Is this statement true?

[jmordecai]

What is truly remarkable is that Joseph Smith just happens to correctly describe the four Egyptian canopic gods under the bier, and the crocodile in the watery register below them. He begins with falcon-headed Elkenah, a name known to biblical Hebrew (cf. I Samuel 1:1) as a hypocoristicon for 'El 'Elyon qone shamayim wa'arets "El Elyon Creator of Heaven and Earth" (Genesis 14:19,22, Exodus 20:11, Judith 13:18[23-24], etc.), but which was also known earlier as a Canaanite god-name El-Kunirsha, or 'El-qone-'ertsi on a Hittite tablet (pronounced 'Elqonrs "'El Creator of the Earth"), which should remind us that Elkkenner is a variant spelling of this god-name in the KEP. Next is Libnah "White," possibly incorporating or punning on the Hebrew word for "heart" leb (= Egyptian ib), since that is the organ usually placed in the jackal-headed jar. Next is baboon-headed Mahmackrah, whose name may incorporate the Egyptian word for "north" mh(t), which is the directional association of this particular god. Human-headed Korash is next, possibly Egyptian *Ku-ras "spirit of the south," which is the proper direction for this god (the pronunciation of Egyptian -ros "south" in Isaiah 11:11 Pathros would have been -ras in the Semitic of Abraham's day). When these four are lined up with their well-known Egyptian counterparts, they fit very snugly, and are correctly described in Fac 2:6 (see my forthcoming Book of Abraham Commentary for further details). Together with Sobek, the actual crocodile-god of Pharaoh, they are all arrayed before an altar on a hill next to the plain of Olishem, which is the correct name for Ulisum (Akkadian), an Egyptian-controlled area of NW Syria in the late 3rd millennium B.C.

What a headache. In my response, I'll quote you (from your prior post):

"... one is bound to come up with some similarities which can then be manipulated in magical fashion to give the sought-after result." - Robert F. Smith

[Fifth Columnist]

Nothing complex about it. The whole continent was afire for anything Egyptian and THAT is the whole reason the mummies got to Kirtland in the first place. Would a con man, knowing that Champollion was already in the process of translating Egyptian, and after having made a similar mistake with the Anthon affair, make the same mistake again and come up with a fake "translation" for some other professor to blow out of the water?

How is that "complex"?? No con man would be that stupid. You can say what you want about Joseph, but "stupid" is not a name I have heard him ever called.

And let's take your point on directly. Suppose Joseph did think he could translate Egyptian and suppose he was wrong. (I am not conceding the point for one minute- this is a hypothetical) What difference would it make?

The Book of Abraham is pure revelation regardless of what Joseph thought. Millions of people believe Mohammad saw Gabriel who revealed the Koran. Suppose it could be proven that there was no angel and that the Koran was received by direct revelation through the mouth of Mohammad.

What's the difference? As I said earlier, it would not matter to me if Joseph was staring at the pattern of the wallpaper when he received his revelations, staring at a peepstone, looking into a crystal ball, looking at a fire or the ocean. The bottom line is that the book was received by revelation and everything else is ultimately irrelevant. If I am looking at a fire and see words appear, and write them down and it turns out to be of scriptural quality and coheres with other scripture as well as the BOA does, what is the difference? If he was staring at those papyrii and thought he was literally translating (an idea I do not accept for one minute) it would make no difference whatsoever to me.

What he "got" was from God, and I don't care how he "got" it.

I take back my "complex" remark. Your construct isn't very complex at all. It consists of believing that "no amount of contrary evidence will ever convince you that JS was anything but inspired by God."

[Fifth Columnist]

What is truly remarkable is that Joseph Smith just happens to correctly describe the four Egyptian canopic gods under the bier, and the crocodile in the watery register below them.

Just curious, but do Robert Ritner and Klaus Baer agree that JS correctly described the canopic gods or the crocodile (if they expressed an opinion)?

[mfbukowski]

I take back my "complex" remark. Your construct isn't very complex at all. It consists of believing that "no amount of contrary evidence will ever convince you that JS was anything but inspired by God."

Not true at all. My understanding was based totally on evidence. Just evidence you cannot know, but millions of others agree with me.

It is just as certain as anything I have seen with my own eyes, and I am not the only one.

[Vance]

Just curious, but do Robert Ritner and Klaus Baer agree that JS correctly described the canopic gods or the crocodile (if they expressed an opinion)?

Humm,

Do Robert Ritner and Klaus Baer agree with each other (if they expressed an opinion)?

[Robert F. Smith]

Just curious, but do Robert Ritner and Klaus Baer agree that JS correctly described the canopic gods or the crocodile (if they expressed an opinion)?

As a close friend of Hugh Nibley, Baer (who is long since dead) was very circumspect in addressing such issues. He was always the perfect gentleman. However, he was somewhat taken aback on one occasion in an open forum Q&A, when I asked him directly whether he was willing to go along with the major Egyptologists (I named several of them) in their standard interpretation of Facsimile 2:6, which was (with some) in virtual verbatim agreement with Joseph Smith. He actually had to sit down! I thought he was going to have a heart attack.

As to Professor Ritner (whom I have heard lecture on standard Egyptology at UCLA), he has taken a polemic approach, thus poisoning the wells of standard Egyptological interpretation.

When Hugh Nibley used to speak of "Gentile respectability," he meant that the serious researcher must seek disinterested scholarly iconographic interpretations of these items and let the chips fall where they may. Thus, one might want to take a gander at what has in fact been written on this issue up till now by non-Mormons, albeit with attention to Mormon assemblages of such writings.

[Robert F. Smith]

What a headache. In my response, I'll quote you (from your prior post):

"... one is bound to come up with some similarities which can then be manipulated in magical fashion to give the sought-after result." - Robert F. Smith

Sorry to give you a headache, but if you want to see what I mean in more detail and on a grander scale, see my comments on these gods in my "Ramses II BYU Exhibit: Supplementary Comments on the Artifacts," SMI-86 (Provo: FARMS, 1986). I didn't want to burden you with all that here.

[jmordecai]

Sorry to give you a headache, but if you want to see what I mean in more detail and on a grander scale, see my comments on these gods in my "Ramses II BYU Exhibit: Supplementary Comments on the Artifacts," SMI-86 (Provo: FARMS, 1986). I didn't want to burden you with all that here.

There's no need, as its evident your approach falls short as it employs no consistent methodology. You have to take different directions with each of your examples to get Smith's interpretation to fit. That in itself is evidence that you are first starting with a desired outcome--an Egyptian meaning--and then finding "similarities which can then be manipulated in magical fashion to give the sought-after result". Furthermore, I'd be more interested in a holistic examination of the facsimiles, rather than cherry picking a few where you think you can make a case.

[NauvooSaint]

Original preface by Joseph Smith, Jr. March 1, 1842 'Times and Seasons' quote:

"A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

underlining added for emphasis.

[Robert F. Smith]

There's no need, as its evident your approach falls short as it employs no consistent methodology. You have to take different directions with each of your examples to get Smith's interpretation to fit. That in itself is evidence that you are first starting with a desired outcome--an Egyptian meaning--and then finding "similarities which can then be manipulated in magical fashion to give the sought-after result". Furthermore, I'd be more interested in a holistic examination of the facsimiles, rather than cherry picking a few where you think you can make a case.

Aside from most of the etymologies for these god-names not being Egyptian (for the heretofore unknown words, such as Mahmackrah and Korash, I was merely speculating about some connections they might have with known words and concepts), I agree with you that we ought to make systematic and holistic examinations of the facsimiles. I did just that back in 1975 with facsimile 2, which was circulated among several Mormons and anti-Mormons. I also did that in my 1986 comments on the four sons of Horus, attempting to place them in broader context. That doesn't mean that all issues are settled and known, however, which can make it look like someone is cherry picking (pro or con) when we latch onto those matters which have already been settled. Egyptology is still a very dynamic and active field of inquiry.