Response To Chris Ralph

[rpn]

What is the faithful response to the following (excerpt from letter responding to this spring's initiative to help European leaders deal with disaffectation of members. http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/ ) Do we already have a response (links, please)?

those concerns may be summed up as follows:

The Book of Abraham was, (according to official documentation), in 1835 translated by the prophetic powers of Joseph Smith, from Egyptian papyri which Joseph Smith said contained a record of Abraham, and also one of Joseph who was sold into Egypt.

The resulting text of the Book of Abraham states that the record was made by Abraham’s own hand upon papyrus. This would presumably have been c 1900 BC. The papyrus actually dates to the first century BC.

When it is translated by modern Egyptologists, no mention at all of Abraham is found in the text. The papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was produced, is in fact a late copy, (Ptolemaic), of The Book of Breathings, a regular funerary text, which maps pagan Egyptian beliefs concerning the state of the soul after death.

The Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith from this papyrus refers in the text to associated “Facsimiles”, which also constitute part of LDS canon. Facsimile 1, (see below), for example allegedly shows Abraham fixed to an altar about to be sacrificed by the priest of the pagan god Elkenah, before being saved from this fate by an angel of the Lord. The official church website dramatically portrays this event in the “Gospel Art Picture Kit” with the following illustration:

Note in both illustrations the inclusion of the lion-headed couch, and the presence of tell-tale canopic jars, which were routinely used by ancient Egyptians during the process of embalming. These formed part of the pagan funerary rites, and the same motifs may be found on the chamber walls of later pyramids, as for example:

This well-known scene actually depicts the mythical embalming and resurrection of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the underworld, by his son Anubis, the jackal-headed god.

There are differences certainly between Facsimile 1 and the images found in Egyptian burial chambers, but they are only the consequence of Joseph Smith incorrectly having guessed what had originally been recorded in the gaps where the papyrus was damaged. Fortunately, we are able to assess from the original papyrus the areas where Joseph employed his faulty guesswork, as the following photograph illustrates:

The damaged and missing portion of the papyrus explains perfectly why the jackal-headed Anubis was absent from Facsimile 1, and in his place the otherwise unknown (to historians) priest of Elkenah was inserted by Joseph Smith. Creative though this idea may have been in 1835, according to the best scholarship presently available, it was wide of the mark.

It is also very apparent that Joseph Smith had a misinformed idea about the original use of hieroglyphs. By comparing the glyphs on the papyri with an “Egyptian grammar” which was prepared under Joseph’s direction in 1835, it is apparent that Joseph considered that each glyph represented whole, complex sentences, rather than simple sounds or concepts. Accordingly we find one particular glyph, which resembles a reversed capital E, and which we now know means “water”, rendered by Joseph as: “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos”

Even overlooking the anomaly, upon which historians are agreed, that the Chaldeans did not exist in the time of Abraham, or for several hundred years afterwards, how can such a mis-reading of one simple glyph leave any margin for doubt that Joseph Smith got it all very wrong in this case? Does it not take wilful blindness, and a high degree of spiritual contortionism to overcome plain common sense and believe otherwise? Are we really expected to believe that God, who gave each of us sufficient intelligence to reason and make sense of our environment, would require us in this instance not to use that same intelligence? In order to demonstrate faith, is it really necessary to practice such denial, or have faith and denial become one and the same?

[Calm]

http://en.fairmormon...les/Facsimile_1

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Missing_portions

Edited August 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[CV75]

What is the faithful response to the following (excerpt from letter responding to this spring's initiative to help European leaders deal with disaffectation of members. http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/ ) Do we already have a response (links, please)?

3 Nephi 3:1-12

[Nevo]

Another faithful response is Kerry Muhlestein, “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I find this interesting particularly in light of Will's presentation in 2010 he gave.

Transcription errors in all of these copies clearly demonstrate that these are not the original translation of the Book of Abraham. They are later copies of that book. If Joseph had originally written an Egyptian character in the margin and then either puzzled out or had the translation revealed to him, there would have been no need to continue to write down the original characters when making third or fourth copies of the scriptural text.[36] (3) We can document that Joseph Smith was not in Kirtland when many of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers were created.[37] (4) Both the fact that the hieratic text was apparently overwritten onto the English Book of Abraham verses and evidence of specific scribal practices suggest that the hieratic was a late addition.[38] This indicates that they were written after the text had been completed, not copied beforehand and then translated.[39]

[robuchan]

I find this interesting particularly in light of Will's presentation in 2010 he gave.

Transcription errors in all of these copies clearly demonstrate that these are not the original translation of the Book of Abraham. They are later copies of that book. If Joseph had originally written an Egyptian character in the margin and then either puzzled out or had the translation revealed to him, there would have been no need to continue to write down the original characters when making third or fourth copies of the scriptural text.[36] (3) We can document that Joseph Smith was not in Kirtland when many of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers were created.[37] (4) Both the fact that the hieratic text was apparently overwritten onto the English Book of Abraham verses and evidence of specific scribal practices suggest that the hieratic was a addition.[38] This indicates that they were written after the text had been completed, not copied beforehand and then translated.[39]

Why does it matter if done before or after translation?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why does it matter if done before or after translation?

Lol. Think about it for a bit.

[robuchan]

I'm missing the humor. Help me out.

[robuchan]

I'm missing the humor. Help me out.

Bump?

[cdowis]

The resulting text of the Book of Abraham states that the record was made by Abraham’s own hand upon papyrus. This would presumably have been c 1900 BC.

I have a BOM which was written by Nephi's own hand, (I Ne 1:17). This would make it over two thousand years old, if I were really stupid.

However, I realize that if the BOA manuscript (the one translated by JS) was a COPY of the original, as my BOM is also a copy of the original, then it has a very different date. That took me all of two seconds to find a response and I'm not really very smart to figure that out.

Are we really expected to believe that God, who gave each of us sufficient intelligence to reason and make sense of our environment, would require us in this instance not to use that same intelligence?

I agree with you. The Lord expects us to be smart than to be stupid, as I demonstated above.

Being stupid comes from making flawed assumptions and spouting incorrect information, while pretending that it is factual.

And you can quote me.

Edited August 30, 2012 by cdowis

[CA Steve]

Both the fact that the hieratic text was apparently overwritten onto the English Book of Abraham verses and evidence of specific scribal practices suggest that the hieratic was a late addition.

Neither the Muhlestein article from your footnote nor the Gee article that Muhlestein references (A review by John Gee of Larson's book "By His own Hand") give examples of where they see hieratic text overwritten on the the English Book of Abraham verses in the Abraham manuscripts. Could you provide some examples where this actually occurs?

[Freedom]

Why does it matter if done before or after translation?

As I understand it, it demonstrates that Joseph was not writing these out as part of the translation process.

[Jude2]

I’m certainly no scholar, barely crawled out of high school but I think I can ponder the scriptures as well as anyone. So I have a question of perhaps a theory and maybe one of you wonderful scholars here can tell me why I’m wrong.

Abraham does not say the god Elkenah but "the god of Elkenah". I don’t believe that Abraham through Joseph meant to call the gods by their names. Elkenah and the rest mentioned are not gods themselves but are either a place name or person.

Abraham writes;

My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, …unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen…For their hearts were set to do evil, and were wholly turned to 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;

Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash were the heathens who worshiped the false gods which we know as the sons of Horus.

Note that in chapter 1 verse 7 it says "The priest of Elkenah was also the priest of Pharaoh" Pharaoh was a person thus Elkenah was person who shared a priest with Pharaoh. It is a personal name in the Bible, Hannah’s husband.

In Joshua 10:20 it says;

"Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah"

These are places names I even read they are doing some archeology at Libnah these days which would have been occupied at the time of Abraham by heathens.

Figure 9 in the vignette makes my point. It is a crocodile and Joseph writes;

"The idolatrous god of Pharaoh"

He’s not calling the Pharaoh a crocodile but that the crocodile was the god the different Pharaohs worshiped or represented the Pharaoh's power.

Is there something I’m missing, how am I wrong?

[robuchan]

As I understand it, it demonstrates that Joseph was not writing these out as part of the translation process.

OK I get that. But he was the one who translated it. If he goes back and compares the Egyptian text he translated with the English outcome it doesn't matter if he analyzes it after the fact or before the fact it's still Egyptian to English and it's still wrong.

[cdowis]

I’m certainly no scholar, barely crawled out of high school but I think I can ponder the scriptures as well as anyone. So I have a question of perhaps a theory and maybe one of you wonderful scholars here can tell me why I’m wrong.

Abraham does not say the god Elkenah but "the god of Elkenah". I don’t believe that Abraham through Joseph meant to call the gods by their names. Elkenah and the rest mentioned are not gods themselves but are either a place name or person.

snip

Is there something I’m missing, how am I wrong?

Nibley agrees with your assessment.

Again the twin gods of stupidity are false assumptions and false information. Just read what the text says, as you have done.

[Jude2]

Nibley agrees with your assessment.

Again the twin gods of stupidity are false assumptions and false information. Just read what the text says, as you have done.

Well I guess great minds think a like

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

OK I get that. But he was the one who translated it. If he goes back and compares the Egyptian text he translated with the English outcome it doesn't matter if he analyzes it after the fact or before the fact it's still Egyptian to English and it's still wrong.

Who said he analyzed anything. There are several reason to believe that teh KEP was written after the translation was already produced. The critics main argument is that the KEP were used as part of the translation and that it proves that JS did not know what he was doing. The strongest evidence for this was Will's fair presentation from 2010.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Neither the Muhlestein article from your footnote nor the Gee article that Muhlestein references (A review by John Gee of Larson's book "By His own Hand") give examples of where they see hieratic text overwritten on the the English Book of Abraham verses in the Abraham manuscripts. Could you provide some examples where this actually occurs?

Gee, “A Tragedy of Errors,” 113.

Take a look at that.

[CA Steve]

Gee, “A Tragedy of Errors,” 113.

Take a look at that.

I did, that is the review I mentioned by Gee. He did not provide any specific references to where it (over writting) occurs on the manuscripts. I do have a poor copy of the Abraham manuscripts but it looks like to me that there are few if any instances in the Book of Abraham translation MS1-3 where the hieratic text overwrites the English. At best the second page of MS.1 might have a few instances but the copy quality is so poor it is difficult to determine what the marks in the left margin actually represent. In most cases it is quite clear that the hieratic text lines up with specific verses and at the start of English paragraphs.

On Edit: On page 113 Gee talks about how the hieratic characters do not line up the way the English text does in a straight vertical column but I do not see any references by Gee where the hieratic actually overwrites the English as Muhlestien claims Gee says. Given that these characters were hand copied by the scribes who were unfamiliar with them, one would expect that it would be much more difficult to line them up vertically in a column the same as English text.

Edited August 30, 2012 by CA Steve

[robuchan]

This issue that the KEP was done before or after. Am I understanding it right?

If I have the following sentence in Spanish:

Yo soy de los Estados Unidos.

And I translate it as:

In the land of the ^aChaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I,^bAbraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of ^cresidence

And you find me with documents that show stuff like:

Yo = In the land of the Chaldeans

soy = at the residence of my fathers

de = I, Abraham

Isn't that equally condemning no matter if I used that document to translate or I put it together after the fact?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I did, that is the review I mentioned by Gee. He did not provide any specific references to where it (over writting) occurs on the manuscripts. I do have a poor copy of the Abraham manuscripts but it looks like to me that there are few if any instances in the Book of Abraham translation MS1-3 where the hieratic text overwrites the English. At best the second page of MS.1 might have a few instances but the copy quality is so poor it is difficult to determine what the marks in the left margin actually represent. In most cases it is quite clear that the hieratic text lines up with specific verses and at the start of English paragraphs.

On Edit: On page 113 Gee talks about how the hieratic characters do not line up the way the English text does in a straight vertical column but I do not see any references by Gee where the hieratic actually overwrites the English as Muhlestien claims Gee says. Given that these characters were hand copied by the scribes who were unfamiliar with them, one would expect that it would be much more difficult to line them up vertically in a column the same as English text.

You will need to take it up with them then.

One interesting thing is how it appears the characters were picked at random for the explanations. Does that count for anything?

Edited August 30, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This issue that the KEP was done before or after. Am I understanding it right?

If I have the following sentence in Spanish:

Yo soy de los Estados Unidos.

And I translate it as:

In the land of the ^aChaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I,^bAbraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of ^cresidence

And you find me with documents that show stuff like:

Yo = In the land of the Chaldeans

soy = at the residence of my fathers

de = I, Abraham

Isn't that equally condemning no matter if I used that document to translate or I put it together after the fact?

No, because you are assuming that the KEP was used as a tool for translation or as a reverse engineering project.

The first theory seems to be dead as there is much evidence against it. The 2nd theory has never even attempted to be proved by critics. It is just asserted. So I have not seen really any arguments for it being a reverse engineering project. Like I said, I have just seen it asserted.

[robuchan]

No, because you are assuming that the KEP was used as a tool for translation or as a reverse engineering project.

The first theory seems to be dead as there is much evidence against it. The 2nd theory has never even attempted to be proved by critics. It is just asserted. So I have not seen really any arguments for it being a reverse engineering project. Like I said, I have just seen it asserted.

I'm not a KEP expert but it seems to be obvious it was used one of those, either a tool for translation or a reverse engineering project.

[CA Steve]

You will need to take it up with them then.

On interesting thing is how it appears the characters were picked at random for the explanations. Does that count for anything?

See footnote #39 in the Muhlestein article you referenced. He says

"It is worth noting that in previous articles . . . I wrote that the hieratic characters on one sheet skipped around rather than followed the order in which they appeared on the papyri. A careful study by Brian Hauglid and myself, in which we used the highest quality photographs enlarged several times, has now convinced me that this is not the case."

If you have a copy of the manuscript translations and PJS XI you can see that the characters in the translation manuscripts 1-3 follow the order left to right (which I think is backward from how hieratic text is supposed to be read) of the first four lines in the first column of hieratic text after (left of) facsimile #1. The only time they do not follow the order of the papyri characters is in the lacunae where it appears someone made up the missing characters for Abr 1:23-28.

Edited August 30, 2012 by CA Steve

[DBMormon]

In regards to Chris Ralphs letter.... I think his feelings are valid and need addressed, while his conclusions need more information and adjustment.