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

[DBMormon]

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

Awesome Kevin - I would love a thread to discuss the marvelous things of the restored gospel.  As always, you are much appreciated!!!

[TruthSeeker2013]

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-

Perhaps I should change the word "translation" - it's true that for most of the characters in the EAs Joseph did not provide a translation. What I was trying to get across was the order in which Joseph was moving through the papyri and offering translations, however complete or incomplete they may be. So what I was trying to communicate was that when Joseph started his work on the Breathing Permit scroll, he started at the beginning of the scroll (facsimile 1 fragment, in the EAs), and then moved on to the next part of the scroll which was the Small Sensen (which he translated at the end of the EAs and the in the manuscripts). Thanks for pointing out the unclarity.

[TruthSeeker2013]

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strains credulity to keep referring to as an "LDS Egyptologist" as if he were still a believing, practicing member) is out of date.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:

If you'll notice, I did not include anything in my paper about sacrifices being anachronistic for the very reason that it didn't seem to me to be well enough established to include. The reason I included that reference and link in this thread is because someone asked a question about the issue.

[TruthSeeker2013]

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.

And it's responses like this that dissuade respectful conversation. Why all the attacks on this board? Can't we just have a respectful conversation? While I may be attacking Joseph's and the church's claims I'm certainly not attacking you.

As a response, I fail to see how this is doublespeak. I'll be the first to admit that you seem to be much more intelligent than I and also much more well versed in all things ancient, so maybe I'm not understanding why it's doublespeak. My simple argument, though, is this (and I'm not sure if you've read my paper yet or not, but I try to make this clear throughout and if I don't, please help me to make it clearer): I believe Joseph established, and the church perpetuated, that the source of the Book of Abraham was the papryi, and more specifically the Small Sensen portion of the Breathing Permit. I think it's established beyond any reasonable doubt that Joseph believed this. But MY belief, based on the facts, is DIFFERENT from Joseph's belief. I believe that the source was his imagination. So it's not doublespeak, it's two beliefs. Mine and Joseph's. He believed one thing, and I believe another (specifically ,that his belief was wrong).

It's interesting that you call a "straw man" argument the argument that the source is the Small Sensen. It seems like we're on the same page here that such an assertion is ridiculous. I agree that it's ridiculous. Unfortunately, I don't believe Joseph shared our belief. I believe the evidence overwhelmingly shows that Joseph believed the Small Sensen to be the source.

You also mention that "there is nothing new in this," (meaning my findings and conclusions). Of course not. I'm not coming up with some new proof of Joseph's mistranslation. I'm simply trying to put together in a coherent fashion what I believe the evidence has shown all along, dating all the way back to Deveria's translation of the facsimiles in the 1850s. The only new thing here is the church officially taking a position that distances the Book of Abraham from the papyri and backs away from three claims Joseph had made (that 1) Joseph translated the papyri, 2) the papyri was the source of the BoA, and 3) the papyri literally contained the handwriting of Abraham). The church had published some ideas to this affect in the Improvement Era and Ensign but only now in 2013 is changing the Pearl of Great Price Introduction, which seems to me to be very significant.

You also mention the Missing Papyrus theory. I explore that theory in depth in my paper and I believe it to be unsupportable. I'd be happy to discuss specifics with you if you wish.

Finally, you point out that revelation is messy to some degree and isn't always perfect. I can agree with that. As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm ok with giving Joseph some wiggle room with the translation due to his human nature, perhaps misunderstanding the revelation, and perhaps God dumbing it down for him so he can understand it. I just simply think that there is too much here suggesting that it wasn't revelation at all. It's not just one or two or ten things that Joseph got wrong. It's quite nearly everything. So when I weigh the possibility of it being revealed/translated scripture vs. it being his imagination, it weighs heavily in one direction for me. I understand that others may weigh it differently.

[TruthSeeker2013]

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:

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thanks for the links!

[TruthSeeker2013]

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-

Supposing the EAs were written after the manuscripts, how would this have a "domino affect on several of the key claims in [my] paper." And does this mean you've read my paper now?

Edited November 22, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................................

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?

...........................................................   

Not all of what you say here is clear or coherent, but I was not challenging you "to make up a word and find a close transliteration of it in Hebrew."  You appear to have the false impression that Hebrew spelling, etymology, and phonology are quite arbitrary and malleable and that one can prove nearly anything with them.  This is totally false and bespeaks complete lack of familiarity with Hebrew language.  Worse, you also appear to be completely unfamiliar with cuneiform syllabic writing, as in Akkadian Ulisum, Ulishim, in which we certainly do know what the vowels were, same as in English.

 

While it is true that Egyptologists use conventionalized vowels in many popular accounts of the history and religion of Egypt, and that the vowels (not written in Egyptian) have to be reconstructed from transliterations in other languages, where the vowels are represented, that does not mean that one may apply just any sort of arbitrary and random equivalences based on mere whim.  That is a wonderful tactic to apply when the intention is to disallow any legitimate arguments to be made on that basis, but destruction of scholarly discourse is a double-edged sword which can come back to bite the user.  You ought to ask whether your anti-intellectual approach is viable in the long term.

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................   

 

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 helps to get a statistical handle on what is and is not typical, within which pretty much the same sort of funerary scenes are reproduced, even if each illustration has minor differences.

It is also helpful to accept no more than that a scribe transmitting the Abraham text and tradition could choose an illustration or illustrations to accompany his text from whatever tradition he chose (many such traditions about Abraham were passed on in this and in pseudepigraphic fashion, and the Apocalypse of Abraham is a prime example).  He did not necessarily have to alter such illustrations, but merely to appropriate them to his story -- even if that meant some degree of iconotropic reinterpretation.

 

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.

Three is nothing conjectural about the two hands.  For, as Bell and others point out, the papyrus itself allows of no other interpretation.  Thus, even though unusual, we must accept that part of the illustration and account for it as best we can.  We are not free to apply any sort of Procrustean Bed to the matter.

 

[cognitiveharmony]

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?

I gave you specific examples of your logical fallacies. I also pointed out where you were making logical leaps such as transliterating words to associate or assign meaning similar to what you are looking for or using a document that is unsubstantiated as either reliable or historical to help define a premise in authenticating the translation of other documents authored by the same person!!! This is not scholarship. This is called circular reasoning and is hardly an approach that a scholar would use. The scenes and text in the facsimiles speak for themselves. Any attempt to make them say something other than what they actually say is ridiculous. We have the Rosetta stone. Egyptologists can read these documents and have a very good idea of what the scenes depict. Unfortunately for you, they have nothing to do with what Joseph Smith tried to say that they do. Any attempt to try to assign meaning and validate Joseph Smith's translation outside of what is actually in these documents or in similar documents is PURE CONJECTURE. You are free to hypothesize all that you like. But to make statements such as "his translations are correct" without the qualification that you are in fact making a guess based on some research that you have done is irresponsible at best. I'm not a scholar in either Egyptology or Linguistics but I can easily see that most of what you are presenting is based on conjecture. You're assuming that Joseph was correct and then trying to prove it by any means possible. A scholarly approach would be to neither assume he was correct or incorrect but to compare his interpretation to what is actually known about the scenes he is describing and the words that he is translating. When you do this you very quickly and obviously arrive at the conclusion that his interpretations were simply incorrect.

 

So why don't you submit your paper for peer review? I'd love to hear what an actual expert in one of these fields would have to say about your conclusions and the approach that you took.

 

As far as your ending statement is concerned, I asked for sources of Jewish papyrii that use Egyptian culture and art to illustrate Jewish concepts or history. Especially any that use these conventions that refer to Gods named Elkenah, Libnah etc specifically. You have not thus far provided any such source. You simply refer to possible references to these Gods via Hebraic transliterations of the names from Jewish sources, but nothing that uses Egyptian art or icons to represent Jewish concepts such as you contend that the scenes from the BOA do. You simply say that it's possible because the cultures were intermingled. Well, it may be possible but that is yet again conjecture on your part. You're peddling an unlikely possibility based on guesses and assumptions and that's all.

 

I'm sure you're a very nice gentleman and I can tell that you've spent a lot of time with your research but I don't think that you should be making statements of fact when you know that those statements find their premise in unproven hypothesis and conjecture. No matter how good the research is, if the premise is false, it simply does not apply.

 

I've decided that it would be much more fair to you for me to review your paper and point out the various problems that I  have found so far.

 

“Systematic chiastic form in the BofA is an argument in favor of the authenticity of the book.”

 

This is a false statement and has no basis in fact or reality. I’ll refer you to the following paper which details among other things the chiastic structures in a book called The Late War that was also written in the King James English style but was a product of the 19^th century. This makes any talk of chiasmus in the BoA a moot point and is actually evidence that a 19 century book written in the King James English style SHOULD be expected to contain chiastic elements.

 

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

 

“We need to focus instead on the standard translation and artistic interpretation of BofA facsimile 2 (and other hypocephali) available to us, since they were used as part of the transmission of the BofA by the Jewish community in Egypt.”

 

This is pure conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever that the BofA was transmitted by the Jewish community in Egypt or that it is anything other than a product of the 19th century.

 

“Facsimile 2:1, at center, represents the quadruple-headed, seated ram-god,Khnum-'Amun-Re’ whose four heads, though presented in dual profile for artistic reasons”

 

Artistic reasons? Seriously? Pure conjecture. What you should have mentioned is that this God is NORMALLY drawn with 4 ram heads when found on other hypocephali in this context but this particular hypocephalus was damaged and missing this portion and was restored incorrectly by Joseph Smith. He merely copied the two headed God ( Amun-Re) from the figure above it. This is abundantly clear to anyone who would compare the original with the LDS published version.

 

“Right next to the center, at facsimile 2:10-11, we find in Egyptian a virtual ordinal number“first,” as part of an Egyptian phrase there:

sp tpy “First occasion (Creation).” 

This partially comports with Joseph’s explanation for fac 2:11, but also with his identification of fac 2:1.”

 

Uh….OK.  Let’s see what the actual translation here says. Beginning with 11 since Joseph actually numbered them backwards as he had no idea how to read them or their proper order.

 

2:11 "O god of the sleeping ones from the time of creation"

2:10  "O mighty god, lord of heaven and earth"

2:9  "the netherworld (below the earth) and his great waters"

2:8  "grant that the soul of Osiris Sheshonk may live."

 

There is no reason to extract one character from these verses other than to take that character out of context in order to attempt to add meaning in a way that does not exist when looked at in it’s full context.  So Joseph’s explanation of 2:8 was as follows :

 

"Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God";

 

So tell me, where are the words "grant that the soul of Osiris Sheshonk may live." Had in the Holy Temple of God?

 

“Note that “near(est)” occurs with or defines Kolob five times, and “nigh” twice in the BofA.This is significant since Kolob is likely from the proto-Semitic root

qlb/qrb “near; heart; center,”which is cognate with Egyptian q3b

, and which fits the status of what could as easily have

spelled  Qolob which appears in the common Hebrew qutl -form at Qumran (qwrb

“midst”;11QMelch 1:10 = Psalm 82:1), but is used elsewhere in the Bible as a name of God – the theophoric Hebrew epithet, Qarob “The-Near-One” “

 

Yet again pure conjecture attempting to associate a non Hebraic word with the Hebraic language using a definition of this word other than the definition given by it’s author. Kolob is very clearly defined by Joseph Smith as the planet or star that God resides on. There are numerous statements that he has made including his explanation of figure 1 which indicates so. To try to take an ADJECTIVE out of some of his statements describing this planet/star and somehow use it to fish out an association in the Hebraic language is quite frankly ridiculous. By the way I was unable to find any use of the word Qarob as a theophoric Hebrew epithet. I only found it being used by it’s proper meaning which is “near” but never as “The-Near-One” so I would like to see your source on this.

 

“BofA fac 2:2 represents 'Ammon-Re’, while fac 2:5 represents Hathor, both in parallel and opposite one another, each as the Sun. Joseph explains 5 as the Sun and both 2 & 5 apparently as fixed stars (not “wandering stars” = planets) which exercise governing power.”

 

 

You’ll need to explain how Hathor would be considered the Sun in this context. Maybe you’d like to take a shot at explaining the name Enish-go-on-dosh and it’s relationship to Hathor. Or maybe take a shot at explaining how Oliblish somehow describes Amun-Re. You won’t be able to use Hebrew with these however because Joseph messed up and said that they were Egyptian….sorry. Good luck, these words don’t exist in the Egyptian language. But maybe you can transliterate them into something else. How does Joseph's translation of these sections of the hypocephalus indicate that he made a "correct translation"? He seems to be batting at just about 0 so far.

 

I've got better things to do right now so I'll continue my review tomorrow.

[Robert F. Smith]

I gave you specific examples of your logical fallacies. I also pointed out where you were making logical leaps such as transliterating words to associate or assign meaning similar to what you are looking for or using a document that is unsubstantiated as either reliable or historical to help define a premise in authenticating the translation of other documents authored by the same person!!! This is not scholarship. This is called circular reasoning and is hardly an approach that a scholar would use. The scenes and text in the facsimiles speak for themselves. Any attempt to make them say something other than what they actually say is ridiculous. We have the Rosetta stone. Egyptologists can read these documents and have a very good idea of what the scenes depict. Unfortunately for you, they have nothing to do with what Joseph Smith tried to say that they do. Any attempt to try to assign meaning and validate Joseph Smith's translation outside of what is actually in these documents or in similar documents is PURE CONJECTURE. You are free to hypothesize all that you like. But to make statements such as "his translations are correct" without the qualification that you are in fact making a guess based on some research that you have done is irresponsible at best. I'm not a scholar in either Egyptology or Linguistics but I can easily see that most of what you are presenting is based on conjecture. You're assuming that Joseph was correct and then trying to prove it by any means possible. A scholarly approach would be to neither assume he was correct or incorrect but to compare his interpretation to what is actually known about the scenes he is describing and the words that he is translating. When you do this you very quickly and obviously arrive at the conclusion that his interpretations were simply incorrect.

 

So why don't you submit your paper for peer review? I'd love to hear what an actual expert in one of these fields would have to say about your conclusions and the approach that you took.

 

As far as your ending statement is concerned, I asked for sources of Jewish papyrii that use Egyptian culture and art to illustrate Jewish concepts or history. Especially any that use these conventions that refer to Gods named Elkenah, Libnah etc specifically. You have not thus far provided any such source. You simply refer to possible references to these Gods via Hebraic transliterations of the names from Jewish sources, but nothing that uses Egyptian art or icons to represent Jewish concepts such as you contend that the scenes from the BOA do. You simply say that it's possible because the cultures were intermingled. Well, it may be possible but that is yet again conjecture on your part. You're peddling an unlikely possibility based on guesses and assumptions and that's all.

 

I'm sure you're a very nice gentleman and I can tell that you've spent a lot of time with your research but I don't think that you should be making statements of fact when you know that those statements find their premise in unproven hypothesis and conjecture. No matter how good the research is, if the premise is false, it simply does not apply.

......................................................................   

What you have basically said here is that you reject standard Egyptology along with standard scholarship in ancient Near Eastern studies, by suggesting that the non-Mormon scholars who work in these areas only employ conjecture, circular reasoning, and unproven hypotheses.  You base this on your ignorance of the entire field, and by deliberately ignoring my citations of non-Mormon sources.  In other words, by automatically rejecting anything which does not agree with your preconceived notions, you are assured that only your apriori point of view can be correct.  No discussion or learning is possible for you under such circumstances.  Since only your premises can be true, and no others, you have successfully guaranteed that only your conclusions can be valid.  Talk about circular reasoning!!

[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?

I commented previously on your statement here, Andy, but wanted to take a closer look at the actual publication of the Book of Abraham in the past, and came up with some forms of the heading, to which some people improperly compare the 2013 Introduction to the Pearl of Great Price.  If anything, it is clear that the most recent form of the heading to the BofA is even stronger than the 1842 version since it dropped the word "purporting."  The headings have never been weakened in any way:

 

The earliest MS, Ab1 “Summer–Fall 1835,”

“Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the CataCombs of Egypt.”

 

Book of Abraham, Times and Seasons, March 1842,

“A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

 

1981 edition of BofA:

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

 

2013 edition of BofA:

“A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

[volgadon]

As far as your ending statement is concerned, I asked for sources of Jewish papyrii that use Egyptian culture and art to illustrate Jewish concepts or history. Especially any that use these conventions that refer to Gods named Elkenah, Libnah etc specifically. You have not thus far provided any such source. You simply refer to possible references to these Gods via Hebraic transliterations of the names from Jewish sources, but nothing that uses Egyptian art or icons to represent Jewish concepts such as you contend that the scenes from the BOA do. You simply say that it's possible because the cultures were intermingled. Well, it may be possible but that is yet again conjecture on your part. You're peddling an unlikely possibility based on guesses and assumptions and that's all.

 

 

I provided a reference.

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................................   

I've decided that it would be much more fair to you for me to review your paper and point out the various problems that I  have found so far.

 

“Systematic chiastic form in the BofA is an argument in favor of the authenticity of the book.”

 

This is a false statement and has no basis in fact or reality. I’ll refer you to the following paper which details among other things the chiastic structures in a book called The Late War that was also written in the King James English style but was a product of the 19^th century. This makes any talk of chiasmus in the BoA a moot point and is actually evidence that a 19 century book written in the King James English style SHOULD be expected to contain chiastic elements.

 

http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp193.pdf

 

“We need to focus instead on the standard translation and artistic interpretation of BofA facsimile 2 (and other hypocephali) available to us, since they were used as part of the transmission of the BofA by the Jewish community in Egypt.”

 

This is pure conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever that the BofA was transmitted by the Jewish community in Egypt or that it is anything other than a product of the 19th century.

 

“Facsimile 2:1, at center, represents the quadruple-headed, seated ram-god,Khnum-'Amun-Re’ whose four heads, though presented in dual profile for artistic reasons”

 

Artistic reasons? Seriously? Pure conjecture. What you should have mentioned is that this God is NORMALLY drawn with 4 ram heads when found on other hypocephali in this context but this particular hypocephalus was damaged and missing this portion and was restored incorrectly by Joseph Smith. He merely copied the two headed God ( Amun-Re) from the figure above it. This is abundantly clear to anyone who would compare the original with the LDS published version.

 

“Right next to the center, at facsimile 2:10-11, we find in Egyptian a virtual ordinal number“first,” as part of an Egyptian phrase there:

sp tpy “First occasion (Creation).” 

This partially comports with Joseph’s explanation for fac 2:11, but also with his identification of fac 2:1.”

 

Uh….OK.  Let’s see what the actual translation here says. Beginning with 11 since Joseph actually numbered them backwards as he had no idea how to read them or their proper order.

 

2:11 "O god of the sleeping ones from the time of creation"

2:10  "O mighty god, lord of heaven and earth"

2:9  "the netherworld (below the earth) and his great waters"

2:8  "grant that the soul of Osiris Sheshonk may live."

 

There is no reason to extract one character from these verses other than to take that character out of context in order to attempt to add meaning in a way that does not exist when looked at in it’s full context.  So Joseph’s explanation of 2:8 was as follows :

 

"Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God";

 

So tell me, where are the words "grant that the soul of Osiris Sheshonk may live." Had in the Holy Temple of God?

 

“Note that “near(est)” occurs with or defines Kolob five times, and “nigh” twice in the BofA.This is significant since Kolob is likely from the proto-Semitic root

qlb/qrb “near; heart; center,”which is cognate with Egyptian q3b

, and which fits the status of what could as easily have

spelled  Qolob which appears in the common Hebrew qutl -form at Qumran (qwrb

“midst”;11QMelch 1:10 = Psalm 82:1), but is used elsewhere in the Bible as a name of God – the theophoric Hebrew epithet, Qarob “The-Near-One” “

 

Yet again pure conjecture attempting to associate a non Hebraic word with the Hebraic language using a definition of this word other than the definition given by it’s author. Kolob is very clearly defined by Joseph Smith as the planet or star that God resides on. There are numerous statements that he has made including his explanation of figure 1 which indicates so. To try to take an ADJECTIVE out of some of his statements describing this planet/star and somehow use it to fish out an association in the Hebraic language is quite frankly ridiculous. By the way I was unable to find any use of the word Qarob as a theophoric Hebrew epithet. I only found it being used by it’s proper meaning which is “near” but never as “The-Near-One” so I would like to see your source on this.

 

“BofA fac 2:2 represents 'Ammon-Re’, while fac 2:5 represents Hathor, both in parallel and opposite one another, each as the Sun. Joseph explains 5 as the Sun and both 2 & 5 apparently as fixed stars (not “wandering stars” = planets) which exercise governing power.”

 

 

You’ll need to explain how Hathor would be considered the Sun in this context.

.....................................................................  

How does Joseph's translation of these sections of the hypocephalus indicate that he made a "correct translation"? He seems to be batting at just about 0 so far.

 

...........................................................   

Your arguments here are with the non-Mormon scholars I cite in each case.  My brief assessment did not cite all of them, but certainly enough so that you could go to those sources for verification and further information if desired.  My approach is to read and study the standard scholars and to compare what they have said to what is found in the Mormon Canon.  That does not make all of my extrapolations correct, but what you are saying here is more toward faulting the conclusions of the standard non-Mormon scholars than faulting my conclusions.  You might try distinguishing one from the other, lest your pseudonym be changed from "cognitiveharmony" to "cognitivedissonance."

 

I haven't found anti-Mormons claiming that Joseph batted zero (you are a first).  Most of them even try to find explanations for his correct identifications in contemporary books and articles, or in claiming that some of his identifications were pictorially obvious.  You even cite Rick Grunder using the environmental approach to show that Joseph merely adapted contemporary publications to his use.  The dilemma for you is that you have claimed Joseph got everything wrong, so that you may have a very hard time explaining harmoniously how it is possible for Grunder and others to say that Joseph got some things right due to his cribbing from contemporary sources.  Once again, you appear to be caught in the clutches of doublespeak.

 

Your problem with the Ram-god having two or four heads is based on your lack of familiarity with ancient Egyptian religion.  He is shown most commonly with one head (as in a birth scene for Amenhotep III at Deir el-Bahari), or with two heads, and with four heads, as frequently in cippi of Horus and hypocephali at the center.  Why you make an issue of this is not clear to me.  What is the controversy here?  You would probably even try to argue against the concept of Janus Quadrifons at Rome!!

 

You don't like Mitchell Dahood's theophoric translation of Psalm 119:151 Qarob.  So?  I didn't invent the word or the translation, nor even the wordplay with the previous verse.  Moreover, it is both Egyptian & Hebrew (Afroasiatic), as pointed out by Loprieno.  So please don't get mad at me for what Dahood has said about it.  He was a Roman Catholic priest and professor at the Gregorian University in Rome.  He had no interest in defending Mormonism.

 

Hathor, the cow-goddess, wears the solar disk in her horns (Herodotus & Plutarch), and her boat and the boat of Sokar were drawn on sledges in a festival circuit imitating the movement of the sun   C. H. Davis even believed Hathor to be “the Sun himself with feminine attributes” (Davis, Egyptian Book of the Dead, 21).  In fact Hathor is the Sun-eye, and pilot of the sun-ship (C. Bleeker, Hathor and Thoth, 66,73,159).  Hathor is the Eye of Re, and the Eye of Re is the Sun (J. Kaster, Wings of the Falcon, 85 n. 24, 94 n. 22; Pyramid Text 765).

Edited November 23, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[wenglund]

Perhaps I should change the word "translation" - it's true that for most of the characters in the EAs Joseph did not provide a translation. What I was trying to get across was the order in which Joseph was moving through the papyri and offering translations, however complete or incomplete they may be. So what I was trying to communicate was that when Joseph started his work on the Breathing Permit scroll, he started at the beginning of the scroll (facsimile 1 fragment, in the EAs), and then moved on to the next part of the scroll which was the Small Sensen (which he translated at the end of the EAs and the in the manuscripts). Thanks for pointing out the unclarity.

Unfortunately, the sequence you mentioned is just a small part of the entire KEP sequence. This is one of the big mistakes made by many BoA critics. Like you, they look selectively at little bits and pieces of the puzzle and fail to see the bigger picture and how all the pieces correctly fit together, and have thus jumped to several false conclusions. Once you answer the questions I posed before, then you may begin to see what I am talking about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Supposing the EAs were written after the manuscripts, how would this have a "domino affect on several of the key claims in [my] paper." And does this mean you've read my paper now?

As previously indicated, when you answer the questions that I asked, you may begin to see the domino affect.

I didn't read the entire paper. However, I read enough to see that several of your key claims are precariously dependent upon the conclusions you draw from the partial sequence that you identified above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 23, 2013 by wenglund

[TruthSeeker2013]

I commented previously on your statement here, Andy, but wanted to take a closer look at the actual publication of the Book of Abraham in the past, and came up with some forms of the heading, to which some people improperly compare the 2013 Introduction to the Pearl of Great Price. If anything, it is clear that the most recent form of the heading to the BofA is even stronger than the 1842 version since it dropped the word "purporting." The headings have never been weakened in any way:

The earliest MS, Ab1 “Summer–Fall 1835,”

“Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the CataCombs of Egypt.”

Book of Abraham, Times and Seasons, March 1842,

“A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

1981 edition of BofA:

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

2013 edition of BofA:

“A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

Robert, you're mixing up two different introductions. As you mention, Joseph wrote an introduction to the BoA in the manuscript, and this same introduction appeared in the first printing in 1842 with the addition of the "purporting to be." The "purporting to be" was removed in the 1878 edition and has never appeared again. Now the Pearl of Great Price has its OWN introduction of the contents, including the BoA. The PoGP was first published in 1851 and in every edition since then, like in the BoA introduction, it has always included the three things Joseph claimed: 1) Joseph translated the papyri, 2) the papyri were the source of the BoA, and 3) Abrahams own writing appeared on the papyri. To reiterate, EVERY edition of the BoA has included these three things in the introduction and EVERY edition of the PoGP until 2013 has included these three things. So it's a very significant change.

It's interesting, also, that the BoA introduction, which was originally instituted by Joseph himself, remains unchanged in the 2013 edition, but the 2013 PoGP intro is changed to back away from the very 3 claims made in the 2013 BoA intro. It seems the church felt comfortable changing the PoGP intro which was instituted first in 1851 after Joseph's death, but didn't feel comfortable changing the BoA intro which was instituted by Joseph. To read them side by side in the 2013 edition leaves no question that the church is trying to back away from Joseph's claims.

[TruthSeeker2013]

As previously indicated, when you answer the questions that I asked, you may begin to see the domino affect.

I didn't read the entire paper. However, I read enough to see that several of your key claims are precariously dependent upon the conclusions you draw from the partial sequence that you identified above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've tried to be more than accommodating by referring you to certain parts of my paper. But unless you read it and can give me specifics we're left playing a game of you not knowing fully what I've written and me not knowing what you're trying to get at with your questions. Can you please read my paper and then tell me directly what you're trying to say. It seems like it would save time, and avoid guesswork on both our parts.

[Calm]

To read them side by side in the 2013 edition leaves no question that the church is trying to back away from Joseph's claims.

It would be best to provide them here for comparison like Robert did with what he thought you were talking about.

[TruthSeeker2013]

It would be best to provide them here for comparison like Robert did with what he thought you were talking about.

Sure. Here's the 2013 BoA introduction. It has been the same since it was first published in 1842 except that "purporting to be" inserted before "the writings of Abraham" was removed in 1878:

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Here's the 2013 PoGP introduction of the BoA:

"An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois."

As explained before, EVERY edition of the BoA, including the 2013 edition, and EVERY edition of the PoGP PRIOR the 2013 edition always included that 1) Joseph translated the papyri, 2) the papyri was the source of the BoA, and 3) the papyri literally contained Abraham's own writing. So backing away from these three claims is a major shift and shows the church is acknowledging there are some serious issues with the BoA.

[Tacenda]

Sure. Here's the 2013 BoA introduction. It has been the same since it was first published in 1842 except that "purporting to be" inserted before "the writings of Abraham" was removed in 1878:

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Here's the 2013 PoGP introduction of the BoA:

"An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois."

As explained before, EVERY edition of the BoA, including the 2013 edition, and EVERY edition of the PoGP PRIOR the 2013 edition always included that 1) Joseph translated the papyri, 2) the papyri was the source of the BoA, and 3) the papyri literally contained Abraham's own writing. So backing away from these three claims is a major shift and shows the church is acknowledging there are some serious issues with the BoA.

Why is that? Especially when some LDS scholars/apologists don't back away from it being a literal translation.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Why is that? Especially when some LDS scholars/apologists don't back away from it being a literal translation.

Why is what? I don't understand what you're asking.

[Tacenda]

Why is what? I don't understand what you're asking.

How does the apologist persist in continuing with the literal translation but the church doesn't quite go there any longer. Aren't they communicating?

[Calm]

As explained before, EVERY edition of the BoA, including the 2013 edition, and EVERY edition of the PoGP PRIOR the 2013 edition always included that 1) Joseph translated the papyri, 2) the papyri was the source of the BoA, and 3) the papyri literally contained Abraham's own writing. So backing away from these three claims is a major shift and shows the church is acknowledging there are some serious issues with the BoA.

If the information is included in one of the intros, why should it matter if it isn't included in the other?

 

And you only posted the 2013 versions, do you have the other version that is different, the intro to the PoGP so we can see for ourselves what has been changed please.

Edited November 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

How does the apologist persist in continuing with the literal translation but the church doesn't quite go there any longer. Aren't they communicating?

That the Church does not is debatable imo considering how the intro to the BoA itself hasn't changed and seems to me to be essentially what TS is saying was also included in the PoGP intro.

 

And this is what is said about it on lds.org, which I believe is newly updated so it surely shows the current official position:

 

 

 

The Pearl of Great Price

The Pearl of Great Price contains the book of Moses, the book of Abraham, the Prophet Joseph Smith's inspired translation of Matthew chapter 24, and some writings of the Prophet Joseph.

The book of Moses is a small excerpt from Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible. It is a more complete record of Moses's writings at the beginning of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. It contains many doctrines and teachings that were lost from the Bible and gives additional information about the plan of salvation, the creation of the earth, and the Lord's dealings with Adam and Enoch.

The book of Abraham is a translation of ancient records written on papyrus that came into the possession of the Church in 1835. The Prophet Joseph Smith translated the records by revelation. This book contains truths about the premortal Council in Heaven, the creation of the earth, the nature of God, and the priesthood.

Joseph Smith—Matthew is an excerpt (Matthew 24) from Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible and adds to our knowledge of the Savior's teachings about His Second Coming.

The writings of Joseph Smith in the Pearl of Great Price include:

Joseph Smith—History, which is an excerpt from the Prophet's history of the Church. It is a narrative of the events leading to the restoration of the Church, including the First Vision, the visits of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph, the obtaining of the gold plates, and the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood.

The Articles of Faith, which the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote as basic statements of belief and doctrine.

 

 

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/scriptures?lang=eng&query=book+of+abraham

 

The only thing missing there is the third item which is still present in the BoA intro.

 

Simply because the Church doesn't say the same thing everywhere, doesn't indicate that it is stepping away from any position.

[TruthSeeker2013]

How does the apologist persist in continuing with the literal translation but the church doesn't quite go there any longer. Aren't they communicating?

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I'm not sure if any apologists have changed their positions since the change earlier this year or not. I feel bad for the apologists who may have spent years arguing a specific theory just to have the church go a different direction. But I guess that's how things work.