Book Of Abraham Critiques: Requesting Your Opinion

[omni]

Multiquote is to respond to more than one post at a time. You just keep clicking on it and then when you are done, click on the reply box and it will post all the posts you want to reply to at once.

If you want to break up a post to reply to it, 'cut'' out anything you don't want to have in the first quote, then paste after the first quote the entire rest of the quote that you 'cut, then divide up the rest by capturing each section and clicking on the quote balloon for each section. Once all the quote is divided, then respond in between each of the quotes. Delete any part you don't want to respond to.

Thanks Calmoriah! Now if I can just put it into practice .

Edited May 19, 2013 by omni

[ERayR]

Well since the papyri discovered in 1967 contained the translation notes of Joseph's scribes on them and on the back of the structural paper (which the papyri were glued to) it contained a map of the Kirtland area and temple architectural drawings, I think it's safe to presume these were the same ones Joseph used.

I think you are being a bit presumptuous in your presumptions.

In fact you won't find any non-LDS egyptologist who agrees with the BoA translation.

If you question posters' honesty you will not be around long enough to use it.

I won't find any non-LDS egyptologist who who believes in the LDS Church either so why should I entrust my eternal salvation to them?

[Robert F. Smith]

I think you have it backwards there. Anachronisms are not a two edged sword. There should be zero anachronisms in an accurate document, even if the rest of the document is entirely correct. As soon as one anachronism is discovered is raises a red flag about the authenticity of the document's claims. It doesn't matter that the BOA got a lot right if it contains unexplainable anachronisms. The anachronisms must be accounted for (by either showing they are not anachronisms, showing they were added after Abraham wrote his words, etc.).

You misread my words. I correctly said that a so-called "anachronism" is a two-edged sword. I clearly pointed out that false anachronisms boomerang back toward the polemicist -- a concept also known as "blowback." False accusations tend to have that effect.

At the same time, no actual historical document is ever free from controversy or dispute as to its origin, content, or meaning, thus making it absurd to claim that there must "be zero anachronisms." Not only might there be inadvertant anachronisms generated in the course of transmission (editing,translation, etc.), but many anachronisms are eisegetic -- matters of interpretation rather than direct fact. One finds this particularly true in archeology, but it is a problem across the broad range of the sciences.

The issue I was replying to here was a false statement about the Book of Mormon, but you can raise this issue for the Book of Abraham as well -- that is, after all, the subject of this thread. Perhaps you'd like to be more specific about your objections, without of course a fallacious "call to perfection."

[Robert F. Smith]

Your last paragraph is where the issue lies. I 100% agree that IF the Book of Abraham was "transmitted by many editors, translators, and redactors through time" then the anachronisms are indeed merely amusing. However, some members take the position that the BOA came directly from God through revelation. That makes the anachronisms a real issue.

I'd first like to know what it means to say that the BofA came "directly from God through revelation." Who is saying this, what do they mean, and can they back such statements up with hard, reliable evidence?

For example, did the Book of Mormon come directly from God through revelation? Does a seerstone provide direct revelation? Royal Skousen says that Joseph merely read off the words as he saw them on the instrument in his hat and that the scribe wrote them down, then repeated them back to Joseph. At that point, if correct, the words would disappear and another phrase appear. Moreover, Prof. Skousen argues that there are words and phrases in the BofM which were last used in the 15th & 16th centuries, and were no longer used in the 19th century, i.e., according to him, therefore, Joseph could not have put the translation into his own words -- it came to him already translated!! Does this indicate infallibility of the resultant text? Or do statements in the text itself that God speaks to men according to their own language and understanding condition the notion of infallible and inerrant holy writ?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

In fact you won't find any non-LDS egyptologist who agrees with the BoA translation.

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

Not true. I assume you are talking about Joseph's explanations for the three facsimiles. One need only compare the various scenes depicted in those facsimiles with standard Egyptological interpretations in regular books and journals on Egyptology. Joseph does extremely well by that measure, although some anti-Mormon polemicists claim that such correct identifications were known and available in Joseph's own time. Since most Egyptologists are now and have been non-LDS, it is a matter of direct comparison to establish that Joseph and the Egyptologists agree too often for it to be mere coincidence. I summarize this matter and quote the non-LDS Egyptologists extensively in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

[omni]

Not true. I assume you are talking about Joseph's explanations for the three facsimiles. One need only compare the various scenes depicted in those facsimiles with standard Egyptological interpretations in regular books and journals on Egyptology. Joseph does extremely well by that measure, although some anti-Mormon polemicists claim that such correct identifications were known and available in Joseph's own time. Since most Egyptologists are now and have been non-LDS, it is a matter of direct comparison to establish that Joseph and the Egyptologists agree too often for it to be mere coincidence. I summarize this matter and quote the non-LDS Egyptologists extensively in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.co...Book-of-Abraham .

Admittedly I'm not an expert on the subject, but from my readings the only thing non-LDS egyptologists will agree upon is in Facsimile 2 where Joseph describes the four jars as representing the four corners of the Earth. And even this is up for debate as he misidentified the names of the Gods they represent. Compare this "hit" with the dozen of misses and I don't think we have much of a match. Do you believe the hieroglyphics on the found papyri describe what we have in the BoA today?

[volgadon]

Admittedly I'm not an expert on the subject, but from my readings the only thing non-LDS egyptologists will agree upon is in Facsimile 2 where Joseph describes the four jars as representing the four corners of the Earth. And even this is up for debate as he misidentified the names of the Gods they represent. Compare this "hit" with the dozen of misses and I don't think we have much of a match. Do you believe the hieroglyphics on the found papyri describe what we have in the BoA today?

Have you read his piece?

[Robert F. Smith]

Admittedly I'm not an expert on the subject, but from my readings the only thing non-LDS egyptologists will agree upon is in Facsimile 2 where Joseph describes the four jars as representing the four corners of the Earth. And even this is up for debate as he misidentified the names of the Gods they represent. Compare this "hit" with the dozen of misses and I don't think we have much of a match. Do you believe the hieroglyphics on the found papyri describe what we have in the BoA today?

You apparently misunderstood me: I am not suggesting that a non-LDS Egyptologist is likely to suddenly become dispassionate about the Joseph Smith Papyri and Joseph's explanations for some of them. Indeed, I fully expect that any non-LDS Egyptologist who wants to remain in the good graces of his fellow Egyptologists must tow the line in automatically rejecting anything Joseph has said, and to avoid commenting on any correct identifications. I have personally witnessed the late Klaus Baer do just that. Many people seem blissfully unaware of Joseph's actual score, and I'll wager that you got the notion of "dozens of misses" opposed to only one "hit" from anti-Mormon literature -- what did you expect them to say?

You have also apparently not read my brief assessment of the BofA, in which I show that the professional opinions of regular non-LDS Egyptologists in fact favor Joseph without ever mentioning him or the JSP. By not bringing in the BofA, one can deal dispassionately with the strong fears and biases which normally motivate the expression of opinion on these matters. You would do well to briefly step outside the Mormon and anti-Mormon statements on these matters and ask for standard Egyptological opinion on the interpretation of each and every item in dispute.

Your last question seems to ask how the hieratic and hieroglyphic on the JSPapyri stack up against Joseph's explanations for the actual scenes. You may be mistakenly thinking here that the basic text and the labels for the vignettes are the only items to be "read." As I show in my assessment, standard Egyptology requires that the entire scene be "read" right along with the labels. As it happens, not only do the scenes comport with Joseph's interpretations, but even some of the labels do too. This is to be expected for Egyptian illustrations selected by Jewish editors in Greco-Roman Egypt in order to accompany a late form of a more ancient Book of Abraham. The same sort of phenomenon has taken place in the transmission of biblical texts over long periods, resulting in not a few anachronisms.

[omni]

You apparently misunderstood me: I am not suggesting that a non-LDS Egyptologist is likely to suddenly become dispassionate about the Joseph Smith Papyri and Joseph's explanations for some of them. Indeed, I fully expect that any non-LDS Egyptologist who wants to remain in the good graces of his fellow Egyptologists must tow the line in automatically rejecting anything Joseph has said, and to avoid commenting on any correct identifications. I have personally witnessed the late Klaus Baer do just that. Many people seem blissfully unaware of Joseph's actual score, and I'll wager that you got the notion of "dozens of misses" opposed to only one "hit" from anti-Mormon literature -- what did you expect them to say?

You have also apparently not read my brief assessment of the BofA, in which I show that the professional opinions of regular non-LDS Egyptologists in fact favor Joseph without ever mentioning him or the JSP. By not bringing in the BofA, one can deal dispassionately with the strong fears and biases which normally motivate the expression of opinion on these matters. You would do well to briefly step outside the Mormon and anti-Mormon statements on these matters and ask for standard Egyptological opinion on the interpretation of each and every item in dispute.

Your last question seems to ask how the hieratic and hieroglyphic on the JSPapyri stack up against Joseph's explanations for the actual scenes. You may be mistakenly thinking here that the basic text and the labels for the vignettes are the only items to be "read." As I show in my assessment, standard Egyptology requires that the entire scene be "read" right along with the labels. As it happens, not only do the scenes comport with Joseph's interpretations, but even some of the labels do too. This is to be expected for Egyptian illustrations selected by Jewish editors in Greco-Roman Egypt in order to accompany a late form of a more ancient Book of Abraham. The same sort of phenomenon has taken place in the transmission of biblical texts over long periods, resulting in not a few anachronisms.

Sorry, I haven't had time yet to read your assessment with church and a family dinner. I'll try to read it later on and post back here if I have any comments or questions. Thanks.

[rongo]

There should be zero anachronisms in an accurate document, even if the rest of the document is entirely correct. As soon as one anachronism is discovered is raises a red flag about the authenticity of the document's claims. It doesn't matter that the BOA got a lot right if it contains unexplainable anachronisms. The anachronisms must be accounted for (by either showing they are not anachronisms, showing they were added after Abraham wrote his words, etc.).

I think your “zero tolerance” standard (no perceived anachronisms) would eliminate any legitimate authentic records as well as perceived “imposters” --- it’s an impossibly high standard. Aside from that, your handful of perceived anachronisms, gleaned from anti-Mormon talking points, are weak and do not represent actual anachronisms. Let me give you a few examples (I got one of my Nibley books back from my fellow ward member today, which I needed for your “Egyptus” example).

1. Chaldeans.

This is supposed to be an anachronism because the Chaldeans were in southern Iraq, not northern Syria, according to most people’s general understanding (cf. the Book of Daniel). However, the Ebla discovery opened up a bombshell in Near Eastern scholarship: the existence of a “northern Ur,” precisely where the Book of Abraham places it. In fact, the Lautverschiebung (consistent change over time, like the hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung in Germany, which makes study of changes in languages over time possible to piece together)of the language in this area consistently has “l” changing to “r”. Thus, “Chaldeans” is a plausible and attestable earlier version of the modern Kurds! While it is still controversial, I personally believe that Abraham was a Kurd from northern Iraq/Syria/southern Turkey. “Chaldean” is not a valid anachronism since there is a lot of support for it being a valid term for the area that the Book of Abraham places it in.

As for Egyptus, here are some pertinent sections from Nibley’s “Abraham in Egypt.” I didn’t include the footnotes, because of pasting issues from GospeLink to Word.

Q. What about the name Egyptus?

A. Verses 21 through 25 in Abraham 1 must be read carefully to get straight a number of specific propositions:

(1) Egypt is the "Chaldaean" name for the land: "Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt." (Abr. 1:23.) Here the Book of Abraham is right: Egypt is not the Egyptian name for the land, but was first applied to it by the Canaanites ("in the Chaldaean"), making its first known appearance in Ugaritic as H.kpt, that being an adaptation of the old Egyptian name for Memphis, Ht-ka-ptah which the Egyptians did not apply to the land as a whole, but only to the city. It was the "Chaldeans" who gave it to the land . . .

(2) The Egyptians, like Pharaoh himself, were of mixed stock, being "partakers of the blood of the Canaanites." (Abr. 1:21-22.) Unhindered by natural boundaries, the Canaanites at all times filtered into Egypt by "the oldest road in the world," presenting "a recurrent menace throughout all her (Egypt's) history," according to Gardiner. The Delta that attracted them was "like the garden of the Lord," offering tempting grazing and farming lands from the earliest times. Examination of skulls from Canaan shows "an array of cranial characteristics surprisingly similar to those of ancient Egypt."

Q. Who were the Canaanites?

A. "The title 'Canaanites,' if it be used at all, must be reserved for the third millennium Semitic inhabitants of Syria-Palestine and their second millennium descendants." So J.C. Gibson.

(3) There has been a great deal of hair-splitting on the subject of Egypt and Canaan, but one sure thing is that Canaanite blood was shared one way or another by almost every Pharaoh whose line can be traced. "Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham (Abr. 1:25) and Egyptus (v. 23)." The name Egypt is a title, as was Pharaoh ("which signifies king by royal blood"—Abr. 1:20), and was given to the land, just as the title of Pharaoh (like that of Caesar) was given to all who ruled after him. As in the Old Testament, "father" can mean ancestor, or "son" or "daughter" can mean "descendant"; this is clear from Abraham 1:26, where Noah is called Pharaoh's father.

----- Abraham in Egypt, pp. 526-527.

Abraham 1:23: " ... which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt."

Q. Is there any evidence that the land got its name from such a person?

A. There are plenty of ancient legends dealing with the subject. One of the oldest, certainly unknown to Joseph Smith, was reported by Herakleides: "It was first a woman named Aegyptia who established her son and introduced weaving. Because of her, the Egyptians set up an image of Athena, as Ephorus says in his work on Europa." Athena is none other than Neith, by which name the Lady is often designated in the north of Egypt. In Classic times when the Greeks and Egyptians rivaled each other in learned philological and historical speculations about the origin of Egypt, a great many conflicting stories circulated. "They say," he writes, "that the people with Osiris (when he came to Egypt) built a city in the Egyptian Thebaid ... which they named after the Mother, but which later generations changed to Diospolis (city of Zeus-Re), and which some call Thebes. . . . But there is much disagreement about this, both among the historians and the priests." From Isocrates, a diligent researcher of the fourth century B.C., we learn that a granddaughter of Zeus, being the mother of both Busiris of Egypt and his brother, the terrible Antaeus, who ruled the desert immediately west of the Nile, "was, they say, the first woman to rule, after whom the country was named."

A scholiast to Plato explains how the Lady could come from Canaan but still arrive through the Wadi Hammamat far in the south by a detour: "Egypt was named after Egyptus the son of Belus (the Canaanite Baal) and Anchirhoea, the daughter of Nile, who was king of Egypt [there is your mixed blood again!]. This Egyptus was sent by his father to settle in Arabia, but returned and named the land of Blackfeet 'Egypt' after himself." "Some say that Osiris was a cultivator in Arabia, and that the city (Thebes) was not built by Osiris but by a much later king. And some say that Osiris was a cultivator in Arabia Felix, and is the same as Dionysus, the father of the vine and of civilized living." There is the wine motif again, going with the founding of Egyptian civilization. According to others it was not Osiris but Isis who first brought agriculture and letters to the valley, "for which reason the land was named after her, while the Egyptian people were named after a former king of Egypt called Egyptus, they having been formerly called Aerii (Re-people?)." More juggling with the name is found in the Pseudo-Plutarch account of how when the Nile refused to rise a King of Egypt found himself forced to sacrifice his daughter, in grief for whom the King, whose name was Egyptus, cast himself into the river Melana (Black), whose name was accordingly changed to Aegyptus river. Diodorus tells us that "the royal line of the Nile family after which the river is named, was formerly called Aegyptos." Josephus bestows the name on the founder of the great 19th Dynasty: "Aegyptus was another name for Sethos who is also Rameses."

----- Abraham in Egypt, pp. 534-535

Abraham 1:23: " ... Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden."

One thinks also of Egypt as the land forbidden to the Saints in early Christian and Jewish literature, cursed for its fleshpots and its stews. But this passage definitely has a philological thrust. It tells us that the "Canaanite" or common old Semitic combination g-p-t (the vowels change constantly, but the root meaning of the consonant combination always remains the same) designates something forbidden. Well, if you take that combination of a gutteral, a labial, and a dental in that order in any Semitic language, what do you get? In Arabic, the commonest meaning is to conceal, cover over, tuck, crouch, usually with the basic idea of concealing with the hand; thus kafata, conceal, forbid; kabata, conceal out of shame; qabada, cover, shrink from; qabut, our word capuchin, all-enveloping cloak, modesty, shame; khabith, impure, taboo; khafata, holy silence, secret; khafada, lower the voice, abash, humble; hafitha, to keep secret, and so on for over one hundred examples. Or Hebrew and Aramaic: kabah, cover or hide; qafdah, shrinking, horror; qafats, draw together, close; khaba, wrap or hide, etc. In Babylonian and Assyrian khpt means hidden and forbidden; in the Book of the Dead the khebt-chamber is the forbidden place where all is hidden. For that matter, the suggested name Ht-ka-ptah, the secret name of Memphis, can mean hiding place of Ptah. The island of the Abaton is not only as its name shows, forbidden to all mortals, but the Lady of Bigge was called that "very hidden, very secret one," in her caves of the Nile, in her hiding place, where was at once the secret source of the Nile and the dark mountain of the Duat.

Before all, however, came Kh.b.t, the hidden marsh where Isis, according to some accounts, bore, and, according to all accounts, nursed the infant Horus—the most secret place in the world and the only place where Seth could not find him; the nest hidden in the bullrushes was the most forbidden place on earth. So we have no shortage of candidates for the original form of "Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden." (Abr. 1:23.)

---- Abraham in Egypt, 538-539

[volgadon]

A bit harder to explain how the letter sin becomes a lamed.

[TruthSeeker2013]

I'd first like to know what it means to say that the BofA came "directly from God through revelation." Who is saying this, what do they mean, and can they back such statements up with hard, reliable evidence?

For example, did the Book of Mormon come directly from God through revelation? Does a seerstone provide direct revelation? Royal Skousen says that Joseph merely read off the words as he saw them on the instrument in his hat and that the scribe wrote them down, then repeated them back to Joseph. At that point, if correct, the words would disappear and another phrase appear. Moreover, Prof. Skousen argues that there are words and phrases in the BofM which were last used in the 15th & 16th centuries, and were no longer used in the 19th century, i.e., according to him, therefore, Joseph could not have put the translation into his own words -- it came to him already translated!! Does this indicate infallibility of the resultant text? Or do statements in the text itself that God speaks to men according to their own language and understanding condition the notion of infallible and inerrant holy writ?

The direct revelation from God argument is something I have read from many apologists, beginning in the 1960's when the papyri were rediscovered (and I'm sure it was argued before then when the facsimiles were reviewed by Egyptologists and found to be incorrectly interpreted). Can it be backed up with hard evidence you ask? No, and my point is that the evidence actually points elsewhere - given the anachronisms (though I understand that not everyone on here believes they are anachronisms or that they were revealed). I suppose its entirely possible that, as I think you're suggesting, that either Joseph could have been the author of the anachronisms as he is imperfect or he was receiving the anachronisms because he was recieving the revelation according to his own understanding. Perhaps these are some of the only arguments remaining, but I think the overwhelming evidence points elsewhere. Just my opinion and understanding of the evidence.

Edited May 20, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[TruthSeeker2013]

I think your “zero tolerance” standard (no perceived anachronisms) would eliminate any legitimate authentic records as well as perceived “imposters” --- it’s an impossibly high standard. Aside from that, your handful of perceived anachronisms, gleaned from anti-Mormon talking points, are weak and do not represent actual anachronisms. Let me give you a few examples (I got one of my Nibley books back from my fellow ward member today, which I needed for your “Egyptus” example).

1. Chaldeans.

This is supposed to be an anachronism because the Chaldeans were in southern Iraq, not northern Syria, according to most people’s general understanding (cf. the Book of Daniel). However, the Ebla discovery opened up a bombshell in Near Eastern scholarship: the existence of a “northern Ur,” precisely where the Book of Abraham places it. In fact, the Lautverschiebung (consistent change over time, like the hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung in Germany, which makes study of changes in languages over time possible to piece together)of the language in this area consistently has “l” changing to “r”. Thus, “Chaldeans” is a plausible and attestable earlier version of the modern Kurds! While it is still controversial, I personally believe that Abraham was a Kurd from northern Iraq/Syria/southern Turkey. “Chaldean” is not a valid anachronism since there is a lot of support for it being a valid term for the area that the Book of Abraham places it in.

As for Egyptus, here are some pertinent sections from Nibley’s “Abraham in Egypt.” I didn’t include the footnotes, because of pasting issues from GospeLink to Word.

Thank you! When I get some time I'll sit down and read through this carefully. I appreciate your help! I'm also excited to read through Robert Smith's piece, thanks Robert!

[mfbukowski]

"Direct revelation from God" is pretty ambiguous. It seems that some are trying to imply that it was a "translation" as opposed to a "revelation" because Joseph REPORTS he saw letters, or words or phrases in the seerstones. I am sure that is exactly what he saw.

Does that mean that those were not "direct revelations"?

Could anyone else look at those seerstones and get the same results as Joseph did?

Of course not! So where do you draw the line between revelation and "translation"??

I would suggest there is no line to draw!

[Tacenda]

"Direct revelation from God" is pretty ambiguous. It seems that some are trying to imply that it was a "translation" as opposed to a "revelation" because Joseph REPORTS he saw letters, or words or phrases in the seerstones. I am sure that is exactly what he saw.

Does that mean that those were not "direct revelations"?

Could anyone else look at those seerstones and get the same results as Joseph did?

Of course not! So where do you draw the line between revelation and "translation"??

I would suggest there is no line to draw!

Maybe only a select few have the strong faith in seeing messages on seerstones. I know that's my problem not enough faith. just maybe there are a small number out there with enough faith to get visitations, revelations. I wonder how many still get these?

[ERayR]

Maybe only a select few have the strong faith in seeing messages on seerstones. I know that's my problem not enough faith. just maybe there are a small number out there with enough faith to get visitations, revelations. I wonder how many still get these?

Maybe its not faith but that there is really no need for you to receive messages with seer stones.

[Calm]

Maybe its not faith but that there is really no need for you to receive messages with seer stones.

Indeed. God said it was Joseph's gift to translate, receive revelation about the BoM, etc. And the scriptures say not everyone receives the same gifts of the spirit.

[Robert F. Smith]

The direct revelation from God argument is something I have read from many apologists, beginning in the 1960's when the papyri were rediscovered (and I'm sure it was argued before then when the facsimiles were reviewed by Egyptologists and found to be incorrectly interpreted). Can it be backed up with hard evidence you ask? No, and my point is that the evidence actually points elsewhere - given the anachronisms (though I understand that not everyone on here believes they are anachronisms or that they were revealed). I suppose its entirely possible that, as I think you're suggesting, that either Joseph could have been the author of the anachronisms as he is imperfect or he was receiving the anachronisms because he was recieving the revelation according to his own understanding. Perhaps these are some of the only arguments remaining, but I think the overwhelming evidence points elsewhere. Just my opinion and understanding of the evidence.

Which LDS apologists used the "direct revelation" argument? And what did they mean by it? I asked for specific examples of the nuances of "direct revlation," and I gave you a specific example. Perhaps you could be good enough to return the favor.

I can't think of any LDS Egyptologists who make the claim for "direct revelation," but I may have missed that somewhere. Of course if we say simply "apologists," that could include any Tom, ****, or Harry -- including one from Panguitch, and another one from Gusher.

Well, maybe all apologists are created equal. In which case, what do we say about Joseph’s claim that he had translated the Book of Abraham from a papyrus in his possession? (Roberts, ed., History of the Church, VI:476 [June 16, 1844]; Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, II:130 n. 5; cf. HC II:236,350-351).

[blackstrap]

Many years ago I struggled through the book " the Joseph Smith Papyrus " by Nibley. It was a great sleep inducer but what I did glean from it was a much deeper appreciation of the translation process. Nibley took a sentence in Egyptian hieroglyphics and in a 5 step process presented the English equivalent . With the English clearly in front of me I could not grasp what it meant. It might as well have been computer techno babel. After several paragraphs of explanation by Nibley it began to clarify. That impressed on my mind that for most translations there is no such thing as 'word for word' . Idea for idea maybe and even then,unless one has a clear understanding of the cultural background ,good luck !

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, Mike Ash is one LDS apologist that mentions it favorably. In his chapter on the Book of Abraham in Shaken Faith Syndrome, under the heading "Pure Revelation," Ash writes: "It is plausible that the papyri Joseph acquired did not contain the Book of Abrahamic text. Joseph, the man, would not have known the difference. God could have used the papyri as a physical symbol and impetus for Joseph to seek revelation on the papyri that, in turn, opened his mind to receive the revelations that eventually became the Book of Abraham" (Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One's Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, 2nd ed. [Redding, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2013], 228).

LDS Egyptologist Michael Rhodes holds to the missing papyrus theory but considers direct revelation an alternative possibility: "An alternative could be a process similar to that used in D&C 7, that is, that the Book of Abraham was given by direct revelation without the need for the text to be present" (Michael D. Rhodes, "Introduction to the Book of Abraham," in The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary, ed. Richard D. Draper, S.Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes [salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2005], 242–43).

As I said, no LDS Egyptologist holds to the direct revelation theory as you describe it here. However, there are a number of non-scholars who do hold to the papyrus catalyst theory in which some sort of revelation is received instead of an actual inspired translation of text.

I think we say that Joseph may have been mistaken. He was fallible, after all. (He also claimed to have translated from the Kinderhook Plates.)

I'm not sure who you mean by "we," bit it is a matter of Mormon theology that all the prophets are fallible, so that your phrase "He was fallible, after all," is a red herring. As for the Kinderhook Plates, an excellent short summary of Joseph's secular, non-revelatory efforts to translate (at which he failed) are to be found at http://en.fairmormon.org/Kinderhook_Plates .

[MormonMason]

Something quite bothersome to me is when people make claims that things are anachronistic when new discoveries are being made all the time in Egypt. A prime example of this is the concept of Dynasty 0. That category had to be created because it turned out that Egypt had kings that predated the official dynasties listed in the historical records. It used to be thought that the concept of human sacrifice was anachronistic. New evidences for varying forms of human sacrifices in Egypt are unearthed from time to time. Some of the texts even state things about sacrificing one's enemies. There still is much resistance to the idea among Egyptologists, however.

Of course, even that is not necessarily pertinent to the authenticity of the Book of Abraham since the locations where these sacrifices occurred were in northern Mesopotamia, where such things as human sacrifice occurred fairly regularly. In addition, connections between northern Mesopotamia and Egypt have long been known to have existed in northern Mesopotamia. The people of Gebla (located in and near modern-day Lebanon and Syria), for example, dressed up their gods and goddesses to look like Egyptian gods and goddesses. Examples of Hathor and Isis were to be found there. And, conversely, the Egyptians did the same thing (Middle Eastern goddess ^cAnat/^cAnath was dressed up by Egyptians in the garb of Osiris, for example), which is exactly what the Book of Abraham had been saying for years before such practices were known.

It is common to hear critics say that Joseph got the names of various Egyptian gods wrong, but did he? The gods that were named actually were gods known to Abraham in the region where he lived and were not said to be Egyptian gods, with the exception of the crocodile which was not named in the Book of Abraham. It is now known that the crocodile was worshiped by kings of Egypt. The names of the gods mentioned by name in connection with the Book of Abraham have cognate connections with terms and deities elsewhere in Mesopotamia. Some have disagreed with this suggestion but I find it strange that deity markers would be used for non-deities in such connections. How to explain the phenomenon?

Should it be surprising to us that these gods were dressed up like the Sons of Horus by the Book of Abraham? That sort of thing, after all, was done in northern Mesopotamia and Middle Eastern gods and goddesses indeed were dressed up to look Egyptian by Egyptians at various times as well. Is it really an anachronism as has been claimed in the past? What can be said of those that have yet to be reconciled in light of what has been found to be the case in the correct region during the correct time frame?

So far as the Chaldeans go, the Kasdim (Hebrew for what would later be called Chaldeans) were nomadic and migrated into Chaldea. They lived elsewhere, however, centuries before settling in Babylonia. A later gloss added to Genesis might well only be coincidence in this situation. Can we know for certain that it is not? Could they have lived in northern Mesopotamia in Abraham's time and be pertinent to Abraham by that connection? The Chaldeans spoke Aramaic (older scholars in the 19th century and prior used to refer to Aramaic as Chaldean). Aramaic was the language of northern and western Mesopotamia.

So far as the term or name Pharaoh goes, we have only begun to scratch the surface of Dynasty 0 kings. Many remain unknown. Those who now are known have little known about them. What and if we should find that some yet unknown ancient king from Dynasty 0 actually was named "Great House" in ancient times? What and if it became known that the term was used long before some have stated is the case just because we have yet to find the evidence demonstrating such?

How foolish would we feel should we have left the Church over something like this only to learn that such was the case? Many would not care and would look for other excuses. Of that, I am sure. But, having experienced doing so over something like this many decades ago, I should not like to repeat such foolishness on something so flimsy as this sort of thing.

Edited May 21, 2013 by MormonMason

[TruthSeeker2013]

Which LDS apologists used the "direct revelation" argument? And what did they mean by it? I asked for specific examples of the nuances of "direct revlation," and I gave you a specific example. Perhaps you could be good enough to return the favor.

I can't think of any LDS Egyptologists who make the claim for "direct revelation," but I may have missed that somewhere. Of course if we say simply "apologists," that could include any Tom, ****, or Harry -- including one from Panguitch, and another one from Gusher.

Well, maybe all apologists are created equal. In which case, what do we say about Joseph’s claim that he had translated the Book of Abraham from a papyrus in his possession? (Roberts, ed., History of the Church, VI:476 [June 16, 1844]; Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, II:130 n. 5; cf. HC II:236,350-351).

I don't know of any LDS Egyptologist apologists who argue direct revelation (though there may be, I just don't know), but this is a very common theory among apologists. Some call it the catalyst theory, as I'm sure you're very aware. FAIR suggests it as a possibility - http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Text'>http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Text

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

[Robert F. Smith]

Many years ago I struggled through the book " the Joseph Smith Papyrus " by Nibley. It was a great sleep inducer but what I did glean from it was a much deeper appreciation of the translation process. Nibley took a sentence in Egyptian hieroglyphics and in a 5 step process presented the English equivalent . With the English clearly in front of me I could not grasp what it meant. It might as well have been computer techno babel. After several paragraphs of explanation by Nibley it began to clarify. That impressed on my mind that for most translations there is no such thing as 'word for word' . Idea for idea maybe and even then,unless one has a clear understanding of the cultural background ,good luck !

Are you referring here to Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri?

[MormonMason]

I don't know of any LDS Egyptologist apologists who argue direct revelation (though there may be, I just don't know), but this is a very common theory among apologists. Some call it the catalyst theory, as I'm sure you're very aware. FAIR suggests it as a possibility - http://en.fairmormon...ith_Papyri/Text

http://en.fairmormon...ph_Smith_Papyri

It is irrelevant. Many things that have been considered anachronisms in the Book of Mormon have been resolved over time. It was once an attack point that the Book of Mormon mentions cities made of cement. Some people left the Church over that. We now know that such cities did exist in Mesoamerica, a number of them dating to Book of Mormon times. I have known people who have attacked the Book of Mormon and even left the Church over the use of "in other words" and "and so forth" in the Book of Mormon because they could not find such phrases in Hebrew. It turns out that these phrases were not anachronisms and examples have been found in Egyptian texts. That is important since the Book of Mormon was written in the language of the Egyptians. There are a number of examples of things that once were considered anachronisms that now have plausible evidence that shows that these really weren't. Are all such claims resolved? I would never say so at the present time. But, enough have been resolved to leave room for faith.

It is the same for the Book of Abraham. It was once claimed to be an anachronism that Egyptian gods were worshiped outside of Egypt and that non-Egyptian gods were dressed and made to look like Egyptian ones. It turned out that the Book of Abraham was right. This was unknown in the time of Joseph Smith. Lucky guess?

The Book of Abraham mentions human sacrifices. Evidence turns up from time to time adding to evidence that varying forms of human sacrifice were practiced in Egypt. Some Egyptian texts (some late, of course, but significant) even talk about sacrificing enemies. The papyrus fragment that became Facsimile 1 even has an extant word in a broken column that can mean sacrifice or fit for offering, which itself is of interest.

Several words in the Book of Abraham have connections with Egyptian words that seem to make some degree of sense in light of the meaning attached to the phrases. String these words together and there are further interesting connections. In any case, there is room for faith in spite of the claimed evidences of the critics.