Kerry Muhelstien On The Book Of Abraham

[Olavarria]

Kerry received his B.S. from BYU in Psychology with a Hebrew minor. He spent time at the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies in the intensive Hebrew program. He received an M.A. in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from BYU and his Ph.D. from UCLA in Egyptology.

The Book of Abraham

Thoughts?

Edited July 19, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Kerry received his B.S. from BYU in Psychology with a Hebrew minor. He spent time at the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies in the intensive Hebrew program. He received an M.A. in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from BYU and his Ph.D. from UCLA in Egyptology.

The Book of Abraham

Thoughts?

Good stuff

Abraham mentions that the altar on which he was

nearly sacrificed was located in a valley called Olishem. During Joseph Smith’s

day, this name was completely unknown. However, since then an Egyptian

text roughly contemporary with Abraham, which outlines geographic areas

in the Levant, names an Olishem.31 Further, this Olishem is in the same area

as a likely candidate for the city Ur.32 The odds that Joseph would make up a

random name that happened to match a real ancient place in the correct time

and region are extremely slight.

This is new to me. Great find.

[kolipoki09]

Kerry received his B.S. from BYU in Psychology with a Hebrew minor. He spent time at the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies in the intensive Hebrew program. He received an M.A. in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from BYU and his Ph.D. from UCLA in Egyptology.

The Book of Abraham

Thoughts?

I didn't see much that hasn't already been brought up before. I don't feel that he's quite fully-engaged the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which remains the proverbial battering ram between critics, apologists, and people with avatars featuring educated primates and necromantic personages.

Considering amateur BoA apologists generally do more harm than good, it was refreshing to see Muhelstien willing to point out where some of his contemporaries have got it wrong. However, I'm not all-together convinced of John Gee's measurement of the "long scroll" or the characters and their accompanying translations in the KEP being based on a pre-existing text.

[wenglund]

I don't feel that he's quite fully-engaged the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which remains the proverbial battering ram between critics, apologists, and people with avatars featuring educated primates and necromantic personages.

I am not sure the article was intended to fully engage the various issues. To me, it read more like an executive summary of the prevailing issues. And that is okay.

Besides, even though the KEP has received considerable air time over the last several years, the sense that I am getting from my online discussions is that it is quickly diminishing in importance, giving way to issues involving translation of the facsimiles. I suspect the reasons for this shift is because the critics are increasing realizing that precious little can be made either way on the matter, particularly in terms of direct relevance to the BoA as reveled by the power of God.

Perhaps like you, I would like to see a more in-depth analysis of things like the "scribal errors and other critical textual clues" that supposedly "make it very clear that these papers represent later copies of the text of the Book of Abraham, not the original translation;" and were "probably not even first- or second-generation copies."

In this and other regards, I think it unfortunate to have lost Will Schryver's participation in the discussion, amateur BoA apologists or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2011 by wenglund

[Mike Richards]

I liked:

I was once dissatisfied with the question

of human sacrifice as depicted in Facsimile 1, and no answer appeared to be

forthcoming. But we have learned more, and now I am satisfied. I once was

dissatisfied with explanations of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, but as we have

done further research I have become satisfied (though I still have questions as

to what they really represent). Claims of textual anachronisms once gave me

pause, but research has answered each of these questions. How grateful I am

that I did not abandon my faith over these questions, for they have now been

answered so well.

There are things plenty of issues to which I haven't found a satisfactory answer, but I trust from the general trend (that the more I study and learn the more satisfied I become) that there is no need to give up faith. I wonder how often people have given up their faith over something that subsequently was answered to their satisfaction, but they were unable to reignite their faith.

[kolipoki09]

I am not sure the article was intended to fully engage the various issues. To me, it read more like an executive summary of the prevailing issues. And that is okay.

I can't remember if it was two or three times where Muhelstien mentioned he didn't have much space to explain himself. However, with regard to the KEP there hasn't been much explained since John Gee's 70 page A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri.

[Chris Smith]

Besides, even though the KEP has received considerable air time over the last several years, the sense that I am getting from my online discussions is that it is quickly diminishing in importance.

The KEP are actually increasing in importance-- not because of their significance in the BoA debate, but rather because of their significance to other historical questions. Sam Brown's recent work on Joseph Smith and the Adamic language is a case in point. I have also recently been using the KEP in essays on other topics, including a conference paper on the concept of lineage in Joseph Smith's theology.

I think you're right, though, that the text-critical debate over the KEP will fade into the background as mainstream historians make use of them without worrying much about all the hair-splitting.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Olavarria]

The Egyptians typically identified Osiris as the figure

who sits on the throne in near-parallels of Facsimile 3, yet at times they labeled

this figure as Abraham.

That's news to me. This was his source:

John Gee, “A New Look at the ankh pa’ by Formula,” in Proceedings of IXe Congrès

International des Études Démotiques, forthcoming. See the section on “descendants.”

[wenglund]

The KEP are actually increasing in importance-- not because of their significance in the BoA debate, but rather because of their significance to other historical questions.

Sam Brown's recent work on Joseph Smith and the Adamic language is a case in point. I have also recently been using the KEP in essays on other topics, including a conference paper on the concept of lineage in Joseph Smith's theology.

Excellent point. One of those "other topics" may just be one raised, but unanswered, in Kerry's article--that being the actual intended purpose of the KEP, which may have nothing to do with the production of the BoA.

I think you're right, though, that the text-critical debate over the KEP will fade into the background as mainstream historians make use of them without worrying much about all the hair-splitting.

Then again, some of the hair-splitting may provide certain needed illumination for certain topics. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

That's news to me. This was his source:

John Gee, “A New Look at the ankh pa’ by Formula,” in Proceedings of IXe Congrès

International des Études Démotiques, forthcoming. See the section on “descendants.”

If memory serves me correctly, I think Michael Rhodes mentions the "news" in an online article written several years back (sorry, I don't have a link or a title) in which he cites the actual documents, though I can't be sure. It is interesting nevertheless. John Tvedtnes may have written about it as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Kerry received his B.S. from BYU in Psychology with a Hebrew minor. He spent time at the BYU Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies in the intensive Hebrew program. He received an M.A. in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from BYU and his Ph.D. from UCLA in Egyptology.

The Book of Abraham

Thoughts?

Absolutely horrible. He is essentially trying to salvage many of John Gee's errors. He also makes some seriously bold claims without offering a shred of evidence (i.e. saying we know the KEP were written when Joseph Smith was out of town!)

LDS apologists can continue to get degrees in Egyptology for the purpose of name-dropping in BoA related literature, but ultimately we're still dealing with the same refuted arguments. The evidence from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers proving Joseph Smith could not translate ancient Egyptian, is really a matter for critical thinkers who know how to process the evidence. It isn't something confined or even related to Egyptology. I can't believe this guy is really trying to resurrect the argument that the English text overran the Egyptian. Where has he been since 2001? Even Gee backed away from that claim. At first I was hoping to give him a pass, thinking maybe this was published back in 2001 or shortly after Gee first started this disastrous spree of apologetic creativity. But the thing is dated to 2010, so he has no excuse and should be held accountable for presenting such horrible scholarship on such an important issue.

Sorry, but you asked.

[wenglund]

He also makes some seriously bold claims without offering a shred of evidence (i.e. saying we know the KEP were written when Joseph Smith was out of town!)

Here is what he actually said: "We have reason to believe that while Joseph Smith was involved in creating some of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (two of the sixteen pages contain Joseph’s handwriting), at other times his associates did this work without him. The pages whose composition we can date come from a period when the Prophet was out of town and the School of the Prophets seemingly went on without him."

Granted, he didn't provide footnotes backing up this claim, which makes me suspect that he has seen the documentation, but it has yet to be published and may be forthcoming.

If there is substantiation, then would this "bold claim" have a bold impact on the KEP debate? Else, why would it be considered "bold'?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

He is essentially trying to salvage many of John Gee's errors.

Given that much of Kerry's Q&A wasn't footnoted, and given that at best about a fourth of the footnotes cite Gee, it is clear that the article isn't essentially about what John Gee has written, let alone his alleged errors.

However, it might be instructive were you to specify which of Kerry's statements you believe resurrect Gee's errors. Then, we can see if they are, in fact, errors, or just differences of opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Given that much of Kerry's Q&A wasn't footnoted, and given that at best about a fourth of the footnotes cite Gee, it is clear that the article isn't essentially about what John Gee has written, let alone his alleged errors.

However, it might be instructive were you to specify which of Kerry's statements you believe resurrect Gee's errors. Then, we can see if they are, in fact, errors, or just differences of opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One point I am sure he will bring up is the supposed length of the scroll being 41 ft.

[wenglund]

The evidence from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers proving Joseph Smith could not translate ancient Egyptian, is really a matter for critical thinkers who know how to process the evidence. It isn't something confined or even related to Egyptology.

This is the first I have heard a critic claim that Egyptology is not related to determining correct translations of Egyptian. Where is the critical thinking in that?

I can't believe this guy is really trying to resurrect the argument that the English text overran the Egyptian. Where has he been since 2001? Even Gee backed away from that claim.

Could it be that newer and better photos of the documents have surfaced since 2001 that may substantiate earlier claims? I would think that principles of critical thinking would advise waiting to hear the supposed new evidence before making sweeping dismissals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

One point I am sure he will bring up is the supposed length of the scroll being 41 ft.

If so, the length of the scrolls is still an ongoing debate. Thus, we aren't so much talking about a demonstrable error as we are a reasonable difference of opinions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

the length of the scrolls is still an ongoing debate.

Among whom?

Thus, we aren't so much talking about a demonstrable error as we are a reasonable difference of opinions.

In my humble opinion: 21 + 35 = 56

In Muhelstien's opinion: 21 + 35 = 1250.5

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Among whom?

In my humble opinion: 21 + 35 = 56

In Muhelstien's opinion: 21 + 35 = 1250.5

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Um I think you got it wrong. These were not Muhelstien's suggestions. But.... you already knew this.

And this goes back to the thread in the old pundits forum.

[Mortal Man]

Um I think you got it wrong. These were not Muhelstien's suggestions. But.... you already knew this.

And this goes back to the thread in the old pundits forum.

I put Muhelstien, rather than Gee, because (according to WS) Gee has backed off his 41 ft claim.

Muhelstien claims that "according to the formulaic calculation there could be as much as eighty-two feet of writings on this scroll." This is the biggest claim thus far, so I guess that makes Kerry the best apologist. It will be twice as hard for critics to debunk 82 feet as it would be to debunk 41 feet. BoA apologetics has really made some good progress here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I put Muhelstien, rather than Gee, because (according to WS) Gee has backed off his 41 ft claim.

Muhelstien claims that "according to the formulaic calculation there could be as much as eighty-two feet of writings on this scroll." This is the biggest claim thus far, so I guess that makes Kerry the best apologist. It will be twice as hard for critics to debunk 82 feet as it would be to debunk 41 feet. BoA apologetics has really made some good progress here.

You do realize (which I am sure you do) that he is basing those "formulaic calculation" on Gee's work. Oh well, this is not worth arguing over. Good day.

[Xander]

Muhelstein provided nothing new whatsoever to the Book of Abraham controversy. He merely cobbles together a bunch of apologetic arguments published by Gee without any apparent understanding of their relevance.

According to Muhlestein "the Egyptian characters appear to sometimes overwrite the English."

This was disproved many years ago, and it created such a credibility problem for Gee that he had to address it by denying he ever said it. He claimed that when he said overrun, he didn't mean to say "overwrite." Dan Peterson was happy to share an email from Gee where he supposedly "clarified" this point by saying "I never intended the term 'overrun' to mean 'overwrite' since they are not synonyms."

Critics were lambasted by the usual suspects for making such an absurd "leap" by thinking he meant overwrite (a distinction with little difference in this context, but served the purpose of apologetic diversion since Gee's horrible "guide" was being torn to shreds). Well, here is Kerry Muhlstein, 10 years later reiterating what the "critics" said Gee was saying. I almost feel for this guy because he is so far behind and apologists are going to be invoking his name simply because he has those three letters attached at the end (PhD).

And wade, if a critic ever tried to throw out a baseless assertion like "Joseph Smith was out of town when these documents were made," without any hint of existing evidence to support it, then the apologetic lynch mob would b all over him, insisting this is evidence of anti-Mormon deception. But when apologists do it (and they do it all the time!) we are obligated to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that he/she is alluding to some "forthcoming" publication, despite the fact that no such publication was ever indicated to be in the works. The alternative is just unacceptable because only anti-Mormons lie. Only anti-Mormons deceive. Only anti-Mormons abuse their sources. Only anti-Mormons ignore context. Only anti-Mormons refuse to provide evidence for their claims. Hey, these sound like catchy lyrics; maybe you guys could write a song.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Among whom?[/quote

Among none dogmatists.

In my humble opinion: 21 + 35 = 56

In Muhelstien's opinion: 21 + 35 = 1250.5

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Could you point out where in Kerry's Q&A article he expressed the opinion that 21 + 35 = 1250.5? I just re-read the portion of his article dealing with scroll length, and could not find it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

At the risk of being ignored by Xander and him simply repeating his mantra...

Muhelstein provided nothing new whatsoever to the Book of Abraham controversy. He merely cobbles together a bunch of apologetic arguments...

This is what one may reasonably expect from a Q&A on the subject.

....published by Gee

Again, Gee citations constitute only about a quarter of Kerry's footnotes. This would suggest to the reasonable mind that Kerry's Q&A article extend well beyond what was "published by Gee".

...without any apparent understanding of their relevance.

Let's walk through each of Kerry's points and have you demonstrate that he had no apparent understanding of their relevance. First, let's look the dating of the paypri. Please demonstrate that Kerry didn't understand the relevance of dating the papyri. Once you have done so (assuming you can--I am quite certain you can't), we will move on to Kerry's next point.

According to Muhlestein "the Egyptian characters appear to sometimes overwrite the English." This was disproved many years ago...[delete outdated belly aching about Gee]

In some respects this is a valid criticism.

However, I think it important to put the criticism into proper perspective. Kerry's article briefly spoke to four major Book of Abraham issues in relation to the overall question he wished to address--i.e. whether or not the "the hieroglyphs next to Facsimile 1 are the source of the Book of Abraham."

One of these four major issues was the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Specifically, Kerry mentioned that because characters in the KEP [presumably the Abr. Mss in particular] matched those in the papyri [the hieroglyphs next to Facsimile 1], "critics have assumed that these manuscripts record the translation process. Supposedly the translator looked at a few characters from the Book of Breathings and derived the Book of Abraham from them."

Kerry briefly mentioned four problems with this assumption. One of the four problems, and the least significant of the four problems, was the presupposition that "the characters were written first and that the text written next to them was created afterward as an attempt to translate the characters’ meaning." He went on to say, "The Egyptian characters appear to sometimes overwrite the English. If this is the case, then it is clear they were later additions."

Note the qualifying "if."

I think it relatively undisputed that in terms of the EA's and the GAEL, the production sequence typically consisted of the Egyptian characters being written first, followed by

the sounds, and later came the English explanation. It is reasonable to assume, and evidence seems to favor, that this production pattern continued with the Phelps and Williams and Parrish documents containing portions of the Book of Abraham (absent the sounds).

So, Kerry's proffered "if," isn't the case.

However, this doesn't really matter to the over-all question of Kerry's article, or even specifically the issue of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. That the Egyptiuan characters were written first when producing the KEP, is relatively inconsequential to whether or not the Book of Abraham was translated from the hieroglyphs next to Facsimile 1, or even whether the KEP were the means for initially translating the Book of Mormon.

In short, Xander is making much about nothing and simply using this as an opportunity to grind his tired and old ax against Gee.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 23, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

This is what one may reasonably expect from a Q&A on the subject.

Not from a scholar who should know better. Why bring up Kerry Muhlstein at all if it is recognized he is just relaying the same worn out apologetic assertions?

Again, Gee citations constitute only about a quarter of Kerry's footnotes. This would suggest to the reasonable mind that Kerry's Q&A article extend well beyond what was "published by Gee".

Kerry manages to squeeze in a number of Gee's apologetics without attribution. The four points he listed in the KEP section all come from Gee, but he doesn't provide a footnote indicating where he got these ideas. Anyone vaguely familiar with this subject knows they all come from Gee. The "reasonable mind" that is well informed on this matter won't have to rely on counting footnotes to determine where Kerry is getting this stuff. If you want to challenge my claim, then please, by all means, provide a single innovative idea or original apologetic contribution Kerry Muhelstein has produced on this subject. As I said, his greatest value is that he allows the apologist to name-drop another PhD in his mantra.

Let's walk through each of Kerry's points and have you demonstrate that he had no apparent understanding of their relevance. First, let's look the dating of the paypri. Please demonstrate that Kerry didn't understand the relevance of dating the papyri.

Nice try. I provided my examples where Kerry shows his ignorance on this matter. These alone prove he has not really kept up with the controversy beyond reading FARMS materials. You're not going to be able to downplay this by focusing on every single "point" he made and then say this only consitutes a small percentage of all the points made. The dating of the papyri is irrelevant to my criticism.

In some respects this is a valid criticism.

It is valid in every respect. It proves Kerry doesn't know what the heck he is talking about, despite his claim to have seen blown up color images of the KEP. I see no possible excuse here.

However, I think it important to put the criticism into proper perspective. Kerry's article briefly spoke to four major Book of Abraham issues in relation to the overall question he wished to address--i.e. whether or not the "the hieroglyphs next to Facsimile 1 are the source of the Book of Abraham."

Spinning isn't going to help either of you. You're going to find whatever other "perspective" you can for the sole purpose of taking focus off the simple fact that he screwed up on this point.

One of these four major issues was the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Specifically, Kerry mentioned that because characters in the KEP [presumably the Abr. Mss in particular] matched those in the papyri [the hieroglyphs next to Facsimile 1], "critics have assumed that these manuscripts record the translation process. Supposedly the translator looked at a few characters from the Book of Breathings and derived the Book of Abraham from them."

I responded specifically to his remarks about the KEP. And no, critics don't merely "assume." We logically deduce the facts accordingly. The problem with you folks is that you refuse to properly represent the basis for our argument. It is almost always oversimplified in this manner, as if we just see characters and make an illicit assumption. It is based on far, far more than this, but LDS apologists are careful not to disclose any of the reasons why we really believe this. For example, Kerry makes absolutely no mention of Abraham 1:12 or the fact that LDS scholar Sam Brown admits that the critics are right to believe Joseph Smith was the authority behind the project.

Kerry briefly mentioned four problems with this assumption.

Which have been shown to be no problems at all, and it is not merely an assumption as I just indicated. If Kerry were familiar with this controversy beyond the superficial level, he'd know this.

One of the four problems, and the least significant of the four problems, was the presupposition that "the characters were written first and that the text written next to them was created afterward as an attempt to translate the characters’ meaning." He went on to say, "The Egyptian characters appear to sometimes overwrite the English. If this is the case, then it is clear they were later additions."

Which is absolutely false, which proves he doesn;t know what he is talking about. This was an argument presented by Gee a decade ago, even though Kerry doesn't give Gee credit for it.

Note the qualifying "if."

Note the phrase "appear to sometimes overwrite the English" and note the absence of any familiarity with the numerous refutations of this position. You call it a minor point but it was important enough for him to mention it because if true, it disproves our argument entirely.

I think it relatively undisputed that in terms of the EA's and the GAEL, the production sequence typically consisted of the Egyptian characters being written first, followed by the sounds, and later came the English explanation.

He's not talking about the EA and GAEL. He is talking about the Book of Abraham manuscripts found within the KEP.

It is reasonable to assume, and evidence seems to favor, that this production pattern continued with the Phelps and Williams and Parrish documents containing portions of the Book of Abraham (absent the sounds)

Evidence for this exists in the BoA manuscripts themselves.

So, Kerry's proffered "if," isn't the case

You don't say.

However, this doesn't really matter to the over-all question of Kerry's article, or even specifically the issue of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Kerry disagrees, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it.

That the Egyptiuan characters were written first when producing the KEP, is relatively inconsequential to whether or not the Book of Abraham was translated from the hieroglyphs next to Facsimile 1, or even whether the KEP were the means for initially translating the Book of Mormon.

Thanks for revealing your utter lack of familiarity with this subject. You don't even understand the significance of having the Egyptian Characters written after the English. As I said, it would absolutely destroy the critical argument. Kerry and Gee understood this, even if you don't.

In short, Xander is making much about nothing and simply using this as an opportunity to grind his tired and old ax against Gee.

In short, you just spent hundreds of words essentially admitting I am right in my criticism, but at the same time trying to to say I'm making much ado about nothing. Typical. I didn't start a Gee thread. I came across this thread started by Pedro who asked for opinions on the Kerry Muhlstein piece. I explained why it was wrong and lacked rigor. My points remain untouched by refutation. You can moan about a nonexistent "ax against Gee" if you must. That's usually the first apologetic tactic used to downplay valid criticisms. Some folks, it seems, are above reproach.

Your posts are filled with derogatory slights like moan or apologetic tactic. You object when you are dismissed as an anti but you do the same thing in reverse.I don't think I have seen a post from you that presents your ideas respectfully. You have good input but it gets lost in the contempt. Tone it down to at least a percentage of your posts or we will have to part ways.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Xander

[PacMan]

The evidence from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers proving Joseph Smith could not translate ancient Egyptian, is really a matter for critical thinkers who know how to process the evidence.

Oh, how the uncredited chest-thump!

This is off-topic and a derailer comment. The only thing worse than serial insults is a post that contains nothing but an insult.