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

[Brian 2.0]

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.

 

Like foster, I am confused as how the additional context you provided changes the objection I outlined in the original post.  

 

I don't see how he has a case "based on what we actually have in the text" because in the text we actually don't have "couch" as I outlined above.

 

Also, I'm not sure what you are getting at with the "usual manner of labeling" or how that can change the error I have outlined in my OP.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

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

We do agree.

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

In your OP, it might have been more appropriate to simply say that he should have put "couch" in brackets, as is common practice.  He has the same right as any other Egyptologist to provide a suggested reading, and you have a perfect right to disagree.  No need for a PhD.  I just wish that foster had your good manners.

 

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.

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.

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".

[couch] should have been brackets.  That is the more appropriate critique.

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

Thanks, Brain.

Betz is very experienced and reliable.  I remember him as a scholar from over 40 years ago at the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at the Claremont Graduate School.  However, he is the editor, and Janet Johnson is the actual translator of this particular item.

[Robert F. Smith]

Like foster, I am confused as how the additional context you provided changes the objection I outlined in the original post.  

 

I don't see how he has a case "based on what we actually have in the text" because in the text we actually don't have "couch" as I outlined above.

 

Also, I'm not sure what you are getting at with the "usual manner of labeling" or how that can change the error I have outlined in my OP.

We have been over this ground before, so I don't see anything new here, and I don't understand why there would be any confusion.  It is not my or your place to ignore context, even if it seems otiose and valueless.  One acknowledges it in any case.  How we assess it is an entirely different matter.  I don't dispute that the word "couch" is absent, and you already know that.  You also know that Muhlestein himself agreed in our previous discussion that he had gone too far in making that off-the-cuff remark.  You and I might have insisted during videotaping that he at least say that "couch" is a suggestion based on the following reasons, and then he could outline the reasons why he thinks it fits in brackets.  You and I are not required to agree with him, and it is not a crime for him to assert that that is a reasonable conjectural reading.  Scholars make conjectural readings all the time.  We only hope that they have a sound basis for it when they do it.  Right?

 

Hopefully, when you call him on it, the full context will be discussed, including the immediate presence of a lion couch, the actual language accompanying the illustration, etc., along with the usual functions of lion couches, and the actual place of Osiris in Egyptian religion.  All these areas were neglected as the rush to judgment went forward.

 

Finally, before laying on a charge of error or worse, I find it a good idea to give the poor guy a break.  Benefit of the doubt.  Crying foul over a piece which has been in the pipeline for awhile seems foul in itself.  Mind you, the editors and peer reviewers should have done a better job, but one cannot know everything.  All we can do is try.  Mormons should not be singled out for especially harsh treatment.

[foster]

Robert do dispute that reference John Gee, "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign, July 1992, 60. is a reference to "a woman" on the couch and not Abraham?

[Brian 2.0]

Finally, before laying on a charge of error or worse, I find it a good idea to give the poor guy a break.  Benefit of the doubt.  Crying foul over a piece which has been in the pipeline for awhile seems foul in itself.  Mind you, the editors and peer reviewers should have done a better job, but one cannot know everything.  All we can do is try.  Mormons should not be singled out for especially harsh treatment.

 

I am not trying to single out Mormons for harsh treatment.  I only started this thread because Kerry Muhlestein has made this specific error multiple times.  In fact, I have not seen an instance in his work where he talks about the Leiden Papryi and does NOT make this same error (there may be some that I haven't found yet).  I am not trying to berate Kerry or his family.  I am responding to what I see as a specific continual error in his published academic and apologetic work.  I don't see a "give the poor guy a break" attitude with someone like Grant Palmer or another critic does the same.  And the fact that this error has been repeated by him so often is why I'm not giving him the "benefit of the doubt."

 

In all the instances I have found he does not indicate that "couch" is suggested or that the text is damaged after "Abraham whom at/upon.."  He is NOT saying that is it his professional opinion that "couch" follows and as such it is Abraham upon the lion couch in the drawing.  In fact, he often specifically mentions that it is the "text" or the "Egyptians themselves" that make this connection.

 

There are 5 instances of this specific error I have come across by Muhlestein:

 

1. 

The Maxwell Article which I reference in the OP:  ”The Religious and Cultural Background of Joseph Smith Papyrus I” Kerry Muhlestein.  Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture: Volume - 22, Issue - 1, Pages: 20–33  Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2013

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

 

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.

 

2.

The FAIR DVD from the previous thread.  "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, 2011 (at approx min 25 of video) 

In there is a lion couch scene. It's actually part of a love charm. And the text says--it's got a picture of a man on a lion couch--and the text says, 'This--err, Abraham upon his couch.

 

3. 

"Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham -- A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, Robert L. Millett, ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 217-241 (emphasis added).

Moreover, it is worth noting that we have found a papyrus depicting a person on a lion couch whom the Egyptians labeled as Abraham.[51] Here we see that the Egyptians themselves associated the scene with Abraham. 

 

[51] See John Gee, "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, July 1992, 60–62; and John Gee, “References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts,” Insights: An Ancient Window (September 1991): 1, 3 (emphasis added).

 

4.

“The Three Facsimile Translations Wrong? Book of Abraham Challenge 3” (posted Feb. 18, 2013), 0:28-0:53, .

Let me tell you one of the more fascinating things that we’ve found. We’ve found that the ancient Egyptians themselves have associated Abraham with this kind of scene. We have a drawing of a person on a lion couch—the kind of altar that Abraham is on in Facsimile 1—but they say, specifically, that the person on this couch is Abraham. So the ancient Egyptian themselves associate Abraham with this kind of scene, which is what Joseph Smith ends up doing.

 

5.

"Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham," in The Religious Educator 11/1 (2010): 90-106 (emphasis added).

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] This confirms that Egyptians sometimes associated a figure on a lion couch with Abraham.[45] 

 

[44] John Gee, “References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts,” Insights (September 1991): 1, 3; Rhodes, “Joseph Smith Hypocephalus”; John Gee, “Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, July 1992, 60–62.

[45] See Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob,” 29.

 

(credit to "Tom" over at the other board for pulling some of these reference in a similar discussion over there)

 

 

 

Now all of those were probably published or in the pipeline before his email that was posted on a previous thread were Muhlestein said “I may have misspoken a little” in regards to #2 above.

 

But Muhlestein also said in that email:

I usually try to make it clear that this last word is an assumption, but I may not have in that video.

 

I started this thread because I have not found an article or video where he has "made it clear" that the last word is his assumption.  And I thought this Maxwell Article may have come after his email.  Perhaps this is all one error that has simply been repeated as he has reused work from his previous papers.

 

Either way... hopefully if Kerry Muhlestein uses the Leiden Papryi in his future work he will not make this error again.

 

I would hope he would follow in the footsteps of those like Michael Rhodes, as Rhodes definitely does "make it clear".

"In an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating to roughly the first or second century a.d., there is a lion-couch scene similar to the one shown in facsimile 1. Underneath the illustration, the text reads 'Abraham, who upon. . . .'[9] There is a break in the text here, so we do not know what word followed. The key point, however, is that an ancient Egyptian document, from approximately the same time period as the papyri Joseph Smith had in his possession, associated Abraham with a lion-couch scene." 

 

[9] Janet H. Johnson, “The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384,” in Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden to Leiden 56 (1975), column 8, line 6.

 

And also note... even though I obviously take exception to this portion and other portions of Muhlestein's work, I hold no personal vendetta towards him and if I was visiting back at my own alma mater BYU, I would gladly like to share a lunch of Cafe Rio, Hire's Big H, or 5 Buck Pizza with him.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not trying to single out Mormons for harsh treatment.  I only started this thread because Kerry Muhlestein has made this specific error multiple times.  In fact, I have not seen an instance in his work where he talks about the Leiden Papryi and does NOT make this same error (there may be some that I haven't found yet).  I am not trying to berate Kerry or his family.  I am responding to what I see as a specific continual error in his published academic and apologetic work.  I don't see a "give the poor guy a break" attitude with someone like Grant Palmer or another critic does the same.  And the fact that this error has been repeated by him so often is why I'm not giving him the "benefit of the doubt."

 

In all the instances I have found he does not indicate that "couch" is suggested or that the text is damaged after "Abraham whom at/upon.."  He is NOT saying that is it his professional opinion that "couch" follows and as such it is Abraham upon the lion couch in the drawing.  In fact, he often specifically mentions that it is the "text" or the "Egyptians themselves" that make this connection.

 

There are 5 instances of this specific error I have come across by Muhlestein:

 

1. 

The Maxwell Article which I reference in the OP:  ”The Religious and Cultural Background of Joseph Smith Papyrus I” Kerry Muhlestein.  Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture: Volume - 22, Issue - 1, Pages: 20–33  Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2013

 

2.

The FAIR DVD from the previous thread.  "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, 2011 (at approx min 25 of video) 

 

3. 

"Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham -- A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, Robert L. Millett, ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 217-241 (emphasis added).

 

4.

“The Three Facsimile Translations Wrong? Book of Abraham Challenge 3” (posted Feb. 18, 2013), 0:28-0:53, .

 

5.

"Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham," in The Religious Educator 11/1 (2010): 90-106 (emphasis added).

 

(credit to "Tom" over at the other board for pulling some of these reference in a similar discussion over there)

 

 

 

Now all of those were probably published or in the pipeline before his email that was posted on a previous thread were Muhlestein said “I may have misspoken a little” in regards to #2 above.

 

But Muhlestein also said in that email:

 

I started this thread because I have not found an article or video where he has "made it clear" that the last word is his assumption.  And I thought this Maxwell Article may have come after his email.  Perhaps this is all one error that has simply been repeated as he has reused work from his previous papers.

 

Either way... hopefully if Kerry Muhlestein uses the Leiden Papryi in his future work he will not make this error again.

 

I would hope he would follow in the footsteps of those like Michael Rhodes, as Rhodes definitely does "make it clear".

 

And also note... even though I obviously take exception to this portion and other portions of Muhlestein's work, I hold no personal vendetta towards him and if I was visiting back at my own alma mater BYU, I would gladly like to share a lunch of Cafe Rio, Hire's Big H, or 5 Buck Pizza with him.

I love Cafe Rio, Brian, so next time you're in town I'll pick up the tab for us there -- whether Muhlestein is there or not.

Thank "Tom" for gathering that listing.  He has done us all (and Muhlestein) a real service.  And thank you for presenting it in a coherent and meaningful way.  I see nothing at all wrong with this approach, although your example of Grant Palmer does raise some questions about just how accepting of such criticism he is.  After all, detailed critiques of his book were published, and, as my Mother used to say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."  We could all be a little more cautious and self-critical, and certainly more accepting of valid criticism.  That is one of the purposes of this Board.

[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*. 

*emphasis mine,

 

 

Did you contradict yourself?

 

Edited September 4, 2013 by foster

[phaedrus ut]

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.

 

 

It's strange nobody commented on LDS Egyptologist Stephen Thompson showing up in this thread.  I hope this means he may choose to participate in these more often.

[livy111us]

Muhlestein released a few more videos, some in response to recent accusations.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oTKT-GNd0c

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VIY6IfTZkw&feature=youtu.be

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB82s--4uOc

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uch4TDnu6M

Edited October 30, 2013 by livy111us

[helix]

Video #2 has a bug.  It just loops and gets stuck around 1:32. 

[livy111us]

Video #2 has a bug.  It just loops and gets stuck around 1:32. 

fixed

[Darren10]

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

 

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.

 

I gues if Pharaoh ever said, "I love you", that person ought to watch his/her back big time.