My Paper On The Book Of Abraham Criticisms And Defenses - Please Review!

[Kevin Christensen]

My paper: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20Criticisms%20Defenses%20and%20Implications.pdf

I have found the Book of Abraham criticisms and defenses to be relatively complex and difficult to understand without visual aids. To solve these problems, I put together my own paper on the Book of Abraham. It includes 37 visual aids, and covers 6 main topics:

1. The Papyri's Age Proves That it Cannot Contain Abraham's Writing as Joseph Claimed

2. Joseph's Translation of the Facsimiles was Incorrect

3. The Church Proposes New Theories to Defend the Book of Abraham

4. The Missing Papyrus Theory Fails

5. The Catalyst Theory Fails

6. The Church Has Revised History in an Attempt to Minimize the Devastating Implications of the Book of Abraham

I would love your thoughts on my paper. What could I do to make it better? Did I get anything wrong? Any and all criticism is welcome!

Did you get anything wrong?  Yes.  For instance, in the Introduction, third paragraph, you have this, insinuating sinister suppression of damning evidence.

 

"One might wonder, then, why the church doesn't shout from the rooftops that it has the papyri

– the source of the Book of Abraham – and Joseph‘s translations of them which prove that Joseph had the prophetic

gift of translation."

 

I would expect that one who adopts the name "truthseeker" would mention the January 1968 publication of photographs of the recovered papyri in the Improvement Era, something the Metropolitan Museum could have done at any time during the sixty or so years they had them.  The church managed to get it all out there very quickly, even without the aid of desktop publishing tools.

 

https://archive.org/details/improvementera7101unse

 

And Nibley's 1975 publication from Deseret Book,  The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyrii: An Egyptian Endowment, more recently republished in an expanded edition.  And the FARMS Publication called The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary.

 

I rather think these publications demonstrate that the church has not hidden away the papyrii nor shied away from putting out translations of their contents.  Don't you think that formal publication of photographs and translation is a better way of getting the word out than shouting from a rooftop?

 

Given what I have previously read about the Book of Abraham and ongoing debates since 1975 when I personally started taking an interest, compared to what I see in the paper, I have to agree with Volgadon. 

 

Almost nothing of the really interesting material about the Book of Abraham makes it here.  It's the usual dismissals, a selective slice focused on one side of the debates. The business of wings versus fingers, for instance, has been settled on evidence that did not make it here. The seeking that produced this strikes me as rather selective relative to "knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come."  No Will Schryver or Don Bradley, for instance.  No Kevin Barney.  No Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham.  No One Eternal Round.  No Hamlet's Mill.

 

And incidentally, there are at least 28 Biblical tests for true and false prophets.   Omniscience and popular acceptance and agreement by secular scholars are not on the list.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited November 20, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Robert F. Smith]

Can you point us to any non-LDS Egyptologists who agree with this?  Perhaps one that agrees with Joseph's interpretation of Facsimile 3?

See my post #50 on this thread.

[volgadon]

 

Given what I have previously read about the Book of Abraham and ongoing debates since 1975 when I personally started taking an interest, compared to what I see in the paper, I have to agree with Volgadon. 

 

 

 

The paper makes for a very convenient digest of anti-Mormon arguments regarding the BoA, so that is perhaps its only redeeming feature.

[CA Steve]

Lanny Bell, "The Ancient Egyptian 'Books of Breathing,' the Mormon 'Book of Abraham,' and the Development of Egyptology in America," in Egypt and Beyond: Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology, ed. Stephen E. Thompson and Peter Der Manuelian (Providence, RI: Brown University, 2008), 21-39 insists that the figure on the lion couch has two hands up in the air and that there is not a second bird.

 

I'm going to assume that most here would agree that Bell's careful, professional analysis carries more weight than your guess. 

 

In the above quoted article Bell presents a suggested reconstruction of facsimile#1 as a reanimation scene. (See pg 30)  If we accept Bell's professional analysis that both hands were raised above the face don't we also have to accept his reason why both hands were there?

 

"In general the raising of a hand to the head/face represents another aspect of the stirring or stretching of Osiris during the reawakening, here the gesture with two hands might be related specifically to reaching up to embrace the returning ba." (pg 28)

[Robert F. Smith]

In the above quoted article Bell presents a suggested reconstruction of facsimile#1 as a reanimation scene. (See pg 30)  If we accept Bell's professional analysis that both hands were raised above the face don't we also have to accept his reason why both hands were there?

 

"In general the raising of a hand to the head/face represents another aspect of the stirring or stretching of Osiris during the reawakening, here the gesture with two hands might be related specifically to reaching up to embrace the returning ba." (pg 28)

Excellent point, Steve, except of course that we are dealing with an illustration accompanying a Sensen text which is apparently selected by the Jewish scribe who is passing on the Book of Abraham material, and who wants to  provide some sort of iconotropic-symbolic reference -- not that it is identical with the illustration actually used by Abraham 2,000 years earlier.  Lion couch scenes are widely used and vary greatly in specifics, and even foreigners used them, as in this Aramaic lion couch:

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh, the irony!

There is no irony. I am the one not claiming something is not valid because it came from the wrong source.

[AndyDnom]

Wouldn't we all agree that the recent changes from LDS HQ to the standard works shows that they are trying to distance themselves from the Book of Abraham?

[omni]

Your statements here are incorrect, omni.

It would be nice if you could find any non-Mormon Egyptologist who has bothered to take a close look and tic them off one by one according to standard Egyptology. None have, and that is the primary problem here.  What has been done (by me and others) is to go over them one-by-one according to the identifications given by standard Egyptology (when not examining the Joseph Smith Papyri, but other papyri and inscriptions), and the result is always that the majority of identifications given by Joseph are correct.  I provide some of this in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham , wherein I cite primarily non-Mormon Egyptologists (and other non-Mormon scholars).

I would suggest Dr Gee's former mentor Dr Robert Ritner for starters.

[drums12]

Wouldn't we all agree that the recent changes from LDS HQ to the standard works shows that they are trying to distance themselves from the Book of Abraham?

 

No. 

[Brian 2.0]

How can those who are unwilling to put faith in the witness of the Holy Ghost put unwavering faith in the "scholarship" of man?  This isn't meant as an attack on Truthseeker.  I honestly think critics and defenders put too much stock in academia.  Just my two cents.

 

Do critics have "unwavering faith" in scholarship?  I think people are just looking at the evidences for and against something and making a decision based on what they think is the probable answer.  I think most agree that scholars can be wrong or mistaken and will listen to criticisms of that scholars work.  Critics don't view witnesses of the Holy Ghost as reliable evidence so they don't take that into account when weighing the evidence.  

 

You have to put stock in something as you try to make a decision, and for people that do not believe in the witness of the Holy Ghost, what else are they to put stock in besides scholarship when trying to answer these questions?

[Robert F. Smith]

Wouldn't we all agree that the recent changes from LDS HQ to the standard works shows that they are trying to distance themselves from the Book of Abraham?

No.  There have been no changes to the Mormon Canon in the 2013 edition.  Some people have commented that some introductory material has been changed, but that is not part of the official Canon, and is innocuous in any case.  Changes in the introductions and addenda have occurred many times over the years, and the LDS Church has made clear in such cases that the material is merely added as a help to understanding.

[Robert F. Smith]

I would suggest Dr Gee's former mentor Dr Robert Ritner for starters.

So you are saying that Ritner went through the facsimiles point by point and compared Joseph's identifications with those of standard Egyptology?  By the way, his book on The Joseph Smith Papyri is now out in paperback from Signature Books (2013).

 

Where Ritner and his colleagues (in that volume) do stick to standard scholarship, I have no problem with their work.  However, they so frequently engage in the creation of straw men so as to be easily demolished by them that I question whether they actually have a strong commitment to standard scholarship.  Their work appears to be more of a hatchet-job than a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence -- on the order of the kangaroo court organized by the Episcopal Bishop of Utah and published in 1912.

[Robert F. Smith]

Do critics have "unwavering faith" in scholarship?  I think people are just looking at the evidences for and against something and making a decision based on what they think is the probable answer.  I think most agree that scholars can be wrong or mistaken and will listen to criticisms of that scholars work.  Critics don't view witnesses of the Holy Ghost as reliable evidence so they don't take that into account when weighing the evidence.  

 

You have to put stock in something as you try to make a decision, and for people that do not believe in the witness of the Holy Ghost, what else are they to put stock in besides scholarship when trying to answer these questions?

All excellent points, Brian, although you might want to mention that religiously oriented critics would no doubt put some stock in the witness of the Spirit.

 

As to your final, rhetorical question:  If we are to depend on scholarship for our answers (and I see nothing wrong with that), upon whose version of scholarship are we to depend?  It isn't as though there is unanimity among scholars -- even within the same discipline.  Following high level debates is sometimes quite technical and difficult, requiring that the issues be popularized and made accessible.  What is an ordinary person to do when faced with mutually irreconcilable intellectual arguments?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

Excellent point, Steve, except of course that we are dealing with an illustration accompanying a Sensen text which is apparently selected by the Jewish scribe who is passing on the Book of Abraham material, and who wants to  provide some sort of iconotropic-symbolic reference -- not that it is identical with the illustration actually used by Abraham 2,000 years earlier.  Lion couch scenes are widely used and vary greatly in specifics, and even foreigners used them, as in this Aramaic lion couch:

So are you saying the scene was more illustration---telling a story in a literal way---than a symbolic portrayal of ritual? (not sure this is clear, but I mean is the symbolic meaning of the attributes more important than the literal...do we look at what the legs off the table symbolically mean (is there some hidden wisdom being taught) or do we look at it as legs off the table and what that might mean if we saw it happening (perhaps a struggle taking place).

[omni]

So you are saying that Ritner went through the facsimiles point by point and compared Joseph's identifications with those of standard Egyptology?  By the way, his book on The Joseph Smith Papyri is now out in paperback from Signature Books (2013).

 

 

Is a 304 page book on the subject not extensive enough?  

 

Where Ritner and his colleagues (in that volume) do stick to standard scholarship, I have no problem with their work.  However, they so frequently engage in the creation of straw men so as to be easily demolished by them that I question whether they actually have a strong commitment to standard scholarship.  Their work appears to be more of a hatchet-job than a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence -- on the order of the kangaroo court organized by the Episcopal Bishop of Utah and published in 1912.

 

 

This is a link to his professional biography.  Ritner is a professor at the University of Chicago who has written numerous published articles in the field of Egyptology and is a recipient of Yale University's Morse Fellowship for Scholarly Research Award.  Does this sound like someone who doesn't have a "strong commitment to standard scholarship" or who would author a hatchet-job?

Edited November 21, 2013 by omni

[Robert F. Smith]

Is a 304 page book on the subject not extensive enough?

The number of pages in a volume does not equal a systematic point-by-point comparison with standard Egyptology, aside from the fact that 3 other authors also contributed to the book.  

 

This is a link to his professional biography.  Ritner is a professor at the University of Chicago who has written numerous published articles in the field of Egyptology and is a recipient of Yale University's Morse Fellowship for Scholarly Research Award.  Does this sound like someone who doesn't have a "strong commitment to standard scholarship" or who would author a hatchet-job?

I am fully familiar with Ritner's qualifications. I attended a lecture by Ritner at UCLA some years ago, I greatly enjoyed it, and purchased a copy of his dissertation at that time. He was presenting standard Egyptology then and there. The agenda and tone of his book is obviously not so high-minded. I'm saddened that he allowed anger and spitefulness to intrude on what should have been a work of true scholarship.

[Robert F. Smith]

So are you saying the scene was more illustration---telling a story in a literal way---than a symbolic portrayal of ritual?

Just the opposite.

(not sure this is clear, but I mean is the symbolic meaning of the attributes more important than the literal...do we look at what the legs off the table symbolically mean (is there some hidden wisdom being taught) or do we look at it as legs off the table and what that might mean if we saw it happening (perhaps a struggle taking place).

Not sure what you mean here.

[Calm]

.Not sure what you mean here.

that the hands raised by the face are just hands raised and not symbolic of reaching out to grasp the ba.

I guess what I am saying is that a physical struggle is being portrayed and not a spiritual or emotional one...does that make more sense?

[Robert F. Smith]

that the hands raised by the face are just hands raised and not symbolic of reaching out to grasp the ba.

I guess what I am saying is that a physical struggle is being portrayed and not a spiritual or emotional one...does that make more sense?

Put yourself in the shoes of the Jewish scribe who is transmitting the text:

 

He would have no problem with interpreting the BЗ-bird in Fac. 1:1 as iconotropic for the Angel of His Presence (Hebrew mal’ak panaw) in Abr 1:15, and it is very clear that the two hands reaching up can be seen as Abraham reaching up in supplication.  It is highly ritualized and archetypal in nature, so that a differing set of symbols on a Mesopotamian cylinder seal could do the same job.  I recommend a read of William Hamblin, “Iconotropy and the JS Abraham Facsimiles,” Mormon Scripture Explorations, April 7, 2013, online at http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/iconotropy-and-the-js-abraham-facsimiles/  .

 

The thing to take special note of here is that not only does the Angel of His Presence turns the tables by replacing the counterfeit with the real thing, e.g., instead of describing the bird of Fac 1:1, as Horus or Isis (or her Canaanite equivalent, Tannit-Pane-Baʿal, “The Radiance of the Presence/Face of Baal”*), but as the Angel of the Presence of the Almighty (1:15).  The passage even contains the elements of a brilliant paronomasia, in which ʿAnat-Pane-Baʿal “Wrath of Baal” (literally “Turning of the Face of Baal”**) is converted to the wrath of Jehovah in what is certainly the most violent scene in the book (1:20).

 

*  Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 112-113.  How odd that Joseph Smith should use the same word that the scholars use in this instance: “presence,” as the correct translation of Canaanite-Hebrew panim, “face, presence,” pene- “face of” (Genesis 3:8, 4:16, Num 20:6, Psalms 68:28, 97:5, Jeremiah 4:26, Zephaniah 1:7, I Chronicles 16:33).  Cf. Akkadian panu “face,” as in lapani “before, in presence of” (Tawil, Akkadian Lexical Companion, 191).  The closest exact parallel text here is Isaiah 63:9, mal’ak panaw “angel of his presence,” which saved Israel of the Exodus.

**  Albright, YGC, 117.

[Helen47]

Robert do you think the original BOA papyri is  still missing?

[cdowis]

This is a link to his professional biography.  Ritner is a professor at the University of Chicago who has written numerous published articles in the field of Egyptology and is a recipient of Yale University's Morse Fellowship for Scholarly Research Award.  Does this sound like someone who doesn't have a "strong commitment to standard scholarship" or who would author a hatchet-job?

 

You really should familiarize yourself on Nibley's comments on "experts", and egyptologists in particular.  I will look around for a reference when I have time, but I suspect that you already know his opinions in that area.

Edited November 21, 2013 by cdowis

[CA Steve]

You really should familiarize yourself on Nibley's comments on "experts", and egyptologists in particular.  I will look around for a reference when I have time, but I suspect that you already know his opinions in that area.

 

I wonder what Kerry Muhlestein and John Gee think of Nibley's opinions on "egyptologist in particular"?

[cdowis]

As I remember, Nibley basically said that the egyptologists had no clue what they were talking about, but that did not prevent them from pontificating, especially regarding the Book of Abraham.

[DBMormon]

I enjoyed reading the paper and felt it did a nice job summarizing the critical argument.  Any chance we can get a one place, one stop answer to the faithful point of view rather then 17 links to various articles?

[TruthSeeker2013]

"by the hand of Abraham"

 

Joseph Smith assumed that this papyrus was an autograph, but was mistaken.  Similar to his understanding of BOM geography, as a translator, he can make mistakes and false assumptions on how to interpret the text.

 

I'm willing to allow Joseph to make mistakes. But doesn't  that then bring into question everything else he produced? In other words. If he got THAT wrong, how do we know the other stuff he got right? I'm sincerely curious as to how you reconcile this.