The Book Of Abraham: An End To The Apologetic War (Pt. 1)

[William Schryver]

At just over 1:16 into the video the first very serious mistake was made by the maker of the "response" video. It states that Joseph Smith translated Facsimile 1. He did no such thing. There is only one partially extant column of text on the original vignette and Joseph Smith did not translate that. All he did was to offer an explanation of the elements of the vignette, based upon the storyline of the Book of Abraham, but no actual translation.

Exactly!

And as for those who claim that the Abraham manuscripts "prove" that Joseph Smith believed his translation of the Book of Abraham was based on the Book of Breathings, I would again recommend the portion of my presentation at the 2010 FAIR Conference wherein I present persuasive evidence that the translation of the Book of Abraham pre-dates the preparation of those manuscripts: Dependency of the Alphabet and Grammar on a Pre-existing Text of the Book of Abraham.

Edited March 9, 2013 by William Schryver

[nealr]

Identified by who? Not by non-LDS Egyptologists.

The question of the long scroll vs. the mounted fragments is a matter of LDS History, not Egyptology. I personally don't know of any non-LDS Egyptologists that do LDS History, nor can I imagine why such would have any credibility in a field so far from their own. This comment betrays your personal unfamiliarity with the issues and relevant research.

What's more plausible, that the text surrounding it had nothing to do with the vignette or that it does?

Once again, you reveal serious ignorance. It is very common for the wrong text to be next to the vignettes. In fact, the fragment of the JSP that was on display just yesterday had the wrong vignettes with the wrong text.

In your other post, you write:

You also mentioned how Ritner might be biased. Do you realize saying this approach undermines your own credibility? Why should one believe an LDS believe who has an invested interest in showing the BoA legitimate? Do you have more credibility as a non-Egyptologist believer than a credentialed Egyptologists who doesn't believe? Please stop this kind of approach. It's silly and annoying to those of us who care about content.

If you care so much about content, then why do you consistently dismiss LDS Egyptologists? If bias matters, then it matters both ways. You can't consistently harp on the alleged bias of LDS scholars and then say it is "silly and annoying" when people point out that Ritner and others are biased against the LDS. Anti-LDS bias is just as relevant as pro-LDS bias. To say only one matters is called a double standard.

Mormon Mason, I think, understands this just fine. He is aware of the biases of LDS scholars, but has also checked there arguments and found them to be pretty persuasive. Read his posts again, he obviously has a better grasp of what the issues are than you do. This is what people who care about content do. They get familiar with the issues, they study it out, and they take the arguments seriously, regardless of their source (though they may also feel biases are relevant, and therefore keep them in mind as they study). You have not done that, and I've noticed a tendency on your part to get into arguments on topics of which you know precious little. That does not speak well to how much you "care about content."

[helix]

This means that if the Book of Abraham actually appeared somewhere on the Egyptian papyri that Joseph possessed, that the book would have been written by a Hellenized Jewish author living presumably in Egypt who revised the Book of Genesis to create a piece of literature scholars refer to as pseudepigraphon (singular of pseudeipigrapha).

Please note; if the BofA literally appeared on the Egyptian scrolls Joseph possessed it would be a book written by a later Jewish author who falsely attributed the text to the biblical patriarch. This would place the BofA in the same category as later Jewish texts falsely attributed to biblical figures in the past, including the books of Enoch, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, and even the Apocalypse of Abraham (a text probably written by a Jewish author around 70-150 AD).

Huh, I've had this opinion for a while. Since your ideas agree with mine, I obivously like it.

It's probably because I can't imagine or accept the idea that Joseph Smith created a new story, never before thought of or penned by someone else. I'm much more comfortable with the idea that he restored something previosly written by another.

In part 2

Did Joseph Smith correctly interpret the Facsimile? Of course not! For Latter-day Saints, the Prophet did something much more impressive. He produced “scripture.”

I have a harder time with this one. I've been very partial to the concept that these facsimiles represent scenes which are adopted by the original author to tell a story. We have no extant text where the original author says "Here's what I meant by these pictures." Not like, for example, the famous lion couch scene in which the author says this refers to Abraham. And although the facsimiles intended meaning seems lost, Joseph Smith restored the author's intended meaning for them.

The reason it's hard for me to go with the approach that "Joseph Smith translated these facsimiles wrong but he created scripture" is that there are just too many hints he was doing something very right. There is precedence the lion couch scene was used for the Abraham story. Joseph Smith identified the person as a priest. Identifying the four canopic jars correctly. Identifying as numbers. Identifying symbols above figures in facsimile 3 as names. Identifying the crocodile as a Pharoah. The term "pillars of heaven." The bird as an angel. And so on...

It seems strange to say "Joseph Smith translated these wrong. The author never intended that. But he repeatedly use proper Egyptian concepts when creating something new out of them."

Edited March 9, 2013 by helix

[Alvino]

The question of the long scroll vs. the mounted fragments is a matter of LDS History, not Egyptology. I personally don't know of any non-LDS Egyptologists that do LDS History, nor can I imagine why such would have any credibility in a field so far from their own. This comment betrays your personal unfamiliarity with the issues and relevant research.

That wasn't what I was responding to in my comment. Who identified the long scroll as being the Book of Abraham? Others who couldn't translate Egyptian and who didn't know Abraham in Egypt doesn't make much sense to Egyptology? That was my point.

Once again, you reveal serious ignorance. It is very common for the wrong text to be next to the vignettes. In fact, the fragment of the JSP that was on display just yesterday had the wrong vignettes with the wrong text.

That's fine but I'm not saying this isn't common. My question was, should we expect, based on the evidence and cases we have, more texts with the wrong vignettes or with the right vignettes? It could be very common to have mismatching elements yet even more common to have matching ones. That was a little question of mine not critical to the issue - still, I would like to know.

In your other post, you write:

If you care so much about content, then why do you consistently dismiss LDS Egyptologists?

I dismiss them because I'm not a professional so I rely on peer-reviewed material (are the relevant findings of LDS Egyptologists peer-reviewd?) and because I have reason to believe that LDS Egyptologists have a conflict of interest in the matter.

It would be wrong, also, for me to just accept what one non-LDS Egyptologist says on this without any peer-review. I also have no good reason to believe a consensus of Egyptologists would have a conflict of interests in interpreting the papyri.

If bias matters, then it matters both ways. You can't consistently harp on the alleged bias of LDS scholars and then say it is "silly and annoying" when people point out that Ritner and others are biased against the LDS. Anti-LDS bias is just as relevant as pro-LDS bias. To say only one matters is called a double standard.

I never said it only matters what non-LDS Egyptologists say. Yet, LDS Egyptologists have a vested interest, and I don't have reason to think a consensus of Egyptologists would have the opposite interest (to show JS wrong). All I'm asking is that this matter be put to peer review by professionals and I'll accept the outcome as the best explanation we have. Would believers accept that?

It would be double standard but that's not what I'm doing nor is the matter so black and white (for example, the only options are not "having a bias in favor of LDS beliefs about Egyptology" and "having a bias against LDS belief on Egyptology", there is also "having little or no bias about LDS beliefs on Egyptology).

Mormon Mason, I think, understands this just fine. He is aware of the biases of LDS scholars, but has also checked there arguments and found them to be pretty persuasive. Read his posts again, he obviously has a better grasp of what the issues are than you do. This is what people who care about content do. They get familiar with the issues, they study it out, and they take the arguments seriously, regardless of their source (though they may also feel biases are relevant, and therefore keep them in mind as they study).

Hope my stance doesn't look so naive to you now given that you didn't get what I was saying.

You have not done that, and I've noticed a tendency on your part to get into arguments on topics of which you know precious little. That does not speak well to how much you "care about content."

It's a curse of me being told this kind of thing from people who end up doing a terrible job at defending their views, one of them being MM in a thread I started and on which he never got back to me again.

By the way, don't take me for pushing for one view or another. Most of what I respond to people here is a task of discovery. You have a position about the topic? I want to know about it and see how it holds up under criticisms which rely on views I may or may not personally hold as correct.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Alvino

[MormonMason]

Alvino,

It is pretty obvious that do are not following the basic argument here so I am going to make one more attempt to help you understand. Understand the basic premise of my argument and I will address the rest of your comments. Fail again and I am done trying to help you understand. I am not as patient in my older age than I once was in my youth. I will just go on ignoring you and will continue addressing the rest of the inane video like you aren't there. Following is a portion of the argument I made interspersed with your comments.

My argument:

and appears to be in a struggle since the feet are not on the lion couch,

Your answer:

There are several examples of similar Egyptian scenes where the feet ae not on the lion couch.

My argument:

the priest figure stands between the lion couch and the legs of the man,

Your response:

see the video carefully, MM.

I have watched the video very, very carefully--several times. You fail to understand the argument. Feet rising into the air are not what I mean when I say "off the couch" and "on the couch." After giving some thought to this, I have come up with a very simplistic graphic that outlines the layout of the man on the lion couch with respect to other elements of the vignettes, such as the positions of gods/priests, lion couches and figures on the couches.

All of your vignettes (I am not addressing the falsified Parkinson/Larson reconstruction in the film, by the way, but the legitimate vignettes) are examples of the same kind of resuscitation scene with the relative position of the man on the lion couch all being exactly the same, regardless of rising or inactive limbs. Look at the graphic and notice what it is that I am saying about the man's legs being off of the lion couch and why it is a significant difference between the vignette that became Facsimile 1 and all others that I have seen from all over Egypt.

Do you now understand the basic argument about differences between figures' legs' being on the lion couch and off the lion couch both I and Muhlestein (as well as others) are making on this issue? Do you notice the differences in positioning of the god/priest figures in all other examples as opposed to the original vignette that became Facsimile 1?

Edited March 11, 2013 by MormonMason

[Stone holm]

I don't. When I think of the temple instruction of the creation, I recall God speaking and Jehovah doing. Isn't that what David Bokovoy is saying of the two Genesis accounts?

Here I agree. I've no probem with the Book of Abraham being true scripture including being a true, literal account of Father Abraham even if it is psuedepigraphic. furthermore, even if copied by a Hellenistic Jew, why could his account not accurately reflect the original account which was perhaps written by Abraham's own hand. Then there's the truth that a living prophet of God translated the texts he had. Of course a living prophet could correct any mal-interpretations from the original writings.

There is another explanation of the two accounts in Genesis which floats around in Mormon literature, namely the 7 day account referring to the Spritual Creation and a 1 day account of the actual creation. Neither of which exactly mesh well with the Temple Endowment. I personally think that Brigham Young got it right when he pretty much dismissed most of the Genesis story as fable.

[Alvino]

Alvino,

It is pretty obvious that do are not following the basic argument here so I am going to make one more attempt to help you understand. Understand the basic premise of my argument and I will address the rest of your comments. Fail again and I am done trying to help you understand. I am not as patient in my older age than I once was in my youth. I will just go on ignoring you and will continue addressing the rest of the inane video like you aren't there. Following is a portion of the argument I made interspersed with your comments.

Apparently you already started ignoring what I say. I admit I didn't understand what you were saying (that the priest is between the legs of the victim and the lion couch) but it isn't good that you ignore the criticisms those who don't agree with you did understand the first time - as you keep doing. This isn't the first time, MM.

Do you now understand the basic argument about differences between figures' legs' being on the lion couch and off the lion couch both I and Muhlestein (as well as others) are making on this issue?

Now I do and thanks for explaining it.

Do you notice the differences in positioning of the god/priest figures in all other examples as opposed to the original vignette that became Facsimile 1?

I do notice a difference between the other few examples I've seen of other similar scenes, the reconstruction published with the LDS BoA, and the original vignette with regards to the positioning of the priest (though the legs look just normal in 2-D as any other I've seen). The question I asked you before is, why should this matter? I'm not an Egyptologist but, why is this relevant when the scene is so much like other Egyptian scenes that have nothing to do with struggle or Abraham? Didn't the person drawing the vignette know one leg rising and one down was a symbol of ascension, not struggle? That a hand so close to the face didn't mean struggle or that the last thing a person struggling against a murderous priest would do is lay one's torso on the couch - or that a priest trying to kill you would be much closer to your upper body instead of close to your legs where your struggling victim can easily fend you off with his legs or simply get off the couch? If we are talking about (as Muhlestein does) what the character laying down in the vignette is doing, it definitely seems more like participating in a resurrection scene rather than defending himself against an attacker, wouldn't you say? I wrote: "I also wanted to ask you, MM. What is more common, to have a jackal-headed figure with two birds and a person who is not strugling in a lion couch having something to do with Abraham, or the same figure not having something to do with Abraham? How many good examples do we have of such a scene where the person standing has a jackal head in a lion couch scene and how many good examples do we have of a lion scene with a bald priest at the side? As I see it, if one is to go with the evidence available, one should go with what one actually has many good examples from."

[MormonMason]

...

I do notice a difference between the other few examples I've seen of other similar scenes, the reconstruction published with the LDS BoA, and the original vignette with regards to the positioning of the priest (though the legs look just normal in 2-D as any other I've seen). The question I asked you before is, why should this matter? I'm not an Egyptologist but, why is this relevant when the scene is so much like other Egyptian scenes that have nothing to do with struggle or Abraham?

The difference is significant. Why do you think that all the other examples show it one way, with the body fully on the couch, even with differing other elements in the vignettes? When an Egyptian draughtsman departs from the canon of his art, it typically is because the draughtsman is trying to tell someone something. The vignette that later became Facsimile 1 is unique in that it is the only lion couch scene that depicts the person partially lying on the couch. All others I have ever seen in person and in photograph have the person lying completely on the couch.

Didn't the person drawing the vignette know one leg rising and one down was a symbol of ascension, not struggle?

No, it indicated stirring and movement. Resuscitation typically shows one foot up and one arm up with the other arm at the side. Variants of the theme show the person mummiform and lying on the abdomen with upper body risen up with the emblems of Osiris. When not mummiform, the person rising from the couch is shown nude. This is very important to resuscitation scenes where the character is not mummiform as it is part and parcel of the conception of Horus the Younger/rebirth from death.

In the case of the vignette in the Horos scroll, the person is not nude, is not mummiform, and has both hands up in a position not indicating of rising from sleep and inaction. Rising from sleep/inaction requires one hand at side (the sign of inaction) and one hand up with elbow up and palm to face (indicating waking from sleep).

The vignette in the Horos scroll, on the other hand, does not tell the story of one rising from the sleep of death. The person is fully alive and moving, is fully clothed and accessorized, etc. The themes are quite different.

That a hand so close to the face didn't mean struggle or that the last thing a person struggling against a murderous priest would do is lay one's torso on the couch - or that a priest trying to kill you would be much closer to your upper body instead of close to your legs where your struggling victim can easily fend you off with his legs or simply get off the couch?

If the person is bound there is no way to get off the couch. If the priest is stronger than the victim there will be no getting off of the couch. In stories of sacrifices I have read from Egypt, the incision is quickly made. And, the hands are not all that close to the face in the Horos scroll vignette. The symbol of supplication/prayer in Egyptian art, by the way, is to place the hands in the manner seen in the Horos scroll vignette. In addition, one foot forward in combination with two hands up in the position of supplication is also the way to draw someone in prayer/supplication. This also makes this vignette quite unique. It also fits the Book of Abraham story, wherein Abraham prays to the Lord for deliverance.

If we are talking about (as Muhlestein does) what the character laying down in the vignette is doing, it definitely seems more like participating in a resurrection scene rather than defending himself against an attacker, wouldn't you say?

No, I disagree. It looks like someone only partially on a lion couch, offering prayer. It also looks like a struggle. There is no gentle rising from sleep here. Show me the hand at the side and the palm to the face with elbow facing upward. I'll believe that this Horos scroll vignette is a resuscitation scene, then. You see, the angle of the hands are wrong for this sort of scene, even with the undisputed hand.

There is something else that seems pertinent to mention in conjunction with the Horos vignette. I have noticed that when certain gods are portrayed in martial form or in a mode to do violence, they sometimes are drawn omitting an arm. I think it is of interest that the Anubis figure is drawn on this vignette missing an arm, in that light.

(Note that the same cannot be said about the man partially on the couch, where there is enough trace to show that both arms were originally present on the figure that is only partially on the couch, as also evidenced by two hands up; there is also enough trace and extant papyrus left to show that no arm was at the side and that there could have been none grasping a phallus as in the falsified drawings bandied about by critics of the Book of Abraham).

I wrote: "I also wanted to ask you, MM. What is more common, to have a jackal-headed figure with two birds and a person who is not strugling in a lion couch having something to do with Abraham, or the same figure not having something to do with Abraham? How many good examples do we have of such a scene where the person standing has a jackal head in a lion couch scene and how many good examples do we have of a lion scene with a bald priest at the side? As I see it, if one is to go with the evidence available, one should go with what one actually has many good examples from."

You are assuming that there are two birds. There aren't, so your entire point regarding this is moot. There is only one bird in the Horos vignette, and it isn't copulating with the guy on the lion couch. And, typically, Anubis figures in embalming and burial scenes. The Horos vignette most certainly is not an embalming scene or that of a burial. In the one example in the video, he is assisting the resuscitation in company with other gods and goddesses. That is not what is going on in the Horos vignette. The person on the couch is alive, was not dead, is fully clothed and not nude (nudity is typical of every scene like this I ever have seen), and also this is evidenced by the fact that there is no hand at side and both hands upward and not in the position of one waking from sleep, and the Anubis figure is alone.

It looks more like depiction of both struggle and prayer than it does any resuscitation scene I have ever seen.

As to the portrayal of a bald-headed priest in like scenes, I do not know of any offhand. But, the Egyptians likely would not have drawn something like that, anyway. As we now know, that most likely was a faulty reconstruction. The two hands up, on the other hand, we now know is not a faulty reconstruction. You really ought to read the paper presented by Lanny D. Bell, very carefully. While not a ringing endorsement of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham, it is at least in no uncertain terms supportive of Joseph Smith's reconstruction of two hands up in spite of the fact that Bell also sees this as some sort of resuscitation scene with the figure reaching out to embrace his Ba spirit.

That said, I do not think he has thought it through regarding the positioning of the figure on the couch. I do not think that most have paid much regard to that but it could still change over time if enough people finally recognize the unique positioning of the figure as opposed to all other representations. It took years to get non-Mormon Egyptologists to consider the evidence of two hands. Mormons can afford to be patient, I think.

Edited March 13, 2013 by MormonMason

[Alvino]

The difference is significant. Why do you think that all the other examples show it one way, with the body fully on the couch, even with differing other elements in the vignettes? When an Egyptian draughtsman departs from the canon of his art, it typically is because the draughtsman is trying to tell someone something. The vignette that later became Facsimile 1 is unique in that it is the only lion couch scene that depicts the person partially lying on the couch. All others I have ever seen in person and in photograph have the person lying completely on the couch.

I have some questions about this. First, what do you think is the status of the picture in the published LDS BoA? in that one, which is supposed to be before the damage and not a reconstruction from a lacuna, it shows the lines of the priest's lower body behind the lion couch. What's up with this, in your opinion? Second, has the original been examined by experts to determine whether the damage was done before JS or after? Third, is the original up for inspection to Egyptologists outside the faith?

No, it indicated stirring and movement.

Do you have any examples of scenes where the person is lying on the couch with one foot up, the other down, one hand close to the face, yet it isn't a resurrection scene?

Resuscitation typically shows one foot up and one arm up with the other arm at the side. Variants of the theme show the person mummiform and lying on the abdomen with upper body risen up with the emblems of Osiris. When not mummiform, the person rising from the couch is shown nude. This is very important to resuscitation scenes where the character is not mummiform as it is part and parcel of the conception of Horus the Younger/rebirth from death.

In the case of the vignette in the Horos scroll, the person is not nude, is not mummiform, and has both hands up in a position not indicating of rising from sleep and inaction. Rising from sleep/inaction requires one hand at side (the sign of inaction) and one hand up with elbow up and palm to face (indicating waking from sleep).

The vignette in the Horos scroll, on the other hand, does not tell the story of one rising from the sleep of death. The person is fully alive and moving, is fully clothed and accessorized, etc. The themes are quite different.

The issue really comes to this for me: either we have a bit of a strangely drawn though common-themed vignette or we have a uniquely anomalous and uniquely-themed vignette. You would agree with me that the evidence, if one is to take into account what one does have as evidence at all, doesn't go in your favor. Furthermore, as I said before, this doesn't seem to Egyptologists to be much of an issue as if anomalies like the one you point out aren't all that important. Maybe they are maybe they aren't, but if Egyptologists don't seem to mind I don't see why I should, either; expect for LDS insistence on it, of course.

If the person is bound there is no way to get off the couch.

What does this have to do with anything? You aren't suggesting the person on the couch is bound, right? You said the person was supposedly struggling, both hands up and one leg up. Now he can't move?

If the priest is stronger than the victim there will be no getting off of the couch.

Again, if we are trying to figure out, from a layman's point of view, what the figures are doing, then struggling against someone who is barely at your lower body isn't very plausible.

In stories of sacrifices I have read from Egypt, the incision is quickly made. And, the hands are not all that close to the face in the Horos scroll vignette. The symbol of supplication/prayer in Egyptian art, by the way, is to place the hands in the manner seen in the Horos scroll vignette. In addition, one foot forward in combination with two hands up in the position of supplication is also the way to draw someone in prayer/supplication. This also makes this vignette quite unique. It also fits the Book of Abraham story, wherein Abraham prays to the Lord for deliverance.

No, I disagree. It looks like someone only partially on a lion couch, offering prayer. It also looks like a struggle. There is no gentle rising from sleep here. Show me the hand at the side and the palm to the face with elbow facing upward. I'll believe that this Horos scroll vignette is a resuscitation scene, then. You see, the angle of the hands are wrong for this sort of scene, even with the undisputed hand.

There is something else that seems pertinent to mention in conjunction with the Horos vignette. I have noticed that when certain gods are portrayed in martial form or in a mode to do violence, they sometimes are drawn omitting an arm. I think it is of interest that the Anubis figure is drawn on this vignette missing an arm, in that light.

(Note that the same cannot be said about the man partially on the couch, where there is enough trace to show that both arms were originally present on the figure that is only partially on the couch, as also evidenced by two hands up; there is also enough trace and extant papyrus left to show that no arm was at the side and that there could have been none grasping a phallus as in the falsified drawings bandied about by critics of the Book of Abraham).

You are assuming that there are two birds. There aren't, so your entire point regarding this is moot. There is only one bird in the Horos vignette, and it isn't copulating with the guy on the lion couch. And, typically, Anubis figures in embalming and burial scenes. The Horos vignette most certainly is not an embalming scene or that of a burial. In the one example in the video, he is assisting the resuscitation in company with other gods and goddesses. That is not what is going on in the Horos vignette. The person on the couch is alive, was not dead, is fully clothed and not nude (nudity is typical of every scene like this I ever have seen), and also this is evidenced by the fact that there is no hand at side and both hands upward and not in the position of one waking from sleep, and the Anubis figure is alone.

It looks more like depiction of both struggle and prayer than it does any resuscitation scene I have ever seen.

As to the portrayal of a bald-headed priest in like scenes, I do not know of any offhand. But, the Egyptians likely would not have drawn something like that, anyway. As we now know, that most likely was a faulty reconstruction. The two hands up, on the other hand, we now know is not a faulty reconstruction. You really ought to read the paper presented by Lanny D. Bell, very carefully. While not a ringing endorsement of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham, it is at least in no uncertain terms supportive of Joseph Smith's reconstruction of two hands up in spite of the fact that Bell also sees this as some sort of resuscitation scene with the figure reaching out to embrace his Ba spirit.

That said, I do not think he has thought it through regarding the positioning of the figure on the couch. I do not think that most have paid much regard to that but it could still change over time if enough people finally recognize the unique positioning of the figure as opposed to all other representations. It took years to get non-Mormon Egyptologists to consider the evidence of two hands. Mormons can afford to be patient, I think.

Get a few peer-reviews on this and I'll agree. You keep mentioning all this stuff as if anyone should care when in reality a consensus of Egyptologists don't seem to care. Once again, MM. If you are trying to convince people of your view, you and I can agree that your view is not one a consensus of Egyptologists supports or would support as of now. You can have faith that matters will change but, as it stands, you can't really blame people who disagree with you for taking an unjustifiable view. I also think you would agree that the evidence against your interpretation is more than the one for it, if we are to take other similar scenes as evidence.

[Brian 2.0]

I appreciate Michael D. Rhodes comments regarding this. I appreciate is forthrightness in calling a spade a spade, when in his professional opinion, it's a spade.

Regarding the top of the priest figure in Facsimile 1:

“That portion of the papyri is missing. Almost certainly that standing figure had the head of a jackal. All other illustrations of that have a jackal. And the skin color on that figure, dark skin coloring, is that of the Jackal god Anubis...”

- Rhodes,

FAIR DVD "A Most Remarkable Book: Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Abraham” "Bonus Features"

(approx minute 14)

So he's in line with all other non-LDS Egyptologists. Rhodes goes on to say this...

"That does not eliminate the possibility that it is still a priest [goes on to explain jackalhead mask]. Priests in their rituals would act as if they were the Gods and even put on masks to act out those parts so that does not invalidate JS interpretation.

"

- Rhodes,

FAIR DVD "A Most Remarkable Book: Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Abraham” "Bonus Features"

(approx minute 14)

And these comments regarding all the Facsimile's:

"In summary, Facsimile 1 formed the beginning, and Facsimile 3 the end of a document known as the Book of Breathings, an Egyptian religious text dated paleographically to the time of Jesus. Facsimile 2, the hypocephalus, is also a late Egyptian religious text.

The association of these facsimiles with the book of Abraham might be explained as Joseph Smith's attempt to find illustrations from the papyri he owned that most closely matched what he had received in revelation when translating the Book of Abraham

."

- Rhodes

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

[bold is my emphasis added]

He goes on to say this...

"Moreover, the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices."

- Rhodes,

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

That last quote used to throw me for a loop and I thought he was contradicting himself. But I think I see what he's saying now. He's not saying that JS explanations of the papyri are correct interpretations of the papyri. He simply saying JS explanations jive with what we know about Egyptian religious practices (regardless of what the actual papyri show).

These quotes support a catalyst theory type approach to the Book of Abraham. And I personally find that approach to be the most defensible. It does not say the non-LDS Egyptologists have it wrong. It simply says JS got the "Book of Abraham" right. JS may have mis-interpreted some of what he was seeing on the papyri and made connections that were incorrect, but his initial inspirations were correct, he just might have misapplied them to the papyri in front of him.

I also feel like this is where the bulk of apologetic material has been leaning -- showing how the BoA and JS "explanations" of the facsimiles "accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices."

But when I listen to the videos from Kerry Muhlstein for example trying to show how JS got his translations of the actual facsimiles from the papyri correct, it seem a little harder to buy (simply because there are no non-LDS Egyptologists who can agree).

Edited March 13, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Alvino]

@Brian 2.0

You quoted and seemed to agree with the following:

"Moreover, the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices."

- Rhodes,

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Are you suggesting that, for example, our present understanding indicates that Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh are gods in Egyptian religious practices?

[Brian 2.0]

@Brian 2.0

You quoted and seemed to agree with the following:

Are you suggesting that, for example, our present understanding indicates that Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh are gods in Egyptian religious practices?

I did quote. But I said I "appreciate" it. I do not agree with it. And what I appreciate is more all the other stuff he says (basically that he is acknowledging the current consensous among non-LDS Egyptologist).

In regards to the line you mentioned:

"Moreover, the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices."

- Rhodes,

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

I do find this to be inaccurate. Details in JS explanations such as "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash" and other things do NOT "accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." There might be some apologetic material somewhere showing an ancient document somewhere that has a priest identified as "EK-NH", but from what I understand those names are not associated with Egpytian religions practices.

Like I said,Rhode's last line threw me for a loop for a long time, and it still rubs me the wrong way, but I think I know what he's trying to say... but I don't see it as accurate unless you put in two words..

"Moreover, [SOME OF] the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices."

That makes room for what he's saying in that there is apologetic material to show connections between Abraham/Egypt/Astronomy and other things, but it isn't a blanket statement that says all of JS explanations "accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices."

[Rivers]

Is part 2 of the article available yet?

[CASteinman]

I have a hard time being very fascinated by the different theories of the Book of Abraham Origins.

I mean, I can read up about Solomon Spaulding and the View of the Hebrews and get some interest. Or the theory that Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon. Or whatever...

But the Book of Abraham is so obviously inspired and true that I just can't read the doubting literature and get much at all. It has absolutely zero resonance with me.

I know that must seem weird to people (I have heard) had their whole testimony blown over some sort of problem with the BoA. But I just go "How can you possibly let that happen?". I just honestly don't get it. But that's because its like my skin. I do not doubt the Book of Abraham at all. The idea seems preposterous.

In fact, I would even say that if God came down and said "The Bible is False, the Book of Mormon is False, the D&C is false and the Pearl of Great Price is false" I would be tempted to say - ok.. but not ALL of the pearl of great price, right? Surely Not the Book of Abraham? Right?

And I would REALLY expect Him to say -- yeah not that.. that's just fine.

I just cannot imagine it being false. At all. So though its fascinating to some people ... the investigations seem really esoteric to me and actually sort of irrelevant.

I think this makes me just an AWFUL apologist for the Book of Abraham.

Edited March 16, 2013 by CASteinman

[MormonMason]

...

In regards to the line you mentioned:

"Moreover, the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices."

- Rhodes,

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

I do find this to be inaccurate. Details in JS explanations such as "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash" and other things do NOT "accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." There might be some apologetic material somewhere showing an ancient document somewhere that has a priest identified as "EK-NH", but from what I understand those names are not associated with Egpytian religions practices.

Like I said,Rhode's last line threw me for a loop for a long time, and it still rubs me the wrong way, but I think I know what he's trying to say... but I don't see it as accurate unless you put in two words.

Abraham wasn't sacrificed in Egypt (the attempt would have taken place in northern Mesopotamia near the land of his nativity) so I wouldn't expect specific deity names necessarily to match up. It is a fact that in Northern Mesopotamia the ancients did dress their gods and goddesses up like Egyptian gods and goddesses. One of the oldest examples involved the patron goddess of Gebla. She was dressed like Hathor and was worshipped as such by Egyptians visiting the region. The same was the case for Astarte, who was dressed up to look like Isis. The same is evidenced even in Egypt in the tomb of Ramses Meri-Amun. His draughtsman dresses up Middle Eastern goddess ^cAnath like Osiris and dresses her in the Atef Crown.

Something that is curious to me is that two manuscripts of the Book of Abraham have the name Korash initially spelled as Koash. Koash (k3š) is a real Egyptian word that indicates the land toward the South of Egypt. It is even more curious that the deity given that name also is the same figure that the Egyptians call Imsety, who also represented the South cardinal direction.

But, while hotly disputed, evidence for the Egyptian practice of human sacrifice is mounting. Some evidence I have seen suggests that these sacrifices took place on funerary furniture in some cases. Of course, lion couches were not just for funerary services. King Tut slept on one, as did a number of Pharaohs. I have seen altars in Egypt that also are carved with lion couches on the sides. These latter were used for sacrifices. So Joseph Smith's idea that Egyptians sacrificed humans has mounting evidence that it was on the mark. That another culture would borrow Egyptian sacrificial customs is not out of the realm of plausibility, considering Egyptian influence in Northern Mesopotamia at the correct period of time. Sacrifice is a religious practice not the specific naming of a deity.

Curiously enough, the abbreviated word for something to so with sacrifice, offering, or being "fit for offering" can be seen in the extant, two-character word in the extant "fourth" column of text in the vignette that became Facsimile 1. I can see no rhyme or reason why a word speaking of something to do with sacrifice would be there in a purely funerary context. I believe that Ritner gets the transliteration right but also goes against his own translations to render the word as "justification(?)" there. "Justification" in Egyptian would have been m m3^c-ḫrw not m3^c. I know of no abbreviation of the former phrase that would fit into that column where the two characters sit in the extant portion.

Ideas underlying Joseph Smith's ideas regarding Facsimile 2 have connections with Egyptian thought. For example, the idea that the Sun could derive life or power from another source is a very Egyptian idea, and underlies the Egyptian story of how Hathor took a spark to the Sun to renew his life.

I wish I were home with my books so I could look this article up. I cannot really be as detailed as I would like and cannot speak to any specific details concerning what is in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism without seeing the articles in context so cannot comment too much further on this at the moment.

Edited March 17, 2013 by MormonMason

[Robert F. Smith]

Total agreement. I've been online for ages and still don't have much of an idea about the theories about BoA. Mainly because I just don't care enough. This is definitely one of those issues that stay effective for a small amount of people.

With luv,

BD

Yes. Certainly true.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................

Get a few peer-reviews on this and I'll agree. You keep mentioning all this stuff as if anyone should care when in reality a consensus of Egyptologists don't seem to care. Once again, MM. If you are trying to convince people of your view, you and I can agree that your view is not one a consensus of Egyptologists supports or would support as of now. You can have faith that matters will change but, as it stands, you can't really blame people who disagree with you for taking an unjustifiable view. I also think you would agree that the evidence against your interpretation is more than the one for it, if we are to take other similar scenes as evidence.

I notice that when a prominent non-Mormon Egyptologist supports the LDS claim, the goal posts suddenly get moved and a demand for a consensus of non-Mormon Egyptologists is called for. Couldn't you simply base your judgement on the evidence?

[Robert F. Smith]

As this discussion continues without my participation, I would prefer to be addressed as "David," or even "Dave" (although "Bokovoy" is fine too), however, if you insist upon formalities then it is Dr. Bokovoy.

Thank you.

O.K. Brother Bokovoy!

[Alvino]

I notice that when a prominent non-Mormon Egyptologist supports the LDS claim, the goal posts suddenly get moved and a demand for a consensus of non-Mormon Egyptologists is called for. Couldn't you simply base your judgement on the evidence?

I have, but when knowledge and familiarity with a whole culture and field of study is not there then I have to rely on peer review. If no specialist agrees with you then you claims are more unbelievable than if one does. Similarly when the number of specialists increases.

[MormonMason]

I have, but when knowledge and familiarity with a whole culture and field of study is not there then I have to rely on peer review. If no specialist agrees with you then you claims are more unbelievable than if one does. Similarly when the number of specialists increases.

You put far too much trust in the specialists. If you had done so in 1912, you would have trusted the specialists' opinion that the vignette that became Fascimile1 was an embalming scene and nothing but. The consensus pretty much so stated that this was what it was. Now, they have changed their position like the wind and they are blowing another way, that this is a resuscitation scene and nothing but. Anything but what Joseph Smith said that it represented...

The consensus have more or less stated that only one hand is up and you have followed suit. A prominent Egyptologist has examined the relevant evidence and gone on record that there were two hands up in the original and not enough room for a kestrel where the reconstructions and consensus stated it would have been. Yet, you still appear to be under the assumption that there is only one hand and two birds in the original as reconstructed by Parkinson/Ashment/Larson. In time, others will look at the evidence as Bell has and come to the same conclusion. It will take years for this to happen, however.

Peer-review does not do a whole lot for us, by the way--at least not as much as you seem to think that it does. It was not all that long ago that consensus thinking had the public believe a whole lot of what we now know is nonsense. For example, consider the consensus thinking regarding the peaceful Maya. It took decades of finding fortifications and weapons before the winds blew another direction and people came to understand that war was a part of Maya life and culture. Before that time anyone out of line with the consensus was laughed at and counted as knowing nothing in their respective fields.

Consider the consensus thinking concerning the Maya language itself. It took many decades to break that foothold and those who advanced the new ideas were ridiculed and attacked for many years before more evidence surfaced that proved them right. Those who broke ground (including a number of amateurs!) were in the right against the consensus, it turned out.

There is a quote from Bertrand Russell that I had read many years ago in a Reader's Digest. It was something that gave me pause in my younger years. I think it is relevant at all times. It goes something like this:

"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken."

Anyone in the sciences and in linguistics for any length of time knows full well that such is more often the case than we would like to be the case. Think on it a bit, if you dare.

[Alvino]

You put far too much trust in the specialists.

How about first asking me what I think about authority and testimony from specialists? It's too easy to assume I have the kind of faith you think I do.

If you had done so in 1912, you would have trusted the specialists' opinion that the vignette that became Fascimile1 was an embalming scene and nothing but. The consensus pretty much so stated that this was what it was. Now, they have changed their position like the wind and they are blowing another way, that this is a resuscitation scene and nothing but. Anything but what Joseph Smith said that it represented...

The consensus have more or less stated that only one hand is up and you have followed suit. A prominent Egyptologist has examined the relevant evidence and gone on record that there were two hands up in the original and not enough room for a kestrel where the reconstructions and consensus stated it would have been. Yet, you still appear to be under the assumption that there is only one hand and two birds in the original as reconstructed by Parkinson/Ashment/Larson. In time, others will look at the evidence as Bell has and come to the same conclusion. It will take years for this to happen, however.

I think we have to require a bit more than this, MM. Again, you can't blame us. If you trust so much that things will turn out the way you want them to turn out, you should be with me in pushing for more study and more peer reviewed consensus on the matter; but you instead keep wanting to make it seems as if you have more than an implausible case.

Peer-review does not do a whole lot for us, by the way--at least not as much as you seem to think that it does. It was not all that long ago that consensus thinking had the public believe a whole lot of what we now know is nonsense. For example, consider the consensus thinking regarding the peaceful Maya. It took decades of finding fortifications and weapons before the winds blew another direction and people came to understand that war was a part of Maya life and culture. Before that time anyone out of line with the consensus was laughed at and counted as knowing nothing in their respective fields.

Consider the consensus thinking concerning the Maya language itself. It took many decades to break that foothold and those who advanced the new ideas were ridiculed and attacked for many years before more evidence surfaced that proved them right. Those who broke ground (including a number of amateurs!) were in the right against the consensus, it turned out.

There is a quote from Bertrand Russell that I had read many years ago in a Reader's Digest. It was something that gave me pause in my younger years. I think it is relevant at all times. It goes something like this:

"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken."

Anyone in the sciences and in linguistics for any length of time knows full well that such is more often the case than we would like to be the case. Think on it a bit, if you dare.

I'm fully aware that experts can be mistaken and that even the strongest consensus can err. I have no illusions about this. Given that such is the case it seems it is even less prudent to go with the judgment of people with clear conflict of interests and unchecked opinions. However easy it is for experts to be wrong it seems even easier for unlearned, unchecked, or overly hasty believers eager to see their faiths credible to be wrong. It doesn't matter that we believe the opinions of experts are as fallible as we may think they are just so long as we realize it is the best we have.

I still would like to know, though, why do you think (and your hope that specialists will come to agree with you in the future would indicate to me that you do) that a consensus of Egyptologists would give more credence to your beliefs if they at some time in the future come to agree with you, when the times their opinions don't agree with yours you don't think this gives credence to your opposition's views?

[Robert F. Smith]

................................

Though typical, the condescension is really unfortunate. I have no interest in touting my own academic achievements, so a “serious student of the Bible and the Ancient Near East” seems sufficient. And yes, for anyone who has read the translations of the papyri published by such credible sources as the Maxwell Institute, there is no connection with the scrolls and the Book of Abraham.

If by reading the labels/registers accompanying the vignettes, we can agree that there has never been a claim from the LDS or non-LDS experts that significant differences exist on the translation, I'm not sure that means that "there is no connection with the scrolls and the Book of Abraham." Since the illustrations are also to be "read," one would very much want to examine the results of such "reading" before any rush to judgment. As I have said previously on this board (see http://www.scribd.co...Book-of-Abraham):

The BofA facsimiles contain artistic and iconotropic material which (as with all Egyptian art and iconography) can be “read” all by themselves,¹ or are to be “read” right along with the accompanying Egyptian words.² As James P. Allen has said:

The Egyptians did not distinguish hieroglyphic writing from other representations of reality, such as statues or scenes in relief. Both were a tjt, “symbol,” rather than an accurate representation of reality. Hieroglyphic signs were often carved with the same detail as other pictorial elements of a scene. Conversely, statues or relief representations were themselves a kind of hieroglyph, a phenomenon most often illustrated in the animal-headed Egyptian gods–as, for instance, in the beetle-headed human form representing Hprj, “the Developing One” (a form of the sun-god).

3

He has also stated that paintings, vignettes, and inscriptions depicting the gods “are nothing more than large-scale ideograms.”⁴ All are to be “read,” . .

¹ R. H. Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture (N.Y.: Thames & Hudson, 1992); O. Goldwasser, From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the Semiotics of the Hieroglyphs, OBO 142 (Fribourg/Göttingen, 1995); cf. Arlene Wolinski, “Egyptian Ceremonial Masks: A Re-Examination of the Priest and His Role,” lecture delivered April 12, 1989, at the California Museum of Ancient Art (CMAA), Barnsdall Park, Los Angeles, California, arguing that ancient Egyptian sculpture and two-dimensional art (tomb paintings, temple reliefs, etc.) often depict priests & priestesses wearing ceremonial masks, as in the “Baptism of Pharaoh” scene with priests of falcon-headed Horus and ibis-headed Thot pouring ʻankh signs over the Pharaoh – probably representing an actual purification ritual (Alan Gardiner, “Baptism of Pharaoh,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 36 [Dec 1950]:3-12).

² Klaus Baer, BYU Education Week lecture, Aug 22, 1974.

³ Allen, “Egyptian Language and Writing,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:190.

⁴ Allen, Middle Egyptian (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000), 44.

In terms of the apologetics arguments claiming otherwise, one might wish to consider the following study (paying special attention to the footnotes) to gain a perspective on why these apologetic claims have failed to convince non-LDS specialists in the field…

http://signaturebook...an-translation/

Are we really going to take the claims of Robert Ritner as final? Footnotes and all? Isn't this really part of the polemics & apologetics nexus which you want to avoid?

Fri & Sat we had a very enjoyable 2-day conference at BYU on Mysticism (missed you), with a couple of non-Mormon guest-speakers. Had you been there you might have enjoyed the agreement of most of us that bracketing issues of historicity was very helpful in moving forward with analysis and basic research. One example we mentioned was Grant Hardy's Reader's Guide, and we are all looking forward to the next installments in that process (his next book will be on the theology of the Book of Mormon, and the third will be some sort of comparative scripture approach). Wouldn't you like to see something along such lines on the Book of Abraham?

Edited March 18, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[MormonMason]

Seriously, I don't care whether or not a consensus of scholars reach the same conclusions. It has zero bearing on faith. I am concerned when people rely too much on scholars and scholarship to make a point, particularly when these persons often are wrong-headed to begin with.

Case in point was with the repeated, consensus claim some years back that the vignette that became Facsimile 1 was an embalming scene and nothing but. This claim prevailed for decades. We now know this consensus claim to be false. Why should we have accepted it? Why should our faith--or lack thereof--be based upon consensus scholarship at all, therefore?

And, I and others have worked to set people straight on a number of things. It takes a lot of work and time. But, whether consensus scholarship agrees with LDS tenets and ideas is irrelevant. It is of interest when such can be found to be the case or when such thinking inclines our way but it is not required.

I worked in the sciences for years before my retirement therefrom. I know better than to make it my religious faith and I know better than to try to base faith upon consensus thinking. I also have worked with languages long enough to know the same, particularly when it comes to ancient languages, archaeology, and history, in relation thereto.

And the case is plausible but nothing more than that, for some things. That is where faith is indispensable. In addition, I have seen a lot of resuscitation scenes--a great many--and the vignette that became Facsimile 1 is unique in several ways from the whole of them, in that it does not fit the bill of a resuscitation scene. The extant column of text on the vignette itself mentions something to do with offering or sacrifice. On the other hand, the text in the columns surrounding the vignette has nothing to do with the vignette itself. While this sort of thing does occur in copies of the "Book of the Dead" it is surprising to see such with the Horos scroll, particularly if it were a Book of Breathing and nothing else.

The surrounding columns of hieroglyphic text discuss burial. The vignette does not concern itself with burial. Thus, the hieroglyphic text surrounding the vignette has nothing to do with the vignette. The normal first vignette for a Book of Breathing (when vignettes are present) either is an adoration scene (in most such cases) or is a presentation and/or introduction scene (as is the case with BM EA 9995).

In any case, consensus has changed regarding even the vignette that became Facsimile 1. If it changed once it can change again. Why trust it to remain constant? Why base faith--or lack thereof--on something such as consensus scholarship regarding it when the elements of it differ so from all else when examined on the whole? I cannot see the point of that.

Edited March 18, 2013 by MormonMason

[Robert F. Smith]

Is part 2 of the article available yet?

Yes, at http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-2/

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................

I'm fully aware that experts can be mistaken and that even the strongest consensus can err. I have no illusions about this. Given that such is the case it seems it is even less prudent to go with the judgment of people with clear conflict of interests and unchecked opinions. However easy it is for experts to be wrong it seems even easier for unlearned, unchecked, or overly hasty believers eager to see their faiths credible to be wrong. It doesn't matter that we believe the opinions of experts are as fallible as we may think they are just so long as we realize it is the best we have.

I still would like to know, though, why do you think (and your hope that specialists will come to agree with you in the future would indicate to me that you do) that a consensus of Egyptologists would give more credence to your beliefs if they at some time in the future come to agree with you, when the times their opinions don't agree with yours you don't think this gives credence to your opposition's views?

Al,

If you are touting some sort of consensus among non-Mormon Egyptologists on the Book of Abraham, good luck!! You'll need it, because there is no such consensus. Hardly any non-Mormon Egyptologists have taken the time to study any aspect of the Book of Abraham text or vignettes. Those few that have done so usually deal with only one small element of the issue and immediately go back to their mainstream pursuits. The exceptional animus of one should not be taken as normative.

The best we can hope for from Egyptology at large is a gathering of their actual opinions on similar vignettes (where there is no polemic & apologetic nexus) and other matters in standard Egyptology. For this we must consult regular Egyptological books and articles on a wide array of matters, gleaning dispassionate conclusions in areas of interest. Only then may legitimate comparisons be made, and very few on this board are prepared to engage in such basic research.