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

[TruthSeeker2013]

Interesting. This prompts a couple of initial questions intended to test your conclusions:

 

1. Do you have pictures showing where the 23 characters of EA Part 1 (which are the first 23 characters on the first page of the EA's) show up in Facsimili 1 fragment? I am particularly interested in the 7th character.

 

2. Do you have pictures showing where the first 13 characters of EA Part 2 (or characters 24 thru 36 on the first page of the EA's) show up in Facsimili 1 fragment? I am particularly interested in the 4th thru 9th characters of EA Part 2 (or the characters 27 thru 32 on the first page of the EA's).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not sure which of the EAs you're referring to, but if you look at pages 42 and 43 of my paper you can see how the Joseph Smith/Oliver Cowdery EA matches up with the Facsimile 1 fragment hieroglyphics and I explain it in more depth there as well.

[wenglund]

I'm not sure which of the EAs you're referring to, but if you look at pages 42 and 43 of my paper you can see how the Joseph Smith/Oliver Cowdery EA matches up with the Facsimile 1 fragment hieroglyphics and I explain it in more depth there as well.

 

The characters that I referred to in my questions are the same for each of the EA's (not to be confused with the GAEL). So, it shouldn't matter. I am aware that many of the characters on subsequent pages of the EA's match up with Facsimili 1, but my interest is primarily with the characters on the first page. My questions shouldn't be difficult to answer since they are yes/no.

 

[Edit: By the way, I checked pages 42 and 43 of your paper and could not find the specific characters I referenced.]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 22, 2013 by wenglund

[nealr]

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)

 

The 2 hands is an aspect of the scene that is currently unprecedented in other lion couch scenes. The single sentence you quote from Bell is his suggestion as to why there might have been two hands (and I emphasize the fact that he says might). He does not really know why there are two hands there. As such, I see no reason why we should be compelled to accept his conjecture. Other possibilities can, and probably should be explored. 

 

Now, I do think we are somewhat bound to accept his reasons for believing both hands are there, which is based on the evaluation of the remaining strokes, which he concludes are clearly figures. In the process, he cites Ashment (when he was still pro-Mormon), Gee, and Rhodes, and essentially agrees with them. So, his reasons for concluding that there are two hands are the same reasons Mormon scholars have concluded there are two hands. His interpretation of their purpose is, of course, different, but it is also considerably tentative.  

 

Then, of course, there is the question of who is interpreting the image. Is Joseph Smith's explanation of the image supposed represent a "typical" Egyptian interpretation (whatever that might be)? Or is it Judeoized Egyptian? How about an Egyptianized Jew? Or was it simply Joseph Smith's own interpretation? How one answers that question will have influence as to how one thinks the image should be interpreted. Bell obviously assumes a "typical" Egyptian interpretation. I prefer to see it as some sort of Egyptian priest who has syncretized Jewish stories and ideas into his own ritual beliefs and practices (there are good reasons for such views, which I will not delve into here). There are, of course, a number of other possibilities. 

[TruthSeeker2013]

The characters that I referred to in my questions are the same for each of the EA's (not to be confused with the GAEL). So, it shouldn't matter. I am aware that many of the characters on subsequent pages of the EA's match up with Facsimili 1, but my interest is primarily with the characters on the first page. My questions shouldn't be difficult to answer since they are yes/no.

[Edit: By the way, I checked pages 42 and 43 of your paper and could not find the specific characters I referenced.]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah, I see what you're referring to. That's correct, I do not know where the characters on the first two pages came from.

[volgadon]

Where are you getting this from? Do you have any evidence at all that "Jewish scribe(s)" ever recorded anything to correlate to the ideas you put forward in your following points?

 

 

There is. As one example, there is a Rabbinic statement explicitly identifying the iconography of Sarapis with Joseph the Patriarch, and that of Isis with Eve, the mother of all living.

 

Do you have any art work from ancient Hebrew sources that show hands raised in supplication? (Assuming, of course, that the filled in lacunae are correct?)

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

I was unable to verify that any of what you presented was anything other than pure conjecture.

So you are saying that my summary of the content of the Book of Abraham at 1:1-13, is "pure conjecture," and that any disinterested third party reading that text would disagee with me on its meaning?  This the first time I have ever heard such an assertion.  The English of the text is clear and easy to understand.  As I said:

 

"You could begin with the Book of Abraham itself in order to determine where the human sacrificial rites are taking place:  Long before he goes down to Egypt, in the land of the Chaldeans (Abr 1:1), Abram's pagan fathers were worshiping a variety of gods, whom he lists (1:5-7, noting the dual role for the priest of Elkenah, who also acted as priest of Pharaoh).  He then turns to the ecumenical setting for the sacrificial altar in the land of Chaldea (1: 8 ), on a hill at the head of a plain (1:10).  The altar itself is Chaldean, not Egyptian (1:13)"

 

You can't be serious about a section of text which is clear at 4th grade reading level.  It is very hard for me to believe that you seriously intend to pursue such a hard-edged negative approach.

 

I don't mean that as an insult and I apologize if it appears so. It is very easy to point out the logical fallacies that you employ to arrive at your "evidence". I could take just about ANY made up word and find a transliteration of it in the Hebraic language because of the nature of the language itself. If I then apply the endless degree of separation that do, I could also arrive as just about any interpretation that I chose. Of course, the name Elkenah is not a wholly "made up" name. A form of this name "Elkanah" appears in the bible multiple times and is a possible source in this case. Joseph was also studying Hebrew and knew that the root "El" of this name means God. He very well may have known that this word translated means "God has possessed" or "God has created". So is it more likely that the transliterations of this word that you refer to were actually speaking of the same God as who Joseph is here? Or did Joseph just steal this name from the bible? Regardless of how Joseph came to name the Gods in the facsimile, you must contend that all or most of the other scenes depicting these same 4 Gods have either been interpreted incorrectly, or that in this ONE instance, they actually depict 4 different Gods than what they commonly depict.

In other words, evidence isn't really evidence unless you wish it so.  On that basis, it is possible to discard anything which does not accord with your preconceived notions.  And then (worse) you want to have it both ways:  On the one hand, BofA Elkenah (we haven't even mentioned the variant readings in KEP) is merely a partially made up word, but at the same time stolen by Joseph from the Bible!!  After all, I presented to you the biblical source of Elkenah, and you are perhaps trying to cover your embarrassment at not only misunderstanding a simple English text, but misinterpreting it as well -- due to your lack of familiarity with the ancient Near East and with biblical archeology and languages.

Moreover, it was a Jewish professor at the University of Utah who wrote the first major article on the study of Hebrew in Kirtland by Joseph and his Brethren.  It was not some Mormon plot or conspiracy to deceive that motivated him to discuss the matter.  Yet if I mention the same sort of correlations with Hebrew which he drew, you immediately attack it as logically fallacious, or pure conjecture.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  That is not only unscholarly, but unfair as well.

If you knew anything about Hebrew or linguistics, you would know that it is not possible to "take just about ANY made up word and find a transliteration of it in the Hebraic language because of the nature of the language itself. If I then apply the endless degree of separation that do, I could also arrive as just about any interpretation that I chose."

That is just plain ridiculous, and is the same as saying that any Hebraic evidence is automatically false.  I have never heard a scholar make such an obviously false statement before.  You might want to rethink that.

And to arrive at this conclusion you say that a "jewish" scribe just used a common funerary scene to represent something other than an actual funerary scene IN A SET of common FUNERARY documents? This just doesn't make any sense in an unbiased view of these documents. If someone wants to hope against hope that your explanations might somehow be true, then that's their choice. But I find them wholly without merit.

You could only say this based on a complete lack of familiarity with the numerous Jewish papyri which have been found in Egypt.  You also evidently do not know that a huge Jewish population inhabited Egypt during the Greco-Roman period, and that the Jews had built and operated a fully functioning temple at Tell el-Yehudiyeh, Egypt, for several hundred years during that same era.  You doubtless also do not know of the earlier Jewish temple operated for centuries in Upper Egypt at Elephantine Island (where numerous Jewish papyri were also found).

 

Transmission of such texts in Egypt was by scribes copying and recopying them down through time.  Egyptian scribes did this for Egyptian literature, and Jewish scribes did that for Jewish literature -- including the biblical Hebrew text of the Bible along with the Greek text of the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible.  And we know for certain that there was borrowing of one culture from the other in each case.  No surprise.  Only someone with overwhelming bias would automatically discount this, which is a matter of accepted scholarship.

[wenglund]

Ah, I see what you're referring to. That's correct, I do not know where the characters on the first two pages came from.

 

Doesn't this seriously undermine your claims that: 1) "The first three EAs offer a translation of the hieroglyphics in the four columns of the Facsimile 1 fragment (Fig. 25)." and 2) "To reiterate, from the EAs we can tell that Smith finished translating the hieroglyphics from the Facsimile 1 fragment and moved on to the next part of the scroll – the Small Sensen"?

 

After all, of the 135 or so characters written in the EA's, only about 48 or so of them were given English explanations, of which 36 were on the first page (which you admit you don't know from whence they came). As for the other 12 explained characters, you indicate that two of them are from a different location than Facsimili 1 on the papyri, and the other 10 are atop page 2, most of which the origins of the characters are as much in question as those on page 1. Sorry.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 22, 2013 by wenglund

[nealr]

 

bcuzbcuz, on 18 Nov 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Only trouble is, the Egyptians didn't have any virgin sacrifice on altars.

 

 

LDS Egyptologist Stephen Thompson explains that religious persecution like that described in the BoA didn't take place anywhere in the world until 200BC.

 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N01_155.pdf

 

 

Are you paying attention to your own thread? See post #34 by Robert Smith. He provides an extensive bibliography on human sacrifice, including several papers in standard Egyptological sources from Kerry Muhlestein, that supposed apologist hack. Stephen Thompson (whom it strains credulity to keep referring to as an "LDS Egyptologist" as if he were still a believing, practicing member) is out of date.

 

Also, from my friend Stephen Smoot, who refuses to get involved in discussion boards:

 

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/20/2/S00006-500d8c3b44e50JBMRS20-1-5EgyptianContext.pdf

 

Lee I. Levine, "The Age of Hellenism: From Alexander the Great through the Hasmonean Kingdom (332–63 B.C.E.)," in Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, 3rd ed., ed. Hershel Shanks (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2011), 248:

 

In fact, no religious persecution is known before the events of 167. . . . 

Since Antiochus IV himself had been benefited from an enlightened Hellenistic education, to assume such deviation from accepted norms would be most peculiar.

 

Levine thus notes that Antiochus IV's religious persecutions are indeed abnormal, but from the relative vantage point of "accepted norms" of Hellenistic culture. It's, again, way too sweeping to claim there was "no religious persecution" before Antiochus IV. As Muhlestein and Gee demonstrate, there was ritual slaying in Middle Kingdom Egypt.

 

There was also human sacrifice practiced in Canaan. See page 30.

 

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/19/1/S00005-5018466fe3fbe4OnElkenah.pdf  

 

[cognitiveharmony]

So you are saying that my summary of the content of the Book of Abraham at 1:1-13, is "pure conjecture," and that any disinterested third party reading that text would disagee with me on its meaning?  This the first time I have ever heard such an assertion.  The English of the text is clear and easy to understand.  As I said:

 

"You could begin with the Book of Abraham itself in order to determine where the human sacrificial rites are taking place:  Long before he goes down to Egypt, in the land of the Chaldeans (Abr 1:1), Abram's pagan fathers were worshiping a variety of gods, whom he lists (1:5-7, noting the dual role for the priest of Elkenah, who also acted as priest of Pharaoh).  He then turns to the ecumenical setting for the sacrificial altar in the land of Chaldea (1: 8 ), on a hill at the head of a plain (1:10).  The altar itself is Chaldean, not Egyptian (1:13)"

 

You can't be serious about a section of text which is clear at 4th grade reading level.  It is very hard for me to believe that you seriously intend to pursue such a hard-edged negative approach.

 

In other words, evidence isn't really evidence unless you wish it so.  On that basis, it is possible to discard anything which does not accord with your preconceived notions.  And then (worse) you want to have it both ways:  On the one hand, BofA Elkenah (we haven't even mentioned the variant readings in KEP) is merely a partially made up word, but at the same time stolen by Joseph from the Bible!!  After all, I presented to you the biblical source of Elkenah, and you are perhaps trying to cover your embarrassment at not only misunderstanding a simple English text, but misinterpreting it as well -- due to your lack of familiarity with the ancient Near East and with biblical archeology and languages.

Moreover, it was a Jewish professor at the University of Utah who wrote the first major article on the study of Hebrew in Kirtland by Joseph and his Brethren.  It was not some Mormon plot or conspiracy to deceive that motivated him to discuss the matter.  Yet if I mention the same sort of correlations with Hebrew which he drew, you immediately attack it as logically fallacious, or pure conjecture.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  That is not only unscholarly, but unfair as well.

If you knew anything about Hebrew or linguistics, you would know that it is not possible to "take just about ANY made up word and find a transliteration of it in the Hebraic language because of the nature of the language itself. If I then apply the endless degree of separation that do, I could also arrive as just about any interpretation that I chose."

That is just plain ridiculous, and is the same as saying that any Hebraic evidence is automatically false.  I have never heard a scholar make such an obviously false statement before.  You might want to rethink that.

You could only say this based on a complete lack of familiarity with the numerous Jewish papyri which have been found in Egypt.  You also evidently do not know that a huge Jewish population inhabited Egypt during the Greco-Roman period, and that the Jews had built and operated a fully functioning temple at Tell el-Yehudiyeh, Egypt, for several hundred years during that same era.  You doubtless also do not know of the earlier Jewish temple operated for centuries in Upper Egypt at Elephantine Island (where numerous Jewish papyri were also found).

 

Transmission of such texts in Egypt was by scribes copying and recopying them down through time.  Egyptian scribes did this for Egyptian literature, and Jewish scribes did that for Jewish literature -- including the biblical Hebrew text of the Bible along with the Greek text of the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible.  And we know for certain that there was borrowing of one culture from the other in each case.  No surprise.  Only someone with overwhelming bias would automatically discount this, which is a matter of accepted scholarship.

Wow, this is first time that I've been accused of not being able to read on a 4th grade level since a certain professor in college.... I was in no way calling your summary of the Book of Abraham conjecture. I was calling your previous statements conjecture (you know, the ones that you made before you replied with this summary and asked me to elaborate) but then again, here you are asserting that the EGYPTIAN scene is not an EGYPTIAN scene but rather a Chaldean scene. THIS my friend is PURE CONJECTURE!!! You have no evidence of this whatsoever. You are simply saying that since the Book of Abraham says that the attempted sacrifice happened in Chaldea, then the scene is actually Chaldean. This is another logical fallacy. It's called circular reasoning. Scholarly consensus says that this type of scene is not related to a place such as Chaldea or even Egypt necessarily, but is in fact related to the religious beliefs of the Egyptian culture no matter where that culture resides.

 

The ease of which the Hebrew language can be transliterated does not make Hebraic evidence false. It only affects the weight of the evidence especially when it's approached in the manner that you did. If I have a painting of the Last Supper along with Hebraic or Aramaic writing on it detailing some parts of the event, then I tell you that this event actually took place in Egypt and the person that would normally be Jesus is actually Ra Pavar (I made that up) and the guy that would normally be Peter is named Aksun Alea....and he's actually a woman. How would a scholar go about investigating my claims. Would he go to the Egyptian language and start transliterating the names that I gave to find out if I was telling the truth? I don't think so.

 

So are you challenging me to make up a word and find a close transliteration of it in Hebrew? At least as close as your Ulisum matches Olishem? How about we do it in English where there are actually vowels? Would that be easier or harder? When you take the vowels out of written text, how easy is it to transliterate names and such into a myriad of other words or terms? Now for some words. How about trabioso? How about sincresar? Let's see, we'll take the root word of sin which we all should understand, we then look at cresar which is very similar to the name Ceasar right? We could then conclude that the actual meaning of this word means "A ruler in sin" but hold on just a second...what if we say that the meaning of the word was oh...let's just say power and dominion because maybe we've got a religious theme going on. Ceasar definitely had power and dominion didn't he. And sometimes rulers would use power and dominion in despotic ways which would be considered sinful. Does this sound ridiculous to you? It does to me too. I'm not done yet though. Let's just say that I'm looking at a picture of a common battle scene depicting one of Napoleon's conquests and it has french flags flying and lot's of other indications that would have me believe that this particular General is Napoleon. And I tell you that this figure is actually a fellow named Sincresar. How hard would it be for you to prove that I was right? Would you even attempt it? What if I told you God somehow manifested it to me? There's no need for me to think that the painter was French, because the English and the French had been intermingled for some time and besides that, my interpretation says that it was painted by an Englishman so that settles it. No need to investigate further. So we only need to assume that the word is an english word(unless of course I can find a better explanation in French...but you know how that goes..) and my aforementioned explanation will suffice perfectly. How you say? Because he just used a painting of Napoleon to represent Julius Ceasar because it was more handy and those cultures have mixed quite a bit through the years. Even though the painter was surrounded by an English culture, he chose to use depictions of French conquests to represent his understanding of Roman history because this makes total sense. I don't care that there are other copies of this painting and they name the General as Napoleon, this painting is special so I'm right.

 

The documents are common. There is NOTHING in them to suggest that they are ANYTHING other than common funerary documents. Period. Suggesting that these documents represent anything beyond what is actually contained in them is conjecture on your part as well as it was conjecture on Joseph Smith's part. Plain and simple. I would LOVE to see you submit your paper for publication and peer review. It would be very interesting to see what actual scholars and experts in these fields would have to say about it's content and more importantly, your approach.

 

Finally, I would be very interested in you providing sources on jewish papyrii that borrowed Egyptian art and culture to illustrate them and represent something other than what they represent in Egyptian culture. I would especially love to see something referencing Gods named Elkenah, Libnah etc. 

Edited November 22, 2013 by cognitiveharmony

[Robert F. Smith]

TruthSeeker2013 said:

“I obviously disagree that the source of the text is anything other than the Small Sensen portion of the Breathing Permit of Hor as I've laid out in my paper”

*     *      *     *    *

“I'm not aware of any Egyptologist who believes the extant portions of the Breathing Permit to be the source of the Book of Abraham text. And I believe there is overwhelming evidence that Joseph believed the Small Sensen to be the source of the BoA text.”

*    *    *    *    *

“But what what EVERYONE can I agree on, I think, is that we DO have the source and translation of the three facsimiles. Again, if Joseph had gotten these translations and restorations correct, the church would be shouting from the rooftops that we have proof of Joseph's self-proclaimed prophetic ability to translate. But the church has not done this given that Joseph unfortunately got the translations wrong.”

*    *    *    *    *

“He's a translator who translates by using the power of God, or so he claimed. So if he gets something wrong then it's either God's fault (unlikely) or Joseph's fault. And if it's Joseph's fault then the next question is "well if Joseph misunderstood the revelation and confused his own imagination with revelation then how do we know that everything else he produced was revelation or just his own imagination?"”

*    *    *   *   *

“it still seems to me to be overwhelmingly a false translation”

These recent statements by the so-called "TruthSeeker" show an obsession with what George Orwell called "doublespeak."  He wants to have it both ways:

On the one hand he wants to claim that the actual source of the Book of Abraham is the Sensen text (the straw man), while on the other he insists that it is not the actual source.

Now, of course, there is nothing at all new in any of this, and the late Rev. Wesley P. Walters said the same thing, but with more style and pizazz.  Walters even had Joseph Smith translating holes in the papyrus.

The "TruthSeeker" does make a strong effort not to seriously consider the most powerful argument:  That the papyrus had plenty of room on it for the actual (rather than "TruthSeeker"'s pretend text), and that this portion is unavailable -- either on the glued backing, or on lost parts of the papyrus.  "TruthSeeker" doesn't care to consider that different documents were frequently placed on the same papyrus.  A good deal of this may be because "TruthSeeker" just doesn't know anything about ancient Egypt or papyri, and (in the words of A. H. Sayce), 

 

Time after time statements have been assumed to be untrue because we cannot bring forward other evidence in support of the facts which they record.

The critic has made his own ignorance the measure of the credibility of an ancient document.  Sayce, The “Higher Criticism” and the Verdict of the Monuments,

4th ed. (1894), 16, on the Old Testament.

 

Add to this his constant harping on the false statement that Joseph got the identifications for the facsimiles wrong, and someone who doesn't know any better might just believe his malarkey.  All the while making the very non-Momron assumptions of infallibility and inerrancy in revelation and scripture -- a very Protestant assumption, and one which is irrational and self-contradictory.  Those who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones.

 

[volgadon]

Finally, I would be very interested in you providing sources on jewish papyrii that borrowed Egyptian art and culture to illustrate them and represent something other than what they represent in Egyptian culture. I would especially love to see something referencing Gods named Elkenah, Libnah etc. 

 

 

Talmud Bavli, t. Avodah Zarah 43a. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Wow, this is first time that I've been accused of not being able to read on a 4th grade level since a certain professor in college.... I was in no way calling your summary of the Book of Abraham conjecture. I was calling your previous statements conjecture (you know, the ones that you made before you replied with this summary and asked me to elaborate) but then again, here you are asserting that the EGYPTIAN scene is not an EGYPTIAN scene but rather a Chaldean scene. THIS my friend is PURE CONJECTURE!!! You have no evidence of this whatsoever. You are simply saying that since the Book of Abraham says that the attempted sacrifice happened in Chaldea, then the scene is actually Chaldean. This is another logical fallacy. It's called circular reasoning. Scholarly consensus says that this type of scene is not related to a place such as Chaldea or even Egypt necessarily, but is in fact related to the religious beliefs of the Egyptian culture no matter where that culture resides.

 

The ease of which the Hebrew language can be transliterated does not make Hebraic evidence false. It only affects the weight of the evidence especially when it's approached in the manner that you did. If I have a painting of the Last Supper along with Hebraic or Aramaic writing on it detailing some parts of the event, then I tell you that this event actually took place in Egypt and the person that would normally be Jesus is actually Ra Pavar (I made that up) and the guy that would normally be Peter is named Aksun Alea....and he's actually a woman. How would a scholar go about investigating my claims. Would he go to the Egyptian language and start transliterating the names that I gave to find out if I was telling the truth? I don't think so.

 

So are you challenging me to make up a word and find a close transliteration of it in Hebrew? At least as close as your Ulisum matches Olishem? How about we do it in English where there are actually vowels? Would that be easier or harder? When you take the vowels out of written text, how easy is it to transliterate names and such into a myriad of other words or terms? Now for some words. How about trabioso? How about sincresar? Let's see, we'll take the root word of sin which we all should understand, we then look at cresar which is very similar to the name Ceasar right? We could then conclude that the actual meaning of this word means "A ruler in sin" but hold on just a second...what if we say that the meaning of the word was oh...let's just say power and dominion because maybe we've got a religious theme going on. Ceasar definitely had power and dominion didn't he. And sometimes rulers would use power and dominion in despotic ways which would be considered sinful. Does this sound ridiculous to you? It does to me too. I'm not done yet though. Let's just say that I'm looking at a picture of a common battle scene depicting one of Napoleon's conquests and it has french flags flying and lot's of other indications that would have me believe that this particular General is Napoleon. And I tell you that this figure is actually a fellow named Sincresar. How hard would it be for you to prove that I was right? Would you even attempt it? What if I told you God somehow manifested it to me? There's no need for me to think that the painter was French, because the English and the French had been intermingled for some time and besides that, my interpretation says that it was painted by an Englishman so that settles it. No need to investigate further. So we only need to assume that the word is an english word(unless of course I can find a better explanation in French...but you know how that goes..) and my aforementioned explanation will suffice perfectly. How you say? Because he just used a painting of Napoleon to represent Julius Ceasar because it was more handy and those cultures have mixed quite a bit through the years. Even though the painter was surrounded by an English culture, he chose to use depictions of French conquests to represent his understanding of Roman history because this makes total sense. I don't care that there are other copies of this painting and they name the General as Napoleon, this painting is special so I'm right.

 

The documents are common. There is NOTHING in them to suggest that they are ANYTHING other than common funerary documents. Period. Suggesting that these documents represent anything beyond what is actually contained in them is conjecture on your part as well as it was conjecture on Joseph Smith's part. Plain and simple. I would LOVE to see you submit your paper for publication and peer review. It would be very interesting to see what actual scholars and experts in these fields would have to say about it's content and more importantly, your approach.

 

Finally, I would be very interested in you providing sources on jewish papyrii that borrowed Egyptian art and culture to illustrate them and represent something other than what they represent in Egyptian culture. I would especially love to see something referencing Gods named Elkenah, Libnah etc. 

 

I first said that I was unclear on what you found to be pure conjecture or logically fallacious, and you ignored my request, making further blanket false statements.  Non-scholars are typically unable to focus on the issues, and you show that same lack of focus and inability to discuss the actual issues.  I gave you every opportunity to focus on the nitty gritty, and you ran away from the issues.

 

I gave you substantive data to deal with, and your automatic response was to deny that it was credible and reasonable -- even though these matters are not in dispute among first-rate non-Mormon scholars.  If you were in any way serious, you would have discussed what was supposedly false or misleading.  Instead you delivered some claptrap about Napoleon and art.  It would be helpful if you knew the first thing about interpreting Egyptian art, and how illustrations are to be read.

 

You end by asking for "something referencing Gods named Elkenah," etc., but completely ignore the detailed information I had already given you on just such a specific god in the Bible and ancient Near East.  Do you actually read anything, or do you just shoot from the hip?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Talmud Bavli, t. Avodah Zarah 43a. 

Are you referring to 43b Merkavah (the heavenly Chariot which consists of the images of a man's face, lion, ox, and eagle)?

[volgadon]

Are you referring to 43b Merkavah (the heavenly Chariot which consists of the images of a man's face, lion, ox, and eagle)?

 

No. 43a says that Sarapis is actually Joseph who beheld the future and sustained the whole world during the famine.

[Robert F. Smith]

No. 43a says that Sarapis is actually Joseph who beheld the future and sustained the whole world during the famine.

We have to be careful of "TruthSeeker."  If someone points out that Sarapis is a form of Osiris, he'll cry an automatic "foul."

[volgadon]

We have to be careful of "TruthSeeker."  If someone points out that Sarapis is a form of Osiris, he'll cry an automatic "foul."

 

 Or insist that as this isn't a funerary papyrus the comparison is invalid.

[bcuzbcuz]

There is. As one example, there is a Rabbinic statement explicitly identifying the iconography of Sarapis with Joseph the Patriarch, and that of Isis with Eve, the mother of all living.

 

 

 

 

Great picture. Where is it from and what dates have been attached to it?

[cdowis]

These recent statements by the so-called "TruthSeeker" show an obsession with what George Orwell called "doublespeak."

 

I personally call it a "paradox".  We find this in the real world of quantum mechanics, for example.

 

 He wants to have it both ways:

On the one hand he wants to claim that the actual source of the Book of Abraham is the Sensen text (the straw man), while on the other he insists that it is not the actual source.

 

Brilliant.   As I proposed decades ago, resolve this paradox and you have the key to understanding the translation of the Book of Abraham. 

 

One such solution is the mnemonic theory of Tvedtnes.

Edited November 22, 2013 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm not sure what you're meaning of "translation document" is, but what is incontrovertible is that the EAs list the hieroglyphics from the Facsimile 1 fragment and then provide an alphabet and grammar for some of the characters. I think the significance of the EAs is that 1) Joseph appears to be trying to work out a way to translate the papyri, 2)he starts at the beginning of the Breathing Permit which suggests the Breathing Permit is the source of the BoA, and 3) the last two characters in the EAs are the first two characters in the manuscripts, suggesting that he was working on translating/deciphering the Facsimile 1 fragment at the beginning of the Breathing Permit scroll and then when he was finished he moved onto the next part of the scroll which is the Small Sensen. There is certainly much stronger evidence that the Small Sensen is the source of the BoA, but that's one piece that suggests it. I haven't seen William Schryver's presentation. Do you have a link?

You can find links to the video, Part 1 and Part 2 here.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference

And a text version of a part:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B03QD7Z2zHZJeWdTZ2NNMmppRjA/edit?pli=1

Schryver's main thesis is:

The explanations contained in the Alphabet documents are dependent on a pre-existing text of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham.

The greatly expanded character explanations contained in the Grammar documents are manifestly dependent not only on the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham, but also on the remainder of the revealed Book of Abraham, as well as the explanations to Facsimile #2.

This thesis expresses what I would like to term the “essential elements of understanding” in respect to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited November 22, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[CA Steve]

The 2 hands is an aspect of the scene that is currently unprecedented in other lion couch scenes. The single sentence you quote from Bell is his suggestion as to why there might have been two hands (and I emphasize the fact that he says might). He does not really know why there are two hands there. As such, I see no reason why we should be compelled to accept his conjecture. Other possibilities can, and probably should be explored. 

 

Now, I do think we are somewhat bound to accept his reasons for believing both hands are there, which is based on the evaluation of the remaining strokes, which he concludes are clearly figures. In the process, he cites Ashment (when he was still pro-Mormon), Gee, and Rhodes, and essentially agrees with them. So, his reasons for concluding that there are two hands are the same reasons Mormon scholars have concluded there are two hands. His interpretation of their purpose is, of course, different, but it is also considerably tentative.  

 

Then, of course, there is the question of who is interpreting the image. Is Joseph Smith's explanation of the image supposed represent a "typical" Egyptian interpretation (whatever that might be)? Or is it Judeoized Egyptian? How about an Egyptianized Jew? Or was it simply Joseph Smith's own interpretation? How one answers that question will have influence as to how one thinks the image should be interpreted. Bell obviously assumes a "typical" Egyptian interpretation. I prefer to see it as some sort of Egyptian priest who has syncretized Jewish stories and ideas into his own ritual beliefs and practices (there are good reasons for such views, which I will not delve into here). There are, of course, a number of other possibilities. 

Thanks  Nealr,

 

Since these scenes were individually created by different scribes, would variations, even unique variations be expected? Isn't it normal for these scenes to vary?

According to Bell, in the same article, "variations occur among individual representations. Since each example was hand-produced, and not stenciled, even "direct copies" are not identical in every detail. In the refreshed Egyptian art of Dynasties 21 and 25-26 and the Graeco-Poman period, we encounter new usages and creative (re)combinations not seen previously, especially in private (non-royal) representations produced in Upper-Egypt and outside the Nile Valley under the direction of local priesthoods."

Also we know that facsimile#3 was attached at the other end of the same roll, and while we do not have the original we do have what everyone agrees is an accurate copy of the entire scene. Wouldn't be reasonable to assume that the facsimiles and the attached hieroglyphics/hieratic text were merely normal funerary scenes and instructions, as opposed to suggesting the scribe would radically alter one small portion of the scroll to represent a sacrifice and leave the rest of the same document unaltered?

It seems quite a stretch to redefine the entire scene based on the conjecture of a second hand over the face and other variations when variations are normal and expected and everything else from the same document represent normal funerary instructions for a priest named Hor.

[cdowis]

Wouldn't be reasonable to assume that the facsimiles and the attached hieroglyphics/hieratic text were merely normal funerary scenes and instructions, as opposed to suggesting the scribe would radically alter one small portion of the scroll to represent a sacrifice and leave the rest of the same document unaltered?

It seems quite a stretch to redefine the entire scene based on the conjecture of a second hand over the face and other variations when variations are normal and expected and everything else from the same document represent normal funerary instructions for a priest named Hor.

 

 Perhaps this is a stupid question but would it be unreasonable first to have an exact explanation and understanding of that "normal funerary scene and instructions" before answering your question. 

 

I seem to remember that Nibley points out that we really don't know what's going on here, but my memory could be flawed.

[DBMormon]

I've personally tested Joseph Smith's productions on many issues, and have read material by hundreds of LDS scholars who dealt with other questions. Much of what I find amazes and impresses me. I've also read several anti-LDS volumes and try to stay informed.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, as one who has doubts but leads with faith, I would be curious as to a list of ten or so items that fit the bill you mention here.  It would interest me greatly what kinds of things amaze and impress you.

Edited November 22, 2013 by DBMormon

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow, this is first time that I've been accused of not being able to read on a 4th grade level since a certain professor in college....

You might want to actually read what he wrote. Just saying because you clearly don't understand what he did say.

 

He never once said you cant read at a 4th grade reading level.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, as one who has doubts but leads with faith, I would be curious as to a list of ten or so items that fit the bill you mention here.  It would interest me greatly what kinds of things amaze and impress you.

Rather than derail the thread, I'll see if I can't do you a list on a new thread this weekend.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[wenglund]

Ah, I see what you're referring to. That's correct, I do not know where the characters on the first two pages came from.

Doesn't this seriously undermine your claims that: 1) "The first three EAs offer a translation of the hieroglyphics in the four columns of the Facsimile 1 fragment (Fig. 25)." and 2) "To reiterate, from the EAs we can tell that Smith finished translating the hieroglyphics from the Facsimile 1 fragment and moved on to the next part of the scroll – the Small Sensen"?

 

After all, of the 135 or so characters written in the EA's, only about 48 or so of them were given English explanations, of which 36 were on the first page (which you admit you don't know from whence they came). As for the other 12 explained characters, you indicate that two of them are from a different location than Facsimili 1 on the papyri, and the other 10 are atop page 2, most of which the origins of the characters are as much in question as those on page 1. Sorry.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

This is critical and may have a domino affect on several of the key claims in your paper. Granted, there is a definite relationship between the EA's and GAEL and the Kirtland Abraham manuscripts and the papyri. It is just not exactly the relationship you and other critics may suppose.

 

To see more of what I mean, compare the EA's to our own English alphabet. What striking differences do you see? What explains the differences? Are you aware of any alphabet that is similar to the EA's (there is a hint in the word "alphabet")? Are alphabet's typically the primary means for translation? In other words, can any English speaker today who doesn't know Egyptian, translate the Egyptian papyri into English using only Demotic or Coptic alphabets?

 

Read through the EA explanations. Do you recognize any patterns, and if so, what explains those patterns? From whence were the explanations derived?

 

How far along in the EA's before Abraham and Chaldea are mentioned? How does this square with the timing of the first translation of the papyri, where it was determined that the papyri contained the records of Abraham, and the timing of when production of the EA's began? (Hint: one precedes the other by several weeks) And what significance does the timing have in determining dependency of one on the other?

 

There is a sentence atop both the Parrish and Williams manuscripts which relates to the EA's and GAEL. What explains the presence of that sentence?

 

I could pose other questions, but this should suffice for now.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-