"Egyptian Redaction" Theory & Fac 3

[Robert F. Smith]

Right, what Ashment neglects to mention is that this is a historiola, which undermines his criticism.

Which fits rather nicely with the magical topos which he emphasizes -- something quite common, especially among Gnostic sects -- and which includes a congeries of names drawn from a variety of religions. That sort of thing has continued down into modern times in various incantations, though not always with historiolae.

[Glenn101]

What Ashment does, which Gee carefully avoids doing, is explain why the word Abraham appears on this papyrus. What the LDS apologist are doing is playing a fallacious shell game of correlation in order to suggest plausibility for some weak tangential argument. In this case the existence of the "word" Abraham in and of itself offers no evidence for this notion of Abraham being pictured and sacrificed on an Egyptian funeral text. You should really read Robert Ritner's recent book of this issue. He puts to rest most of these lame and outdated apologetic stretches.

Ashment does get into the magical papyri very heavily. However, Gee does address that issue very thoroughly. The upshot of it all is where does one drawthe line between magic and religion in Egyptian religious texts? It is a matter of definition. For an atheist, all religion is basically "magic".

Gee goes on to also refute Ashment's etymology of the name Abrasax saying that "Ashment also fails to give a meaning for either Abraham or Abrasax" and concludes that "it seems strange to make an argument based on etymology and then never give an etymology."

I do not have ready access to Ritner's book. Can you provide an excerpt where he demolishes the idea that the couch scene in the Leiden Papyrus I 384 has no connection to Abraham and/or that the name Abraham does not appear in that papyrus?

Thanks,

Glenn

Edited June 24, 2013 by Glenn101

[crixus]

Perhaps you'd like to quote Muhlestein in context.

If you think context saves him, then be my guest and prove it. The fact is this is what he said in an interview which was published in a FAIR apologetic dvd on the Book of Abraham.

His actual words, rather that calling him a liar ("as an Egyptologist, he most certainly knows this"), and making the silly claim that his interpretation is "100% false" -- a bit of overkill, don't you think, crixus?

I gave you his actual words.

Egyptologists rarely refer to each other in this rough fashion, much less by people who know nothing of Egyptology.

Ah, so you can't deal with the fact that Kerry stated this falsehood, so you're going to spin out of it by attacking me for bringing it up. That's typical.

I see nothing wrong with suggesting that the word "Abraham" there might be taken to identify the person on the lion couch as Abraham

Now you're trying to reinvent what Kerry said without even knowing what he said. I told you what he said. Go buy the FAIR DVD and watch the interview if you don't believe me.

You are obviously angry and petulant because the discussion hasn't been going your way, and the facts don't support your negative contentions.

Then refute the facts I have presented. All you've done is imply that I'm hiding context, essentially calling me a liar.

And how exactly has the "discussion" not been going my way? The fact that you've resorted to name-calling and pulling out the anti-Mormon card, indicates you're getting quite desperate. I proved your preferred sources are unreliable. They have no credibility outside of BYU bubble. That isn't my problem.

And so you refer us to a lame and blatantly anti-Mormon book masquerading as scholarship in order to settle the matter?

LOL! Yes, someone's who is probably the world's authority on the subject is just "masquerading as scholarship" because he destroyed your favorite apologetic arguments in one volume. You know you've lost the argument when all you can do is complain about a source being "lame anti-Mormon." Good grief, as opposed to what, a lame FARMS apologist who has a documented history of saying God awful, and hilariously erroneous things about primary documents (ie Nibley's "red ink" claim, Gee's "two ink" claim, etc)? Ritner has far more credibility in the field than all your Mormon "scholars for Joseph" put together. And you want to complain about bias while relying strictly on these clowns? Gee, Nibley, Rhodes and Muehlstein have all demonstrated that they are not reliable on this subject. And Ritner explains why in a very detailed, scholarly manner.

I have had occasion personally to hear Prof. Ritner speak intelligently and responsibly on Egyptological matters. The same for some of his writings (although his participation in a book on serpent spells was certainly ill-advised). This is not one of those intelligent and responsible writings. He needed a strong editor to rein him in.

Yes, because he refutes some of your cherished icons in Mormon apologetics, therefore he must be an evil anti-Mormon who doesn't know what true scholarship is! Get real.

You need to reread Glenn in post #43.

No need, as Glenn's understanding of this is issue almost as bad as yours. Neither of you appear to be familiar with the apologetic history behind the misuse of these "Abraham" papyri. Ashment didn't misrepresent Gee's argument, you two are just taking that for granted because Gee says so. You're limited in what information you allow yourself you absorb. So you won't read Ashment's refutation, but you'll instead you read Gee's "review" of Ashment's refutation of Gee. Weird.

And as for your spin doctoring of the Abraham as author issue, I'm still waiting for your evidence that this is not what Joseph Smith and his colleagues claimed. I mean if your argument really hinges on the "purporting to be" phrase then you're really in trouble. Saying a document "purports" to be X doesn't negate the fact that others involved with its translation claimed that it is X.

For example in 1835, a Book of Abraham manuscript in the handwriting of Phelps and Parrish state unequivocally that this was "written by his own hand upon papyrus." The 1842 version published by Willard Richards inserted the "purporting to be" phrase, but so what? In his diary that same year he doesn't attempt to qualify this. He writes,

The Lord is Blessing Joseph with Power to reveal mysteries of the kingdom of God; to translate through the urin and Thummin Ancient records & hyeroglyphics as old as Abraham or Adam... Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years.

In 1836 when he was first introduced to these documents by Elder Parrish he writes:

Elder Smoot and myself visited each apartment (in the temple) accompanied by Elder Parrish... we then visited the upper rooms and there viewed four Egyptian Mummies & also the Book of Abraham written by his own hand & not only the hieroglyphicks but also many figures that this precious treasure Contains are calculated to make a lasting impression upon the mind which is not to be erased.

The "purporting to be" terminology was so irrelevant that it was completely removed from the published versions in 1878 and after it was canonized years later, the 1902 version of this official canonized book said:

The Book of Abraham:–

A translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt; the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon Papyrus

Again, no more "purporting to be." And you wonder why we don't focus on that phrase? The question should be, why would we need to if the Church obviously didn't?

Edited June 24, 2013 by crixus

[Brian 2.0]

I see nothing wrong with suggesting that the word "Abraham" there might be taken to identify the person on the lion couch as Abraham, since that is ordinarily what happens in lion couch scenes.

Except that the person on the couch is a woman, even by Gee's interpretation, so I would see something wrong in suggesting that the person on the couch is Abraham.

[Glenn101]

The "purporting to be" terminology was so irrelevant that it was completely removed from the published versions in 1878 and after it was canonized years later, the 1902 version of this official canonized book said:

Again, no more "purporting to be." And you wonder why we don't focus on that phrase? The question should be, why would we need to if the Church obviously didn't?

Of course that terminology was not removed by Joseph Smith. That is really one of the "tired old arguments by critics" that has been answered many times. But you do know that.

While I am waiting for you to produce the information that shows that Kerry was 100% wrong about Abraham being on the Lion Couch in the Leiden Papyrus I 384I will point you to an article by a person who makes some really lucid, cogent arguments for at least one missing papyrus that the Book of Abraham could have come from. He seems to think highly of John Gee's work.

Glenn

Edited June 24, 2013 by Glenn101

[volgadon]

Except that the person on the couch is a woman, even by Gee's interpretation, so I would see something wrong in suggesting that the person on the couch is Abraham.

I looked at my copy of Betz, the figure on the couch is nowhere explicitly described as a woman.

[Chronos]

Everyone needs to calm down and stop with the insults. Only we mods reserve the right to violent outbursts of anger.

~Chronos

[Okrahomer]

Right, what Ashment neglects to mention is that this is a historiola, which undermines his criticism.

The term "historiola" is completely unfamiliar to me. I wondered if you would mind expanding on this point. I found one online definition that made some sense in the context of this discussion, but I could only see part of it:

http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/historiola-e515850?s.num=3

"Historiola

(‘Little story’). Modern term describing brief tales built into magic formulas, providing a mythic precedence for a magically effective treatment. Historiolas are already documented in Mesopotamian and ancient Egyptian magic. In the Graeco-Egyptian magic papyri (PGM), they provide references to both Greek (e.g. PGM XX) and Egyptian (e.g. PGM IV 1471) mythology, and to Christian legends in Christian rites. However, historiolas should not be understood as abridgments of well-known myths or as ad hoc inventions, rather the narrator understands them as proof …"

[Brian 2.0]

I looked at my copy of Betz, the figure on the couch is nowhere explicitly described as a woman.

I'm pretty sure were talking about the same lion couch scene but here is John Gee talking about this scene in the Ensign.

"The figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman."

- John Gee "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts" Ensign, July 1992

[Brian 2.0]

While I am waiting for you to produce the information that shows that Kerry was 100% wrong about Abraham being on the Lion Couch in the Leiden Papyrus I 384

See post above re:Gee's assessment of the sex of the person on the altar.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Glenn101]

While I am waiting for you to produce the information that shows that Kerry was 100% wrong about Abraham being on the Lion Couch in the Leiden Papyrus I 384

See post above re:Gee's assessment of the sex of the person on the altar.

From "All the Court's a Stage: Facsimile 3, a Royal Mumming" by Hugh W. Nibley

The spectacle of men, kings, and princes at that, dressed as women, calls for a brief notice on the fundamental issue peculiar to the Egyptians and the Book of Abraham, namely, the tension between the claims of patriarchal vs. matriarchal succession.

From "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham" by John Gee

"Facsimile 3: Facsimile 3 has received the least attention. The principal complaint raised by the critics has been regarding the female attire worn by figures 2 and 4, who are identified as male royalty. It has been documented, however, that on certain occasions, for certain ritual purposes, some Egyptian men dressed up as women."

Doesn't seem like a problem to me. That Abraham's name is directly below that scene does not seem to be in dispute.

Glenn

[Brian 2.0]

From "All the Court's a Stage: Facsimile 3, a Royal Mumming" by Hugh W. Nibley

The spectacle of men, kings, and princes at that, dressed as women, calls for a brief notice on the fundamental issue peculiar to the Egyptians and the Book of Abraham, namely, the tension between the claims of patriarchal vs. matriarchal succession.

From "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham" by John Gee

"Facsimile 3: Facsimile 3 has received the least attention. The principal complaint raised by the critics has been regarding the female attire worn by figures 2 and 4, who are identified as male royalty. It has been documented, however, that on certain occasions, for certain ritual purposes, some Egyptian men dressed up as women."

Doesn't seem like a problem to me. That Abraham's name is directly below that scene does not seem to be in dispute.

Glenn

And for what reason are you pointing out the fact that men dressed as women? Are you proposing that the person on the altar is Abraham dressed as a woman?

[Glenn101]

And for what reason are you pointing out the fact that men dressed as women? Are you proposing that the person on the altar is Abraham dressed as a woman?

No, I am only suggesting the possibility, with my references. Crixus has stated that it has been proven 100% empirically wrong that the figure is Abraham. I was seeking some sources which he could quote to back up his statement. It may yet be forthcoming, but has not been produced as of yet. That the figure on the couch is Abraham dressed as a woman is debatable. I am not debating that in any way. As I noted earlier, the name "Abraham" on that papyrus directly under the couch scene (in Greek) does not seem to be a point of debate.

Glenn

[Brian 2.0]

No, I am only suggesting the possibility, with my references. Crixus has stated that it has been proven 100% empirically wrong that the figure is Abraham. I was seeking some sources which he could quote to back up his statement. It may yet be forthcoming, but has not been produced as of yet.

Well, obviously he shouldn't have stated it as 100% empirically wrong. And it's basically impossible to rule out something with 100% certainty. It's also has not been proven 100% empirically wrong that the source of lightening is the God Zeus, or that there is an invisible talking alligator in the crawl space of my house.

In the end though its not on anyone to prove those things wrong, it's on the person making the claim to prove it right. So if anyone is claiming that the figure on the couch is Abraham the it is on them to provide evidence why. It's is undisputed that the name Abraham is on the scroll, but other elements of the scroll indicate that the person in the altar is a woman an the text refers to incinerating her, etc. those who want to make the claim that it is Abraham on the couch need to show evidence despite that.

And lack of certainty against something should never be thought of as evidence for something.

That the figure on the couch is Abraham dressed as a woman is debatable. I am not debating that in any way.

Are there people that debate this? Experts that claim this? And while you may not be debating this, you are the one who brought this up as evidence against my claim that the person on the altar is a women, so in some ways you are debating this.

[Robert F. Smith]

And for what reason are you pointing out the fact that men dressed as women? Are you proposing that the person on the altar is Abraham dressed as a woman?

He was talking about Fac 3.

Perchance you will also raise some irrelevant issue if confronted by the fact that all the ladies in Shakespeare's dramas were played by men.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm pretty sure were talking about the same lion couch scene but here is John Gee talking about this scene in the Ensign.

"The figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman."

- John Gee "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts" Ensign, July 1992

You are correct, Brian, although you failed to provide the context. Gee is speaking of Leiden Papyrus I 384 when he says:

The figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman. The idea of incinerating the woman as a punishment in case the woman does not yield to the man who casts the spell is an old Egyptian formula.

7

Although removed from the time of Abraham, about two millennia earlier, elements on this papyrus remind one of the three virgins Abraham wrote of who “were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians.” (

Abr. 1:11

.)

These first three references all come from the same papyrus. The mention of “Abraham, Isaac, Jacob” assures us that we are dealing with references to the biblical Abraham. Also, these references point to some sort of connection between Abraham and the lion couch, though the exact nature of the connection is obscure.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/07/research-and-perspectives-abraham-in-ancient-egyptian-texts?lang=eng#footnote7-92907_000_027 .

[Robert F. Smith]

If you think context saves him, then be my guest and prove it. The fact is this is what he said in an interview which was published in a FAIR apologetic dvd on the Book of Abraham.

I gave you his actual words.

No, you didn't. You quoted him out of context, and when challenged you did not produce the context. This is precisely what one expects of an effort to mislead.

CFR, crixus.

I appreciate the remainder of your words in this post, but will not embarrass you by repeating them here. Try to carry on a real, meaningful discussion.

Your statements about the removal of "purporting to be" is helpful, but it has about the same gravity as the removal of the word "coinage" in the non-canonical heading of Alma 11 in the Book of Mormon. Insertion and removal of non-canonical phrases in Holy Writ merely tell us about the opinions of some of the persons preparing certain editions for publication. They most certainly do not tell us about the actual content of the Canon, which must be judged on its own merits or demerits. Most of what you say on such matters here are non sequiturs.

[Brian 2.0]

He was talking about Fac 3.

Unless we were speaking about different things he was referring to Leiden Papyrus I 384 in post #55, to which I was replying to. He was using an argument often used when discussing Facs 3 but we were talking about Leiden Papyrus I 384

You are correct, Brian, although you failed to provide the context. Gee is speaking of Leiden Papyrus I 384 when he says:

The figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman. The idea of incinerating the woman as a punishment in case the woman does not yield to the man who casts the spell is an old Egyptian formula.

I was well aware of what I was quoting. We're you not in debate regarding Leiden Papyrus I 384 in your post #48?

And Glenn was asking regarding Leiden Papyrus I 384 in post #55.

I was in no way arguing that Gee was saying "This is a woman" to any other document than Leiden Papyrus I 384. That was the context I was intending.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

Unless we were speaking about different things he was referring to Leiden Papyrus I 384 in post #55, to which I was replying to. Not Fac 3

I was well aware of what I was quoting. We're you not in debate regarding Leiden Papyrus I 384 in your post #48?

And Glenn was asking regarding Leiden Papyrus I 384 in post #55.

I was in no way arguing that Gee was saying "This is a woman" to any other document than Leiden Papyrus I 384. That was the context I was intending.

O.K., Brian.

The conversation in your post #62 was primarily on Fac 3, Only at the end does he note that the name Abraham [referring to the Leiden Papyrus with lion couch] is not in dispute, and makes no other assertions there. It appeared to me that you were not paying attention, but maybe it was me not paying strict attention to the ongoing discussion. Had you replied logically you might have said something to the effect that, just because there is the strong possibility that men could dress as women under certain ritual circumstances (and not simply in Shakespearean plays), does not mean that the Leiden Papyrus lion couch is an instance of this type. Gee even avers that we do not actually know the meaning of that scene.

Glenn101, on 24 June 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

From "All the Court's a Stage: Facsimile 3, a Royal Mumming" by Hugh W. Nibley

The spectacle of men, kings, and princes at that, dressed as women, calls for a brief notice on the fundamental issue peculiar to the Egyptians and the Book of Abraham, namely, the tension between the claims of patriarchal vs. matriarchal succession.

From "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham" by John Gee

"Facsimile 3: Facsimile 3 has received the least attention. The principal complaint raised by the critics has been regarding the female attire worn by figures 2 and 4, who are identified as male royalty. It has been documented, however, that on certain occasions, for certain ritual purposes, some Egyptian men dressed up as women."

Doesn't seem like a problem to me. That Abraham's name is directly below that scene does not seem to be in dispute.

Glenn

Brian said:

And for what reason are you pointing out the fact that men dressed as women? Are you proposing that the person on the altar is Abraham dressed as a woman?

[Okrahomer]

Robert F. Smith and/or Vogadon:

I hope I'm not derailing, but this came up earlier. I wondered if either of you would mind explaining/enlarging upon the idea of "historiolae"--what are they exactly? Sources on the internet indicate that the word means "little history". Does this mean the authors of these particular documents inserted a "little history" about Abraham in order to do what--perhaps illustrate/expound and/or lend credibility? What was the purpose of inserting an "historiola"?

[volgadon]

Robert F. Smith and/or Vogadon:

I hope I'm not derailing, but this came up earlier. I wondered if either of you would mind explaining/enlarging upon the idea of "historiolae"--what are they exactly? Sources on the internet indicate that the word means "little history". Does this mean the authors of these particular documents inserted a "little history" about Abraham in order to do what--perhaps illustrate/expound and/or lend credibility? What was the purpose of inserting an "historiola"?

These "little histories" are brief stories inserted into incantations in order to harness the power of archetypical events. In simpler terms, the spell invokes the power of a past event to use it now. One 19th century Jewish spell relates a story of Job- suffering froma frightful toothache- meeting the Angel of Death who cures him from his pain.

Why historiolas are important in the context of Papyrus 384 is that they show that the name Abraham plays a more integral role than merely that of another form of abracadabra gobbledegook.

[crixus]

Of course that terminology was not removed by Joseph Smith.

Nor would it need to be since he wasn't the one who added it and the phrase itself doesn't change anything. At some point the Church decided it was a superfluous insertion and deleted it. When the text became official canon, the phrase was never reinserted. I don't even know why you folks are trying to desperately to save Joseph Smith on this issue. Just do what you normally do by claiming prophets aren't perfect or what not. Isn't that the standard apologetic line when it becomes painfully obvious your founding prophet accepted falsehoods as facts?

That is really one of the "tired old arguments by critics" that has been answered many times. But you do know that.

But that's just a "tired old apologetic response" you folks use for just about everything that comes up. You seem to think that so long as someone is writing up an "response" to any given criticism and posting in some apologetic venue, that this automatically means the issue has been resolved. You're here trying to spin the very simple fact that the earliest Mormons, Joseph Smith included, believed the papyrus was literally written by the hand of Abraham. The "purporting to be" phrase doesn't change this. This doesn't mean they were saying, "We're not saying it is true, we're just saying this is what the document says of itself." No, that is what we call a non sequitur.

While I am waiting for you to produce the information that shows that Kerry was 100% wrong about Abraham being on the Lion Couch in the Leiden Papyrus I 384

To demonstrate how far behind you are on this matter, you seem to think John Gee support's Kerry's translation. But it was John Gee who said in the Ensign that, "The figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman." (John Gee, “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, Jul 1992, 60). Kerry claims that the text translates, "Abraham upon his couch." But Abraham wasn't a woman.

So it is impossible for both Muhelstein and Gee to be right. The text cannot say "Abraham upon his couch" while at the same time saying the figure on the couch is a woman.

I will point you to an article by a person who makes some really lucid, cogent arguments for at least one missing papyrus that the Book of Abraham could have come from. He seems to think highly of John Gee's work.

You link an article from Kevin Graham who has since left the Church after saying John Gee had lied to him on a number of issues. Incidentally, Graham has all but destroyed the missing papyrus theory.

Robert,

No, you didn't. You quoted him out of context, and when challenged you did not produce the context.

But you have produced no evidence that I quoted him "out of context." It is just a baseless assumption you want to cling to for apologetic reasons. Do you really want to fall on your sword defending this position? If you are unfamiliar with the video, then how can you speak as if you have any idea what you're talking about? Anyone familiar with this video knows that what I say is true. These interviews were constantly interrupted with fade ins and fade outs and redirects to other commentators. It was essentially a conglomerate of pithy assertions from apologists. In one scene we'd hear from Mike Ash and then it would fade out, and jump to someone like Kerry or Gee. In Kerry's brief comments he said the text translates "Abraham upon his couch." It was the last thing he said as the video faded out.So what kind of "context" are you hoping to get? His claim is an absolute falsehood no matter what kind of context you'd prefer to have. And by the way, sitting around saying "liar liar" only reflects badly on you. Let's leave the schoolyard antics in the schoolyard.

This is precisely what one expects of an effort to mislead.

CFR, crixus.

Is it possible to cite a FAIR video as a reference? Does FAIR have transcripts of the interview which I could hyperlink? One of us is going to look completely foolish here, and I suspect that's why those involved with or familiar with this video aren't stepping up to the plate to confirm what I've said. When facts don't line up the way you imagine or hope them to be, just blame it on some critic trying to be deceptive. I mean, really?

Edited June 26, 2013 by crixus

[crixus]

That Abraham's name is directly below that scene does not seem to be in dispute.

You're right. The issue for most critics is the deceptive manner in which some apologists and scholars have tried to use this papyrus as evidence for the Book of Abraham. Leave it to the critics to explain why "Abraham" was written on this papyrus. Gee never bothered to because it undermined his purposes, and Kerry flat out mistranslated the text. Once this is understood, any attempt to use this to support the Book of Abraham becomes a lost cause..

[crixus]

What Gee says Ashment said: "To my knowledge, the only person who doubts that the name Abraham exists in the papyri is Edward H. Ashment. Ashment, who finds himself outside the mainstream of scholarship on this point, must give some convincing evidence to support this denial. Despite such clear and overwhelming evidence, Ashment argues that the name is not Abraham, and certainly not the biblical Abraham".

What Ashment really said: "It is therefore not surprising that the biblical name 'Abraham' would be popular in the spells — not only when the magicians would appeal to, among others, the god of 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'."

Ed argued for literally the exact opposite of what Gee said he argued.

I mean this was really, a terrible response to Ashment. Not only because he had to resort to straw man arguments left and right, but also because he ignored so many points of refutation and he wasted so much space boring the heck out of the reader with irrelevant commentary about things that had nothing to do with Ashment's points. And in typical FARMS fashion he attacks Ashment from the beginning: "Edward H. Ashment, has continually been noted for his confused, confusing, and occasionally incoherent presentations." And his support for this assertion? His first footnote was a ridiculous 280 words of incestuous referencing from his colleagues at BYU who obviously don't like Ashment because he's an apostate. Big surprise there. Funny how Nibley had nothing but praise for Ashment when he thought he was still a faithful member, which is probably why Gee was careful to avoid citing Nibley in that footnote. This trend of long-winded, irrelevant fluffy commentary continued for the entire "response" that consisted of a ridiculous 26,000 words! It was a charade to give the appearance of scholarship.

Why did Gee do this? Why did he completely misrepresent what Ashment said and avoid the primary arguments? The answer is simple. He knew none of his LDS readers would actually read Ashment's review to find out for themselves just how badly Gee was being dishonest. And the fact that Gee had to resort to these tactics gives us every indication of who really had the upper hand in that debate.

Edited June 26, 2013 by crixus

[Robert F. Smith]

Nor would it need to be since he wasn't the one who added it and the phrase itself doesn't change anything. At some point the Church decided it was a superfluous insertion and deleted it. When the text became official canon, the phrase was never reinserted. I don't even know why you folks are trying to desperately to save Joseph Smith on this issue. Just do what you normally do by claiming prophets aren't perfect or what not. Isn't that the standard apologetic line when it becomes painfully obvious your founding prophet accepted falsehoods as facts?

For you any assertion by you is automatically a fact, rather than an interpretation. For scholars there are only interpretations of facts. You don't differentiate, but only come to this board to vent your spleen. Why are you so vicious and unkind? You do not even try to be even handed or fair.

But that's just a "tired old apologetic response" you folks use for just about everything that comes up. You seem to think that so long as someone is writing up an "response" to any given criticism and posting in some apologetic venue, that this automatically means the issue has been resolved. You're here trying to spin the very simple fact that the earliest Mormons, Joseph Smith included, believed the papyrus was literally written by the hand of Abraham. The "purporting to be" phrase doesn't change this. This doesn't mean they were saying, "We're not saying it is true, we're just saying this is what the document says of itself." No, that is a non sequitur, but typical of apologetic logic.

So any statement made which disagrees with you is automatically spin. So, for you, Joseph Smith and his companions believed that the papyri were literally written by the hand of Abraham, but that is not spin. It is a fact simply because you said it.

To demonstrate how far behind you are on this matter, you seem to think John Gee support's Kerry's translation. But it was John Gee who said in the Ensign that, "The figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman." (John Gee, “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, Jul 1992, 60). Kerry claims that the text translates, "Abraham upon his couch." But Abraham wasn't a woman.

Unlike you, I quoted Gee's whole statement in context (above), showing what he was in fact saying as a whole rather than following your love of quoting a brief phrase out of context.

So it is impossible for both Muhelstein and Gee to be right. The text cannot say "Abraham upon his couch" while at the same time saying the figure on the couch is a woman.

By carefully controlling how many words you allow them to say, and by making it appear that they are at loggerheads, you seek to gain the advantage, not to throw light on the text and illustration. Isn't that exactly what spin doctors do?

You link an article from Kevin Graham who has since left the Church after saying John Gee had lied to him on a number of issues. Incidentally, Graham has all but destroyed the missing papyrus theory.

CFR that Graham said that Gee lied to him on a number of issues.

Kevin has held forth on this board on these issue on a number of occasions, and he is clearly well-informed on these issues, but he did not in fact destroy the missing papyrus theory in any way.

Robert,

But you have produced no evidence that I quoted him "out of context." It is just a baseless assumption you want to cling to for apologetic reasons. Do you really want to fall on your sword defending this position? If you are unfamiliar with the video, then how can you speak as if you have any idea what you're talking about? Anyone familiar with this video knows that what I say is true. These interviews were constantly interrupted with fade ins and fade outs and redirects to other commentators. It was essentially a conglomerate of pithy assertions from apologists. In one scene we'd hear from Mike Ash and then it would fade out, and jump to someone like Kerry or Gee. In Kerry's brief comments he said the text translates "Abraham upon his couch." It was the last thing he said as the video faded out.So what kind of "context" are you hoping to get? His claim is an absolute falsehood no matter what kind of context you'd prefer to have. And by the way, sitting around saying "liar liar" only reflects badly on you. Let's leave the schoolyard antics in the schoolyard.

CFR that I said "liar, liar."

I guess you don't understand what context means: Journalists frequently use soundbites rather than full statements, and the result is often a complete skewing of what was actually said. Context means extended remarks, say a paragraph of comment accurately quoted so as to give a forthright idea of what was actually said. Scholars regularly provide full context to each other (even to those they disagree with) as common courtesy. CFR is required on this board for the same reason. Usually any such quotation is provided with a citation to the source, and an online source is even better.

In the case of a DVD, such as you describe, there may indeed be fading and difficulty in writing down a good contextual paragraph -- including Q&A responses. That is the context, and it is always essential. A short phrase just doesn't cut it, and it is clear to me that you should have depended on the transcript of Kerry's presentation, rather than on offhand and unclear remarks on videotape. If the material is of such poor quality, why would you cite it at all?

Is it possible to cite a FAIR video as a reference? Does FAIR have transcripts of the interview which I could hyperlink? One of us is going to look completely foolish here, and I suspect that's why those involved with or familiar with this video aren't stepping up to the plate to confirm what I've said. When facts don't line up the way you imagine or hope them to be, just blame it on some critic trying to be deceptive. I mean, really?

You clearly don't understand CFR. Why do you think that others should do your work for you?

Did you even bother to go to the FAIR website and then try to provide us with a citation? Title, date, etc. For example, are you referring to "A Most Remarkable Book : Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham" (DVD), written and directed by Tyler Livingston. Edited by JD Julander. 70 minute video, 30 minute bonus features, 2011?

Here is an item written by Kerry Muhlestein. A fair-minded person would judge him by his actual statements made in context:

Muhlstein, Kerry M., "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers," The Religious Educator, 11/1 (2010), 91–108; available online at http://rsc.byu.edu/a...ons-and-answers .

Edited June 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith