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

[Alvino]

You're overthinking this.

No, I was asking you what you meant by your maybes. That wasn't my attempt at understanding something other than what you meant.

Archeologists are very concerned with sample size as well as its random nature. On a given mound, in a crypt, or other site, for example, we first do a complete survey of the site (walk across a mound in skirmishers and plant a marker at every point where an artifact is visible), then we formally measure and map the site. Once we know the limits of the site, we then pencil in a grid, and with a random-number generator we select which grid squares to excavate. All findings are measured, photographed, and cataloged. Back at the lab more intense tests are conducted on the finds. Statistical patterns are discerned and analyzed.

Nice bell curves will become apparent in many cases. In others, we may have a single or rare instance of an artifact (a particular sort of item, perhaps imported, or perhaps a cache of them is in the next grid square which will not be excavated this season). We can surmise a great many things about that single occurrence, and even look for similar instances in other digs, but we may be left without sufficient sample size to determine the actual occurrence anciently.

It's like trying to do an epidemiological or DNA study on an ancient people -- we need lots of skeletal remains in very good condition, something we rarely get. And we need that over a wide area, not simply in one or two digs.

This doesn't clarify what you meant by your maybes.

Again: "If you just wanted to point out the possibility that a bunch of such anomalies can be found so that it wouldn't be anomalous, then that's fine and I don't see how this changes anything. For any set of examples (examples of, say, P) you use to form your sample, you could always point to the possibility (though not making that possibility probable) that a good number of those other instances of P not in the set of examples are significantly different from the ones you chose so that you really have a bad sample. Is this all you wanted to say?

It looks like you want to say that it is the case that we do not have a good sample because there is some considerable probability that those anomalies are more common than normally considered. In which case I would have to ask you how you know that because, otherwise, you would be relying on hope as much as MM.

Or maybe you just advocate for skepticism on the issue (we don't know whether it is probable that there are more vignettes of the type MM claims the JS vignettes are or not).

None of this goes against what I've said so far, though, since I'm just claiming that, if we go with the evidence we do have, then MM is probably wrong."

Now you really have me confused -- naively so.

Can't help, then.

[Robert F. Smith]

No, I was asking you what you meant by your maybes. That wasn't my attempt at understanding something other than what you meant.

This doesn't clarify what you meant by your maybes.

Again: "If you just wanted to point out the possibility that a bunch of such anomalies can be found so that it wouldn't be anomalous, then that's fine and I don't see how this changes anything. For any set of examples (examples of, say, P) you use to form your sample, you could always point to the possibility (though not making that possibility probable) that a good number of those other instances of P not in the set of examples are significantly different from the ones you chose so that you really have a bad sample. Is this all you wanted to say?

It looks like you want to say that it is the case that we do not have a good sample because there is some considerable probability that those anomalies are more common than normally considered. In which case I would have to ask you how you know that because, otherwise, you would be relying on hope as much as MM.

Or maybe you just advocate for skepticism on the issue (we don't know whether it is probable that there are more vignettes of the type MM claims the JS vignettes are or not).

None of this goes against what I've said so far, though, since I'm just claiming that, if we go with the evidence we do have, then MM is probably wrong."

At least one (or both) of us is confused, so let me give another real world example.

In linguistics, even though we can come up with all manner of hypothetical etymologies for foreign words in a text, the hardest to deal with are hapax legomena because they are one-time occurrences. Context gives us greater interpretive power if there is more than one context to judge by, i.e., the semantic range of a word may be easier to grasp if it used in other contexts.

The BofA onomasticon has a number of hapax legomena, some of which are immediately recognizable by a Hebraist as Sephardic-style spellings of well-known Hebrew words, while others are defined in the text as Egyptian. Good etymologies can be suggested for some of them, but the one-time occurrence of such words makes it difficult to be sure -- through no fault of the scholar making such suggestions -- and this ought to give us pause in attempting to claim that one or another of the hypotheses is certain.

Both you and MM need to give each other wider options for the making of declarations in the absence of better sample size.

[Alvino]

At least one (or both) of us is confused, so let me give another real world example.

Another example of what?

In linguistics, even though we can come up with all manner of hypothetical etymologies for foreign words in a text, the hardest to deal with are hapax legomena because they are one-time occurrences. Context gives us greater interpretive power if there is more than one context to judge by, i.e., the semantic range of a word may be easier to grasp if it used in other contexts.

The BofA onomasticon has a number of hapax legomena, some of which are immediately recognizable by a Hebraist as Sephardic-style spellings of well-known Hebrew words, while others are defined in the text as Egyptian. Good etymologies can be suggested for some of them, but the one-time occurrence of such words makes it difficult to be sure -- through no fault of the scholar making such suggestions -- and this ought to give us pause in attempting to claim that one or another of the hypotheses is certain.

Once again, Robert, what point are you trying to make with this? I posted several things you might be trying to show.

Both you and MM need to give each other wider options for the making of declarations in the absence of better sample size.

OK, my question was, are you claiming that Egyptologists have such a poor sample that they can't form a good case as to what the papyrus under discussion was about? Do you think Egyptologists have such a poor sample of similar scenes (lion couch scenes) that prevents them from making such judgments? If that is what you are trying to say, then I have to ask you how it is that you know they have such a poor sample.

[Robert F. Smith]

OK, my question was, are you claiming that Egyptologists have such a poor sample that they can't form a good case as to what the papyrus under discussion was about? Do you think Egyptologists have such a poor sample of similar scenes (lion couch scenes) that prevents them from making such judgments? If that is what you are trying to say, then I have to ask you how it is that you know they have such a poor sample.

I thought that you were talking about the anomalous nature of fac 1. I thought sample size an important issue and tried to illustrate the way in which such a concept works. You seem tone deaf to what should be a very easy concept to absorb. The implications you draw here are completely off base, and I never suggested such conclusions. You need a good dose of academic self-restraint, instead of the impatience which your comments show.

[Alvino]

I thought that you were talking about the anomalous nature of fac 1.

I was. What seemed probable was that the papyrus doesn't depict struggle. We don't have examples where such a scene does depict struggle. What is anomalous is not that it does depict struggle but if it does depict it. Clear enough?

I thought sample size an important issue and tried to illustrate the way in which such a concept works. You seem tone deaf to what should be a very easy concept to absorb.

Sample size is an important issue, that isn't the problem. What I wanted you to state is how this applies to facsimile 1. You said that, "There may in fact have been many more such "anomalous" vignettes anciently, which would remove them from the category of 'anomalous.'" What are you trying to convey with that "may"? Possibility? Plausibility?

The implications you draw here are completely off base, and I never suggested such conclusions.

Then, what conclusions do you suggest? Would you say we have a good enough sample of lion couch scenes to say JS's papyrus doesn't depict struggle or not?

You need a good dose of academic self-restraint, instead of the impatience which your comments show.

You could waste your time saying this or you could show me where I'm going off. You say you suggest none of the options I provide yet you provide none. You say I'm impatient yet you don't show how.

[Robert F. Smith]

I was. What seemed probable was that the papyrus doesn't depict struggle. We don't have examples where such a scene does depict struggle. What is anomalous is not that it does depict struggle but if it does depict it. Clear enough?

Sample size is an important issue, that isn't the problem. What I wanted you to state is how this applies to facsimile 1. You said that, "There may in fact have been many more such "anomalous" vignettes anciently, which would remove them from the category of 'anomalous.'" What are you trying to convey with that "may"? Possibility? Plausibility?

Then, what conclusions do you suggest? Would you say we have a good enough sample of lion couch scenes to say JS's papyrus doesn't depict struggle or not?

You could waste your time saying this or you could show me where I'm going off. You say you suggest none of the options I provide yet you provide none. You say I'm impatient yet you don't show how.

Still overthinking this, I see. The solution for you is to go back to your conversation with MM and hit the high points in order to discover how you got so far off track. Sorry, I'm not going to do the work for you. That's your responsibility, in a conversation you were having with MM.

[MormonMason]

The key to it is in the question, "How many lion couch scenes have both legs completely off the couch and the figure portrayed to show on the couch at an angle?" Answer: "Only one, thus far, and that is the vignette that became Facsimile 1." All others show the figure completely on the couch.

Alvino, you need to think this through more than you have and stop overthinking everything else. This sort of thing is causing you to miss something that ordinarily would be obvious and which apparently is obvious to others in this discussion. For instance, you keep bringing up only one hand and you keep mentioning it as being close to the face when it isn't in the case of Facsimile 1.

The element of palm to face that indicates rising from sleep/death is completely missing from the vignette that became Facsimile 1. That element is important in vignettes where the figure is on its back on the couch. It is supposed to depict waking up from sleep. The hand at side, which does not occur in the Joseph Smith papyri indicates inaction in any vignette where it occurs, whether in sleep or in death. The hands in the vignette that became Facsimile 1 are in the wrong position and at the wrong angle to indicate such is the case. There is no arm at side there. There is no palm to face. Thus, there is no waking from sleep going on in that vignette. How hard is that to grasp?

Edited March 22, 2013 by MormonMason

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Alvino,

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?

It is sad to say that I never noticed that the priest was inbetween the legs of the person on the table and the table it self. This is huge. I am not sure why people think this is of little importance. Putting the issue of the hand aside. The fact that the figure on the table has 1) eyes open 2) seeing both legs 3) and haveing the priest inbetween the legs and that table in no way suggest that the person on the table is "typical of an embalming scene". Edited March 22, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thus, there is no waking from sleep going on in that vignette. How hard is that to grasp?

It is not hard to see. But for some dumb reason some people get things into their head and cannot see the truth.

Some one wise recently spoke and commented that the most dangerous thing is when people think they know the truth of something.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Alvino]

Still overthinking this, I see. The solution for you is to go back to your conversation with MM and hit the high points in order to discover how you got so far off track. Sorry, I'm not going to do the work for you. That's your responsibility, in a conversation you were having with MM.

So, you take MM's position. Got it. That wasn't too hard, was it?

Edited March 22, 2013 by Alvino

[MormonMason]

It is sad to say that I never noticed that the priest was inbetween the legs of the person on the table and the table it self. This is huge. I am not sure why people think this is of little importance. Putting the issue of the hand aside. The fact that the figure on the table has 1) eyes open 2) seeing both legs 3) and haveing the priest inbetween the legs and that table in no way suggest that the person on the table is "typical of an embalming scene".

You are right about that. Sad as it is for me to admit it, I also never noticed it for years. One day, as I was looking closely at it while comparing it to others vignettes in the Temple of Opet, it stood out like a sore thumb. I had to do a double take to make sure I was seeing what I was seeing. It is the only vignette that had the figure's legs off the couch with the priest figure standing between the legs and the lion couch. Also anomalous is that the figure on the couch was very much alive and fully clothed. It certainly is not an embalming scene as the "consensus" claimed for all those years.

But, in all vignettes that depict resuscitation scenes the figure always either is nude or mummiform, without exception (thus far). P. JS I is the only vignette that has the figure clothed, accessorized, and fully alive, the only one that has the figure only half on the couch with a martial figure (missing an arm, as in other cases of martial gods like Min-who-massacres-his-enemies, who frequently is depicted as missing an arm) standing between the couch and person on the couch, and the only one that contains neither standard characteristics of one hand to side nor one palm to face that are in all known resuscitation scenes that have a figure lying back down on a lion couch. It lacks the two most "standard" features expected of a resuscitation scene.

[Alvino]

The key to it is in the question, "How many lion couch scenes have both legs completely off the couch and the figure portrayed to show on the couch at an angle?" Answer: "Only one, thus far, and that is the vignette that became Facsimile 1." All others show the figure completely on the couch.

How is it that Facsimile 1 has the priest all the way to the back? Supposedly, facsimile 1 was done before the damage.

I'm also not convinced that the figure in the vignette is at an angle. All we have to show that are the lines drawn in the lower part of the 'priest'. However strange you think that is I still don't know why we should take the papyrus as somewhat strange (or incorrectly drawn or drawn in a weird way) or very very strange (having someone between the legs of the 'victim' and the lion couch). i explained this already to you, MM.

Alvino, you need to think this through more than you have and stop overthinking everything else. This sort of thing is causing you to miss something that ordinarily would be obvious and which apparently is obvious to others in this discussion. For instance, you keep bringing up only one hand and you keep mentioning it as being close to the face when it isn't in the case of Facsimile 1.

The element of palm to face that indicates rising from sleep/death is completely missing from the vignette that became Facsimile 1.

And, once again, I asked you what was more likely: a hand that is weirdly drawn so that the hand is not as close to the face as it is in other similar scenes, or the hand is raised to fend someone off which is unprecedented. You also haven't answered this.

That element is important in vignettes where the figure is on its back on the couch. It is supposed to depict waking up from sleep.

You would agree, the hand over the face isn't completely missing. There is a hand very close to the face (if you watch Muhlestein's video on this, he himself enacts what the one on the couch is doing by putting his hands close to his face).

The hand at side, which does not occur in the Joseph Smith papyri indicates inaction in any vignette where it occurs, whether in sleep or in death. The hands in the vignette that became Facsimile 1 are in the wrong position and at the wrong angle to indicate such is the case. There is no arm at side there. There is no palm to face. Thus, there is no waking from sleep going on in that vignette.

There are cases of the left hand drawn a little bit over the middle of the body, not flat on the left side. However queer you think this might be, we have examples of this. Do we have examples of a lion couch scene where the left hand is raised as it is depicted in Facsimile 1 depicting struggle?

How hard is that to grasp?

That isn't hard to grasp and it is strange that you don't get what I'm saying. The issue is not resolved just by explaining what you think is anomalous about this papyrus. The issue was, what is the best explanation given the available evidence? If one asks that question, then it seems rather clear to me things don't go in your favor.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Alvino

[MormonMason]

How is it that Facsimile 1 has the priest all the way to the back? Supposedly, facsimile 1 was done before the damage.

...

Proof that you still just don't get it. Facsimile 1 is a wood cut of the original scene. There is no missing papyrus in the area with the priest figure standing in front of the lion couch with the legs of the figure lying partially on the couch IN FRONT OF THE STANDING FIGURE. It is all there. How is it that the wood cut does not display it as in the original? Ever think that Hedlock possibly was not skilled enough to do it the way it is in the original?

I'm also not convinced that the figure in the vignette is at an angle. All we have to show that are the lines drawn in the lower part of the 'priest'. However strange you think that is I still don't know why we should take the papyrus as somewhat strange (or incorrectly drawn or drawn in a weird way) or very very strange (having someone between the legs of the 'victim' and the lion couch). i explained this already to you, MM.

You'd best look at the diagrams I slapped together again, then. It is the only one drawn that way that has been found thus far in the whole of Egypt. It is not the "normal" way to draw this, if we only look at this statistically.

You would agree, the hand over the face isn't completely missing. There is a hand very close to the face (if you watch Muhlestein's video on this, he himself enacts what the one on the couch is doing by putting his hands close to his face).

What Muhlestein does with his own hands is irrelevant. He is not in the vignette. The hand in the original vignette is not close to the face, the elbow in the original would have been in the wrong place, and the angle of the hand toward the face is wrong for a resuscitation scene. Palm to face is the normal indicator of waking from sleep when the figure has his back facing downward to the couch. The figure in a resuscitation scene also would have to be nude or mummiform, as that is how it is in all vignettes that depict the resuscitation of Osiris. Not so with the original vignette that became Facsimile 1.

Look at the known resuscitation scenes very closely. They have the hand close to the face with the other indicating inaction. A hand at side indicates inaction/sleep/death. By the way, please provide to us your example of the hand toward and over the middle of the body. I should like to see that one with its surrounding text and context.

Do we have examples of a lion couch scene where the left hand is raised as it is depicted in Facsimile 1 depicting struggle?

I cannot think of any offhand just this moment, but then again I do not have access to my book and Egyptian art collections, either, at this stage in time. How many examples of vignettes do we have where the figure has the three most important features (one hand palm to face, one hand at side, figure nude in symbol of rebirth into another life) wrong/missing and has two hands upward with both legs completely off the lion couch?

The other position does not take into account the anomalies and adequately account for them, that of the so-called consensus. Why should I adhere to it or give it credence?

[MormonMason]

This site will give you the best view of the original papyrus vignette.

http://josephsmithpa...egyptian-papyri

Caution: Be careful you do not mistake discoloration of papyrus fibers for ink. That is easy to do with photographs.

Following is a portion of the photo showing exactly where the lines end for the lion couch in connection with the legs of the priest figure.

The lines were purposely drawn this way by the draughtsman and were intended to end where they were, indicating that the priest figure is in FRONT of the lion couch.

Notice the uppermost arrow? That is where the vertical leg line and the horizontal line of the lower leg of the reclining figure intersect. Notice the ink flow stoppage point? The ink flow stoppage point is at the leg line not the lion couch top line. Thus, the leg is in FRONT of the priest figure, who is in FRONT of the lion couch. I show the depiction as viewed from above again, based upon the layout of the actual papyrus fragment.

How, then, is the reclining figure completely on the lion couch as in all examples of resuscitation scenes? The ink flow lines are deliberate. Even the draughtsman seems to have had a hard time with this one in a few places. It goes counter to what we normally see for scenes intended to depict the resuscitation of Osiris.

[Alvino]

Proof that you still just don't get it.

Well, you haven't explained this before and it's just a question. Nothing too relevant there.

Facsimile 1 is a wood cut of the original scene. There is no missing papyrus in the area with the priest figure standing in front of the lion couch with the legs of the figure lying partially on the couch IN FRONT OF THE STANDING FIGURE. It is all there. How is it that the wood cut does not display it as in the original? Ever think that Hedlock possibly was not skilled enough to do it the way it is in the original?

Oh, I can think many things on this one. Just wanted to see what you thought, though. I find that very strange, but I digress.

You'd best look at the diagrams I slapped together again, then. It is the only one drawn that way that has been found thus far in the whole of Egypt. It is not the "normal" way to draw this, if we only look at this statistically.

...I don't deny the papyrus is abnormal for the time being, MM. I thought that was clear.

What Muhlestein does with his own hands is irrelevant. He is not in the vignette. The hand in the original vignette is not close to the face, the elbow in the original would have been in the wrong place, and the angle of the hand toward the face is wrong for a resuscitation scene. Palm to face is the normal indicator of waking from sleep when the figure has his back facing downward to the couch. The figure in a resuscitation scene also would have to be nude or mummiform, as that is how it is in all vignettes that depict the resuscitation of Osiris. Not so with the original vignette that became Facsimile 1.

Look at the known resuscitation scenes very closely. They have the hand close to the face with the other indicating inaction. A hand at side indicates inaction/sleep/death. By the way, please provide to us your example of the hand toward and over the middle of the body. I should like to see that one with its surrounding text and context.

Once again, I'm not denying anomalies. I'm saying that the papyrus, given the evidence, seems more of a queer drawing that a depiction of a very very strange and hitherto unknown scene. See the difference?

I cannot think of any offhand just this moment, but then again I do not have access to my book and Egyptian art collections, either, at this stage in time. How many examples of vignettes do we have where the figure has the three most important features (one hand palm to face, one hand at side, figure nude in symbol of rebirth into another life) wrong/missing and has two hands upward with both legs completely off the lion couch?

I don't know, but it certainly seems more plausible that this is just a weird drawing rather than a very different one such as one depicting struggle, doesn't it?

The other position does not take into account the anomalies and adequately account for them, that of the so-called consensus. Why should I adhere to it or give it credence?

By all means, don't if you don't want to, but you can't blame us for not following you.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Alvino

[MormonMason]

Where is your scan of the figure with hand drawn over the middle of the body, Alvino? Don't forget text and context, please.

[Alvino]

Where is your scan of the figure with hand drawn over the middle of the body, Alvino? Don't forget text and context, please.

Context is Kerry A. Shirts giving examples of similar lion couch scenes to show why Larson's reconstruction is wrong. In there, towards the end, you can see two scenes with the arm over the middle of the body. I actually think I remember you posting a similar one here though you might have been criticizing it, I'm not sure. http://www2.ida.net/...ail/charles.htm

Edited March 23, 2013 by Alvino

[Robert F. Smith]

So, you take MM's position. Got it. That wasn't too hard, was it?

I have not taken MM's so-called "position," as you know from reading my comments.

You need to try to reflect the actual positions taken by others on this board. Deliberately misstating the positions of others is tantamount to bearing false witness, and I notice that you have a habit of doing just that. Again, you desperately need to practice self-restraint and patience. Sincerely might help too.

[Alvino]

I have not taken MM's so-called "position," as you know from reading my comments.

It won't surprise you to read me saying that I think you are all over the place now.

I thought I was addressing the statistics part of your comments, then you told me I was off and sent me to read MM's comments again so I would see how off I was... which suggested to me you were somehow defending MM's position or explaining a sort of extension of his ideas. Now you say you weren't supporting him? Weird.

You need to try to reflect the actual positions taken by others on this board. Deliberately misstating the positions of others is tantamount to bearing false witness, and I notice that you have a habit of doing just that. Again, you desperately need to practice self-restraint and patience. Sincerely might help too.

Why fall to this, Robert? Don't make it so easy for me.

[MormonMason]

Context is Kerry A. Shirts giving examples of similar lion couch scenes to show why Larson's reconstruction is wrong. In there, towards the end, you can see two scenes with the arm over the middle of the body. I actually think I remember you posting a similar one here though you might have been criticizing it, I'm not sure. http://www2.ida.net/...ail/charles.htm

OK. I have looked at the picture on the site that you mentioned. I believe that this is the one to which you refer:

The picture is missing its text and context. That is not Kerry's fault, by the way. It is the fault of Budge, who himself omitted the text in publication. Here is a photo of the original inscription:

This photo is the best that I could find online and the text is difficult to make out completely at points. However, from what I could make out and begin translating, the text and context show something quite different from the depiction in the vignette that became Facsimile 1. In the above photo, Osiris is mummiform, with only one arm out, grasping the phallus. On the left, Hathor is mourning. The lines of the text in the columns above her mention the fact that she "is weeping loudly for her brother," etc. Why? Because her brother, Osiris, is dead. Isis is at this point fanning Osiris with her wings so as to begin the reanimation process so that Isis as a kestrel can draw his essence from him and conceive Horus therewith.

In fact, the conception of Horus is what is going on here, contrary to the example that became Facsimile 1, but this takes place before his actual resuscitation. On the right is Heket, the goddess associated with birth and rebirth (from death). Beneath the lion couch on the right is Bes, also associated with conception and birth. This inscription depicts the conception of Horus by Isis before the resuscitation of Osiris.

Now, recall what I wrote earlier above about the differences between what is normative for figures lying on the back in lion couch scenes and those that are mummiform. And, yes, I was criticizing the image previously of the Parker/Parkinson/Larson reconstruction. That image has been falsified by the extant evidence, so, yes, I have criticized it above. What Parker originally did was to combine elements from two differing kinds of vignettes and storylines and force these elements onto the vignette in P. JS I (also identified as P. JS 1.1). Larson, not knowing any better, repeated the fallacy and then this fallacy was blasted and repeated all over the internet and in print by critics of the Church for the last decade or so.

This vignette (and its elements) does not change what I said above about human-form lion couch scenes. Have you any actual examples of what it is that you are trying to say?

Edited March 24, 2013 by MormonMason

[Alvino]

OK. I have looked at the picture on the site that you mentioned. I believe that this is the one to which you refer:

That one and the next one (next in Kerry's piece).

The picture is missing its text and context. That is not Kerry's fault, by the way. It is the fault of Budge, who himself omitted the text in publication. Here is a photo of the original inscription:

This photo is the best that I could find online and the text is difficult to make out completely at points. However, from what I could make out and begin translating, the text and context show something quite different from the depiction in the vignette that became Facsimile 1.

They are quite different but they are not so different that Kerry attempts to show some things about Facsimile 1 from them. Can I do the same?

In the above photo, Osiris is mummiform, with only one arm out, grasping the phallus. On the left, Hathor is mourning. The lines of the text in the columns above her mention the fact that she "is weeping loudly for her brother," etc. Why? Because her brother, Osiris, is dead. Isis is at this point fanning Osiris with her wings so as to begin the reanimation process so that Isis as a kestrel can draw his essence from him and conceive Horus therewith.

In fact, the conception of Horus is what is going on here, contrary to the example that became Facsimile 1, but this takes place before his actual resuscitation. On the right is Heket, the goddess associated with birth and rebirth (from death). Beneath the lion couch on the right is Bes, also associated with conception and birth. This inscription depicts the conception of Horus by Isis before the resuscitation of Osiris.

I don't know if you are correct here but let's go with it.

Now, recall what I wrote earlier above about the differences between what is normative for figures lying on the back in lion couch scenes and those that are mummiform. And, yes, I was criticizing the image previously of the Parker/Parkinson/Larson reconstruction. That image has been falsified by the extant evidence, so, yes, I have criticized it above. What Parker originally did was to combine elements from two differing kinds of vignettes and storylines and force these elements onto the vignette in P. JS I (also identified as P. JS 1.1). Larson, not knowing any better, repeated the fallacy and then this fallacy was blasted and repeated all over the internet and in print by critics of the Church for the last decade or so.

Seems to me Kerry is doing something very similar by bringing these examples up to show something about Facsimile 1 even though these examples have some relevant differences to JS's papyrus. I'm not saying I really have a problem with that but let's be a bit more consistent.

This vignette (and its elements) does not change what I said above about human-form lion couch scenes. Have you any actual examples of what it is that you are trying to say?

Those two are enough for my case. Doesn't appear you are getting what I'm driving at, MM. I'm not saying we have examples of depictions exactly like that from JS's papyrus (which I honestly don't know if we have but I don't have the interest to look for them more deeply and this would be unnecessary to make my point) or that the papyrus isn't different from other similar papyri or depictions (which in my mind isn't really to say much since pretty much any scene I've seen from ancient Egypt seems different to other similar scenes; I'm sure some differences might be relevant, others not relevant). What I am saying is that the best way to interpret the papyrus is to insert elements from similar scenes we have, not with elements that are unprecedented to similar scenes. At least I can find examples of similar scenes where the person on the couch has his arms in ways we have depicted in similar scenes. Can you show similar evidence? Can you show a lion couch scene where the person standing is a bald priest with a knife and the person on the couch has both hands raised to depict struggle? That would at least be interesting.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Alvino

[MormonMason]

Did you actually read the entire article written by Kerry A. Shirts? I think you are missing his point as well. He states his reasoning for using the images he did. Perhaps you should read the article carefully before we proceed.

You also are missing my points again, as is obvious from your responses. Please re-read my remarks a little more carefully because it seems as though you are reading into my remarks things that aren't there. By chance, is English your second language?

Edited March 24, 2013 by MormonMason

[Helen47]

Are there any fibres in the glue where the part of the figure has been pencilled in?

[Alvino]

Did you actually read the entire article written by Kerry A. Shirts? I think you are missing his point as well. He states his reasoning for using the images he did. Perhaps you should read the article carefully before we proceed.

I did read it. Do I have to ask you every time you say I miss a point to explain or will you do what's courteous and do it without being asked to?

You also are missing my points again, as is obvious from your responses. Please re-read my remarks a little more carefully because it seems as though you are reading into my remarks things that aren't there.

What am I reading that doesn't follow? I suppose if it's so obvious you shouldn't have much trouble pointing out what I'm missing.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Alvino

[Monster]

Who's to say JS wasn't just playing around with the idea that the papyri was the BoA? Using it as a vehicle more or less? Or as some on here have said he would say things that were untrue just to tease some of his friends, maybe it started out that way and it came into being where people were excited about his findings and then it snowballed.

So he lied?