Is this statement true?

[charity]

If you had spent half the time reading the Book of Abraham, that you spent on trying to criticize it, you would be a lot better off.

[Jason]

They "really" mean that Joseph couldn't translate Egyptian no matter how much obfuscation is attempted through apologetic misdirection.

So, since you dodged the question, I take it you don't know how someone who could translate Egyptian would translate the charcters in Facsimile 3?

[Jason]

Pahoran is quite right. The full title of the Book of Mormon is really The Book of Mormon: an Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi.

Look - there's that "by the hand of" in the title again!

[mfbukowski]

"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt; called The Book of Abraham, Written by his Own Hand on Papyrus."

I like that one even better!

[phaedrus ut]

So, since you dodged the question, I take it you don't know how someone who could translate Egyptian would translate the charcters in Facsimile 3?

How is that dodging the question. No I've seen it translated many times. From the top of my head I've read translations from Klaus Baer, Stephen Thompson, Michael Rhodes, John Gee, & Robert Ritner. Can I translate them myself? No

If you'd like to argue that the translation is correct I'd be more than happy to discuss the matter.

Phaedrus

[Jason]

How is that dodging the question. No I've seen it translated many times. From the top of my head I've read translations from Klaus Baer, Stephen Thompson, Michael Rhodes, John Gee, & Robert Ritner.

I asked you what modern translators say the characters "really" say. You have yet to provide this. That's a dodge in my book.

I will also note that what letters or characters "really" say is entirely dependent on who the author and reader are. If they are from the same culture and attempting to communicate in the same language then it's reasonable to say "this is what was intended". If we have a hebrew borrowing egyptian symbols, however, things become significantly more iffy.

[Lachoneus]

That is not accurate.

. . . .

To assert "by his own hand" is a meaningless addition to the title is simply inaccurate.

Dr Nibley would have disagreed with you.

Two important and peculiar aspects of ancient authorship must be considered when we are told that a writing is by the hand of Abraham or anybody else. One is that according to Egyptian and Hebrew thinking any copy of a book originally written by Abraham would be regarded and designated as the very work of his hand forever after, no matter how many reproductions had been made and handed down through the years. The other is that no matter who did the writing originally, if it was Abraham who commissioned or directed the work, he would take the credit for the actual writing of the document, whether he penned it or not.

As to the first point, when a holy book (usually a leather roll) grew old and worn out from handling, it was not destroyed but renewed. . . . .

So when we read "the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus," we are to understand, as the Mormons always have, that this book, no matter how often "renewed," is still the writing of Abraham and no one else; for he commissioned it or, "according to the accepted Egyptian expression," wrote it himself

[jmordecai]

Yes. It is.

"Nuh uh" isn't an argument.

Ah. An appeal to authority. How compelling. Or something.

Your position that "written by his own hand" is "nothing more or less than part of the title", is refuted by the LDS sources cited.

What's "simply inaccurate" is attributing to me any assertion to the effect that "by his own hand" is meaningless. That is a straw man.

The colophon in the title is not meaningless at all; it has an important meaning: it claims authorship.

That's authorship. Not penmanship.

The two things are not the same.

Regards,

Pahoran

Now you contradicting your own original statement... so "by his own hand" is "nothing more or less than part of the title" or a statement of authorship? Which is it?

[Black Moclips]

Pahoran - So what is the supporting evidence that "written by his own hand, upon papyrus" is really just a title and does not actually mean what it says it means? I'm curious about the support for this idea.

[Black Moclips]

It seems most people are in favor of some additional information and clarification with regards to how the Book of Abraham is presented. Also note that the missing papyrus theory is very alive and well. I wonder what a revised description in the manual might look like? I offer the following as a possible revision to Gospel Principles:

"The title of this work is as follows: THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM - WRITTEN BY HIS OWN HAND, UPON PAPYRUS. The text of this book of scripture was revealed to Joseph Smith by the power of God as he contemplated some ancient Egyptian papyri that came into his possession. The work is not a translation in the normal sense of the word, as 1) Joseph Smith did not know ancient Egyptian and 2)the church does have in its possession any papyri containing what modern egyptologists would translate as the text of the Book of Abraham. Such a papyrus with the actual words of Abraham may or may not have ever existed; we simply do not know as some records have been lost over time. But we rely on this book as revealed scripture and consider it to be the word of God".

What would be wrong with such an entry in Gospel Principles? Is this too much information? Why or why not?

[Jason]

It seems most people are in favor of some additional information and clarification with regards to how the Book of Abraham is presented. Also note that the missing papyrus theory is very alive and well. I wonder what a revised description in the manual might look like? I offer the following as a possible revision to Gospel Principles:

"The title of this work is as follows: THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM - WRITTEN BY HIS OWN HAND, UPON PAPYRUS. The text of this book of scripture was revealed to Joseph Smith by the power of God as he contemplated some ancient Egyptian papyri that came into his possession. The work is not a translation in the normal sense of the word, as 1) Joseph Smith did not know ancient Egyptian and 2)the church does have in its possession any papyri containing what modern egyptologists would translate as the text of the Book of Abraham. Such a papyrus with the actual words of Abraham may or may not have ever existed; we simply do not know as some records have been lost over time. But we rely on this book as revealed scripture and consider it to be the word of God".

What would be wrong with such an entry in Gospel Principles? Is this too much information? Why or why not?

What would be wrong is that it completely misses the point of Gospel Principles, which is not to teach the history of the Church's scriptures, but what is in them.

And it appears to me that Hugh Nibley is agreeing with Pahoran - that "by the hand of Abraham" is a claim of the original authorship and effectively part of the title.

[jmordecai]

1) Joseph Smith did not know ancient Egyptian

Does your statement admit then that Smith's interpretations below are false?

Fac. 1

Fig. 11 "... as understood by the Egyptians ..."

Fig. 12 "... the Egyptians meant it to signify ..."

Fac. 2

Fig. 1 "... which is called by the Egyptians ..."

Fig. 2 "... called by the Egyptians ..."

Fig. 4 "... in Egyptian signifying ..."

Fig. 5 "... is called in Egyptian ..."

Fig. 5 "... is said by the Egyptians to be ..."

Fac. 3

Fig. 2 "... whose name is given in the [Egyptian] characters above his head ..."

Fig. 4 "... as written [Egyptian characters] above the hand ..."

Fig. 5 "... as represented by the characters [Egyptian] above his hand ..."

2)the church does have in its possession any papyri containing what modern egyptologists would translate as the text of the Book of Abraham

Emphasis mine.

But it does have in possession papyri that Smith erroneously cited to be the source of some of the BoA.

[mfbukowski]

Does your statement admit then that Smith's interpretations below are false?

Fac. 1

Fig. 11 "... as understood by the Egyptians ..."

Fig. 12 "... the Egyptians meant it to signify ..."

Fac. 2

Fig. 1 "... which is called by the Egyptians ..."

Fig. 2 "... called by the Egyptians ..."

Fig. 4 "... in Egyptian signifying ..."

Fig. 5 "... is called in Egyptian ..."

Fig. 5 "... is said by the Egyptians to be ..."

Fac. 3

Fig. 2 "... whose name is given in the [Egyptian] characters above his head ..."

Fig. 4 "... as written [Egyptian characters] above the hand ..."

Fig. 5 "... as represented by the characters [Egyptian] above his hand ..."

This makes it totally clear that he is citing the INTERPRETATION the Egyptians had of the words cited, not a literal "translation" of the words cited.

He is capturing the significance ("meant it to signify") of the writing as understood by the Egyptians, nothing more or nothing less. That is what those words say to me.

[LeSellers]

Now you contradicting your own original statement... so "by his own hand" is "nothing more or less than part of the title" or a statement of authorship? Which is it?

They're not mutually exclusive.

When Abraham originally wrote the document, he titled it "... by his own hand upon papyrus", which denoted his authorship. By this means we have the title which explicitly names the author, as well.

Lehi

[jmordecai]

This makes it totally clear that he is citing the INTERPRETATION the Egyptians had of the words cited, not a literal "translation" of the words cited.

He is capturing the significance ("meant it to signify") of the writing as understood by the Egyptians, nothing more or nothing less. That is what those words say to me.

What are we to make of this since the words he interprets (but doesn't translate, whatever that means) are not Egyptian?

[jmordecai]

They're not mutually exclusive.

When Abraham originally wrote the document, he titled it "... by his own hand upon papyrus", which denoted his authorship. By this means we have the title which explicitly names the author, as well.

Lehi

What document are you referring to?

[Jason]

What are we to make of this since the words he interprets (but doesn't translate, whatever that means) are not Egyptian?

Would you like some examples of how the literal translation of a phrase sometimes does not really correspond to the meaning of the phrase?

I could probably come up with several examples from Dutch.

[LeSellers]

What document are you referring to?

We are discussing the Book of Abraham. To which document did you suspect I was referring?

Lehi

[jmordecai]

Would you like some examples of how the literal translation of a phrase sometimes does not really correspond to the meaning of the phrase?

I could probably come up with several examples from Dutch.

I think your are missing the point.

Your argument that Joseph was interpreting and not translating (whatever) is irrelevant because these are not Egyptian words:

Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Shaumau, Kolob, Jah-oh-eh, Oliblish, Enish-go-on-dosh, Kae-e-vanrash, Floeese, Kli-flos-is-es, Hah-ko-kau-beam, Shulem, Olimlah

[mfbukowski]

According to my understanding, a hundred and fifty years ago or so in Polish, the utterly worst curse which you could utter and would show you to be a vile street person unfit for polite society, literally translated, was "Dog's blood, Cholera!"

It just looses a tad in the translation.

Anything even roughly equivalent would start with an "m" in contemporary English, which illustrates the difference in cultural concerns we have with those of the Polish in the mid 19th century. I learned a little of the time-capsulized Polish of my great grandparents as a kid, including a few phrases which were guaranteed to cause my grandma to turn deathly white and start yelling in Polish and waving her arms. I had no idea what they meant, and when told, I said- "So what? that's nothing!" But those words had great significance while at the same time the words themselves didn't say much at all to me- they were just silly words.

[mfbukowski]

The title says that Abraham wrote the words in Egyptian.

What Joseph translated was an Egyptian text and in fact, Egyptian formulas for the creation of gods.

No, he did not translate it literally.

What he translated, restored, re-created, whatever- through revelation was the "original" Book of Abraham which contained formulas for exaltation, written in Egyptian

Is that simple enough for you?

Edited for clarity

[jmordecai]

According to my understanding, a hundred and fifty years ago or so in Polish, the utterly worst curse which you could utter and would show you to be a vile street person unfit for polite society, literally translated, was "Dog's blood, Cholera!"

It just looses a tad in the translation.

Anything even roughly equivalent would start with an "m" in contemporary English, which illustrates the difference in cultural concerns we have with those of the Polish in the mid 19th century. I learned a little of the time-capsulized Polish of my great grandparents as a kid, including a few phrases which were guaranteed to cause my grandma to turn deathly white and start yelling in Polish and waving her arms. I had no idea what they meant, and when told, I said- "So what? that's nothing!" But those words had great significance while at the same time the words themselves didn't say much at all to me- they were just silly words.

Interesting story. What does this have to do with the non-Egyptian words I cited above?

[mfbukowski]

I think your are missing the point.

Your argument that Joseph was interpreting and not translating (whatever) is irrelevant because these are not Egyptian words:

Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Shaumau, Kolob, Jah-oh-eh, Oliblish, Enish-go-on-dosh, Kae-e-vanrash, Floeese, Kli-flos-is-es, Hah-ko-kau-beam, Shulem, Olimlah

Irrelevant.

This translation was a restoration of the original meaning. The text he was looking at was not the original text- got that???????????

[mfbukowski]

Once more.

The physical papyrii we have is not the "original" Book of Abraham.

What we do have, apparently was in Joseph's possession is a part of an Egyptian book of Breathings which is a formulary for magically transforming the body into an immortal body, essentially a god. It was a corruption - written much after Abraham- it is an apostate version- of Abraham's original Book of Abraham- which was written in Egyptian by Abraham by his own hand on papyrus.

Joseph restored by "translation" the original Book of Abraham which contains portions of the temple ordinances which are necessary for exaltation.

So the Papyri Joseph had, had a similar significance to the purpose of the original papyri written by Abraham, their meaning and significance were the same- but the doctrines and formulae- the words- were incorrect.

He translated the correct formulae if you will, from the apostate writings he had before him.

It was a "catalyst" for what is termed a "translation" which was received by revelation.

That is the simplest I know how to make it. I'm about done.

[Jason]

I think your are missing the point.

Your argument that Joseph was interpreting and not translating (whatever) is irrelevant because these are not Egyptian words:

Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Shaumau, Kolob, Jah-oh-eh, Oliblish, Enish-go-on-dosh, Kae-e-vanrash, Floeese, Kli-flos-is-es, Hah-ko-kau-beam, Shulem, Olimlah

And we know they are not Egyptian words how, exactly?