Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[Robert F. Smith]

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

I was unaware of Rhodes having provided an estimate of  the Hor scroll length and would love to add that to my notes. This isn't a CFR per se, but can you point me toward his work on that so I can include it? I suspect it is in his The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary - a book that I have always wanted to get but didn't want to pay the $60.00-$80.00.

http://www.amazon.com/Hor-Book-Breathings-Translation-Commentary/dp/0934893632/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1417019417&sr=1-1&keywords=michael+rhodes+Book+of+abraham .

Yes, Rhodes' estimate is on page 4 of that 2002 publication, and it is cited by Ritner's The JSP, page 109, note 27, upon which Ritner casts aspersions (which is how he generally rolls).

 

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

The 7 windings are extant and the 217 are the number required to get the missing 1250.5 cm predicted by Gee here http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/20/1/S00009-5176a4d94ae9e10Gee.pdf at the bottom of page 121. As I look back I realize 41' isn't the overall length of the scroll Gee is predicting, just the missing portion so we would need to add in the extant lengths to get an overall length of around 44' predicted by Gee.

 

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

.......................I believe have seen estimates that about 15' would be needed for a complete Egyptian version of our current Book of Abraham based on what we know of the Hor scroll. (I do not remember where I saw that so I am willing to accept a different number.) The problem with this length (10' or 15') is that contemporary descriptions of the content of the Book of Abraham described it as being longer than what we currently have. (Anson Call & Oliver Cowdery). The actual missing portion would have to be longer than what would accommodate the current translation. And if the use of the term 'volumes" by Cowdery is to be believed, it would have to be much much longer.

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

You may be thinking of the 17' (511 cm) posited as the minimum necessary by A. Cook & C. Smith in the Winter 2010 Dialogue, 43/4, page 3, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V43N04_413.pdf .

 

Will Schryver and perhaps John Gee need to revisit this entire issue, since it is not clear to me that we have their final word on the length question, but your comments certainly help to clarify where the dispute currently lies.  Moreover, I am still not clear as to whether the Hor Breathing text was written on both sides.  Can you throw light on that?  Aren't all of the fragments glued to a backing?  Do we need a papyrologist to help determine the answer?

[CA Steve]

Yes, Rhodes' estimate is on page 4 of that 2002 publication, and it is cited by Ritner's The JSP, page 109, note 27, upon which Ritner casts aspersions (which is how he generally rolls).

 

You may be thinking of the 17' (511 cm) posited as the minimum necessary by A. Cook & C. Smith in the Winter 2010 Dialogue, 43/4, page 3, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V43N04_413.pdf .

 

Will Schryver and perhaps John Gee need to revisit this entire issue, since it is not clear to me that we have their final word on the length question, but your comments certainly help to clarify where the dispute currently lies.  Moreover, I am still not clear as to whether the Hor Breathing text was written on both sides.  Can you throw light on that?  Aren't all of the fragments glued to a backing?  Do we need a papyrologist to help determine the answer?

 

Hi Robert,

 

Sorry to take so long to get back to you but it was a busy long weekend.

 

Nothing I have ever seen regarding the Hor scroll from either contemporary descriptions and articles, scholarly works, publications by the church, like Nibley's series of 1968 Improvement Era article, or from those who have examined the papyri recently indicates anything other than text on one side. Is it possible? Maybe, but I would think highly unlikely. It is hard to imagine that they would glue backing paper on papyri that was written on both sides. It is even harder to believe if one considers all the contemporary descriptions are of the sides we still have and, if you throw in the possibility that Joseph Smith was actually able to read what was on the papyri, why would he destroy anything of value by gluing paper over it?

 

So while I cannot say for certain, all evidence points against it.

[bcuzbcuz]

Yes, Rhodes' estimate is on page 4 of that 2002 publication, and it is cited by Ritner's The JSP, page 109, note 27, upon which Ritner casts aspersions (which is how he generally rolls).

 

You may be thinking of the 17' (511 cm) posited as the minimum necessary by A. Cook & C. Smith in the Winter 2010 Dialogue, 43/4, page 3, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V43N04_413.pdf .

 Will Schryver and perhaps John Gee need to revisit this entire issue, since it is not clear to me that we have their final word on the length question, but your comments certainly help to clarify where the dispute currently lies.  Moreover, I am still not clear as to whether the Hor Breathing text was written on both sides.  Can you throw light on that?  Aren't all of the fragments glued to a backing?  Do we need a papyrologist to help determine the answer?

I think you're going to have a tough time finding papyrus written on both sidess. There are cases when papyrus was washed clean of the ink from a previous text; the remaining underlying text is therefore older. Washing away previous texts was done when papyrus was too expensive or too hard to come by. (The original papyrus plant actually became extinct in Egypt and the current papyrus plant is a transplant from a European source.)

Two sided papyrus was used in book form or codex, but the surviving documents are from roughly 100 to 150 years AD. Scroll form papyrus written on both sides will be the absolute exception. I have never seen papyrus in scroll form written on both sides.

[DBMormon]

Bill - there is a principle that is developed very well in the book by Joe Sampson, "Written By the Finger of God," that addresses translation from symbolic scripts.  It is a take it or leave it proposition but opens possibilities.  As Joe was a Lay member his writing is given short shrift by academics but that shouldn't deter you.

From one non academic to the work of another... your right.

Samlam - just wanted to say thank you.  I mean that.  Many may not think it is the case, but I am in a much better place than when I first came on here.  Part of that goes to you.

[DragonLancer]

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/12/academia-not-right-at-all-costs.html

[DragonLancer]

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/11/abstract-meanings-another-way-of-saying.html

[DragonLancer]

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/11/an-outline.html

[NavigatingReality]

From one non academic to the work of another... your right.

Samlam - just wanted to say thank you.  I mean that.  Many may not think it is the case, but I am in a much better place than when I first came on here.  Part of that goes to you.

Why are you in a much better place now? Is there something you learned that has reduced your concerns about the flaws of the missing papyrus theory and catalyst theory?

[DBMormon]

Why are you in a much better place now? Is there something you learned that has reduced your concerns about the flaws of the missing papyrus theory and catalyst theory?

my faith in general.  I still have severe doubts about many of the historical truth claims but I am in a better place, better able to deal with them without throwing all hope out the window.  I choose to believe in spite of what I perceive as serious flaws in the narrative.

 

I should add: I realize my perceptions are mine alone and that others with the same info find no issues.  In a knowledge that my perceptions are my truth and not "T"ruth I accept that some of my perceptions are wrong while others are likely right.  The problem is I can't arrive at absolute "T"ruth so knowing it is messy regardless I choose to "Lead with Faith"

Edited December 2, 2014 by DBMormon

[mfbukowski]

my faith in general.  I still have severe doubts about many of the historical truth claims but I am in a better place, better able to deal with them without throwing all hope out the window.  I choose to believe in spite of what I perceive as serious flaws in the narrative.

 

I should add: I realize my perceptions are mine alone and that others with the same info find no issues.  In a knowledge that my perceptions are my truth and not "T"ruth I accept that some of my perceptions are wrong while others are likely right.  The problem is I can't arrive at absolute "T"ruth so knowing it is messy regardless I choose to "Lead with Faith"

That's the first time in a while I have really really agreed with you!

 

I apologize for my continual referral to philosophical articles etc- but if you have not read about Fideism, I heartily recommend this start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

[Robert F. Smith]

Hi Robert,

 

Sorry to take so long to get back to you but it was a busy long weekend.

 

Nothing I have ever seen regarding the Hor scroll from either contemporary descriptions and articles, scholarly works, publications by the church, like Nibley's series of 1968 Improvement Era article, or from those who have examined the papyri recently indicates anything other than text on one side. Is it possible? Maybe, but I would think highly unlikely. It is hard to imagine that they would glue backing paper on papyri that was written on both sides. It is even harder to believe if one considers all the contemporary descriptions are of the sides we still have and, if you throw in the possibility that Joseph Smith was actually able to read what was on the papyri, why would he destroy anything of value by gluing paper over it?

 

So while I cannot say for certain, all evidence points against it.

Excellent points.  Thanks.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think you're going to have a tough time finding papyrus written on both sidess. There are cases when papyrus was washed clean of the ink from a previous text; the remaining underlying text is therefore older. Washing away previous texts was done when papyrus was too expensive or too hard to come by. (The original papyrus plant actually became extinct in Egypt and the current papyrus plant is a transplant from a European source.)

Two sided papyrus was used in book form or codex, but the surviving documents are from roughly 100 to 150 years AD. Scroll form papyrus written on both sides will be the absolute exception. I have never seen papyrus in scroll form written on both sides.

Well, the Hor Breathing Text itself claims to have been written on both sides, as Ritner (JSP 127-131) and everyone else reads it – in P. JS XI, i, 5:3-6 (cf. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., 107), but that may have been only a rhetorical claim.

 

As I noted above, in 1896 in the Middle Kingdom Theban tomb of a lector-priest, were three magical papyri “which were written on the back of old military dispatches.”  The same tomb which disclosed the Semna Papyri.  Ian Shaw in David Silverman, ed., Ancient Egypt (London: Duncan Baird Publ., 1997), 78.

 

The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, for example, has 469 total lines of hieratic, front and back, in 17 pages of papyrus – which was 4.68 m long (468 cm).

 

There are many such examples, and non-Mormon Egyptologist Robert Porter recently declared that "papyri were typically reused on the reverse not very long after first use."  He was speaking of the oldest known papyri, those from Wadi el-Jarf, which are contemporary with the building of the Great Pyramid of Khufu. 

[DBMormon]

That's the first time in a while I have really really agreed with you!

 

I apologize for my continual referral to philosophical articles etc- but if you have not read about Fideism, I heartily recommend this start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

If you have one book or article to recommend I will read it, but I get so many recommended articles and books each week, I usually promise no one nothing.  I wish I could read all that people want me to.  If you have something on mp3 that is more likely to be listened to as I listen to a lot of stuff while I drive.

[bcuzbcuz]

 

Well, the Hor Breathing Text itself claims to have been written on both sides, as Ritner (JSP 127-131) and everyone else reads it – in P. JS XI, i, 5:3-6 (cf. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., 107), but that may have been only a rhetorical claim.

 

As I noted above, in 1896 in the Middle Kingdom Theban tomb of a lector-priest, were three magical papyri “which were written on the back of old military dispatches.”  The same tomb which disclosed the Semna Papyri.  Ian Shaw in David Silverman, ed., Ancient Egypt (London: Duncan Baird Publ., 1997), 78.

 

The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, for example, has 469 total lines of hieratic, front and back, in 17 pages of papyrus – which was 4.68 m long (468 cm).

 

There are many such examples, and non-Mormon Egyptologist Robert Porter recently declared that "papyri were typically reused on the reverse not very long after first use."  He was speaking of the oldest known papyri, those from Wadi el-Jarf, which are contemporary with the building of the Great Pyramid of Khufu. 

 

 

 

I was not sufficiently clear in my statement. Yes, there are papyrus sheets with writing on both sides, but the author of the backside text is not the same as the frontside text.

 

Is it not so that the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus that you talk about contains the 48 specific cases on the front side, while the 69 additional comments, explanatory notes, were added a few hundred years later?

[Robert F. Smith]

I was not sufficiently clear in my statement. Yes, there are papyrus sheets with writing on both sides, but the author of the backside text is not the same as the frontside text.

 

Is it not so that the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus that you talk about contains the 48 specific cases on the front side, while the 69 additional comments, explanatory notes, were added a few hundred years later?

My point is that papyri which are not directly related to one another, and can come from diverse eras, often have writing on front and back.  In the case of a papyrus having the Hor Breathing Text on one side and a different text on the other side, I don't see any problem.  So I would like to see some evidence of that from someone who has access to the papyri. 

[CA Steve]

My point is that papyri which are not directly related to one another, and can come from diverse eras, often have writing on front and back.  In the case of a papyrus having the Hor Breathing Text on one side and a different text on the other side, I don't see any problem.  So I would like to see some evidence of that from someone who has access to the papyri. 

Robert,

 

I have heard that Kerry Muhlestein has said that they've tried using various imaging techniques to detect writing on the verso, but the backing paper is too thick. I cannot verify that.  Though even if they could verify some writing on the back I do not see that as help in any way for those that believe the Book of Abraham was on the scroll of Hor. Would there be any reason to believe that such text would be actually be the Book of Abraham? We have every reason to believe Joseph thought he was working on the recto side.

[mfbukowski]

I think if you look at this discussion from the point of view of a reasonable agnostic you will see how all sides are based completely on faith, hoping to come up with some explanation to justify a belief that cannot be justified through reason alone.  And yet the methodology you are using does not include faith and testimony.

 

It's like putting on very dark sunglasses and seeing if you can tell one color from another with the glasses on

 

This discussion can only exist among believers

 

The Book was revelation.  End of story.

[bcuzbcuz]

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/12/academia-not-right-at-all-costs.html

Your statements are wrong on so many levels. You are under the impression that hieroglyphs have phonetic values. That is only true for 20 + glyphs but ignores the 200 + additional glyphs that are double or triple consonant combinations, sometimes with vowels attached. Even if you could define all those glyphs as phonetic, you must add in (for Middle Egyptian) an additional 1800 characters. (For late Egyptian that number jumps to 7000).

Apart from this, and as I see it, the most important part, when translating, is achieving a consistent result. The poetic license you feel "should be" hidden through the use of various symbols or dependent upon whether the text is read left to right or top to bottom is not found in hieroglyphs. The ancient egyptians had systems that outlined direction and even confirmed which consonants were included.

Their guidelines produce a consistent result, reproducing words and sentences. The interpretation lies not in the symbols used but in the meaning of the thoughts.....much like modern speech and writing.

You want the meaning hidden and secret, only available for a chosen few, or indeed for one person only.

You want shopping lists to be open for interpretation. That turns sugar into salt, or maybe even into complete nonsense. The ancient Egyptians were smarter than that.

[DragonLancer]

Your statements are wrong on so many levels. You are under the impression that hieroglyphs have phonetic values. That is only true for 20 + glyphs but ignores the 200 + additional glyphs that are double or triple consonant combinations, sometimes with vowels attached. Even if you could define all those glyphs as phonetic, you must add in (for Middle Egyptian) an additional 1800 characters. (For late Egyptian that number jumps to 7000).

Apart from this, and as I see it, the most important part, when translating, is achieving a consistent result. The poetic license you feel "should be" hidden through the use of various symbols or dependent upon whether the text is read left to right or top to bottom is not found in hieroglyphs. The ancient egyptians had systems that outlined direction and even confirmed which consonants were included.

Their guidelines produce a consistent result, reproducing words and sentences. The interpretation lies not in the symbols used but in the meaning of the thoughts.....much like modern speech and writing.

You want the meaning hidden and secret, only available for a chosen few, or indeed for one person only.

You want shopping lists to be open for interpretation. That turns sugar into salt, or maybe even into complete nonsense. The ancient Egyptians were smarter than that.

 

 

My dear sir.   You really haven't read anything as deeply as you ought to that I have written.  I have mentioned the uniliterals (single consonant), biliterals (double consonant), triliterals (triple consonants), over and over and over.

 

Just quoting facts to me that I already know does not prove me wrong, and doesn't prove that you have anything constructive to say.  Every Egyptian hieroglyph, phonetic or not, is a picture of something.  Those pictures, if they are used phonetically are used phonetically.  if they form a pun using the rebus principle, then they are still basically phonetic, but the bottom line is, they are textual, not pictographic in the regular way of doing things.  I already know this, and for you to tell me this stuff is just you trying to sound like you know facts as if I do not know facts.  What I have to say about this is entirely different than anything that you have anything to say about.  That is just a fact

 

If they are used abstractly in this other system that the KEP defines, then they are used differently to represent things.  you can't seem to open your mind to anything you don't know, I'm constantly both on the defensive and the offensive.  you can't compliment the idea saying, hey, that sounds like a nice idea and is plausible.  you have to try to destroy it and say that it is stupid, and that no facts uphold it whatsoever.  That shows that the problem is not me.  It's your closed mindedness that is a problem.

 

I already respect the fact that Egyptian works the way it works.  I don't need you to lecture me yet again as if you think you are teaching me something.  This is simply not the regular way to use Egyptian.  So it doesn't use the rules of mechanical Egyptian discovered by the Egyptologists, following the evidence in the rosetta stone.  It is not meant to produce consistent results that are reproducible, because it is art.  It is only reproducible with the key containing the explanations in the KEP.  It is meant to have explanations to define it, to reign it in, and to keep it within its bounds that it is meant to have.  With its key or legend, it is not nonsense.  Without it, it is abstract.

 

As Hugh Nibley writes:

 

The man on the throne [Facsimile 2, Fig. 7] is Min, the oldest incarnation of the Father, Creator, King, Most High God.  He was brought to Egypt by the first immigrants, Naqadah I and II.  Notice that the image does not depict God, but is a representation; the artist, like the mathematician, can use ANYTHING HE PLEASES to represent anything else AS LONG AS HE EXPLAINS IT. (One Eternal Round, p. 304, capitalization added for emphasis.  Italics in original.)

 

 

 

The implications of Nibley's statement when applied to the KEP is clear.  An explanation is necessary for an abstract symbol to make any sense.  But you all only want it to apply to the Facsimiles.  You want to have a double standard so that it can't apply to any other characters like text characters.  Once again, your double standard is manifest.  Nibley would himself even say that his statement applies to everything BUT Egyptian characters that are typically textual characters, just as you, because Nibley dismissed the KEP as you do, and was guilty of the same double standard as you.  Nibley would have never applied his own statement to the KEP.  But the KEP and Sensen characters deserve to have this statement applied to them as much as anything Egyptian.

 

I grow tired of trying to talk to people that don't want to know anything than what they already know.  So it is kind of useless to respond to you at all, were it not for the fact that I hope someday someone else will profit from what I am doing.  I already know that it is unprofitable to speak to you and those like you.

 

The whole point is that this is not reproducible without a key outside of the document.  Of course it is not reproducible without a key, because it is abstract.  That is the system.  The key or legend is the document that defines the parameters of the usage of the document outside of the document itself.  It is the thing that gives it shape.  The rules are defined in the mappings.  This is precisely the ancient intent, for it to be abstract, and for a key to be provided with explanations.

 

Mr. Bcuzbcuz, the irony of what you are saying is that many of you on this board and who are a part of FAIRMormon and so forth are so open to William Schryver's explanations.  Schryver's theory makes the KEP into a modern thing that is a system that does precisely what you are saying:  an open system of abstractions that are assigned meanings.  So your hypocrisy is that many apologists already believe in a system of abstractions and assigned meanings in a key for the KEP.  It's just that, the only reason you like it is because it is purported to be a modern creation.  Yet if I suggest that someone who was an ancient person did this same thing in ancient times (precisely what Schryver is claiming that Phelps did), why you are calling that silliness.  You yourself said that Egyptians were smart.  Well, this Egyptian actually knew the core meaning of Hieroglyphs and hieratics.  So, here I am, a guy suggesting something similar to Scryver's theory, but that it happened in ancient times.  Geez, we can't have that.  That is anathema to the possibilities and the probabilities, because you know everything, and so you have created the very blinders that keep you from seeing what I am saying.  If you are an apologist that accepts William Schryver's theory, then you have a double standard and are manifesting hypocrisy.  You yourself said that the Egyptians were smart.

 

So, to summarize for emphasis, the irony is that you say that this cannot be, when what I am proposing is that an ancient person created a cipher in ancient times with a key after the same type as William Schryver says that William W. Phelps created.  I am saying that the rediscovery of this ancient cipher and key is found in the KEP translated by Joseph Smith.  Geez.  How about that for irony.

 

You are all in love with William Schryver's explanations, but when someone says an ancient person did it who had understanding of the meanings of these characters and used them in artistic ways!  Why, we can't have that!  Only a moron would suggest that, no doubt is what is in your mind!  Some of you want somebody in modern times to have done it when the evidence shows that Joseph Smith restored what somebody did in ancient times, evidence that you refuse to accept.  You are OK with an open system invented by somebody in modern times, but not when somebody actually did it in ancient times and it was Joseph Smith translated the intent of that ancient system.  You roll out the red carpet for a guy like Schryver in 2010 at your conference that says that this doesn't translate but that Phelps did it.  But in fact, it DOES translate, and it is not modern at all.  It is ancient.  When I submitted my paper to FAIR in 2010 at the same time period, you all ignored me, and you continue to not care and ignore what I'm really saying.  You only want to know what you think I'm saying and how impossible it is because I'm saying that the Sensen Papyrus was made into a piece of art.  You all touted that Schryver was a Software Engineer and was thereby trained to able to see what was going on.  But when another Software Engineer comes along with this, he must be an idiot in your mind.  All because he dares to say that it is ancient.  The moment he says it is ancient, but doesn't match the mechanical Egyptian system.  Oh heaven help us!  This guy is a nutcase to suggest that Joseph Smith actually restored something ancient that doesn't fit our presuppositions!  Call out the paddy wagon and get the strait jacket and let's shut this guy up!

 

I am finding more and more that each LDS author/theorist has a piece of the truth, but lacks key vision of where to go with that truth because they mistreat the primary physical evidence of the Sensen Papyrus and the KEP.  William Schryver is one of them.  He came so close, but because he is John Gee's protege, he was misled by John Gee's lack of good methodology and his ideology.  If only Brother Schryver could have seen what he has when applied to an ancient setting.  You all want to modernize the KEP.  You don't want to defend it's ancient intent.  You don't want to rediscover its ancient intent.  You want to either transform it into a bunch of scribes messing around or creating nonsense words with characters they don't understand, or creating a cipher.  You don't want an ancient person doing this.  But he actually knew what he was doing with the languages he was doing his art project with.

 

You don't want to know the ancient intent of this cipher with its legend/key because you are stuck on a mechanical process, when the point of the religion of the people that made up the system intended it to be open, because it is a cipher with assignments of meanings.  It was never meant to be the mechanical intent of this document.  This is not using the Sensen papyrus as a mechanical device that produces some result as you say.   This is not even the regular Egyptian religion, but a local cult of people that transformed all sorts of things in to all kinds of things that they never were in the first place.  That's what Syncretism is, a hodge podge of things that were transformed into things different from what they were in the beginning.  That's what the Greco-Roman Syncretists were doing.  They were not practicing Egyptian religion.  They were doing something of their own invention.  This is entirely about transformation.  No, actually the Egyptians were artists, not mechanics, smart enough to make things into things that were transformable.  That's what makes it an art process and a piece of art.  That's what makes it unconventional.  That's what makes it what it is.  Because it is open.  The whole point of my research is to say that this is the usage of the papyrus that yields the results we've been looking for, not for the results that you've failed to deliver with your mechanical tin man of a process.

 

And it doesn't matter what other results could result from an open system.  It's the intent of the person that used it for certain things that he used it for that matters, not what other people would use it for.  That's why the KEP is the important thing, because it is precisely because of the abstract nature of the system that you need a legend or need a mapping.  It is precisely because it is an ancient cipher along the same order of what William Schryver was trying to say that a modern person created that it would need a key or legend, except in ancient times.  Your words manifest a small minded paradigm that is not interested in the ancient intent that will forever be in the rut that your small-minded world delivers.

 

This thing could never bring consistent results, because it was not meant to bring consistent results on its own.  Abstractions cannot bring anything on their own.  The legend or mapping or key is required for consistent results, because they nail down the abstractions to their actual usage.  That's why Joseph Smith translated the contents of the KEP.  It's the KEP that confines things to a certain scope to see how abstractions mean what they are assigned, and how the abstractions are logical containers for that which is assigned to them.  And by reverse-engineering that, we can see the logic if we want to.

 

The KEP was never about mechanical, Egyptological Egyptian and never claimed to be.

 

You say "You want the meaning hidden and secret, only available for a chosen few, or indeed for one person only."  No kidding.  That's what Schryver said that Phelps was creating.  Something that was hiding meaning to the eyes of the uninitiated, but many of you are OK with that and you thought it was brilliant, but god forbid that an apologist should suggest that for an ancient setting.

 

Frankly, your double standard and lack of vision just doesn't speak very positively.

Edited December 6, 2014 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

I am writing this post, because I'm tired of having the same thing happen over and over again, where LDS Apologists think that they make charges that my research is not supported by Egyptological evidence, as if theirs is.

 

Let's be real clear here.  The ONLY major thing that LDS Egyptologists and non-LDS Egyptologists agree on is that the Sensen papyrus, when you translate it from the point of view of conventional Egyptological Egyptian, it does not translate to the Book of Abraham.  Beyond that, though, LDS Egyptologists make all kinds of claims focusing on the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham and the internal evidences in the text, that non-LDS Egyptologists do not agree with.

 

Neither LDS Egyptologists nor non-LDS Egyptologists or even lay LDS Apologists that think that they know things really have anything to say about this particular type of Secondary Intent in the Sensen Papyrus that I have evidence for.  It is really out of their zone.  They have never seen it before, so how can they comment on it being unfamiliar with the facts?  Yet they presume to know that it cannot happen, even though my evidence is available that demonstrates it.  And they condemn it.  This is the use of academic authority in pretensions to be authoritative.  I will speak more about this in a moment.

 

Mormon apologists and the LDS Egyptologists among them try to argue for the authenticity of Joseph Smith's translations of the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham.  Hugh Nibley did a good job in his book One Eternal Round doing so, except for his dismissal of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  He did what he did to counter non-Mormon Egyptological charges that the Facsimile #2 contains incorrect translations.  He is questioning the claims coming from individuals like the eminent Egyptologist Robert Ritner and many others who have condemned Joseph Smith's translations.  Mormon apologists have a long history of going against the establishment, so the subject of this post is not very new in that respect.

 

What is interesting, is for Mormon Apologists to attempt to condemn a theory of one of their own, using the argument that it goes against Egyptology.  That is precisely what happened to yours truly on this message board in the last couple of weeks.  Sorry, but Mormons can try as they might to be as science friendly and as science-based as possible, but they will fail to be entirely scientific if they mix their faith in with it at all, and we do it all the time.  We are fighting for our faith, and we do it by mixing our testimonies with science.  That is just life.  Mixing faith in with science is not a bad thing.  But it is unscientific to do such a thing.  And Mormons are doing it all the time to defend their claims.  Mormons MUST do it to create an environment or space where they can maintain faith.

 

Permit me to throw down the gauntlet for a moment, to level the playing field, in the most respectful way I can think of.

It is interesting that Mormons that are unscientific and un-Egyptological in the first place are accusing a fellow Mormon of being un-Egyptological.  I never claimed to be an expert in Egyptology but I know enough to know what I'm talking about, and to comment on what I am commenting on.  It is interesting that people like this would condemn a theory, when they are trying to promote the idea that Joseph Smith's translations in the Facsimiles are valid themselves in the first place, which no non-LDS Egyptologist will agree with.  My point is, the pot can continue to call the kettle black, but we are all in this same type of fight, on the same type of foundation.  So my suggestion to such people is to perhaps think about your own standing of your own material, before you condemn me and mine, on this type of contrived basis.  Think about the beam in your own eye first.  Just because it isn't accepted by other people that consider themselves authoritative in their own realm and in their own group really means nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLa8HYsfpM

See the Non-LDS Egyptological assessment of Kerry Muhlestein's scholarship in the Youtube toward the end of this video above put out by "Flackerman."  This is typical of what I'm talking about, about how LDS academicians are doing exactly what I am saying they are.  And this shows the evidence of the opinions of other non-LDS Egyptologists.  This shows Muhlestein's omission of the very evidence I am talking about, that non-LDS Egyptologists have a handle on.  This is the very evidence that I am talking about that my theory actually employs and has a handle on.  However, I do not agree with this "Flackerman" that Mormons are defending the indefensible.  For example, see this following blog post where I argue that something that seems indefensible or impossible actually is just a sign that we just need to keep on being persistent until we find real answers:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-said-to-be-impossible-is-most.html

Muhlestien also points out how the basis of his claims are the questionable newspaper and journal sources that run contrary to the physical evidence we have on hand from the KEP and the Sensen Papyrus and the Book of Abraham manuscripts.  Once again, this is akin to using old "prophetic" sources to establish a hemispherical geography or a "heartlander" North American Geography for the Book of Mormon.  But scholarship for Book of Mormon Geography shows that source material is everything.  It has shown that using the Book of Mormon text itself, and dispensing with the old problematic material outside of it is the only acceptable methodology, which results in a Book of Mormon Land Southward in Mesoamerica.  See this post on my other blog:

http://thoughtfulmormonism.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-summary-of-my-position-on-book-of.html

(Other Book of Mormon "geographers" disagree about my stance on Cumorah in New York, but we are all agreed on Mesoamerica as the Land Southward, and that the Book of Mormon text establishes this to be so.)

Muhlestien and Gee and others ought to have learned a thing or two from LDS Mesoamericanists like John Sorenson who know that they can't use the Fredrick Williams' "Lehi Landed in Chile" statement to establish where Lehi landed.  Yet Muhlestien and Gee are trying to use these same types of sources to establish that there is a missing papyrus.  Interesting.  So, not only are these types of LDS scholars breaking the methodological rules in use by their peers in Book of Mormon studies.  But their conclusions are not shared by their academic peers outside the LDS community at all.  Kara Cooney, PhD, Egyptologist, wrote the following, as quoted in the supplied youtube video above:

 

Kerry is just spinning out the same Mormon rhetoric.  What is different is:  Mormons are funding PhDs in Egyptology and Biblical Studies and then funding positions at BYU and elsewhere and passing these people off as experts, when they are only ideologically driven researchers, not experts interested in actual evidence.

 

So, similarly, many LDS elitists are in support of Barney's Semitic Adaptation Theory.  If one were to ask, say, Robert Ritner or Ed Ashment (non-LDS Egyptologists) what they think of Barney's Semitic Adaptation theory the reaction would be predictable.  LDS elitists may have constructed a clique among themselves.  But, in many cases, I have the same types of evidences as they do.  But in other cases, my arguments happen to employ types of evidence that are agreed upon by non-Mormon Egyptologists and academicians who do not have a pro-Mormon bias, namely Robert Ritner, Ed Ashment and so forth, even though they do not believe the translations are valid.  That is beside the point that they aren't believers.  They have a handle on the evidence.  And even some Mormon ones like Stephen Thompson and Richley Crapo agree that there is no missing papyrus, and that Joseph Smith was attempting translations of the Sensen Papyrus.  Even David Bokovoy agrees there is no missing papyrus, though his theory is different than mine.  It is Chris Smith's research and Ed Ashment's research that harmonize with my conclusions, at least on the issue of what is truly evidence of the translation process.  So who is actually on more solid ground, and who actually is in harmony with scholarly opinion that matters?  Rather than being something some group with a special interest can decide on their own, it boils down to one's point of view rather than some authority figure in some realm being able to pass judgement that all authorities would agree on.  Let's let history decide and make that judgement, and we shall see.

Forgive me for having to engage in these kinds of criticisms of my colleagues in the Book of Abraham Studies realm.  But it is absolutely necessary to level the playing field.  What is the difference between me and my colleagues who Dr. Cooney described as "ideologically driven researchers" who are not "experts interested in actual evidence"?  Well, first, we must understand a concept to answer that.  Corrupt politicians, judges, lawyers and policemen practice what is known as color of law, rather than law itself.  Good policemen who know the law, and good judges and so forth, adhere to the law and the evidence and the constitution.  I draw a parallel here.  I am not saying that my colleagues are corrupt.  It is evident that they are well-intentioned.  Nevertheless, I coin the term "color of academic authority" here to describe this phenomenon among Book of Abraham theorists.

On the Mormon Stories site, for example, John Dehlin, the host of the Mormon Stories podcast, put up a post on his site seeking questions for a researcher named Brent Metcalfe, who is an important researcher for both Book of Mormon Studies and Book of Abraham Studies.  A comment left by an Apologist named Mike Parker, affiliated with FAIRMormon Management stated, in response to Mr. Dehlin's request:

What academic qualifications does Mr. Metcalfe have to authoritatively speak on subjects like the historicity of the Book of Abraham?

What academic publications does Mr. Metcalfe have to his name that qualifies him to be called “one of the foremost scholars in understanding the Book of Abraham”?

Why didn’t Mr. Metcalfe publish his long-anticipated book disproving the Book of Abraham?

(These are sincere questions, FWIW.)  (http://mormonstories.org/questions-for-brent-metcalfe/)

 

At the time, I felt a twinge of irritation to Parker.  So, that resulted in my own reply to Parker's post:

 

Yes, because remember that the paradigm speaking through Mike’s words is not just representative of him. It’s the same adhominem from his whole establishment that shows how much they think they own the intellectual world. It shows how establishment Apologists from FAIR and Interpreter and the rest of the former FARMS crew only care about your academic achievements even if you actually do do serious research on the Book of Abraham. Because researchers like me are not taken seriously by them, even if we have serious and significant contributions. They have proven time and time again that that is all they care about. They have shown time and time again that that is all that matters to them. So yes, Brent, please comment on this phenomenon.

 

There is no academic doctorate degree in Book of Abraham studies.  One must actually be familiar with the evidence of this field to have knowledge of it.  A degree in Egyptology does not make one qualified to comment on the specifics of Book of Abraham studies authoritatively, especially if one mistreats the evidence.  That is just a fact.  Mr. Metcalfe is a former Mormon, and a critic of Mormonism.  However, he does have a handle on the evidence in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and the Sensen Papyrus, and is an expert on it, just like Ed Ashment.  He does not mistreat the evidence the way Kerry Muhlstien and John Gee do.  I do not agree with Ed Ashment or Brett Metcalfe about their criticisms of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his translations.  I only know that they are right about the fundamental evidence.  Their conclusions based on that evidence are incorrect.

There is no academic doctorate degree in the field of this type of Secondary Intent in the Sensen Papyrus.  This is a new trail that I am blazing.  Nobody previous to me is familiar with the evidence that I have.  So to cast judgement on something they are unfamiliar with, without being intimately familiar with what I have done is not acceptable when they are not an expert in the evidence of the field that is entirely new to them.

I respect brother Brian Hales immensely.  He is not an example of bad scholarship like John Gee and Kerry Muhlstien.  He is instead an example of being an expert in something he doesn't have a degree in specifically, because there is no degree for it.  He is an expert in Mormon Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism Studies.  Yet, his qualifications are that he is a medical doctor, a field entirely unrelated to anything like Mormon Studies.  His qualifications are that he has studied the material and has become expert in the material.  Mormon Apologists that have training in this or that seldom have training in anything specific to what they are actually commenting on, yet they act like gods of some field that they have no specific training in, because there is no specific training in Book of Mormon Geography.  There is only training in archaeology or anthropology.

I am a Software Engineer.  Another brother named William Schryver is considered by many in the Mormon Apologetics world to be an expert on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  What then is the difference between Brother Schryver and myself, two Senior Software Engineers in our day jobs?  One is accepted by the elites in Mormon Apologetics, and the other is not.  One is a protege of John Gee, and the other is not.  In 2010, when Brother Schryver was presenting his material at the FAIRMormon Conference, FAIRMormon Management touted the fact that he was a Software Engineer, and rolled out the red carpet for him.  It is my opinion that Brother Schryver mistreats the evidence after the same manner that John Gee does, which is why I believe he is accepted as a protege.  It is not a coincidence that John Gee supposedly could not show up to deliver his message at the 2010 FAIR conference, and conveniently, William Schryver was there, fully prepared to deliver it for him.  It was a tacit nod of Gee's approval of Schryver's message as well as his own and the making of Schryver into his proxy, deliberately.  I do not believe that Gee could not show up, but that it was engineered to give Schryver more notoriety.  They had trumpeted Schryver's presentation all over the Deseret News and the message boards like it was the most important discovery of the century.  I was there and filmed it with my own video camera.  So here, we are two software engineers.  However, they paste Schryver's stuff all over the FAIRMormon wiki as authoritative.  I have all the same qualifications that Schryver has, yet my theory has been deliberately censored from that very wiki by FAIR Management.

So the difference between the research on my blog and theirs is this:   (1) The research on my blog doesn't use color of academic authority to promote my bias, contrary to my colleagues (partially of course because I don't pretend to have academic authority to begin with.  I am not an academic).  I am self-trained and claim a certain expertise in the niches that I am self-trained in to the degree that that self-training has gotten me what I have in my gray matter.  (2) In my research, the bias is admitted that there is an ideological drive to present the material (that a bias exists to defend Joseph Smith).  Other Mormon researchers claim to be entirely objective when they mix their faith with things just as much.  (3) My research is based on the physical evidence as its cornerstone, not on constructing a missing, imaginary papyrus with old newspaper reports.  It does not transform the Kirtland Egyptian Papers into a modern phenomenon like William Schryver's Modern Cipher Theory does when Joseph Smith claimed it to be ancient material translated in the modern day.  (4) Since I have nothing to lose, my material presents what needs to be presented openly.  Other organizations that are part of the establishment would love to entirely squelch what I have to say, and I believe that they actively engage behind the scenes in trying to make sure that I get ignored.

In saying this, it doesn't make everything that Book of Abraham theorists in the Church say invalid by any means.  It just says that to a large degree, their work ignores the primary evidence, and until it stops doing that, its conclusions will be forever fundamentally flawed in certain areas that have to do with the translation process, etc.

 

I am tired of being treated the way I have been treated.  I am tired of people acting like they are gods, and that nobody else has anything else to contribute.

Edited December 6, 2014 by DragonLancer

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

 

I have heard that Kerry Muhlestein has said that they've tried using various imaging techniques to detect writing on the verso, but the backing paper is too thick. I cannot verify that.  Though even if they could verify some writing on the back I do not see that as help in any way for those that believe the Book of Abraham was on the scroll of Hor. Would there be any reason to believe that such text would be actually be the Book of Abraham? We have every reason to believe Joseph thought he was working on the recto side.

Plenty of people clearly take that approach.   I just don't buy it -- mainly because the Book of Abraham text cannot possibly come from the recto side, and you and most others agree on that, while suggesting that Joseph at least mistakenly believed that the text was on the recto side.  That's what the catalyst notions are all about.

 

That way, everyone can sort of meet in the middle:  One side can have a Joseph with an overactive imagination, while others can seem him being inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Both from the same source.  Sounds too facile to me, and doesn't account for Joseph's high score of accurate interpretations.

[bcuzbcuz]

 

That way, everyone can sort of meet in the middle:  One side can have a Joseph with an overactive imagination, while others can seem him being inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Both from the same source.  Sounds too facile to me, and doesn't account for Joseph's high score of accurate interpretations.

To quote Billy Sheehan, "The middle ground is very seldom won,

It ends up overcooked or underdone."

[bcuzbcuz]

My dear sir.   You really haven't read anything as deeply as you ought to that I have written.  I have mentioned the uniliterals (single consonant), biliterals (double consonant), triliterals (triple consonants), over and over and over.

Au contraire, I saw your mention of the various consonant combinations. I didn't find it necessary to quote everything you wrote. In this particular case, you mention the combinations but seem to ignore their significance.

 

 It's your closed mindedness that is a problem. I already respect the fact that Egyptian works the way it works.  

It appears we agree on the substance of your statement, but merely disagree as to whom it applies.

As Hugh Nibley writes:

 

The man on the throne [Facsimile 2, Fig. 7] is Min, the oldest incarnation of the Father, Creator, King, Most High God. He was brought to Egypt by the first immigrants, Naqadah I and II. Notice that the image does not depict God, but is a representation; the artist, like the mathematician, can use ANYTHING HE PLEASES to represent anything else AS LONG AS HE EXPLAINS IT. (One Eternal Round, p. 304, capitalization added for emphasis. Italics in original.)

The implications of Nibley's statement when applied to the KEP is clear.  An explanation is necessary for an abstract symbol to make any sense.  ......................................................because Nibley dismissed the KEP as you do, and was guilty of the same double standard as you.  Nibley would have never applied his own statement to the KEP.  But the KEP and Sensen characters deserve to have this statement applied to them as much as anything Egyptian.

 

Interesting that you quote Nibley, then dismiss him. You think his statement is significant and that he overlooked the significance himself. But Nibley's statement is worthy of dismissal for a completely different reason.

Nibley's reference to Min is misdirected to the extent that everything else he mentions is not only wrong but catastrophically wrong.

Min was not an incarnation of anything or anyone or any god(s), Definitely not an incarnation of God the Father, or the creator,, or anything connected to Judaism or Christianity. Min was and still is a homebred god of fertility (if one can believe the abundance of Min statues sold to tourists at the Valley of the Kings).

The Naqada I and Naqada II peoples were not immigrants.

The Egyptians did not start from Egyptus (I know Nibley didn't mention her here....because it would have opened him to unending ridicule by those that actually believe what the archaeological finds witness of; an unbroken chain of Egyptian history that goes past and beyond the Biblical flood.)

I grow tired of trying to talk to people that don't want to know anything than what they already know.  So it is kind of useless to respond to you at all, were it not for the fact that I hope someday someone else will profit from what I am doing.

 

Again, we agree.

[DragonLancer]

Au contraire, I saw your mention of the various consonant combinations. I didn't find it necessary to quote everything you wrote. In this particular case, you mention the combinations but seem to ignore their significance.

 

It appears we agree on the substance of your statement, but merely disagree as to whom it applies.

 

Interesting that you quote Nibley, then dismiss him. You think his statement is significant and that he overlooked the significance himself. But Nibley's statement is worthy of dismissal for a completely different reason.

Nibley's reference to Min is misdirected to the extent that everything else he mentions is not only wrong but catastrophically wrong.

Min was not an incarnation of anything or anyone or any god(s), Definitely not an incarnation of God the Father, or the creator,, or anything connected to Judaism or Christianity. Min was and still is a homebred god of fertility (if one can believe the abundance of Min statues sold to tourists at the Valley of the Kings).

The Naqada I and Naqada II peoples were not immigrants.

The Egyptians did not start from Egyptus (I know Nibley didn't mention her here....because it would have opened him to unending ridicule by those that actually believe what the archaeological finds witness of; an unbroken chain of Egyptian history that goes past and beyond the Biblical flood.)

Again, we agree.

 

Ignore their significance?  Sir.  I acknowledge the significance of everything you are right about ALONG WITH their significance for pictographic, artistic implementations that I am pushing for.

 

You say I quote Nibley and then dismiss him.  I congratulate Nibley here AND in my blog over and over where he got it right.  I show his double standard where he got it wrong on the KEP, just like I quote John Gee when he gets it right, and I criticize him where he gets it wrong.  I use the work of Brent Metcalfe and Ed Ashment when they get it right, and criticize them where they get it wrong.  Geez.  Equal opportunity for praise or criticism where people have it right or wrong, depending on their rightness or wrongness of an issue ant hand.  Don't take my words out of context.  Nothing is personal.  This is all about who is right on this, and who is wrong on that.  It's all about correct or incorrect information presented.

 

If you can show me details where I have it wrong, then I will fix those.  Just because I won't give up my "cause" that I believe in doesn't make me closed-minded.  I am open to correction.  I always have been.

 

Min is everything Nibley claimed, absolutely able to be a pictographic representation of God the Father, when we apply iconotropy or Semitic Adaptation.  Sorry.  He was right in this case.  You are absolutely wrong here, except I'm sure you are right about your identification of the Naqada peoples.  I congratulate you that you are right on Egyptological Egyptian in the grand majority of things you have said about it.  I criticize you for your closed mindedness on my theory.  You just as much as Nibley or anyone else.  I criticize you here for your closed mindedness on the ability of Egyptians or other ancients to use Min as a figure that can be a representation of something that is not Min.

 

You say I am closed minded and that my statement applies to myself.  I'm not the one that didn't say that what you are saying is right within the Egyptological realm it is correct in.  You are absolutely right within the realm you have an expertise in.  Where I have an expertise in, you are dead wrong.  Just because I disagree with the fact that you dismiss me doesn't make ME closed minded.  It makes you the person that dismissed ME and MY work.

 

Every criticism I have for LDS Apologetics is where they get it wrong, not where they have it right, which is probably around 85% or 90% or more when it comes to the Book of Abraham.  All of my criticisms in everything I have said is aimed at where people have it wrong.  They deserve criticism where they have it wrong, and ought to be grateful for the opportunity to correct wrong information.  I know I deserve criticism where I have it wrong.  That doesn't mean I have to give up my cause.  I know I deserve to have to admit wrongness when I see that I am wrong.  I do it all the time.

 

You criticize me for accepting one thing Nibley has to say and criticizing something else where he had it wrong.  Well, that's the way it works.  People are right about some things and wrong about others.

Edited December 7, 2014 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

The Egyptians did not start from Egyptus (I know Nibley didn't mention her here....because it would have opened him to unending ridicule by those that actually believe what the archaeological finds witness of; an unbroken chain of Egyptian history that goes past and beyond the Biblical flood.)

 

I agree with you on this by the way, that Egypt had an unbroken history from pre-flood times.  I do not believe in a global flood.  I believe in a local flood in America (Ether 13:2), not in the middle east, and that the flood waters took the ark out to sea.  I believe that the ark had a global sea trek and landed in the middle east on the coast of Iraq, not on a mountain.  I believe Ararat is a corruption or variant of the place-name Eridu/Iritu, because the consonants are the same.  And that it is a mistranslation in the scriptures that it says "mountains of."  I believe that it is actually meaning to say "land of" Ararat/Eridu, not "mountains of."  I believe that the word "har" in the text for mountain is a mistranslation of the Sumerian "kur" (land of/mountain), which is clearly a cognate.  But I believe that the intent of the scriptures is that it is meant to say "land of".  See this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur

 

The flood traditions of Sumer/Babylonia are clear to say that Noah or the flood hero landed at the mouth of the two rivers, not in Turkey.  The place-name Ararat in Turkey is a place-name migration.  It is not the origin of the name.  The origin of the name is the port on the coast of Iraq at the mouth of the two rivers of Mesopotamia.  

 

So, Noah landed on the coast of Eridu in the district of Dilmun, not on a mountain.  And so, everybody has been looking for the ark in the wrong place.  The ark, not landing in a frozen waste, would not have been preserved over time.  Noah landed in an already-inhabited land of Sumer.  It is interesting that Eridu in Sumerian means "house of the faraway built."  It was indeed the place far away from where Noah had come.

 

It is not clear what you believe about the historicity of Egyptus from your statement, but I believe that Egyptus/Zeptah "discovered" an already inhabited Egypt.  Egyptus and her sons represent merely the first line of the descendants of Noah that made their way to Egypt that intermarried with the original inhabitants, much like Lehi's family who intermarried with the already-existing Native American inhabitants of America.  Or, if we even take it further.  Much like Adam's descendants that intermarried with already existing inhabitants of the earth before Adam ever was here, who are descendants of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and so forth.  The black skin of the black Africans came from their ancestors over millions of years in Africa, not from Cain, and not from Ham.  The fact that Cain's children were black has nothing to do with black Africa.  That was a separate blackness unrelated to them.  Ham was a historic person, as was Egyptus, but Ham and Egyptus did not bring black skin to Africa.  The scriptures are the record of the descendants of the covenant race, not the record of all the inhabitants of the earth.  And John Sorenson's concept of "others" not only applies to Native Americans and Lehi's seed.  It applies to all the scriptures in every generation of the covenant race.

 

With this scenario, a limited flood works perfectly with archaeology and geology, as well as with Mormon tradition.  And so, there is no need for mental gymnastics.  The only thing we need to do away with is the global flood misinterpretation of scripture.

Edited December 8, 2014 by DragonLancer