Muhlestein Putting Abraham Back On The Couch... Again.

[Brian 2.0]

I hate to bring this up again, but In Kerry Muhlstein's recent paper from the Maxwell Institute "The Religious and Cultural Background of Joseph Smith Papyrus I"  

Muhlstein again indicates that the text notes that "it is Abraham on the couch" in the Greek Magical Papryi:

 

Similarly, in a drawing that accompanies a text for a love charm,64 the text specifically notes that the drawing is associated with the spell. The vignette depicts a mummiform figure on a lion couch. Here we would typically expect to identify the figure with Osiris, but the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch.65

 

Now some might recall I've been down this road before in a somewhat recent thread where Crixus (aka Kevin Graham) and I were pointing out this from FAIR's DVD where Kerry said: 

"The Text Says, 'Abraham upon his couch'."  

 

That thread turned into a bit of a mess of CFR requests and context request but it ended up being great because the producer of the DVD was able to email Kerry about the phrase and Kerry replied to the producer via email with this -- link in other thread here:

 

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. 

[emphasis mine]

 

Now that was from June of this year.  I don't know when Muhlestein's Maxwell Institute article was published  (I could only find "2013")

 

But obviously his paper was not "unplanned remarks" and he definately did not "make it clear" in his paper that Abraham being upon the "couch" is an assumption.  Has he "misspoken a little" again here?

 

Muhlestein's footnotes in the Maxwell paper also point us to an article in the Ensign by John Gee where Gee indicates that the person on the couch is a woman (so obviously not Abraham).  So I find it puzzling that Muhlesteien again uses this reference to support his claim.

 

If Muhlestein has new information or a new translation since his June email to support this claim I would love to see it (it's not found in the footnotes if it exists).  If not, this seems like an error that Muhlestein should again correct, and the Maxwell Institute should correct on their site.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi Brian,

Despite your consternation, bear in mind that this "recent" article has been in the pipeline for awhile.  Not only does it take a long time to proofread, edit, and typeset such articles (aside from peer review), but Muhlestein announced in footnote three that this is merely a version of another article published last year (and no doubt edited for 2011):

 

Kerry Muhlestein, "Abraham, Isaac, and Osiris-Michael: The Use of Biblical Figures in Egyptian Religion," in Galina A. Belova, ed., Proceedings of Achievements and Problems of Modern Egyptology (Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012), 246–259.

 

A fuller context is important too:

 

. . . it is not entirely clear why Abraham became associated with Osiris. Again, the pattern is not strong, but it exists. It is curious to note that in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man—a parable that has a number of parallels with an earlier Egyptian tale known as the Setna II story—in the place Osiris would have occupied in an Egyptian context, Jesus instead mentions Abraham.⁶² This may indicate that the parallel was first conceived of in Jewish thought, though we cannot be sure.

In any case, there are enough instances in which Abraham appears in contexts normally occupied by Osiris that we must conclude the Egyptians saw some sort of connection between the two. John Gee has pointed out one of the strongest associations, noting that in a number of instances the phrase "live in the presence of Osris" was replaced in Greek by "rest in Abraham's bosom." ⁶³

Similarly, in a drawing that accompanies a text for a love charm,⁶⁴ the text specifically notes that the drawing is associated with the spell. The vignette depicts a mummiform figure on a lion couch. Here we would typically expect to identify the figure with Osiris, but the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch.⁶⁵ All these instances occur within an Egyptian religious context, making it clear that for whatever reason, the Egyptians viewed Abraham as an appropriate parallel for Osiris—if not the most appropriate parallel.

In summary, biblical figures were used by Egyptians in basically the same manner that Egyptian figures were used. As with Egyptian characters, when a particular story highlighted a desirable attribute, Egyptians sought to identify themselves with the figure in that story in order to garner that attribute to themselves.⁶⁶

I  might have phrased it differently at various points (to emphasize Jewish use of Egyptian iconography), but his general argument is valid.

Of course you are solely interested in whether one can say that Abraham is on the couch in one illustration.  In context, he does have a case -- based on what we actually have in the text and the usual manner of labeling -- but there are other scholars who disagree.  And we have been over all that before on this board.  Similar problems are faced in the very diverse interpretations of many fragmentary Dead Sea Scroll texts, and the debate sometimes becomes heated.  This is nothing new.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[foster]

Robert how does the context help? How does context help when a statement based on sourced material is completely in error of the sourced material?

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert how does the context help? How does context help when a statement based on sourced material is completely in error of the sourced material?

Perhaps you could explain to us, foster, what that complete error is.  If a footnote is in error, by all means provide the correction.  If it is merely a matter of interpretation, please give your sound reasons why.  That's what scholars do.  They don't make generic and unsupported assertions.

 

See the discussion at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61067-egyptian-redaction-theory-fac-3/ .

Edited August 31, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[foster]

Perhaps you could explain to us, foster, what that complete error is.  If a footnote is in error, by all means provide the correction.  If it is merely a matter of interpretation, please give your sound reasons why.  That's what scholars do.  They don't make generic and unsupported assertions.

 

 

An unsupported assertion is that a July 1992 Ensign article states that Abraham is on a couch. So again, I ask, how does the so called "context" clarify?  At best the citation is simply wrong and Muhlestein simply missed it along with the editors/proofers. At worst Muhlestein deliberately made false citation for what ever reason.  I tend to think the error was and is not malicious; it is not as though errors are unheard of, the August 2007 Ensign cover art depicted a firearm that was not in existence for at least 30 years or more after the event depicted on the cover.

Edited August 31, 2013 by foster

[Calm]

 

Now that was from June of this year.  I don't know when Muhlestein's Maxwell Institute article was published  (I could only find "2013")

 

The Journal was sent out the first of Aug:  http://www.maxwellinstituteblog.org/hot-off-the-press-journal-and-insights/

 

Of course that doesn't say how long Brother Muhlestein's article been sitting there waiting to be published, especially considering last year's tangle that threw off schedules significantly.  One would need to know what kind of deadline the MI demands for its authors when the point of no return is reached and if KM is of the type that once the paper has been turned over to the publisher with the final seal of approval who closes the book on that one and moves onto the next one, intending to correct errors in future places rather than trying to go back and rewrite the past.  I would think in these days, scholars almost have to have that attitude or they would never be able to focus sufficiently enough on what they are doing right then and there to get that published and instead would be constantly distracted by ideas and facts that make them wonder if they could have improved on their past work and if they should issue a correction etc.

[Ntrw]

Does anyone have this?

 

"Abraham, Isaac, and Osiris-Michael: The Use of Biblical Figures in Egyptian Religion," in Galina A. Belova, ed., Proceedings of Achievements and Problems of Modern Egyptology (Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012), 246–259.

[Calm]

So in refreshing my mind with what the Gee article said, I came across this jewel:

 

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. 

 

Their concept of romance and what a love charm should achieve seems significantly different than our modern POV which would give this attitude to the criminal psycho stalker type rather than an old traditional love formula.

Edited August 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

1.  

So I am assuming the figured identified by Gee as a woman on the couch....she is the intended target of the love charm?  Am I reading this correctly and if so, is this typical of such charms, to play the target somewhere in a typical scene including lion couch ones....what appears to me as borrowing higher rituals to modify for more day to day, 'common man' purposes, eventually degrading it to some form of folkmagic?

1. 3. 

   The third mention of Abraham comes from the same papyrus as the first two references. It is accompanied by a picture, a lion couch scene similar to the one infacsimile no. 1 of the book of Abraham, but this picture is oriented in reverse. Part of the text, a love charm, reads: “Let Abraham who … I adjure you by … and incinerate so-and-so daughter of so-and-so. Write these words and draw this image on a new papyrus.” Later in the text we read, “I adjure you spirits of the dead, [by] the dead (pharaohs) ⁴ and the demon Balsamos and the jackal-headed god and the gods who are with him.” (PGMxii 474–95, PDMxii 135–64.)

A few explanations are in order: “Balsamos” is probably Baalshammayim (lord of the heavens), an old Phoenician and Canaanite god whom they believed created the earth.⁵ The “jackal-headed god” is most likely Anubis, who usually officiates in lion couch scenes, though he is indistinguishable from his priest, who wears a jackal mask over his head. ⁶ The “gods who are with him” might be the Sons of Horus, who are often depicted as jars which hold the mummified internal organs of the deceased. (See facsimile no. 1, notes on figures 5 to 8.) 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

 

 

 

[Steve Thompson]

Whether or not the target of the love spell in the Demotic/Greek magical papyri is intended to be "incinerated" if she does not succomb to the man's advances is worth examining. The translation of PDM xii. 135-146, which includes the famous "lion couch" scene is translated by Janet Johnson as follows:

...I conjure by the ...[and] to inflame her, NN whom [NN bore]." (Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, vol. 1, p. 171).

Note Johnson's translation does not call for the woman's "incineration" as a threat, but for her to be "inflamed," presumably with passion.

In the Ensign article by Gee, he notes that "the idea of incinerating the woman as a punishment in case a woman does not yield to the man who casts the spell is an old Egyptian formula," and he cites as references Borghouts, Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts, and Smither JEA 27 (1941): 131-132, both of which translate the same text, ostracon DeM (Deir el Medina) 1057. Borghouts translation of the text is:

Hail to you, Rehorakhte, father of the gods! Hail to you, seven Hathors who are clothed in wrappings of red linen! Hail to you, gods, lords of heaven and earth--let (the woman) NN born of NN come after me like a cow after grass, like a maidservant after her children, like a herdsman after his cattle. If they fail to make her come after me I will set <fire to> Busiris and burn up <Osiris>.

Borghouts follows Smither's earlier translation. Smither notes that he has emended the text based on another papyrus, and has added the words for "fire to" and "Osiris" based on this text. He then notes that Osiris was singled out for punishment because of his partly mortal nature.

In these references I fail to see a justification for the statement that "the idea of incinerating a woman as punishment" if she does not yield to the man's desires is "an old Egyptian formula." Perhaps there is support for this contention elsewhere, but I do not see it in these texts.

[foster]

I suppose only time will tell whether Muhlstein will correct the erroneous citation.

[Robert F. Smith]

An unsupported assertion is that a July 1992 Ensign article states that Abraham is on a couch. So again, I ask, how does the so called "context" clarify?  At best the citation is simply wrong and Muhlestein simply missed it along with the editors/proofers. At worst Muhlestein deliberately made false citation for what ever reason.  I tend to think the error was and is not malicious; it is not as though errors are unheard of, the August 2007 Ensign cover art depicted a firearm that was not in existence for at least 30 years or more after the event depicted on the cover.

If a scholar were looking at footnote 65, he would see the following:  

 

65. PDM XII, 140, as in Betz, Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, 171. See also John Gee, "References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts," Insights 11/5 (1991): 1, 3; and John Gee, "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign, July 1992, 60.

 

Then he would check each (not simply one) to see whether they supported the claim in the text, which is "the text specifically notes that the drawing is associated with the spell. The vignette depicts a mummiform figure on a lion couch. Here we would typically expect to identify the figure with Osiris, but the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch.^65"

 

Finally, if the citations do not justify the text, he would call the author on it.  I note that you did not bother to do this.

 

Meantime, foster, you might want to view Pedro Olavarria's earlier comments on this, in which he cites an actual translation of Leiden I 384,

 

... AIDIO ORICH THAMBITO, Abraham who at [ho epi “who upon”?]... PLANOIEGCHIBIOTH bind them and the whole soul for her, NN [whom NN bore]... the female body of her, NN [whom NN bore], I conjure by the... [and] to inflame her, NN whom [NN bore] [Write these] words together with this picture [the lion couch vignette] on a new papyrus.

 

Pedro offered this April 6, 2007, on this board at 

My preference would be to go no further than to offer "Abraham upon his [couch]," along with the rest of the text, but perhaps with Steve Thompson's suggested reading of another part of this text.  Scholars frequently suggest readings in brackets where the text is absent.

 

So, foster, I am still waiting for you to explain to us what that complete error is.  If a footnote is in error, by all means provide the correction.  If it is merely a matter of interpretation, please give your sound reasons why.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[foster]

Robert the July 1992 Ensign citation is in error, it really is that simple. There need not be an entire treatise written to defend an obvious error.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert the July 1992 Ensign citation is in error, it really is that simple. There need not be an entire treatise written to defend an obvious error.

Are you refusing to cite the specific error?  Are you afraid to do so, or do really not understand the issues?  Or are you obfuscating with a fake claim?  It really is that simple, foster.

[foster]

Robert I have identified the error, it is the citation to the July 1992 Ensign article by Gee. It is not as though muhlstein credibility completely hinges on the footnote, why be so dogmatic. The July ensign reference is an error. The July 1992 reference is likely a innocent error. Why can you not accept that the July 1992 reference is an error?

[foster]

Duplicate

Edited September 1, 2013 by foster

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert I have identified the error, it is the citation to the July 1992 Ensign article by Gee. It is not as though muhlstein credibility completely hinges on the footnote, why be so dogmatic. The July ensign reference is an error. The July 1992 reference is likely a innocent error. Why can you not accept that the July 1992 reference is an error?

You still haven't identified or specified what the error is, foster, and that can only be because you cannot find one, or [you fill in the blank] .....................................

Citing an entire article and claiming that there is an error somewhere is completely irresponsible.  I expect you to quote the actual error and specify why you think it an error (I tried to help you above by providing full quote and full citation).  If you can't do that then you need to admit that there is no error.  Board rules require you to cite actual sources rather than speaking in vague generalities.

 

By the way, here is a quote from Brian 2.0,

at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61067-egyptian-redaction-theory-fac-3/page-7 ,

Brian 2.0, post #124, on July 3, 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

The best the Leiden Papyri can do is show that "Abraham is being associated with a lion couch scene in an Egyptian text."

Edited September 1, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[foster]

Robert what is the topic of this thread? What is the specific issue Brian raised about Muhlestein citing Gee's July 1992 Ensign article? You can also see post 9 in this thread.

Edited September 1, 2013 by foster

[Brian 2.0]

 

You still haven't identified or specified what the error is, foster, and that can only be because you cannot find one, or [you fill in the blank] 

 

Robert,  I'm not sure if you are talking to foster about something different than my point, but do you think that I have identified and specified what the error is that I see?

 

To summarize:

 

Kerry Muhlestein wrote an article published by the Maxwell Institute.  In it there is a section where he shows examples that the Egyptians viewed Abraham as a parallel for Osiris.  One of those example is the love charm (Leiden Papyri I 384)

 

Similarly, in a drawing that accompanies a text for a love charm,⁶⁴ the text specifically notes that the drawing is associated with the spell. The vignette depicts a mummiform figure on a lion couch. Here we would typically expect to identify the figure with Osiris, but the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch.⁶⁵ All these instances occur within an Egyptian religious context, making it clear that for whatever reason, the Egyptians viewed Abraham as an appropriate parallel for Osiris—if not the most appropriate parallel.

 

 

[emphasis mine]

 

In looking at the three sources in footnote 65 I have found no citations to justify the claim that "the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch."

 

It does mention "Abraham who at/upon..." but then the text is broken.  It does NOT say couch.  Any uses of "couch" in a translation of this section of the Leiden papyri would be a suggested reading as there is nothing there to actually read... as such... when Muhlestein claims, "the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch", that claim is in error.

 

If Muhlestein wants to suggest "couch" as what word would be there if we had the text, he can, and tell us why he suggests that reading.  But the "text" definitely does not note it as the reading.

 

And if Muhlestein want to place Abraham on the altar to provide evidence that Egyptians viewed Abraham as a parallel for Osiris, then he should probably NOT include Gee's Ensign article in the footnotes, because Gee say in that article that the person on the altar is a woman.

 

Hopefully this has made clear what I find to be in error in Kerry Muhlestein's Maxwell Institute paper.

[foster]

Your point was clear from the beginning. My opinion is that Robert is not interested in addressing it. Gee published that it is a woman, Muhlestein quotes Gee but is in error with the reference to Gee's Ensign article.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Robert,  I'm not sure if you are talking to foster about something different than my point, but do you think that I have identified and specified what the error is that I see?

 

To summarize:

 

Kerry Muhlestein wrote an article published by the Maxwell Institute.  In it there is a section where he shows examples that the Egyptians viewed Abraham as a parallel for Osiris.  One of those example is the love charm (Leiden Papyri I 384)

 

[emphasis mine]

 

In looking at the three sources in footnote 65 I have found no citations to justify the claim that "the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch."

 

It does mention "Abraham who at/upon..." but then the text is broken.  It does NOT say couch.  Any uses of "couch" in a translation of this section of the Leiden papyri would be a suggested reading as there is nothing there to actually read... as such... when Muhlestein claims, "the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch", that claim is in error.

 

If Muhlestein wants to suggest "couch" as what word would be there if we had the text, he can, and tell us why he suggests that reading.  But the "text" definitely does not note it as the reading.

 

And if Muhlestein want to place Abraham on the altar to provide evidence that Egyptians viewed Abraham as a parallel for Osiris, then he should probably NOT include Gee's Ensign article in the footnotes, because Gee say in that article that the person on the altar is a woman.

 

Hopefully this has made clear what I find to be in error in Kerry Muhlestein's Maxwell Institute paper.

 

In my immedaite reply to you in post #2, I said:

 

Hi Brian,

Despite your consternation, bear in mind that this "recent" article has been in the pipeline for awhile.  Not only does it take a long time to proofread, edit, and typeset such articles (aside from peer review), but Muhlestein announced in footnote three that this is merely a version of another article published last year (and no doubt edited for 2011):

 

Kerry Muhlestein, "Abraham, Isaac, and Osiris-Michael: The Use of Biblical Figures in Egyptian Religion," in Galina A. Belova, ed., Proceedings of Achievements and Problems of Modern Egyptology (Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012), 246–259.

 

A fuller context is important too:

 

. . . it is not entirely clear why Abraham became associated with Osiris. Again, the pattern is not strong, but it exists. It is curious to note that in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man—a parable that has a number of parallels with an earlier Egyptian tale known as the Setna II story—in the place Osiris would have occupied in an Egyptian context, Jesus instead mentions Abraham.⁶² This may indicate that the parallel was first conceived of in Jewish thought, though we cannot be sure.

In any case, there are enough instances in which Abraham appears in contexts normally occupied by Osiris that we must conclude the Egyptians saw some sort of connection between the two. John Gee has pointed out one of the strongest associations, noting that in a number of instances the phrase "live in the presence of Osris" was replaced in Greek by "rest in Abraham's bosom." ⁶³

Similarly, in a drawing that accompanies a text for a love charm,⁶⁴ the text specifically notes that the drawing is associated with the spell. The vignette depicts a mummiform figure on a lion couch. Here we would typically expect to identify the figure with Osiris, but the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch.⁶⁵ All these instances occur within an Egyptian religious context, making it clear that for whatever reason, the Egyptians viewed Abraham as an appropriate parallel for Osiris—if not the most appropriate parallel.

In summary, biblical figures were used by Egyptians in basically the same manner that Egyptian figures were used. As with Egyptian characters, when a particular story highlighted a desirable attribute, Egyptians sought to identify themselves with the figure in that story in order to garner that attribute to themselves.⁶⁶

I  might have phrased it differently at various points (to emphasize Jewish use of Egyptian iconography), but his general argument is valid.

Of course you are solely interested in whether one can say that Abraham is on the couch in one illustration.  In context, he does have a case -- based on what we actually have in the text and the usual manner of labeling -- but there are other scholars who disagree.  And we have been over all that before on this board.  Similar problems are faced in the very diverse interpretations of many fragmentary Dead Sea Scroll texts, and the debate sometimes becomes heated.  This is nothing new.

foster then responded, and I replied:

 

foster, on 31 Aug 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

Robert how does the context help? How does context help when a statement based on sourced material is completely in error of the sourced material?

Perhaps you could explain to us, foster, what that complete error is.  If a footnote is in error, by all means provide the correction.  If it is merely a matter of interpretation, please give your sound reasons why.  That's what scholars do.  They don't make generic and unsupported assertions.

 

See the discussion at http://www.mormondia...n-theory-fac-3/ .

foster didn't go along with that, so I gave further detail:

 

If a scholar were looking at footnote 65, he would see the following:  

 

65. PDM XII, 140, as in Betz, Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, 171. See also John Gee, "References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts," Insights 11/5 (1991): 1, 3; and John Gee, "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign, July 1992, 60.

 

Then he would check each (not simply one) to see whether they supported the claim in the text, which is "the text specifically notes that the drawing is associated with the spell. The vignette depicts a mummiform figure on a lion couch. Here we would typically expect to identify the figure with Osiris, but the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch.^65"

 

Finally, if the citations do not justify the text, he would call the author on it.  I note that you did not bother to do this.

 

Meantime, foster, you might want to view Pedro Olavarria's earlier comments on this, in which he cites an actual translation of Leiden I 384,

 

... AIDIO ORICH THAMBITO, Abraham who at [ho epi “who upon”?]... PLANOIEGCHIBIOTH bind them and the whole soul for her, NN [whom NN bore]... the female body of her, NN [whom NN bore], I conjure by the... [and] to inflame her, NN whom [NN bore] [Write these] words together with this picture [the lion couch vignette] on a new papyrus.

 

Pedro offered this April 6, 2007, on this board at 

My preference would be to go no further than to offer "Abraham upon his [couch]," along with the rest of the text, but perhaps with Steve Thompson's suggested reading of another part of this text.  Scholars frequently suggest readings in brackets where the text is absent.

 

So, foster, I am still waiting for you to explain to us what that complete error is.  If a footnote is in error, by all means provide the correction.  If it is merely a matter of interpretation, please give your sound reasons why.

And foster is still intransigent on the matter, perhaps imagining that I am trying to trick him, or something.

So, for both of you, please read footnote 65, which is what Muhlestein provides as citation for the claim (as I have spelled it out above) that Abraham is upon his couch.  As I have already said, I would have preferred that someone making those suppositions follow accepted norms and translate as "Abraham upon the [couch]," or the like.  If you are not familiar with translating ancient Near Eastern texts, you might not understand why that sort of thing is done, so I would urge that you become acquainted with such texts in translation and the way scholars present them (say in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts).  Then come back and rail at Muhlestein with a more appropriate critique.  Meantime, please try to note that he cites three sources in footnote 65.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[foster]

Robert is one of the 3 cites in footnote 65 to a July 1992 Ensign Article? Does Gee in the July 1992 Ensign state that a woman is on the couch.

The answer to both questions is Yes.

Edited September 2, 2013 by foster

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert is one of the 3 cites in footnote 65 to a July 1992 Ensign Article? Does Gee in the July 1992 Ensign state that a woman is on the couch.

The answer to both questions is Yes.

You'll note that the footnote says: "65. PDM XII, 140, as in Betz, Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, 171. See also John Gee, "References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts," Insights 11/5 (1991): 1, 3; and John Gee, "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign, July 1992, 60."

 

In other words, Muhlestein is using PDM as in Betz as his primary reference and the one to justify his argument.  When he says "See also," that signals that you might also want to take a look at the two additional or extra references (for other information).  No scholar ever takes a citation following a "see also" as justifying the remarks in the article.  I think that it is certainly worth mentioning that Gee (and whoever else) says a woman is featured on the couch, and you might want to mention it as detracting from Muhlestein's case, but your claim of "error" is clearly false.  Moreover, since Egyptian scribes and illustrators frequently prepared material for illiterate customers, it frequently didn't matter to them whether a scene or text was actually applicable to the specific customer.  Thus, lack of gender concord in grammar or in illustrations is a problem familiar to Egyptologists and papyrologists.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Brian 2.0]

So, for both of you, please read footnote 65, which is what Muhlestein provides as citation for the claim (as I have spelled it out above) that Abraham is upon his couch.

And as I have said in my latest post. I have read ALL THREE of the references in the footnote. And as I have said, none of them indicate that the text notes is it Abraham upon the couch. "couch" is a suggested reading, because there is no text after "Abraham who at/upon..." there is simply nothing there. So what follows could theoretically be anything. Placing the word "couch" there, and as such placing Abraham on the couch, is what Muhelstein is doing, not the text.

As I have already said, I would have preferred that someone making those suppositions follow accepted norms and translate as "Abraham upon the [couch]," or the like.

So we agree, then. It should be made clear in the paper that "couch" is a suggested reading and not found in the text.

If you are not familiar with translating ancient Near Eastern texts, you might not understand why that sort of thing is done, so I would urge that you become acquainted with such texts in translation and the way scholars present them (say in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts).

My apologies for not having a Phd, I know it must be hard to talk to me sometimes. Though I'm not sure why you feel the need to tell me to become more acquainted with translation and the way scholars present them seeing that we both agree that Muhlestein is NOT presenting the section we are discussing correctly. Perhaps it is Muhlestein that needs to get aquatinted with the book you recommended.

Then come back and rail at Muhlestein with a more appropriate critique.

I would love to also know what a more appropriate critique would be. I have laid out the text in question, provided links, and shown my objections without getting personal.

Meantime, please try to note that he cites three sources in footnote 65.

As I have said, I have read all three. And as you have pointed out, if Betz is the primary reference then that citation does not justify the claim Muhleatein is making as the Betz translation of that part simply says, "Abraham who at..." with no mention of "couch", no suggested reading of "couch".

You can actually see this section of the Betz translation at the following link.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[foster]

You'll note that the footnote says: "65. PDM XII, 140, as in Betz, Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, 171. See also John Gee, "References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts," Insights 11/5 (1991): 1, 3; and John Gee, "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign, July 1992, 60."

 

In other words, Muhlestein is using PDM as in Betz as his primary reference and the one to justify his argument.  When he says "See also," that signals that you might also want to take a look at the two additional or extra references (for other information).  No scholar ever takes a citation following a "see also" as justifying the remarks in the article.  I think that it is certainly worth mentioning that Gee (and whoever else) says a woman is featured on the couch, and you might want to mention it as detracting from Muhlestein's case, but your claim of "error" is clearly false.

 

Did you contradict yourself?

 

Additionally,

 

If Muhlestein is using to John Gee, "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign, July 1992, 60." to justify (your word) the position that Abraham is on a couch, then Absolutely my claim of error is correct.

 

John Gee, "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign, July 1992, 60." is a woman on a couch.

Edited September 2, 2013 by foster