"Egyptian Redaction" Theory & Fac 3

[Brian 2.0]

Moreover, you improperly demand that Muhlestein's footnotes to his article support his comments on an unrelated video. Being fair-minded should be the first, not the last consideration here. The moderators do not demand that we love each other here, only that we at least be even-handed and cordial in our discussions. Other boards are not so genial and responsible, as I'm sure you are aware.

If you read that post, I am only holding his footnotes in that article to the statement he made in that article. I am not asking for support for his translation in the video snippet.

This is the quote from his article:

It is also worth noting that there is a papyrus from the Roman period with a person on a lion couch whom the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham.44 (emphasis mine)

And it was that quote alone that I was looking for support in the footnotes, which I did not find.

[Brian 2.0]

I don't think that you conjecturing about the conjectures of others is of much help here,

I am not conjecturing about the conjectures of others. I'm simply pointing out that the statements made "who lies upon this altar" and "this couch" ARE conjectures. And I think you'll agree that someone's conjectures should not be used as evidences to supporting a claim that is not stated as conjecture.

although I am mystified as to why crixus did not bother to read the citation I provided. I am glad that you had the presence of mind to do so, and the information you provide here is exactly what crixus should have provided early in the discussion. I even gave an example to crixus when I cited Gee in context. He ignored that.

I'm not sure either, and I don't know if he has bowed out of this thread or not, but I picked up the argument in his stead, because I saw what he was trying to argue and saw support for it in the face of the CFR

Edited June 28, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

What were you CFR'ing this whole time? Maybe we're speaking past each other because the context you provided that Tyler has provided to you did not change the meaning of the smaller clip I posted?

Again, the meaning of context escapes you. The context is the larger unit, not the smaller one. If you can differentiate a soundbite from a full unit of discussion, then you might begin to understand. Context is not optional. It is required. Whether it will change how we view the phrase is unknown, which is the whole point. The CFR can be a formal citation (the kind scholars provide), hopefully with a transcript online, or it can be a DVD (a long clip excerpted), but it is not optional. It is required. I should not have had to provide the sources for someone else's discussion points.

Were you CFR'ing that Kerry Muhlstein said that the text translated to "Abraham upon his couch"? Because obviously your added context that you finally got doesn't change that fact.

If I understand you here, Brian, I was demanding the full discussion on a DVD I had not seen. That was refused by crixus, which is a violation of board rules, and requires that he concede the issue. The context provided by Tyler Livingston more than filled that minimum requirement. As a scholar I am less interested in who wins an argument or is proven right than I am in being provided the data upon which to make a determination -- even if that determination is only tentative. It is not the right of the person being CFRed to ignore the request and to become abusive.

And i never called him a liar. I am stating what his quotes were and then stating that the I don't see the evidence to support his quotes.

No, but crixus did, and that is what I was referring to.

You have good manners, crixus doesn't.

[Brian 2.0]

Again, the meaning of context escapes you. The context is the larger unit, not the smaller one. If you can differentiate a soundbite from a full unit of discussion, then you might begin to understand. Context is not optional. It is required. Whether it will change how we view the phrase is unknown, which is the whole point. The CFR can be a formal citation (the kind scholars provide), hopefully with a transcript online, or it can be a DVD (a long clip excerpted), but it is not optional. It is required. I should not have had to provide the sources for someone else's discussion points.

If I understand you here, Brian, I was demanding the full discussion on a DVD I had not seen. That was refused by crixus, which is a violation of board rules, and requires that he concede the issue. The context provided by Tyler Livingston more than filled that minimum requirement. As a scholar I am less interested in who wins an argument or is proven right than I am in being provided the data upon which to make a determination -- even if that determination is only tentative. It is not the right of the person being CFRed to ignore the request and to become abusive.

No, but crixus did, and that is what I was referring to.

You have good manners, crixus doesn't.

Gotcha. I think we are on the same page, if I'm understand you correctly.

So now that the you do have all the context you requested, you agree that CFR has been answered and the original claim does not need to be retracted, right?

I thought you were stating that CFR was still active or that the references provided still refute the original claim. I agree Crixus did not provide for you full references, or the context you wanted to make sure it didn't change the meaning, but I assume my references along with Tyler's have given you that.

For the record, because a lot has been said, The original claim I was trying to CFR was that Kerry Muhlstein indicated the text in the Lieden Papyri said "Abraham upon his couch"

I added to that a claim that other Egyptologists have not supported that claim.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

And i'm not quite sure why quoting Olavarria help Kerry's argument.

For one thing, I like to get down to brass tacks, and so does Olavarria.

For another, it is typical on this board to repeat old discussions as if the old discussions did not exist. I consider that a terrible waste of time and energy.

Finally, helping Dr. Muhlestein is not on my agenda. He sinks or swims on his own. However, I do like to see all issues given a fair and even-handed treatment. I don't like to see anyone cited out of context, regardless of his position.

Kerry Muhlstein said he does know. He says the text translates to "Abraham upon his couch" and in his paper he said that the person on the couch "the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham."

I have provided plenty of sources to back up that Kerry said it, and there are plenty of sources, all others that I can find, that do no go that far to connect them. The source you quoted from Olavarria says that NO ONE knows because the papyri is not intact. Dr. Muhlstein can speculate on what he thinks comes next, but his quote, in their full context do not read as speculations, but declarations of fact.

I'm glad that you have lined up the sources you did. They are very helpful in making your case, although I'm not sure that you have yet gotten the point: Once one assembles the evidence and looks at it in toto, it is no longer certain that crixus' very partisan and abusive comments were called for. Indeed, we may be lacking in only one word ("couch") to cross the wide divide to justifying Dr. Muhlestein's claim, and you are right to consider it a divide too wide to bridge with speculation. However, I would prefer to allow Muhlestein to speak for himself, and I believe he is still in Egypt just now. He can do one of three things: (1) justify his comments through additional info on the papyrus, (2) retract his comments, or (3) ignore the issue. Meantime, name-calling by crixus was certainly unjustified.

[bcuzbcuz]

For one thing, I like to get down to brass tacks, and so does Olavarria.

For another, it is typical on this board to repeat old discussions as if the old discussions did not exist. I consider that a terrible waste of time and energy.

Finally, helping Dr. Muhlestein is not on my agenda. He sinks or swims on his own. However, I do like to see all issues given a fair and even-handed treatment. I don't like to see anyone cited out of context, regardless of his position.

I'm glad that you have lined up the sources you did. They are very helpful in making your case, although I'm not sure that you have yet gotten the point: Once one assembles the evidence and looks at it in toto, it is no longer certain that crixus' very partisan and abusive comments were called for. Indeed, we may be lacking in only one word ("couch") to cross the wide divide to justifying Dr. Muhlestein's claim, and you are right to consider it a divide too wide to bridge with speculation. However, I would prefer to allow Muhlestein to speak for himself, and I believe he is still in Egypt just now. He can do one of three things: (1) justify his comments through additional info on the papyrus, (2) retract his comments, or (3) ignore the issue. Meantime, name-calling by crixus was certainly unjustified.

I spent all yesterday, and will spend time tomorrow, going over papyrus texts in the Berlin Ägyptiske Museum, otherwise known as Neues Museum. I have ample evidence of Hebrewic texts including mentioning of Biblical sources, from 1200 BCE to 300 CE, with a predominance of texts from 400 BCE. Abraham is mentioned. But not in a context of him defining how the "Book of the Dead" Should be patterned. In fact, the formal texts deal mostly with ideas from Hebrew scripture and their definition. In other words, how Jews away from the home land, should describe their daily patterns of living.

The Book of the Dead had many variations. I have at least 189 spells and incantations, none of which deal with Abraham. You will need to prove something other than conjecture.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you read that post, I am only holding his footnotes in that article to the statement he made in that article. I am not asking for support for his translation in the video snippet.

This is the quote from his article:

And it was that quote alone that I was looking for support in the footnotes, which I did not find.

Sorry, I took your comments to refer to the case you were already making that there was no support for his Video statement. However, I don't believe that we actually know whether he was correct in either instance. It may very well be a label for the illustration. Too bad some of the papyrus is missing. In the scholarly world, individual interpretation plays a large role, in the world of group think everyone is expected to toe some party line or consensus -- or suffer a beat down for not complying with the expectations of a militant faction. I'd like to hear from others who may have light to throw on this matter. I don't feel satisfied with the detail we currently have.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I spent all yesterday, and will spend time tomorrow, going over papyrus texts in the Berlin Ägyptiske Museum, otherwise known as Neues Museum. I have ample evidence of Hebrewic texts including mentioning of Biblical sources, from 1200 BCE to 300 CE, with a predominance of texts from 400 BCE. Abraham is mentioned. But not in a context of him defining how the "Book of the Dead" Should be patterned. In fact, the formal texts deal mostly with ideas from Hebrew scripture and their definition. In other words, how Jews away from the home land, should describe their daily patterns of living.

The Book of the Dead had many variations. I have at least 189 spells and incantations, none of which deal with Abraham. You will need to prove something other than conjecture.

Glad to hear that you are enjoying your time at the Museum. While there you might want to take a look at the Papyrus of Tentruty (Papyrus Berlin 3008 of the Ptolemaic period). The reason I suggest that is because it has an appendix of “The Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys,” which, according to Miriam Lichtheim, was “adapted to the use of an individual person” (Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, III:7-8, 116-121).

I can't fathom why you suggest the straw man that Abraham is supposed by someone to spend his time "defining how the 'Book of the Dead' Should be patterned." Perhaps you could clarify what you are talking about.

[livy111us]

For those of you still interested, I did hear back from Kerry. He stated "My reference is essentially correct. In my unplanned remarks I may have misspoken a little. The reference absolutely is to Abraham, and is to Abraham who is upon . . . At that point it is broken and does not tell us what he is on. Because it is connected with a figure on a lion couch it is reasonable to suppose that it is to Abraham on the altar or couch, but that last word is not certain. The reference to Abraham in connection with the scene, and to Abraham being on something is fully certain. I usually try to make it clear that this last word is an assumption, but I may not have in that video...I hope this is helpful. The reference is sound, it is certainly about Abraham, is certainly from Egyptians, and is certainly connected with a lion couch scene."

I see the point of both sides and realize what he was trying to say. The papyrus says Abraham is upon something and there is picture of a man on a lion couch. It is very possible the very next word in the text was "couch." I believe he is onto something but will have to find a way to edit that into any future copies (if there are future printings) to reflect exactly what he was trying to say and correct the wording.

[Brian 2.0]

For those of you still interested, I did hear back from Kerry. He stated "My reference is essentially correct. In my unplanned remarks I may have misspoken a little. The reference absolutely is to Abraham, and is to Abraham who is upon . . . At that point it is broken and does not tell us what he is on. Because it is connected with a figure on a lion couch it is reasonable to suppose that it is to Abraham on the altar or couch, but that last word is not certain. The reference to Abraham in connection with the scene, and to Abraham being on something is fully certain. I usually try to make it clear that this last word is an assumption, but I may not have in that video...I hope this is helpful. The reference is sound, it is certainly about Abraham, is certainly from Egyptians, and is certainly connected with a lion couch scene."

I see the point of both sides and realize what he was trying to say. The papyrus says Abraham is upon something and there is picture of a man on a lion couch. It is very possible the very next word in the text was "couch." I believe he is onto something but will have to find a way to edit that into any future copies (if there are future printings) to reflect exactly what he was trying to say and correct the wording.

Thanks for passing this along!

[bcuzbcuz]

Glad to hear that you are enjoying your time at the Museum. While there you might want to take a look at the Papyrus of Tentruty (Papyrus Berlin 3008 of the Ptolemaic period). The reason I suggest that is because it has an appendix of “The Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys,” which, according to Miriam Lichtheim, was “adapted to the use of an individual person” (Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, III:7-8, 116-121).

I can't fathom why you suggest the straw man that Abraham is supposed by someone to spend his time "defining how the 'Book of the Dead' Should be patterned." Perhaps you could clarify what you are talking about.

Thanks for the reference, but I must admit to being thoroughly distracted in my studies by the bust of Nefertiti, literally right next door to the papyrus' display. To see it in real life, to touch and feel every sensual curve of the mouth and cheekbones (the museum has a fullsize copy in brass, specifically for the blind) was an experience of a lifetime. I was far more impressed with this bust than I was with the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. The bust of Nefertiti was created some 3000 years prior to the Mona Lisa. No pictures do it justice. It needs to be seen in real life.

[Calm]

(the museum has a fullsize copy in brass, specifically for the blind)

That is brilliant.

I would love to see this piece in real life.

[crixus]

calmoriah,

Not really, I am the only one who posts regularly that I know of and I am not one of the scholars and haven't been involved in any of the video discussions or productions.

Well it seems there was a video clip on youtube which I didn't know about. Glad to know Brian pulled it up to vindicate everything I've said. Much to Robert's chagrin, I was 100% correct and no amount of "context" is going to change that for him. His campaign of insinuation that I was somehow hiding something has been effectively decimated. But I don't expect that to stop him from carrying on as is. Instead of apologizing for his uncivil behavior, I suspect he'll continue to attack me as he has done from the beginning.'

If anyone hasn't noticed, it is has been a week since I last posted. Unlike some people, I have a life outside this forum and most of my free internet time must be devoted to more important things. But just perusing this thread and seeing how some have responded is just jaw dropping.

[crixus]

Thanks, Brian. I suspected that this was the DVD crixus refused to source and give a full quote from, but only after he absolutely refused to make any effort, I had to rummage around on the internet looking for it myself.

After being handed the evidence that proves I was right all along, Robert's only response to keep changing the subject, which of course has to be about me and my awful failure to produce a complete DVD on youtube (which would be illegal as it is copyrighted) so he wouldn't have to do minimal research of his own. Because everyone knows that real scholars demand that kind of CFR on religion message boards!

I don't know whether that means he was hiding anything, but he certainly doesn't honor scholarship or gentlemanly conduct.

A real scholar would be able to view the source and conclude that I wasn't hiding something. The fact that you have viewed it, but still "don't know," says more about your pretense of being a scholar and/or your problem with stating obvious truths when they don't support your presuppositions.

So we still don't have the actual context, i.e., the words leading up to and following that statement.

So quickly the goal posts are shifted. No longer is the argument about me providing all the context from the video. Now that he has it and can see the citation I provided was practically all he said, I am now to be blamed for not obtaining a transcript of the full interview.

This means that what Robert is hoping for and expecting here is that the people at FAIR were so incompetent and unfamiliar with scholarship that they'd actually edit out important context in a way that would completely misrepresent Kerry's statement. At minimum, Robert is saying FAIR's messages cannot be trusted. We'd also have to assume, for the sake of Robert's desperate theory, that Kerry never saw and approved of the final footage or if he did, he was too dumb to realize it totally misrepresented what he really believes this papyrus says.

Is Robert willing to throw FAIR and Kerry under the bus in order to provide some slither of plausible escape from the corner he has painted himself into?

And just to illustrate how absurd Robert's theory here really is, I challenge anyone to imagine a possible "context" that would somehow change what Kerry said. Robert keeps insinuating that there must be some missing context that somehow makes Kerry's claim true. That's how badly he wants to protect his Mormon scholars from their own ridiculous comments. But Kerry clearly said the papyrus translates "Abraham upon his couch." This is an empirical claim and it is 100% false. If Robert wants there to be extra context to salvage his fruitless attack on me, then he needs to make an argument that is based on something more than sheer assertion of deception and wild speculation about context.

And so much for keeping within the rules referencing claims. Just look at how much respect Robert has for the forum rules and "scholarly conduct."

I did see Kerry sometimes while I was studying at UCLA

CFR that you saw Kerry studying!

one of my own instructors there, Dr. Monica Bontty (PhD in Egyptology, UCLA),

CFR that she was your instructor!

knew Kerry and had nice things to say about him.

CFR that she said nice things about him!

At that time, Prof. Antonio Loprieno, perhaps the best expert in the world on ancient Egyptian linguistics, was also teaching at UCLA's Near Eastern Languages & Cultures dept. -- indeed, he was department chairman.

CFR that Loprieno was his Dept Chair!

Another Mormon studying there then also rec'd his PhD in Egyptology under Loprieno, and his dissertation was published by E. J. Brill in Leiden

CFR that another Mormon was studying there and received his PhD!

With your constant need to engage in ad hominems

CFR that I have done this!

At most, I've called you unscholarly, and I do so to reciprocate, and because you keep throwing out that word as a standard you expect everyone else to live by. You've called me "petulant," accused me of making "silly overkill" claims even though they have been proven to be 100% true, and of course you've repeatedly insinuated that I've willfully hidden information that would completely change the meaning of what Kerry "allegedly" said. But yes, I'm sure you've convinced yourself this is all quite civil and scholarly behavior. Feel free to list all the personal insults I've hurled at you.

why would anyone trust you to provide us with the actual positions of these two individuals?

Which is why I let them speak for themselves. You're upset because you're not adequately familiar with the positions and claims of your own scholars. That isn't my fault, but go ahead and take it out on me. Obviously no one has tried to stop you up to this point.

You provide what you claim are the actual words which Ashment said that Gee was answering.

Yes, and Glen already referenced the response to Ashment's review, which we cannot hyperlink on this forum for obvious "anti-mormon" reasons. Was it really a mystery to you what we were discussing? Here you go again insinuating I've misrepresented when I obviously haven't. If I had, you would have demonstrated this already instead of constantly complaining about context, which you know doesn't help you.

But keep complaining, I'm sure you're convinced this somehow "advances the discussion."

What I did was prove Gee wasn't interested in responding to Ashment's refutations. He was only interested in throwing up this facade of a response, creating this perception of scholarship by ranting in all directions except those that address Ashment's points. You can't deal with this fact head-on, so you're going to do what typical non-scholars do and attack me with more baseless accusations of deception instead of dealing with the evidence as presented.

Really? You provide no citation of sources for the two items so that we can compare the two statements to see if what you say is true. For scholars that is the minimum requirement. You seem blissfully unaware of the need to provide sources.

This coming from a guy who says in the very next breath...

Ed was dropped from the Egyptology program at the Univ. of Chicago by Klaus Baer.

By your own admission, you're just "blissfully unaware of the need to provide sources."

Would a CFR be too much to ask?

You gave me approximately twenty minutes before ranting incessantly about my "refusal" to produce references and then provided your psychoanalysis of me being "afraid" to do so (obviously another "scholarly" trait!). Since I'm a charitable guy, I'll give you till next week. Which is probably when I can post again anyway.

So you are going to be gracious enough to just let us take your word for it? Is that what scholars do?

No, I expect you to act as one might expect a minimally motivated "scholar" to act. Meaning, check the reference for yourself. The reference I provided is no different that a citation from a book with chapter and page number provided. In either case you're going to have to go to that source to verify the citation, right? I mean you're not going to just "take my word for it." I gave you all the tools you needed (short of mailing you a DVD) to verify the citation, but you didn't didn't want to do the necessary research yourself. Again, not my problem. Your repeated claim that the reference wasn't provided is simply false.

Excellent, crixus, this is what I'm talking about, even without a date. One gets the full flavor of Kevin's opinion on this matter, not just a phrase taken out of context.

So you're telling me that if I had dated the email it would have made all the difference in the world to you? Seriously? There is no way for you to verify it either way unless you contact him yourself. Here, I'll make it easy for you: dartagnank@gmail.com

And what he said in his email isn't just his "opinion," it is a proven fact he has established several times over the years, providing his email exchanges with Gee dating back ten years ago.

And for the record, emails are no more and no less a "referenced source" than an apologetic DVD. In both cases you can't be expected to just "take my word for it", right? In both cases you'd have to obtain the source yourself to verify the claim. So how is providing a citation from a DVD, which you could easily validate if you wanted to, not considered a "referenced source," whereas an email from someone else meets your satisfaction? For all you know I could have just made up that email, right? Unless you email both Stephen Thompson and Kevin Graham to confirm its accuracy you're "just taking my word for it."

I see no interest in grown up discussion coming from you. One more ballistic post and you and your latest sock puppet are out of here.

[Glenn101]

CFR that you saw Kerry studying!

CFR that she was your instructor!

CFR that she said nice things about him!

Aren't you going a bit too far with the CFR's? Robert is speaking from personal knowledge about things that he experienced. And by the way, He did not say that he saw Kerry studying at UCLA. He said that he did see Kerry sometimes while he was studying at UCLA.

Also I notice that you have yet to comment on the responses to your ideal of fairmindedness on the part of Dr. Kara Cooney.

Glenn

Edited July 1, 2013 by Glenn101

[Brian 2.0]

Well it seems there was a video clip on youtube which I didn't know about. Glad to know Brian pulled it up to vindicate everything I've said. Much to Robert's chagrin, I was 100% correct and no amount of "context" is going to change that for him. His campaign of insinuation that I was somehow hiding something has been effectively decimated. But I don't expect that to stop him from carrying on as is. Instead of apologizing for his uncivil behavior, I suspect he'll continue to attack me as he has done from the beginning.'

If anyone hasn't noticed, it is has been a week since I last posted. Unlike some people, I have a life outside this forum and most of my free internet time must be devoted to more important things. But just perusing this thread and seeing how some have responded is just jaw dropping.

Crixus,

I didn't just find that clip online, I pulled out my copy of the DVD, burned that portion, and posted it on YouTube myself so that I could satisfy the CFR against you. I thought your point was getting dismissed too easily through an overly agressive CFR process so I stepped in to help.

As you noted, it still wasn't enough for Robert, but Tyler Livingston, the producer of the DVD stepped in an provided the transcript of Kerry's interview surrounding that clip. In the end that provided the added context Robert was looking for and it did not change the interpretation of the clip. I think, from reading Post #105 from him, that Robert's CFR has been satisfied, even to his standards, and he acknowledges Kerry translated it to "Abraham upon his couch" in the DVD.

Tyler Livingston actually providing a response from Kerry on this point in Post #109 where Kerry admits he misspoke and "couch" should not be included in the translation and it was only assumed.

I understand Robert's point that context can change something (it is possible that right befroe that clip in the interview he said, "some say that.." and right after he said, "...but in reality, you can't make out the word couch"). But I rarely see this type of scrutiny and context checking happening on other CFR's around this board. If someone wants to debunk a source by checking footnotes and added context, I think that falls on the person who wants to debunk it, not the person providing the source in response to a CFR.

In the end, I'm just looking for a fair (no FAIR pun intended) fight where the evidence gets to stand on it's own. I don't like it when people dismiss evidence presented by Charles Larson simply because he's critical of the church, or on the other hand dismiss evidence presented by John Gee simply because he's an apologist. I like to see evidences debunked or vindicated, not people dismissed or championed.

I don't necessarily want to step in between you and Robert in terms of who's being unreasonable or who's actions are uncalled for. I will say, in this forum especially, a cool head with evidence will get you a lot further than a hot head with evidence. Because some people like to dismiss the evidence just because of the hot head. And I know from my own personal experience it's easy to get a hot head when getting jumped on in this forum, and whenever my hot head came out, the discussion completely switched to my hot head, and not about my evidences.

I'm just glad to see this time that your initial claim hasn't been dismissed from a CFR, even though it took plenty of pages in the thread to satisfy it.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[crixus]

Glen,

Aren't you going a bit too far with the CFR's? Robert is speaking from personal knowledge about things that he experienced.

As have I, on numerous occasions. Yet, I'm met each time with a barrage of CFRs. It isn't fun to try having a "dialogue" when you're constantly met with that kind of hostility is it? For instance, I spoke of "personal knowledge" about correspondence with Stephen Thompson. I shared this information because someone else asked for it. But when I did this, Robert immediately objected, calling it "hearsay." Now Robert obviously doesn't understand what hearsay is (which cannot derive from first hand knowledge) but that's beside the point. The point is I was required to produce an email supporting my "personal experience" or else I was "breaking the rules" for simply sharing my experience. His ridiculous CFR for me to post an entire copyrighted DVD to the web (any context less than 100% wasn't sufficient for him) was equally ludicrous. Obviously there are no exceptions on this rule. None.

So no, I do not think it is going too far, to expect Robert to be expected to go through the same thing. At the very least he should be expected to uphold the same rules he enforces on people who challenge his presuppositions. If nothing else, his outrageous allegation against Edward Ashment, claiming that he was "dropped" by Klaus Baer, is nothing short of disgusting. I happen to know the reasons why Ashment didn't finish his doctoral work and it had more to do with unfortunate familial and financial issues than anything else. So for Robert to throw out a poisonous piece of gossip like this is simply uncalled for and quite strange given his constant preaching towards others about making unsupported claims and acting like a "gentleman." But this is par for the course, and comparable to the kind of libelous gossip about Robert Ritner that was passed around for more than seven years by DCP.

And by the way, He did not say that he saw Kerry studying at UCLA. He said that he did see Kerry sometimes while he was studying at UCLA.

But can he support that with references? I'm just asking him to abide by the same rules the same way he expects of me.

Also I notice that you have yet to comment on the responses to your ideal of fairmindedness on the part of Dr. Kara Cooney.

I don't always have time to read every response, let alone respond to them. But suffice it to say, Robert's criticism of Cooney is based on his assumption that Kerry Muhlstein, a defender of God's true Church, must be right about Leiden I 384, therefore if Kerry is right, then Cooney is ignorant about the "Egyptian concept of Abraham." His only argument is faith-based, not evidence based. Because as Cooney points out, Kerry isn't right about this and she has no reason to lie about it. As Ed Ashment established years ago, the use of the word "Abraham" has nothing to do with "Egyptian concepts of Abraham," which Robert assumes to be true while ignoring contrary evidence. Robert Ritner and every other non-LDS Egyptologist I have spoken with, greatly respects Ed's work on this matter and they are in full agreement. The word Abraham is used for the same reasons many words beginning with the letter "a" are used in these magical spell texts. They don't identify figures that are actually pictured in the vignette.

So Robert deals with none of this, and dismisses out of hand Cooney while using circular reasoning: She can't be right in her criticism of Muhlstein because Muhlstein isn't wrong, which makes her wrong to criticize him and therefore she's not a fair-minded person! It is a self-serving argument designed to drive a specific conclusion based on one's chosen assumptions, however baseless they may be.

Simply put, Robert is not in a position to challenge Cooney's authority on matters of Egyptology. His response to her harsh criticisms of Kerry is to start attacking her (calling her ignorant! no less) instead of dealing with her point that Kerry's work is not respectable anywhere outside BYU. And this brings up another point of Robert's inconsistent rhetoric. See how quickly he forgot his recent sermon about how "In the real world of scholarship... there is little mercy for poor quality." This was said in defense of Bill Hamblin's ridiculous criticism of Stephen Thompson's "bias".

All we can reasonably conclude here is that Robert doesn't believe his own mantra, and really abides by a strict double-standard whereby non-LDS scholars should be ridiculed when they say things that harm the credibility of LDS apologetics (all in the name of "scholarship" of course), while at the same time, Mormon scholars are given a free pass every time they make inexcusable blunders, no matter how egregious the errors, and any attempt to criticize them only means you're being "unscholarly."

So "scholarly" has two meanings for Robert, all depending on who the target is.

And why hasn't anyone acknowledged that Kerry's recent email claims are pure nonsense for the simple fact that he says it is "reasonable to assume" this figure on the couch was Abraham, after it has already been conceded that the figure is a woman? In the same video, less than a minute later. Kerry returns to the subject saying: "And so it’s not a surprise that in at least one case that we know of, they’ve [i.e., the Egyptians] substituted Abraham for Osiris on that lion-couch scene." Is he going to claim he "misspoke" on that point as well?

So is it just a "assumption" that isn't definitive, or is it definitive as he claims in the citation above?

Brent Metcalfe addressed this issue on this forum shortly after this DVD was released, and he has looked into this papyrus quite a bit since Gee brought it to our attention:

-----------

Here are a few things that scholars would agree on about this papyrus:

• Muhlestein's phrase "Abraham upon his couch"—or anything even remotely like it—appears nowhere in the document, much less in proximity to the vignette of Anubis with his bier.
  
• In the vignette, which is an inverted sketch of more typical lion-couch scenes, Anubis attends to a prone deceased female, not a live male.
  
• The sole occurrence of "Abraham" (sans, of course, Kerry's extra wording) that does appear in the text is not part of a caption for the vignette.
  
• P Leiden I 384 is a bilingual magical text; hence, its PDM (papyri demoticae magicae) and PGM (papyri graecae magicae) designations.
  
• "Abraham" is one of several thaumaturgic names/words that are being invoked in a spell.
  

How this is "Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Abraham" escapes me.

-----------------

[crixus]

Brian,

I didn't just find that clip online, I pulled out my copy of the DVD, burned that portion, and posted it on YouTube myself so that I could satisfy the CFR against you. I thought your point was getting dismissed too easily through an overly agressive CFR process so I stepped in to help.

Much appreciated. I wish I had that kind of time right now.

Tyler Livingston actually providing a response from Kerry on this point in Post #109 where Kerry admits he misspoke and "couch" should not be included in the translation and it was only assumed.

Well how does he explain his follow-up blunder: "And so it’s not a surprise that in at least one case that we know of, they’ve [i.e., the Egyptians] substituted Abraham for Osiris on that lion-couch scene." Was he misspeaking then as well?

I understand Robert's point that context can change something

Does anyone really doubt this though? Robert's intention was obviously to strongly imply that I was willfully deceiving people by "refusing" to cite context. It is a standard apologetic tactic when up against the ropes. He turned out to be wrong, and I was right. His attempt to make me look the fool backfired.

[bcuzbcuz]

Glen,

As have I, on numerous occasions. Yet, I'm met each time with a barrage of CFRs. It isn't fun to try having a "dialogue" when you're constantly met with that kind of hostility is it? For instance, I spoke of "personal knowledge" about correspondence with Stephen Thompson. I shared this information because someone else asked for it. But when I did this, Robert immediately objected, calling it "hearsay." Now Robert obviously doesn't understand what hearsay is (which cannot derive from first hand knowledge) but that's beside the point. The point is I was required to produce an email supporting my "personal experience" or else I was "breaking the rules" for simply sharing my experience. His ridiculous CFR for me to post an entire copyrighted DVD to the web (any context less than 100% wasn't sufficient for him) was equally ludicrous. Obviously there are no exceptions on this rule. None.

So no, I do not think it is going too far, to expect Robert to be expected to go through the same thing. At the very least he should be expected to uphold the same rules he enforces on people who challenge his presuppositions. If nothing else, his outrageous allegation against Edward Ashment, claiming that he was "dropped" by Klaus Baer, is nothing short of disgusting. I happen to know the reasons why Ashment didn't finish his doctoral work and it had more to do with unfortunate familial and financial issues than anything else. So for Robert to throw out a poisonous piece of gossip like this is simply uncalled for and quite strange given his constant preaching towards others about making unsupported claims and acting like a "gentleman." But this is par for the course, and comparable to the kind of libelous gossip about Robert Ritner that was passed around for more than seven years by DCP.

But can he support that with references? I'm just asking him to abide by the same rules the same way he expects of me.

I don't always have time to read every response, let alone respond to them. But suffice it to say, Robert's criticism of Cooney is based on his assumption that Kerry Muhlstein, a defender of God's true Church, must be right about Leiden I 384, therefore if Kerry is right, then Cooney is ignorant about the "Egyptian concept of Abraham." His only argument is faith-based, not evidence based. Because as Cooney points out, Kerry isn't right about this and she has no reason to lie about it. As Ed Ashment established years ago, the use of the word "Abraham" has nothing to do with "Egyptian concepts of Abraham," which Robert assumes to be true while ignoring contrary evidence. Robert Ritner and every other non-LDS Egyptologist I have spoken with, greatly respects Ed's work on this matter and they are in full agreement. The word Abraham is used for the same reasons many words beginning with the letter "a" are used in these magical spell texts. They don't identify figures that are actually pictured in the vignette.

So Robert deals with none of this, and dismisses out of hand Cooney while using circular reasoning: She can't be right in her criticism of Muhlstein because Muhlstein isn't wrong, which makes her wrong to criticize him and therefore she's not a fair-minded person! It is a self-serving argument designed to drive a specific conclusion based on one's chosen assumptions, however baseless they may be.

Simply put, Robert is not in a position to challenge Cooney's authority on matters of Egyptology. His response to her harsh criticisms of Kerry is to start attacking her (calling her ignorant! no less) instead of dealing with her point that Kerry's work is not respectable anywhere outside BYU. And this brings up another point of Robert's inconsistent rhetoric. See how quickly he forgot his recent sermon about how "In the real world of scholarship... there is little mercy for poor quality." This was said in defense of Bill Hamblin's ridiculous criticism of Stephen Thompson's "bias".

All we can reasonably conclude here is that Robert doesn't believe his own mantra, and really abides by a strict double-standard whereby non-LDS scholars should be ridiculed when they say things that harm the credibility of LDS apologetics (all in the name of "scholarship" of course), while at the same time, Mormon scholars are given a free pass every time they make inexcusable blunders, no matter how egregious the errors, and any attempt to criticize them only means you're being "unscholarly."

So "scholarly" has two meanings for Robert, all depending on who the target is.

And why hasn't anyone acknowledged that Kerry's recent email claims are pure nonsense for the simple fact that he says it is "reasonable to assume" this figure on the couch was Abraham, after it has already been conceded that the figure is a woman? In the same video, less than a minute later. Kerry returns to the subject saying: "And so it’s not a surprise that in at least one case that we know of, they’ve [i.e., the Egyptians] substituted Abraham for Osiris on that lion-couch scene." Is he going to claim he "misspoke" on that point as well?

So is it just a "assumption" that isn't definitive, or is it definitive as he claims in the citation above?

Brent Metcalfe addressed this issue on this forum shortly after this DVD was released, and he has looked into this papyrus quite a bit since Gee brought it to our attention:

-----------

Here are a few things that scholars would agree on about this papyrus:

• Muhlestein's phrase "Abraham upon his couch"—or anything even remotely like it—appears nowhere in the document, much less in proximity to the vignette of Anubis with his bier.
  
• In the vignette, which is an inverted sketch of more typical lion-couch scenes, Anubis attends to a prone deceased female, not a live male.
  
• The sole occurrence of "Abraham" (sans, of course, Kerry's extra wording) that does appear in the text is not part of a caption for the vignette.
  
• P Leiden I 384 is a bilingual magical text; hence, its PDM (papyri demoticae magicae) and PGM (papyri graecae magicae) designations.
  
• "Abraham" is one of several thaumaturgic names/words that are being invoked in a spell.
  

How this is "Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Abraham" escapes me.

-----------------

I've followed the discussions back and forth on this topic since they started. I'm confused. I fail to see how the mentioning of the word/name of abraham, written in Greek, in a document dealing with magic spells and incantations, but most importantly, written sometime around 100-300 CE, can have anything to do with the Mormon scripture, The Book of Abraham?

The Book of Abraham was written sometime around 300-100 BCE, in hieroglyphs and hieratic, and comes from a Book of Breathings. That's a difference of at least 200 years and even as much as 600 years, with the minor fact that Christianity came into existence right in the middle of this time period.

The only common point between these two, very different writings, is that all are written on papyrus. They don't even have the name Abraham in common.

[crixus]

Here are a couple of pages from Ritner's book. It seems Ritner views Mormon Egyptologists as a bunch of clowns who have to plagiarize the work of experts like him in order to produce examples of real scholarship, and the rest of their apologetic output is just a tragedy of errors where they end up copying each other's goofs! WOW. (emphasis mine) ----- >

In 1975, Hugh Nibley attempted both a transliteration and a literal, interlinear translation of only the unrestored portions of Fragments XI and X (with the “patches”in Fragment IV). 6 Designed strictly for an audience of believers, Nibley’s volume was expressly composed to provide a Mormon rebuttal to the interpretive analysis of Egyptologists, including Baer, with

whom he had studied briefly and informally. 7 These word for word, incomplete translations produced such results as “(avenger of) father his Horus (of) Edfu has enfolded body being about to deify spirit thine as do gods all,” and were recognized by Nibley as “nonsense.” 8 Moreover, his transliterations defy both conventional and internal systems, with inconsistency and conflation of alphabetic signs (iw vs. yw, sh vs. ßh, ™a vs. ™ vs. a™, h for ˙), punctuation, etc. 9 While intended to highlight his quibbles over the nature of translations (to defend Joseph Smith’s use of the term), Nibley’s interlinear method of literal translation would necessarily produce gibberish from any language. 10

Tacitly acknowledging this source of embarrassment, John Gee and Michael D. Rhodes have attempted to justify Nibley’s methods—while promptly dropping them—in their heavily reworked “re-edition” of the 1975 volume. 11 As noted by Gee,

“we need to explain the numerous changes we have made in this new edition

of Nibley’s 1975 Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. First, we have returned the

Egyptian transliterations to the standard transliteration system… 12

Fifth, the greatest changes occur in the second chapter, where typesetting

considerations have led us to abandon Nibley’s original interlinear presentation.

Originally, Nibley presented the papyrus in interlinear translation in part because

of accusations that he could not read Egyptian. … The new presentation should

be both easier to follow and clearer than the old.” 13

The relevant second chapter of this 2005 edition is hardly a representation of Nibley’s individual work, and the volume is more appropriately cited throughout this chapter as the combined efforts of Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005. Even in the “clearer” reworking, the translation by Nibley—with or without the input of Gee and Rhodes—remains problematic:

“after clasp-ed (two)arms his upon breast his …” (1975, p. 20)

“after clasped his (two) arms upon his breast …” (2005, p. 35)

Nibley’s skill with Egyptian texts may be judged by the reader below. Although Gee in particular has not hesitated to criticize all those who have taken exception to his writings in support of the fundamentalist Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS, now within the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship), his otherwise updated 2005 edition consciously ignores my own editions of this Book of Breathing (while acknowledging the later effort of Rhodes on pp. xxi and 558). Nibley’s original contribution is included below as Nibley 1975, with the re-edition as Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005.

Between the appearance of my first edition and the re-edition of Nibley, Michael D. Rhodes published The Hor Book of Breathings. A Translation and Commentary (July 2002). The volume includes color plates with misplaced patches (identified by Baer) now scanned into position (but not without problems). 14 Though never acknowledging the prior appearance of my own study, the transliterations and translations bear striking resemblance to them. Evidence of incomplete reworking of Rhodes’ text shows obvious changes from readings by Nibley to readings by myself (incorporating arcane Demotic). 15 As my earlier Dialogue edition was widely distributed and advance copies were sent to FARMS by the editors of Dialogue in March 2002, 16 one can legitimately raise the question of plagiarism, but far more important is the general agreement of our versions, a factor significant in reaffirming the proper nature of the text. 17 One major distinction in our editions is that Rhodes fails to make use of the “Valuable Discovery” manuscript (perhaps for ideological reasons 18) so that his analysis lacks critical information. While a marked improvement over the work by Nibley, his edition contains numerous misreadings of hieroglyphic and hieratic text (noted below). 19 Multiple inconsistencies in the Rhodes edition suggest that it was hastily edited, probably with the intent of ensuring that the volume appeared in the same calendar year as my initial edition.

Following my prior editions of this text in Dialogue and Journal of Near Eastern Studies, the column numbers in this edition have been increased by one over Baer’s traditional numbering, with the final word on Fragment I now considered

to constitute Column I. The placement of this initial word at the end of Fragment I is based on its consistent placement in three nineteenth-century handcopies (“Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar,” pp. F, V, and 11 of “Valuable Discovery”; see Figure 1 for the last example).

=====================

Here are some footnotes to chew on....

8 Nibley 1975, pp. 37 (translation) and 47: “Though as correct and literal as we can make it, the translation in

the preceding chapter is not a translation. It is nonsense.”

9 Cf. ibid., pp. 20 (iw) and 21 (yw); pp. 19 (sh) and 26 (ßh); p. 20 (both ™a.wy and ™.wy); and p. 26 (wa™b) vs. p. 27

(w™b). Cf. also the inconsistent use of dashes and dots: (snsn f) p. 23, (imi.k) p. 25, (t-wr-t) p. 26, (wnw.t) p. 27.

10 Cf. French “Qu’il me donne cette pomme rouge” (“Let him give me this red apple”) rendered literally as

“That he to me give this apple red.”

11 John Gee and Michael D. Rhodes, eds., The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, vol. 16: Hugh Nibley, The

Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, second edition, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book

Company, 2005.

12 Ibid., p. xx.

13 Ibid. p. xxi. In the skipped section of the quotation, Gee included a testimonial that he watched Nibley read

Egyptian.

14 See the issue of misalignment of patches in Col. IV/1, discussed below.

15 Since Rhodes made critical errors in the reading of simple hieroglyphs (see Col. I/2, 3 and 5), his expertise

in Demotic is unbelievable (see the comments on Col. IV/9 nhs–k tw). Contrast the basic transcription in

Rhodes 2002, p. 35, l. 3 (˙r) with his comments on pp. 11 and 27 (now suddenly Demotic 2). Note that in his

paleographic comments, p. 6, the Demotic 2 is unmentioned. Contra Rhodes (following Nibley), an initial

writing of ˙r was not reworked in this passage. Given these errors and inconsistencies, praise for Rhodes’

“discussion of the use of a Demotic sign instead of its hieratic equivalent”(!) is without merit in the partisan

review by Muhlestein 2005, p. 475. This same uncredited borrowing appears in Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005,

p. 35, n. 7. For further “borrowings” in Rhodes 2002, see the incompletely incorporated “n” in Col. II/1; the

incompletely incorporated reading of p(£y)–s (for Nibley’s gs) in Col. II/7 (read both gs and ps on p. 80!);

the incomplete substitution of qd–k for t¡.t–k in Col. V/7; the incomplete revision of grg into sdr in the same

line; and the hasty, but poorly executed, insertion of my reading ¡r s£ in the final vignette, noted below. These

obvious “smoking gun” examples leave unanswered the question of how many other (better incorporated)

borrowings might exist. Note, however, that I have given him credit for his contribution in Col. III/3.

16 Personal communication by Neal Chandler, editor of Dialogue, 3/2/02: “We plan to send an advance copy of

the article to John Gee this week.” Gee (and Rhodes) had approximately four months (early March to early July)

to examine my 2002 edition prior to the appearance of Rhodes’ volume. The July publication date for the Rhodes

volume is stated in Morris 2004, p. 357, n. 7; the new book announcement reached me by email on August 15.

My JNES article had been sent to press on June 28, 2002. For reasons given above and throughout this study,

I strongly doubt the assertion of Morris 2004, p. 357, that our editions were entirely made “independently of

each other.” Mr. Morris, it should be noted, performed editorial duties for Gee, Rhodes and Nibley 2005; see

that volume, p. xxiii. Since my “2003a” article was in press before the appearance of Rhodes 2002, one must

disregard the criticism of Muhlestein 2005, p. 473, regarding my failure to cite it. Notably, Muhlestein had no

objections to Rhodes’ failure to cite my prior work.

17 Our works (mine available, his in press) were discussed publicly in 2002 at the fifty-third convention of the

American Research Center in Egypt, where Rhodes perhaps slipped in describing the lion couch of Fragment

I as an “altar,” eliciting either alarm or confusion among attendees (depending upon their knowledge of the

Book of Abraham). The term “altar” is now absent from his 2002 publication (pp. 18–20).

18 See the Mormon discomfort with the materials (“the Kirtland Egyptian Papers”) as summarized in Morris

2004, pp. 364–66 and 374–75: “These difficulties associated with the Book of Abraham have been the catalyst

for some Saints losing their faith.”

19 The retention of many of Nibley’s errors shows clearly that the work of Nibley, rather than that of Baer, was

the immediate source from which Rhodes began his work.

20 This text on Fragment I was already recognized by Baer in his notebook and corresponds to the final two

signs mentioned in Baer 1968, p. 129 (line 5). For possible complications regarding this renumbering, see

discussion of the word ¡w in Column I, below.

21 The initial translation of P. Joseph Smith 1 by Baer specifically listed the Louvre (3284, 3291), British Museum

(9995) and Berlin (3135) parallels that he consulted; see Baer 1968, p. 119, n. 38. For additional parallels used by

Baer, see Ritner 2003a, p. 164, and 2002, pp. 98–99. The same parallels have been employed in my own editions.

In a partisan review for Latter-day Saints, John Gee has deliberately reversed the facts of Baer’s edition; see

Gee 1996, pp. 46–59. In “quibbling” (Gee’s term) with the writing of T. Wilfong, Gee wrote: “more significantly

we should note that, as is almost admitted by Wilfong, the papyrus Baer translated was not P. Joseph Smith

XI–X but P. Louvre 3284; where P. Joseph Smith XI–X matched P. Louvre 3294 the translation of the latter was

put in italics. This is not to impugn Baer’s work in the least; he was clear about what he was doing, but others,

including Wilfong, are less clear about what Baer did.” Baer was in fact clear about what he did, and it was the

exact opposite of what Gee has claimed: “Fortunately, the manuscripts of the Breathing Permit show relatively

little variation, so that it is not too difficult to restore the missing passages; restorations are marked by italics

in the translation” (Baer 1968, p. 119). Baer translated the Smith version, and where portions were lost (NOT

matching), he made use of the Louvre and other parallels. Cf. also Baer’s remarks, 1968, p. 124: “The italics will

be a reminder that none of what follows comes from the Joseph Smith Papyri.” For his citation of variants, see

1968, p. 122, nn. 60, 64 and 65; p. 123, nn. 75 and 76; etc.

22 See the questionable restoration made by Rhodes in Paragraph VII, below. Rhodes 2002, pp. 51–70, followed

Nibley 1975, pp. 57–65, in appending a copy of that text alone to his work. Though he added a few notes on

variants in this section, Rhodes does not seem to have employed them in his edition of P. Joseph Smith 1.

...

71 Ultimately read by Baer as k£ mw.t–f “Bull of His Mother” (1968, p. 116 and n. 21) but marked as uncertain

in his own working notes. The correct reading was first published by Quaegebeur 1997, p. 74, and discussed by

Coenen 1998a, pp. 1103–15. Herbin 2008, p. 203, has suggested sm£ rkyw.f(?) “who destroys his enemy.” The

published photos used by Baer were ambiguous, but improved digital photography now available establishes

the writing of sm£ ≈rwy.w–f with s over the biliteral m£-sickle (rather than a “knife” as seemed visible in the

Charles M. Larson 1992 photo = p. 33), oar, plural strokes, enemy determinative, and flesh-sign (for –f). Ritner

2003a, p. 168, n. 44, should be corrected regarding the initial sign. Rhodes 2002, p. 21, wrongly transcribed

the oar as a windpipe (sm£). For writings of ≈rwy “enemy” with the oar, see Erman and Grapow 1957, vol.

III, p. 325. Muhlestein 2005, p. 483, n. 27, has repeated and even expanded upon Rhodes’ error.

...

85 A divine name (Anubis?) must be lost here, since the following address shifts from Hôr to a deity on his

behalf, expressed in the second person. Baer 1968, p. 117, n. 29, suggested Osiris. This passage rebuts Gee

1992, pp. 100 and 104–5: “Where, we may ask, in all of Papyrus Joseph Smith XI–X is there any prayer to any

Egyptian God?” A further example occurs in the invocation (col. VIII/11) of Facsimile 3. Actually, since Hôr

is repeatedly and explicitly stated to be deified, a member of the company of the gods, and a form of Osiris,

the entire Breathing Document is itself an extended “prayer to an Egyptian God.” Rhodes 2002, p. 23, also

noted the change of person from Hôr to a deity in Col. I/5, since “you” are now asked to give “him” (Hôr)

benefactions. The implications of this pronoun agreement were consciously ignored in the critical FARMS

reviews of my 2003a study by Morris 2004, pp. 358 and 361, and by Muhlestein 2005, p. 484, n. 30. Contra

Morris, p. 361, Rhodes did far more than offer “simply an ellipsis indicating missing text,” and my supposed

infraction in failing “to inform the reader of Baer’s comment on the matter” would merely have suggested

Osiris instead of Anubis, with the same implications for Gee’s statement. Had Morris or Muhlestein actually

read Baer 1968, p. 117, n. 29, they should have seen that Baer recognized the change of person and indicated an address to “Osiris?” Muhlestein has misrepresented Baer’s comments and ignored the same change to an unnamed deity in Rhodes 2002, p. 23. The further assertion by Morris, p. 361, n. 13, that my disassociation (Ritner 2003a, p. 167) from Gee’s “apologetic writings” represents a “personal dispute” or a “private matter” is misdirected. This has nothing to do with a secret interpersonal history. Since Gee has publicly claimed that his Yale degree justifies his apologetic interpretations, I was constrained to deny that I (as his former advisor) had any involvement in these writings. See the sarcastic claim by Gee 1998, p. 176: “Since I have a Ph.D. in Egyptology, I am an expert. All anti-Mormons should therefore unquestioningly accept my opinion.” Gee’s apologetic assertions, I stress again, would not have been acceptable in his coursework. I gained no personal pleasure—and remain deeply saddened—by the need to disavow my former student.

87 Rhodes 2002, p. 21, wrongly transcribed the oar as a windpipe (sm£). For writings of ≈rwy “enemy” with

the oar, see Erman and Grapow 1957, vol. III, p. 325. Muhlestein 2005, p. 483, n. 27, has repeated and expanded

upon Rhodes’ error.

88 Rhodes 2002, pp. 21–22, misread the hieroglyphic text as w£b (presumably for w™b Erman and Grapow 1957,

vol. I, p. 280). He has misread the word ™b throughout the text, conflating Gardiner Sign-List F 17 and

D 60 . The same mistake is repeated and defended by Muhlestein 2005, p. 483, who revised Rhodes’ copy

to include a “leg, surmounted by a water pot pouring water over a horn.” Muhlestein’s supposed “leg” is the

flowing water. Muhlestein does not discuss Rhodes’ copy of the related noun ™b “purity” (without the leg and

misread as w™b) in the 2002 Glossary on p. 79.

89 For this restoration, see n. 75, above. The restoration in Rhodes 2002, p. 21, n. 34, follows Coenen 1999a, p.

258, but without mention of the author’s hesitation.

90 The hieratic-influenced signs for m£™.(t)-≈rw were rendered as an “s” and a seated woman by Rhodes 2002,

p. 21, with the unlikely suggestion that the “s” is the Greek nominative ending. For the similarity of “s” and

“m£™,” see Möller 1912, pp. 22 (no. 236) and 41 (no. 432) = Verhoeven 2001, pp. 146–47 and 180–81. Muhlestein

2005, p. 483, n. 29, has failed to recognize the signs and simply repeated the error of Rhodes.

91 Rhodes 2002, p. 21, wrongly read the looped cloth determinative ( ) of q®ys as the letter t ( ) which

actually follows and was misread by Rhodes as w ( ); for the cloth determinative in this word, see Erman

and Grapow 1957, vol. V, p. 63 and below, Col. I/5. The mistake was not noted by Muhlestein 2005.

92 Rhodes 2002, pp. 21–22, wrongly read ≈nty ( ) “at the head of” for ˙r ( ) “on.” Cf. Col. I/5 (also in ˙r

¡mnt.t “on the west”). The mistake was not noted by Muhlestein 2005.

93 The hand copy in Rhodes 2002, p. 21, bears little resemblance to

-----

I mean this just goes on and on and on. Ritner's work is widely known, respected and read by Egyptologists everywhere. Try finding a negative review of it outside of Provo. This cannot be good news for the credibility of Mormonism's three Eygptologists.

Edited July 3, 2013 by crixus

[Chaos]

Here are a couple of pages from Ritner's book. It seems Ritner views Mormon Egyptologists as a bunch of clowns who have to plagiarize the work of experts like him in order to produce examples of real scholarship, and the rest of their apologetic output is just a tragedy of errors where they end up copying each other's goofs! WOW. (emphasis mine) ----- >

But he did not call them names and become verbally abusive. Only you do that. It is a shame that you cannot maintain even a minimal amount of decency in order to contribute. Please work on that somewhere else and demonstrate the honesty to request to come back under your own name if you think you ready to engage with others you disagree with. You were warned and your sock puppet is banned.

For everyone: the CFR policy is ours so stop wasting time complaining about it. It is staying.

[bcuzbcuz]

Glad to hear that you are enjoying your time at the Museum. While there you might want to take a look at the Papyrus of Tentruty (Papyrus Berlin 3008 of the Ptolemaic period). The reason I suggest that is because it has an appendix of “The Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys,” which, according to Miriam Lichtheim, was “adapted to the use of an individual person” (Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, III:7-8, 116-121).

I can't fathom why you suggest the straw man that Abraham is supposed by someone to spend his time "defining how the 'Book of the Dead' Should be patterned." Perhaps you could clarify what you are talking about.

I've followed the discussions back and forth on this topic since they started. I'm confused. I fail to see how the mentioning of the word/name of abraham, written in Greek, in a document dealing with magic spells and incantations, but most importantly, written sometime around 100-300 CE, can have anything to do with the Mormon scripture, The Book of Abraham?

The Book of Abraham was written sometime around 300-100 BCE, in hieroglyphs and hieratic, and comes from a Book of Breathings. That's a difference of at least 200 years and even as much as 600 years, with the minor fact that Christianity came into existence right in the middle of this time period.

The only common point between these two, very different writings, is that all are written on papyrus. They don't even have the name Abraham in common.

• 0
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
• Edit
  

[Brian 2.0]

You were warned and your sock puppet is banned.

Ah... tried to warn you Crixus. After your last post I thought this might happen.

[Brian 2.0]

I've followed the discussions back and forth on this topic since they started. I'm confused. I fail to see how the mentioning of the word/name of abraham, written in Greek, in a document dealing with magic spells and incantations, but most importantly, written sometime around 100-300 CE, can have anything to do with the Mormon scripture, The Book of Abraham?

In the end, it doesn't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham. The best the Leiden Papyri can do is show that "Abraham is being associated with a lion couch scene in an Egyptian text." That's it. Left as is, readers of that statement might make jumps of their own to fill in the gaps of how that might be seen as evidence for the Book of Abraham's authenticity. But when looking at how Abraham is "associated" with this lion couch scene, there isn't much evidence that provides any sort of help in defending the Book of Abraham. It is not evidence showing Abraham upon a couch or altar being sacrificed nor is it evidence that Egyptians substituted Abraham in place of Osiris in their writings.

The Book of Abraham was written sometime around 300-100 BCE, in hieroglyphs and hieratic, and comes from a Book of Breathings. That's a difference of at least 200 years and even as much as 600 years, with the minor fact that Christianity came into existence right in the middle of this time period.

The only common point between these two, very different writings, is that all are written on papyrus. They don't even have the name Abraham in common.

You will find many that disagree that the Book of Abraham comes from the Book of Breathings that is in the pieces of JS Papyri we have now. They will argue that the Book of Abraham text is derived from papyri that we currently do not have, and it is upon that missing papyri that the text of the Book of Abraham was located. That papyri would clearly have Abraham's name upon it... if we had it.

[bcuzbcuz]

In the end, it doesn't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham. The best the Leiden Papyri can do is show that "Abraham is being associated with a lion couch scene in an Egyptian text." That's it. Left as is, readers of that statement might make jumps of their own to fill in the gaps of how that might be seen as evidence for the Book of Abraham's authenticity. But when looking at how Abraham is "associated" with this lion couch scene, there isn't much evidence that provides any sort of help in defending the Book of Abraham. It is not evidence showing Abraham upon a couch or altar being sacrificed nor is it evidence that Egyptians substituted Abraham in place of Osiris in their writings.

You will find many that disagree that the Book of Abraham comes from the Book of Breathings that is in the pieces of JS Papyri we have now. They will argue that the Book of Abraham text is derived from papyri that we currently do not have, and it is upon that missing papyri that the text of the Book of Abraham was located. That papyri would clearly have Abraham's name upon it... if we had it.

You may be right. There is no argument against magic or "lost" papyri.