment

I agree. The way I see it, art and religion exist in what people say, write,do and think. Egyptology can only tell us what ancient Egyptians wrote and to lesser extant what they did. All of which is based on what has survived, as opposed to a totality of what existed anciently. Egyptology cannot tell us what was said or thought, anymore than reading my mission journal can tell you how I interpreted X scripture in the BoM through out the course of my life.

I never said the Prophet was wrong; I am merely entertaining the possibility.

If the BoA was attached to the Hor scroll, then there is nothing to talk about. It's an ancient readction all the way. If the BoA wasn't attached then I can't see any way around my OP.

For anyone interested, my blog contains notes on the hypocephalus(fac 2).

Link to comment

Ok, let me first say that I know the Book of Abraham is the word of God. Whatever we can say about the English version of the text(catalyst,missing papyri), it does have an Abrahamic core. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Here is the heretical proposition, what if the Prophet Joseph Smith "over reached" with the explanatiuons of the facsimilies. What if the explanations are uninspired nonsense? Regardless of how the BoA was given to us by God, through the Prophet, isn't it possible that Joseph simply messed up with his identifying of the facsimilies?

I'm not making any definitive statements, just asking questians.

I really don't see "why" you have to go that direction. Did you ever consider that his explanations WERE "inspired"?

Did you know that one group does not have to have the same "translation" or "interpretation" as another group? Meaning, Abraham etc. would obviously have some differences in how they interpreted the symbols compared to the Egyptians, don't you think???

You do know that some of the translations of Josephs' DO have equivalents? Modern Egyptian translations as to what's the most common Egyptian view doesn't always tell you the less common views of the same material.

Lot's more, but you get the idea I hope....

Link to comment

Ok, let me first say that I know the Book of Abraham is the word of God. Whatever we can say about the English version of the text(catalyst,missing papyri), it does have an Abrahamic core. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Here is the heretical proposition, what if the Prophet Joseph Smith "over reached" with the explanatiuons of the facsimilies. What if the explanations are uninspired nonsense? Regardless of how the BoA was given to us by God, through the Prophet, isn't it possible that Joseph simply messed up with his identifying of the facsimilies?

I'm not making any definitive statements, just asking questians.

It would be a legitimate and face-saving position to contend that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and did receive real revelation, but when it came the papyrus, he got cocky and thought that he could do it again (translation) all by himself. He couldn't. Hence, the nonsense. All the church needs to do is de-canonize the BoA. Doesn't mean that JS wasn't a prophet, doesn't mean that the BoM isn't true, doesn't mean that the LDS church isn't true. The BoA gets relegated to the status of Kinderhook Plates.

Link to comment

Flip your paradigm: What if the facsimiles were imperfect in their state and watered down like parts of the Bible (under reached in their accounts) and the Spirit through Joseph Smith helped fill in the blanks?

THat is an interesting idea.

Link to comment

The Bibile cooberates the Idol worshiop of Terah.

Josh. 24: 2 2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other agods.

Terah's idol worship.

Abr 1

17 And this because they have turned their ahearts away from me, to worship the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; therefore I have come down to bvisit them, and to destroy him who hath lifted up his hand against thee, Abraham, my son, to take away thy life.

Link to comment

THat is an interesting idea.

I have always felt that the facsimilies were "assimilations" of egyptian art/figures by a Prophet of God to illustrate the Book of Abraham. I am agnostic as to whether that Prophet was Abraham himself, a later Egyptian Israelite Prophet (Joseph maybe), or Joseph Smith Jr. If I had to pick one, I think I would tend to the middle option, but that's just me. And I'm not learned on the subject.

- SlackTime

Link to comment

It would be a legitimate and face-saving position to contend that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and did receive real revelation, but when it came the papyrus, he got cocky and thought that he could do it again (translation) all by himself. He couldn't. Hence, the nonsense. All the church needs to do is de-canonize the BoA. Doesn't mean that JS wasn't a prophet, doesn't mean that the BoM isn't true, doesn't mean that the LDS church isn't true. The BoA gets relegated to the status of Kinderhook Plates.

The disbelievers' and apostates' fondest dream ...

Link to comment

The plain of Olishem has also been found in the correct date and location.

It doesn't matter that he got this right, he got so much wrong. Opps, he go it wrong.

Actually this is a pretty good one. Do we have a source for it?

Link to comment

Here is the heretical proposition, what if the Prophet Joseph Smith "over reached" with the explanatiuons of the facsimilies. What if the explanations are uninspired nonsense?

I agree your proposition is heretical.

There is a greater likelihood of President Monson translating the Book of Ham from the Kinderhook plates than the Church classifying Joseph Smith's explanations as "uninspired nonsense".

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...