Boa - Reverse Translation

[jskains]

Has anyone tried or even considered creating a completed replica scroll translating the BoA to the smallest Egyptian representation possible to see what such a thing would look like and how long it would be?

JMS

[shalamabobbi]

Has anyone tried or even considered creating a completed replica scroll translating the BoA to the smallest Egyptian representation possible to see what such a thing would look like and how long it would be?

JMS

Apparently not.

http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr?lang=eng

http://lds.org/languages/0,5241,61,00.html

[mfbukowski]

That would be a silly thing to do since it was "translated" by inspiration.

It wasn't on the scroll in a literal way. Nibley showed that- everyone knows that.

Well not everyone I guess.

[William Schryver]

That would be a silly thing to do since it was "translated" by inspiration.

This seems like a non sequitur to me. Why would it be "silly" to do simply because the BoA was translated by inspiration (which I, also, believe it was)? Actually, I would be quite interested in seeing the results of having our existing Book of Abraham translated into Egyptian using hieratic script.

It wasn't on the scroll in a literal way. Nibley showed that ...

He did? When? Where?

- everyone knows that.

Well not everyone I guess.

I thought I'd read everything Nibley wrote on the topic, and I'm not aware of it.

Don't get me wrong. If, for the sake of argument, we allow that there was an Egyptian language Abraham text on the scrolls in Joseph Smith's possession, I don't believe the Prophet could have identified that text, nor do I believe he could have "translated" it in the sense that he could look at the Egyptian script and tell us what it meant in English. I entirely believe that the Book of Abraham was "translated" in precisely the same way as was the Book of Mormon: by the gift and power of God.

[mfbukowski]

This seems like a non sequitur to me. Why would it be "silly" to do simply because the BoA was translated by inspiration (which I, also, believe it was)? Actually, I would be quite interested in seeing the results of having our existing Book of Abraham translated into Egyptian using hieratic script.

Well it might be a fun exercise for someone, but in my opinion, it would have no effect whatsoever on the alleged BOA "controversy", since the results would be at best, inconclusive. Suppose someone actually somehow found the gold plates- the physical plates that Joseph used to "translate" the Book of Mormon. Suppose somehow magically this could be proven conclusively- by Joseph's DNA on them- or some such thing- all of this is hypothetical of course.

Suppose also the script was a known script -hypothetically again- and it could be translated into English. Suppose the translation did not match the text of the Book of Mormon.

Would that show that the Book of Mormon is NOT scripture? Not in my opinion- not one iota. Why? Because the Book of Mormon- I believe- was given by the power of God- put into Joseph's mind, and he wrote what he wrote.

My testimony of either of these books does not depend one iota on any kind of physical "evidence" which is possible to obtain- it is based on testimony.

Does that mean that I don't think they were "historical documents"? Not at all. I think it is unknowable in principle however- it will remain always impossible to know scientifically if they are historical because God demands us to accept this on faith and testimony. I don't think God wants us to know it scientifically.

So in my opinion, it might be an interesting exercise, like a video game or something, but it would be of no worth. It could not prove anything either way.

He did? When? Where?

I thought I'd read everything Nibley wrote on the topic, and I'm not aware of it.

I don't doubt you have. I am in now way a scholar on these issues- don't pretend to be, don't want to be, and don't see the value of being one to be totally frank, though I have a very high degree of respect for those who have differing opinions, and devote their lives to this important question. My point was not about Nibley's scholarly work, but about his attitude on the issue; it is clear that he saw, in the facsimilies and elsewhere in the BOA important "parallels" in, for example, Egyptian hypocephali in general, and Facsimile 2, as well as other parallels in the papyri, between the text of the BOA and known Egyptian ceremonies found in the Book of Breathings etc.

To me, it is the parallels that count- nothing else matters. Joseph gave what he saw on the papyri a new context through inspiration. That there is any correlation whatsoever between the subject matter of the papyri and the Book of Abraham, is to me miraculous all on its own. AND THERE ARE MAJOR CORRELATIONS. It would not matter to me one bit if the literal translation of the papyri was a treatise on planting wheat, or the Egyptian equivalent of a romance novel; all that matters is that Joseph used the papyri as an intellectual/spiritual substrate to receive revelation.

In fact, I wouldn't care if there were NO papyri or plates whatsoever, and Joseph just sat at a table writing what he believed were "translations" of unseen historical documents- pulling the text out of the air. If they were inspired, they were inspired, and the only way we can know that is by our own inspiration anyway- so I don't see why it matters at all.

I know you probably have these memorized, but for those who don't, let me quote two Nibley pieces to illustrate what I mean about his understanding of the parallels here and also in this readers digest summary of one of Nibley's major works. I am not too crazy about that last piece, but I think it does a good job at least of giving a very bare bones and highly condensed version of "Message of the JS Papyri"

Don't get me wrong. If, for the sake of argument, we allow that there was an Egyptian language Abraham text on the scrolls in Joseph Smith's possession, I don't believe the Prophet could have identified that text, nor do I believe he could have "translated" it in the sense that he could look at the Egyptian script and tell us what it meant in English. I entirely believe that the Book of Abraham was "translated" in precisely the same way as was the Book of Mormon: by the gift and power of God.

OK well then we seem to be pretty much in agreement on that point. I hope I clarified where I was coming from.

[jskains]

I just find it interesting to at least get a clear picture of the length that might be required to hold the entire text.

[Robert F. Smith]

Suppose someone actually somehow found the gold plates- the physical plates that Joseph used to "translate" the Book of Mormon. Suppose somehow magically this could be proven conclusively- by Joseph's DNA on them- or some such thing- all of this is hypothetical of course.

Suppose also the script was a known script -hypothetically again- and it could be translated into English. Suppose the translation did not match the text of the Book of Mormon.

Would that show that the Book of Mormon is NOT scripture? Not in my opinion- not one iota. Why? Because the Book of Mormon- I believe- was given by the power of God- put into Joseph's mind, and he wrote what he wrote.

My testimony of either of these books does not depend one iota on any kind of physical "evidence" which is possible to obtain- it is based on testimony.

Does that mean that I don't think they were "historical documents"? Not at all. I think it is unknowable in principle however- it will remain always impossible to know scientifically if they are historical because God demands us to accept this on faith and testimony. I don't think God wants us to know it scientifically.

So in my opinion, it might be an interesting exercise, like a video game or something, but it would be of no worth. It could not prove anything either way.

It would not matter to me one bit if the literal translation of the papyri was a treatise on planting wheat, or the Egyptian equivalent of a romance novel; all that matters is that Joseph used the papyri as an intellectual/spiritual substrate to receive revelation.

In fact, I wouldn't care if there were NO papyri or plates whatsoever, and Joseph just sat at a table writing what he believed were "translations" of unseen historical documents- pulling the text out of the air. If they were inspired, they were inspired, and the only way we can know that is by our own inspiration anyway- so I don't see why it matters at all.

Sounds very much like a preemptive defense by capitulation. Don't you think that approach somewhat irrational?

I know of no reason to posit absurd hypotheticals in which the Book of Mormon plates would not translate into the Book of Mormon more or less as we know it. Nor that the Book of Abraham papyrus would not contain the Book of Abraham.

[William Schryver]

mfb:

Well it might be a fun exercise for someone, but in my opinion, it would have no effect whatsoever on the alleged BOA "controversy", since the results would be at best, inconclusive.

I don’t entirely agree with this statement. Admittedly, the relative “length” of any translation would be dependent on the individual translator. But I think we could probably get a fairly good idea—within 100 cm or so—of how much room such a translation would have required on a papyrus roll the size of the scroll of Hor. Granted, that doesn’t “prove” that there was an Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham on the scroll. But it would certainly leave open the possibility. And, in my opinion, the work of John Gee has already demonstrated the plausibility of a Ptolemaic-era scroll having elements of both the Book of Dead and Jewish esoteric literature.

Suppose also the script was a known script -hypothetically again- and it could be translated into English.

You mean like the hieratic script of the scroll of Hor that has already been translated?

My testimony of either of these books does not depend one iota on any kind of physical "evidence" which is possible to obtain- it is based on testimony.

What does that have to do with ascertaining how much scroll would be required for a translation of the 11 pages of the BoA into Ptolemaic-era hieratic Egyptian script? Hint: just about as much as it does to learn that the original length of the scroll of Hor was about 500 cm.

Joseph gave what he saw on the papyri a new context through inspiration.

That is a late-20^th century/early 21^st century innovative posture on what happened in 1835.

It might even be true.

I’m not saying it’s not true.

However, whether it is true or not, it is also true that Joseph Smith believed and explicitly stated that there was a text of the Book of Abraham on what was termed “the long roll” of the two papyrus scrolls he purchased from Michael Chandler. I allow that it is possible Joseph Smith was mistaken on that point and that yet the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture. But I am not so bold as to categorically state it as a fact at this point in time.

What is a fact, according to the detailed analysis of the surviving remnants of the scroll of Hor, is that at least 85% of the original scroll was lost—all of the unmounted material, which, according to multiple eyewitness reports, is the portion that Joseph Smith believed to contain the Book of Abraham text. It would therefore be interesting to me to know whether or not our existing BoA in English, if translated into Egyptian hieratic script similar to the extant remnants, would fit into ~400 centimeters of papyrus scroll. Again, it wouldn’t prove anything. But it is information that we are capable of providing for ourselves, given the data we already have.

In fact, I wouldn't care if there were NO papyri or plates whatsoever, and Joseph just sat at a table writing what he believed were "translations" of unseen historical documents- pulling the text out of the air.

I think this opinion is shared by many people who are, as far as I can tell, fully faithful Latter-day Saints. I do not intend to question the faith of such people when I say that the only problem I have with this posture is that it so directly contradicts what I view as explicit statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith. As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, I think there simply must be plates, and that 11 witnesses must have seen and felt them. When it comes to the question of the Book of Abraham papyrus, I can see a little more wiggle room. But I also don’t perceive anything at this point that absolutely precludes the possibility that there was a Book of Abraham text on the papyrus that Joseph Smith purchased.

OK well then we seem to be pretty much in agreement on that point. I hope I clarified where I was coming from.

I think you’ll find that I’m actually quite comfortable with a rather wide range of faithful LDS thought. Not that I agree with all of it. But I allow for the possibility of it being correct, while yet believing that things may very well have been exactly as Joseph Smith described them.

I will say this: I have discovered in the process of my careful study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers and the Joseph Smith Papyri that the dogmata of the critics concerning those things is almost entirely incorrect. The Egyptian Papers and the papyri have now been available for study for almost 50 years, and yet very little is really known about them—primarily because so many people immediately accepted the rushed conclusions that appeared in the first few years. Those things were uncritically adopted as dogma, and it has molded perceptions for a generation, to the point that very few people have even been willing to examine the bases of those perceptions. I approached the source materials having completely unburdened myself of any preconceptions, and I was therefore (I believe) enabled to discover that the dogmata were not based on sound reasoning and solid evidence.

Edited October 18, 2011 by William Schryver

[mfbukowski]

Sounds very much like a preemptive defense by capitulation. Don't you think that approach somewhat irrational?

I know of no reason to posit absurd hypotheticals in which the Book of Mormon plates would not translate into the Book of Mormon more or less as we know it. Nor that the Book of Abraham papyrus would not contain the Book of Abraham.

Before I was LDS I was an atheist. To me, it is not a hypothetical at all. I am a linguistic constructivist and believe history is what we create to explain whatever our personal agendas are.

For some odd reason God decided to give me a few powerful spiritual experiences which made me know unconditionally that the LDS church is "true" in every sense in which we use that word. I have no idea whatsoever why God decided to do that, but I cannot deny it. As Joseph said, I know it and I know God knows it.

As far as the rationality of my position- there are many philosophers who write a lot of books who are just as irrational as I am, if indeed I am irrational, many sociologists, many psychologists, anthropologists, and others usually branded as "post-modernists" who are equally irrational. But they seem to think they are "rational" for some reason.

There's no accounting for taste I guess!

At least I am in a big club of irrational people, then, I guess.

[William Schryver]

I am a linguistic constructivist and believe history is what we create to explain whatever our personal agendas are.

Just curious, are you familiar with this fairly recent work by Paul Boghossian, Professor of Philosophy at NYU? Fear of Knowledge

I highly recommend it.

[mfbukowski]

Will,

Let me first say, thanks for the well-written and very informative post. As I freely admit, I am not a scholar of these things, and I found your quick summary of some of the issues involved illuminating. I am overjoyed at every bit of evidence which can be gleaned to show that both the BOM and the BOA are indeed "historical".

I also agree with you that such alleged "proof" cannot of course prove the spiritual truths contained in these volumes- and that to me, is the main issue. Indeed there was nothing in your post with which I can disagree, as hard as I might try

Let me just perhaps clarify a couple of things about what I think about these issues.

That is a late-20^th century/early 21^st century innovative posture on what happened in 1835.

It might even be true.

I’m not saying it’s not true.

However, whether it is true or not, it is also true that Joseph Smith believed and explicitly stated that there was a text of the Book of Abraham on what was termed “the long roll” of the two papyrus scrolls he purchased from Michael Chandler. I allow that it is possible Joseph Smith was mistaken on that point and that yet the Book of Abraham is inspired scripture. But I am not so bold as to categorically state it as a fact at this point in time.

I have never questioned that Joseph believed his inspiration was a "translation" of the scroll, nor that the BOM was believed by him to be a "translation" of the gold plates, nor have I ever questioned the existence of the plates. In fact, every word of everything Joseph ever said about anything MAY be literally true- an exact account of exactly what happened.

All I am saying is that, within my highly skeptical brain, even if it is not, it doesn't matter to me. Yes, I am odd for a Mormon, I have known that for over 30 years, but I have been a student of philosophy for 45 years (yes, I am that old) and that is just not going away.

As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, I think there simply must be plates, and that 11 witnesses must have seen and felt them. When it comes to the question of the Book of Abraham papyrus, I can see a little more wiggle room. But I also don’t perceive anything at this point that absolutely precludes the possibility that there was a Book of Abraham text on the papyrus that Joseph Smith purchased.

With the absolute miracles I have seen in my life, I discount nothing. It is all perfectly possible to me.

I think you’ll find that I’m actually quite comfortable with a rather wide range of faithful LDS thought. Not that I agree with all of it. But I allow for the possibility of it being correct, while yet believing that things may very well have been exactly as Joseph Smith described them.

Likewise!

I will say this: I have discovered in the process of my careful study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers and the Joseph Smith Papyri that the dogmata of the critics concerning those things is almost entirely incorrect. The Egyptian Papers and the papyri have now been available for study for almost 50 years, and yet very little is really known about them—primarily because so many people immediately accepted the rushed conclusions that appeared in the first few years. Those things were uncritically adopted as dogma, and it has molded perceptions for a generation, to the point that very few people have even been willing to examine the bases of those perceptions. I approached the source materials having completely unburdened myself of any preconceptions, and I was therefore (I believe) enabled to discover that the dogmata were not based on sound reasoning and solid evidence.

I totally agree, and just want to make one point about this. I frankly think that intellectually, the quicker we move away from playing THEIR game, tactically, the more time we will have to come up with evidence which will eventually amount to a "preponderance of the evidence" position which will have to be acknowledged even by the critics as a "reasonable" position based on evidence.

So I see my position as a tactical one, at the same time that I also see it as philosophically sound. In other words, IF it were possible to teach our people that we do not "need" to show that the BOA was a literal translation for it to be spiritually "true" or "valid", then we take the wind out of the sails of the critics while we build the evidence to show that the critics were wrong about it even being a "reasonable" position.

I don't see my position as a "fall back" position as Robert has mentioned above at all- I believe it is the most sound philosophical position there is which brings the validity of spiritual experience into the picture. Yet I think that if my position were adopted more widely, then fewer would perceive the discovery of the evidence you seek as somehow "necessary" to see our position as reasonable. And then, when it is found, it would be "frosting on the cake"- it would make an already reasonable position as the "most reasonable" by preponderance of the evidence.

And after all, that kind of truth is pretty darn close to what we call "factual". The spiritual truths would still have to be shown by the spirit, of course.

But promoting these ideas are one reason I am here.

[mfbukowski]

Just curious, are you familiar with this fairly recent work by Paul Boghossian, Professor of Philosophy at NYU? Fear of Knowledge

I highly recommend it.

Yes, and I disagree with him on significant issues. I'll have to get into it sometime.

But the question becomes, as LDS do we want spiritual experience to be equally "valid" as science or not?

I vote yes. Every experience you have starts out as subjective and we live our lives in the subjective. We even have to decide if Boghossian is correct in the subjective.

If you want a one-line rejoinder to his position, that's it.

But I have no idea why LDS people would want to go that way. Tarski, on this board, loves that book!

Edit: On the other hand, I agree with William James, a Pragmatist, that religious experience can be seen as "valid" in a certain real sense.

Why someone LDS would want to argue against that position is a mystery to me.

Edited October 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[floatingboy]

In other words, IF it were possible to teach our people that we do not "need" to show that the BOA was a literal translation for it to be spiritually "true" or "valid", then we take the wind out of the sails of the critics while we build the evidence to show that the critics were wrong about it even being a "reasonable" position.

i'm curious as to how this is helpful. having good content does not make something "true" in the sense that it is from god. it simply makes it "true" in the sense that it resonates with us and appeals to our innate proclivity for goodness (although there are obviously many in the human race who don't seem to share this proclivity, there is an overwhelming majority who do).

so when i read a book or see a movie in which the protagonist makes the right choice in the face of appealing yet wrong alternatives, or when the "good" sides wins out over the "evil", or when the cause of the weak is championed, etc, i feel something quite positive. i really do. most of us do, which is the very sensibility that the writer was appealing to within us. does this make the work spiritually "true"? in a way, i think the answer is "yes". if you believe in a benevolent higher power that has endued us with a share of that benevolence, or if you simply believe that for whatever reason, we humans share a common sense of decency and good, then that fictional portrayal of goodness is "true" to us.

is that different from what you are saying? if so, how am i misunderstanding you?

thanks.

[mfbukowski]

i'm curious as to how this is helpful. having good content does not make something "true" in the sense that it is from god. it simply makes it "true" in the sense that it resonates with us and appeals to our innate proclivity for goodness (although there are obviously many in the human race who don't seem to share this proclivity, there is an overwhelming majority who do).

so when i read a book or see a movie in which the protagonist makes the right choice in the face of appealing yet wrong alternatives, or when the "good" sides wins out over the "evil", or when the cause of the weak is championed, etc, i feel something quite positive. i really do. most of us do, which is the very sensibility that the writer was appealing to within us. does this make the work spiritually "true"? in a way, i think the answer is "yes". if you believe in a benevolent higher power that has endued us with a share of that benevolence, or if you simply believe that for whatever reason, we humans share a common sense of decency and good, then that fictional portrayal of goodness is "true" to us.

is that different from what you are saying? if so, how am i misunderstanding you?

thanks.

Pretty close.

The only way you can know something is "from God" is by the spirit.

[TAO]

mfbukowski, do you know any way I could tell how my philosophy is categorized? I mean... post-modernism... pragmaticism... I have no idea where I lie =). Do you have any idea where I might be able to find out?

Thanks.

[floatingboy]

Pretty close.

The only way you can know something is "from God" is by the spirit.

do you think the spirit/light of christ testifies to us about the good found in fictional works? i think it does.

[floatingboy]

can't find the edit button. i should've said, "i think it can."

[LeSellers]

can't find the edit button. i should've said, "i think it can."

Fortunately (or un), new posters here don't get editing privileges until they've posted 25 (aIr) messages. Try "A three Word Story" in the Social Hall.

Lehi

Edited October 19, 2011 by LeSellers

[ERayR]

Sounds very much like a preemptive defense by capitulation. Don't you think that approach somewhat irrational?

No. Not if you believe in "The Gift and Power of God". For those who want to disprove or prove God Things by and with people things, well to me, it just don't work. Never has. Never will. The best you can do with people things is a 'well maybe'.

[altersteve]

do you think the spirit/light of christ testifies to us about the good found in fictional works? i think it does.

The Spirit testifies of all that is good. If there is good in a fictional work, there is no reason why the Spirit can't testify of it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Before I was LDS I was an atheist. To me, it is not a hypothetical at all. I am a linguistic constructivist and believe history is what we create to explain whatever our personal agendas are. For some odd reason God decided to give me a few powerful spiritual experiences which made me know unconditionally that the LDS church is "true" in every sense in which we use that word. I have no idea whatsoever why God decided to do that, but I cannot deny it. As Joseph said, I know it and I know God knows it. As far as the rationality of my position- there are many philosophers who write a lot of books who are just as irrational as I am, if indeed I am irrational, many sociologists, many psychologists, anthropologists, and others usually branded as "post-modernists" who are equally irrational. But they seem to think they are "rational" for some reason. There's no accounting for taste I guess! At least I am in a big club of irrational people, then, I guess.

Are you familiar with Stephen D. Unwin, The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation that Proves the Ultimate Truth (Crown Forum, 2003)? And how do you feel about Bayesian inference or Bayesian epistemology? Is it subjective enough for you?

[mfbukowski]

Are you familiar with Stephen D. Unwin, The Probability of God: A Simple Calculation that Proves the Ultimate Truth (Crown Forum, 2003)? And how do you feel about Bayesian inference or Bayesian epistemology? Is it subjective enough for you?

I'm not, but I will look it up and check it out. It definitely has a suspicious title.

As far as Bayesian epistemology- yeah dude, now we are talking rigorous subjectivity! I have a client that jokes about using rigorously subjective methodologies (and he is an engineer) as "machining butter". I love that analogy!

I was at UCLA when Alonzo Church was there and used to bump into him all the time. (That's a joke- he was a large man). But I don't think he could play the Peano.

[mfbukowski]

Here's a great example of algorithms in action- if you google "church peano" (I just wanted to see what it would do with that) it gives you where to find lessons for church pianists.

I thought that was hilarious. Alonzo Church was a logician who worked with a guy named Peano on some logical problems.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski, do you know any way I could tell how my philosophy is categorized? I mean... post-modernism... pragmaticism... I have no idea where I lie =). Do you have any idea where I might be able to find out?

Thanks.

Maybe this site?

http://www.thealmigh...Quiz-House.html

But seriously, you are one of my faves hereabouts, but I think you are kind of a mixture of a couple of philosophies. As you get older, and read up on it more, it will become clearer. But we do seem to often agree on a lot of things. I regard myself as a Pragmatist really- I suggest you read some John Dewey and William James- one good book is Reconstruction in Philosophy by Dewey- it's available somewhere as a pdf for free I think.

Another would be Varieties of Religious Experience by James- maybe just the "Conclusions" section- the rest is kind of long, and you can always go back to it after you know where he is going with the ideas.

When I talk about Dewey, somebody always hits me up about his politics. I disagree with his politics, so don't bother making that comment. I also like Rorty a lot, but think he makes a central mistake that I am working on a paper on right now. I don't like his politics either.

For those familiar with Rorty, I will give you a one liner: his central error imo is his idea of an "ironist" and the contingency of the self, which gives rise ultimately to his leftist politics. I think the self is only partially contingent but has a non-contingent universally human "core", which incidentally also, in another linguistic context, the LDS would call the "spirit". But that is for another time.

Edited October 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The Spirit testifies of all that is good. If there is good in a fictional work, there is no reason why the Spirit can't testify of it.

Some of the most profound and "inspired" works of human intelligence are "fiction".