cinepro Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 So, imagine that Egyptian was a known language in 1835, meaning that scholars were able to translate from Egyptian into other languages and this knowledge was well-known and published in widely available books. How would the situation with the creation of the Book of Abraham have played out? Do you think we would still have it, and if so, how would it be different?
DragonLancer Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) No. We would not have had the BOA, and this is why it is so important to understand that it was a key thing that Joseph Smith did NOT understand things the way Egyptian has conventionally been deciphered. This is why Joseph Smith's un-Egyptological understanding of the papyrus we have is so important to understand. We need to reverse-engineer precisely what he was doing in the KEP so we can come to understand how an ancient Egyptian would have un-Egyptologically understood the Sensen Papyrus, so that we can understand the Secondary Intent for this papyrus in the minds of the ancients. Edited February 17, 2015 by DragonLancer
phaedrus ut Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I think we would but the narrative would have the BOA translated from another mysterious source language.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 It is a shame it was not. If it were we may have as part of our theology a monster-fighting journey through the underworld before the resurrection which would be kind of neat. I think we would have it mostly as it is now as well.
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Sure. If the BoA came about something like the BoM, the Translations of the Bible, then it is likely JS didn't use the papyrus nor Egyptian at all. it just kinda came to him. If it weren't the Papyrus that sparked it perhaps it would have been a dream, or an inspired work lifted from reading the Bible. 1
Uncle Dale Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Well, Egyptian vernacular was sort of known -- scholarswere tracing back to pre-Arabic times, based upon lingeringusage among the Copts, etc. By 1835 a few Frenchmen were figuring out a handful ofthe hieroglyphs -- demotic and hieratic were being figuredout (at least what they were, if not what they meant). Even the Palmyra and northern Ohio newspapers were keepingup with the reports coming out of France. So, the Kirtland Mormons must have known that Egyptian languageand writing systems would be deciphered with a few more years. A guy like W. W. Phelps, pondering the Egyptian Alphabet andGrammar, must have comprehended that the Kirtland "scholarship"would one day be subjected to the scrutiny of the wicked Gentiles. So (considering the audience) yes -- I suppose that the NauvooTimes and Seasons would still have published the text (albeit,without the facsimiles). UD
JLHPROF Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Sure. If the BoA came about something like the BoM, the Translations of the Bible, then it is likely JS didn't use the papyrus nor Egyptian at all. it just kinda came to him. If it weren't the Papyrus that sparked it perhaps it would have been a dream, or an inspired work lifted from reading the Bible. I agree with this - I personally think that the Book of Abraham was not a translation of the Egyptian, but a revelation prompted by the imagery and underlying themes of the papyrus.Because while the actual translation of the papyrus doesn't match, many of the themes do. Sometimes revelation is given because a person's mind begins to contemplate a truth, and God decided to expand their understanding and knowledge. Who knows what kind of truth the papyrus caused Joseph to dwell on?
mfbukowski Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 He had no problem revising the bible, perhaps it was just like those revisions. No one was looking for ancient evidence for those revisions. I don't care personally if he received the revelations by staring at the wallpaper, or into an open flame.
rongo Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Ancient Egyptian isn't a "known language" today. Hugh Nibley often made the point that our transcriptions (from the best of secular scholarship) are essentially nonsense. We can make literal transcriptions, but they don't even approach the actual meaning it had to them back then.
Glenn101 Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 A lot of "what if's". So what if all of those other documents had not been destroyed in the Great Fire of Chicago??? What would we have? The answer is, we just do not know. At least not now. Glenn
bcuzbcuz Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Ancient Egyptian isn't a "known language" today. Hugh Nibley often made the point that our transcriptions (from the best of secular scholarship) are essentially nonsense. We can make literal transcriptions, but they don't even approach the actual meaning it had to them back then.An interesting opinion, especially your reference to Nibley claiming current ancient Egyptian transcriptions are essentially nonsense. Do you have anything to back that up?Have you studied ancient Egyptian or ancient Egyptian texts? Take a look at any number of translations of texts like "The Eloquent Peasant", a synopsis can be read on Wikipedia, and a translation is available as a pdf file for free. If you do a search on Scribd, for example, you will find multiple translations of this poem. Scholars will argue whether the original says "I walked" or "I had walked " or "I had been walking" but that´s what scholars do. The beauty of this text, its eloquence, cleverness and understanding of human nature, expressed with a charming, subtle humour is a joy to read.You can take a look at the translation of "The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor". Again, a synopsis can be found on Wikipedia.http://www.reshafim.org.il/.../egypt/texts/the_shipwrecked_sailor " The sailor then answered, "Now I shall tell that which has happened to me, to my very self. I was going to the mines of Pharaoh, and I went down on the sea in a ship of one hundred and fifty cubits long and forty cubits wide, with one hundred and fifty sailors of the best of Egypt who had seen heaven and earth, and whose hearts were stronger than lions. They had said that the wind would not be contrary, or that there would be none. But as we approached the land, the wind arose, and threw up waves eight cubits high. As for me, I seized a piece of wood; but those who were in the vessel perished, without one remaining. A wave threw me on an island, after that I had been three days alone, without a companion beside my own heart. I laid me in a thicket, and the shadow covered me. Then stretched I my limbs to try to find something for my mouth. I found there figs and grain, melons of all kinds, fishes, and birds. Nothing was lacking. And I satisfied myself; and left on the ground that which was over, of what my arms had been filled withal. I dug a pit, I lighted a fire, and I made a burnt offering unto the gods." .....This story is told in detail; in details, that scholars can argue whether the ship was 150 cubits long or just 120 cubits long and you will find their arguments as side notes to this work at this site. When you read Lichtheim´s translation he talks about notched and unnotched Sycamore figs. Only someone well versed in the usage of these figs would know why that detail is important.What you will Not Find are scholars claiming the other translations are, how did Nibley state it "essentially nonsense".If you want to dig deeper into what scholars KNOW about ancient Egyptian language, pick up a copy of Dr. Alan Gardiner´s "Egyptian Grammar" (pick up may be the wrong word, it´s a text of 800 pages) and see how Egyptian was understood in the 1920´s. 2
Duncan Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I see like it what English is today, take someone from "Jawja" and compare them to someone from "Norf east" England see if they speak the same english, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I don't know if that they would understand each "uvva"
rongo Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) An interesting opinion, especially your reference to Nibley claiming current ancient Egyptian transcriptions are essentially nonsense. Do you have anything to back that up? The mechanical transcriptions trained Egyptologists produce are the best we can do, but they've been assembled using deductive reasoning, not from fluency in a dead language. Even the mechanical transcriptions from, say hieratic or demotic, have to be transcribed into hieroglyphs and then the phonetics, using the Woerterbuch. Nibley, in his "Egyptian Endowment" tome (I don't have any books on me right now), gives some examples of things that are accurate transcriptions, as far as they go, but that don't actually have any "meaning." He quotes Egyptologists at length talking about how illogical and "crazy" Egyptian religion was, but it wasn't illogical *to them*. We don't really have a grasp of what the message and meaning actually are. Dr. John A. Wilson, one of Nibley's teachers at the University of Chicago (and sometimes a critic of Mormon claims about the Book of Abraham) compared this dilemma to Eskimos hundreds of years ago finding a Protestant hymnal, and, through painstaking effort, piecing together a phonetic Eskimo transcription. What understanding would they really have of the meaning of "Jerusalem the Golden" to those who wrote the hymnal? he asked. It's like the example of archaeologists unearthing the Statue of Liberty thousands of years in the future. It could plausibly be interpreted to be a female sun goddess (metaphorical flaming torch, rays emanating from her crown, etc.), but this would miss the actual meaning to the culture that produced it by a mile. Edited February 18, 2015 by rongo 1
bcuzbcuz Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I see like it what English is today, take someone from "Jawja" and compare them to someone from "Norf east" England see if they speak the same english, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I don't know if that they would understand each "uvva"Thankfully, written English from your two candidates who use "norf" and "nort", will each spell the same word as "north". (assuming they can spell, at all)However, when comparing transcriptions and translations from ancient Egyptian, the texts include spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and copying errors. But there are hundreds of thousands of texts available for study. The texts written (carved) into monuments of stone were most often designed by a literate minority and the grammatical rules observable follow rules that lasted more than 2,000 years. That´s two thousand years, plus! (English has had spelling rules for less than 400 years and we get differences of harbour/harbor or lieutenant)We know very little about pronunciation of ancient Egyptian...although concepts of pronunciation are based upon guidelines from Coptic Egyptian and late period copies of texts made in Greek.Although various scholars may argue about the exact translation of a text, such as a translation that says "and then I walked home" as opposed to "then walked home I", There is no argument about the overall meaning of a text. You will not find one scholar claiming a text is about fighting an enemy from Punt, while another scholar claims the same text is about healing head wounds. (At least, not qualified scholars)Nut jobs who think they´ve found tales of spaceships and aircraft in Egyptian hieroglyphs are truly nut jobs. 2
bcuzbcuz Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 The mechanical transcriptions trained Egyptologists produce are the best we can do, but they've been assembled using deductive reasoning, not from fluency in a dead language. Even the mechanical transcriptions from, say hieratic or demotic, have to be transcribed into hieroglyphs and then the phonetics, using the Woerterbuch. Nibley, in his "Egyptian Endowment" tome (I don't have any books on me right now), gives some examples of things that are accurate transcriptions, as far as they go, but that don't actually have any "meaning." He quotes Egyptologists at length talking about how illogical and "crazy" Egyptian religion was, but it wasn't illogical *to them*. We don't really have a grasp of what the message and meaning actually are. Dr. John A. Wilson, one of Nibley's teachers at the University of Chicago (and sometimes a critic of Mormon claims about the Book of Abraham) compared this dilemma to Eskimos hundreds of years ago finding a Protestant hymnal, and, through painstaking effort, piecing together a phonetic Eskimo transcription. What understanding would they really have of the meaning of "Jerusalem the Golden" to those who wrote the hymnal? he asked. It's like the example of archaeologists unearthing the Statue of Liberty thousands of years in the future. It could plausibly be interpreted to be a female sun goddess (metaphorical flaming torch, rays emanating from her crown, etc.), but this would miss the actual meaning to the culture that produced it by a mile.While I would agree with you that freshman studies of Egyptian texts are often transcriptions from hieratic or demotic texts into the more easily interpretted hieroglyphs, true scholars do not do so. They go to the original form of the text to translate. The work from Denmark´s "Ny Carlsberg Glypotek" and the marvelous work they´re doing with papyrus scrolls is a good example.You say Nibley quotes various scholars who thought Egyptian beliefs were "crazy" or "illogical". Such opinions would never be espoused by Jan Assmann, one of the foremost scholars on Egyptian religious beliefs. Try some of his work. Most of the texts are in German but the last books listed are in English."..............Re und Amun: Die Krise des polytheistischen Weltbilds im Ägypten der 18.-20. Dynastie (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 51). Fribourg and Göttingen 1983.Ägypten: Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur (Urban-Bücherei, vol.366, Stuttgart 1984).The Search for God in Ancient Egypt trans. David Lorton (2001) ISBN 0-8014-8729-3"Maât: l'Égypte pharaonique et l'idée de justice sociale" in: Conférences, essais et leçons du Collège de France. Paris: Julliard, 1989.German: Ma`at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im alten Ägypten. Munich 1990 (Arabic Translation 1996).Stein und Zeit: Mensch und Gesellschaft im Alten Ägypten. Munich 1991.Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. Munich 1992. ISBN 3-406-36088-2 ASIN B001C84TR4trans.: Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. Cambridge University Press, 2011. ISBN 0-521-18802-4, ISBN 978-0-521-18802-9Monotheismus und Kosmotheismus (1993) ISBN 3-8253-0026-9Egyptian Solar Religion (Studies in Egyptology) (1995) ISBN 0-7103-0465-XÄgypten: Eine Sinngeschichte (Munich: Hanser 1996; Frankfurt: Fischer, 1999); trans. The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs (New York : Metropolitan Books, 2002; Harvard University Press, 2003).Moses der Ägypter: Entzifferung einer Gedächtnisspur. Munich 1998.Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997; 1998) ISBN 0-674-58739-1Weisheit und Mysterium: Das Bild der Griechen von Ägypten. Munich 2000. ISBN 3-406-45899-8Herrschaft und Heil: Politische Theologie in Altägypten, Israel und Europa. Munich 2000. ISBN 3-596-15339-5Religion und kulturelles Gedächtnis: Zehn Studien (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2000). ISBN 3-406-45915-3Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies (Cultural Memory in the Present) trans. Rodney Livingstone, SUP (2005) ISBN 0-8047-4523-4Der Tod als Thema der Kulturtheorie (2000) ISBN 3-518-12157-XTod und Jenseits im Alten Ägypten (Munich 2001). ISBN 3-406-49707-1Death And Salvation In Ancient Egypt, trans. David Lorton (2006) ISBN 0-8014-4241-9Altägyptische Totenliturgien, Bd.1, Totenliturgien in den Sargtexten (2002) ISBN 3-8253-1199-6Die Mosaische Unterscheidung oder der Preis des Monotheismus. Munich 2003.trans. Robert Savage: The Mosaic Distinction or The Price of Monotheism (SUP, 2009) ISBN 0-8047-6160-4Ägyptische Geheimnisse (2003) ISBN 3-7705-3687-8Theologie und Weisheit im alten Ägypten (2005) ISBN 3-7705-4069-7Die Zauberflöte (2005) ISBN 3-446-20673-6Thomas Mann und Ägypten: Mythos und Monotheismus in den Josephsromanen (Munich 2006).Monotheismus und die Sprache der Gewalt (2006) ISBN 3-85452-516-8Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism (University of Wisconsin Press, 2008)Books in EnglishThe Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs, trans. Andrew Jenkins (2003) ISBN 0-674-01211-9Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism (2008) ISBN 0-299-22554-2"
KevinG Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 I've wondered in an alternate reality, if the Gospel was restored in a Democratic China, would the word of wisdom proscribe rice instead of wheat?
ERayR Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 So, imagine that Egyptian was a known language in 1835, meaning that scholars were able to translate from Egyptian into other languages and this knowledge was well-known and published in widely available books. How would the situation with the creation of the Book of Abraham have played out? Do you think we would still have it, and if so, how would it be different? Yes. No different
CV75 Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 So, imagine that Egyptian was a known language in 1835, meaning that scholars were able to translate from Egyptian into other languages and this knowledge was well-known and published in widely available books. How would the situation with the creation of the Book of Abraham have played out? Do you think we would still have it, and if so, how would it be different?If the language was known, many other aspects of the culture would have probably also been known, resulting in a blasé attitude toward mummy exhibitions in 19th century America, and the source materials wouldn't have gotten enough attention from anyone to end up in Joseph Smith's hands. Or maybe things could have panned out some other way and the revelation (or content) come by some other means. 1
rongo Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) While I would agree with you that freshman studies of Egyptian texts are often transcriptions from hieratic or demotic texts into the more easily interpretted hieroglyphs, true scholars do not do so. They go to the original form of the text to translate. I disagree that, unlike in the past, "modern scholars" don't mechanically transliterate --- they translate the essence. Here is what Nibley wrote directly following his own "translation" of the Book of Breathings: "To the often-asked question, Have the Joseph Smith Papyri been translated?" the emphatic answer is no! What, then, is the foregoing? A mechanical transcription --- no more. The hieratic text was mechanically reproduced by photography, transcribed into hieroglyphics by mechanically unimaginative reference to Georg Moeller's and Simeone Levi's catalogues of signs, mechanically written in reverse by the use of a tracing table, and transcribed into its theoretical English phonetic equivalents by reference to Alan Gardiner's sign list; finally, each word was matched to its modern equivalent as indicated in the Woerterbuch, while endings and particles were accounted for by rules laid down by Adolf Erman and Gardiner, who devoted their lives to making Egyptian texts translatable by infallible, automatic rules. What we have is a transmission rather than a translation of the text, and such transmissions . . . 'in no way need imply understanding' . . . "Thus, Rolf Gundlach and Wolfgang Schenkel point out that, so far, no one has figured out a way to write Egyptian without hieroglyphics --- which means that there are fundamental aspects of the system which still escape us. The hardest question of all for the Egyptologist, according to Gundlach and Schenkel, is whether Egyptian writing can really be understood by anyone but an Egyptian. Go up to the man in the car (it used to be in the street) when he stops at a light and deliver this sober message to him: 'Osiris shall be towed toward the interior of the great pool of Khonsu,' which is the first line of Joseph Smith Papyrus XI. If the man gives you a blank look, explain to him that the great lake of Khonsu is 'probably a liturgical designation of the portion of the Nile that has to be crossed in order to reach the Theban cemetery on the west bank' and that Khonsu is a youthful moon god. When the light changes, your new friend will proceed on his way knowing as much about the first line of the Book of Breathings as anyone else does --- namely, nothing at all. Though as correct and literal as we can make it, the translation of the preceding chapter is not a translation. It is nonsense." ("The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment," [Provo: FARMS, 2005], 51-52). Edited February 19, 2015 by rongo
rongo Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 You say Nibley quotes various scholars who thought Egyptian beliefs were "crazy" or "illogical". Such opinions would never be espoused by Jan Assmann, one of the foremost scholars on Egyptian religious beliefs. Try some of his work. Most of the texts are in German but the last books listed are in English. In fairness, as you point out, Nibley was quoting the very scholars at the time who were attacking the Book of Abraham. I would hope that those who study Egyptian writings would have a respect for Egyptian belief, and I'm sure that many do.
Stroopwafel Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Nibley seems convincing, he has a way to make his point with authority and clarity. He also uses a lot of footnotes with which he (supposedly) supports his assertions. However, past the impression footnotes make, if one would take the time to actually verify them, I'm not sure we would find the references as conclusive as Nibley makes them to be. Granted, my knowledge regarding all that's hieroglyphics is very limited, so what do I know... but it wouldn't be surprising, I believe, to find Nibley's opinion about their translations being nonsense to be marginal. Sure, we may never fully understand what it trully meant for them, since religion is such an intimate experience, and it is embedded in a culture that's been gone for a couple thousand years. Still, that may be naive on my part, but I'm confident that there is enough material out there for translators and philologists to do a very decent job, and certainly come to an understanding that's more than nonsensical. Edited February 19, 2015 by Stroopwafel
Calm Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) "However, past the impression footnotes make, if one would take the time to actually verify them, I'm not sure we would find the references as conclusive as Nibley makes them to be."My understanding is the Maxwell Institute/FARMS publications worked hard to get his footnotes checked and verified prior to publication that they said what he said they did and a high percentage of them passed. Edited February 19, 2015 by calmoriah 1
Stroopwafel Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) "However, past the impression footnotes make, if one would take the time to actually verify them, I'm not sure we would find the references as conclusive as Nibley makes them to be."My understanding is the Maxwell Institute/FARMS publications worked hard to get his footnotes checked and verified prior to publication that they said what he said they did and a high percentage of them passed. Well, that's great! I did a quick search and found fair's article on the topic. They emphatically repeat that Nibley did not make up footnotes, which I found a bit amusing (well, I had at least hoped so!). Also, the last part of their analysis says like what you did. I guess I got a bit disenchanted from Nibley since let's call it my "transition". In any case, I found the following passage interesting (and yes, it probably is a reflection of my bias, but eh!): Nibley's greatest skill as a scholar was his ability to see the big picture, not his ability to finesse the fine details. Edited February 19, 2015 by Stroopwafel
rongo Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Regarding the common (from critics) claim that Nibley's translations and citations are unreliable, John Gee wrote the following in the introduction to the same book: "We have checked all the citations in the more than four thousand footnotes. I myself have checked over half of them. Since Nibley made his own translations from all foreign languages except where noted, we have given him wide latitude in rendering his translations, although we have standardized spelling and capitalization to accord with our own style. Many of the citations were checked in 1972 by Stephen E. Robinson, then Nibley's student assistant. The source checking process for this edition began in 1988 and went through 1992 and then began again in 2001. Except for the education it has given the source checkers, the process of checking the footnotes has been, for the most part, unnecessary. Analysis of a random chapter showed that of its almost 700 citations, Nibley was completely accurate 94 percent of the time, and in more than half of these remaining forty cases, one could explain the problem as typographical. Nibley is more accurate than most Egyptologists whose footnotes, I have checked, and several times I have been amazed at how his translations of passages have correctly interpreted the grammar of the Egyptian while the standard Egyptological translations have not." (ibid, xx). 2
Stroopwafel Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Ok, point made. For argument's sake, we'll even suppose Nibley's footnotes are 100% accurate. So that takes care of the first part of my initial post. Now, going off that footnote-accuracy tangent, what about the second part? And also, what is Nibley arguing for? Does he hold that hieroglyphs and Egyptian religion are so esoteric to us that we really can't make any sense of it at all? Is he saying that we're so out of touch that we can't figure that the Egyptian funerary texts Joseph Smith used to "translate" the Book of Abraham are indeed about Abraham, how he conversed with God/Jehova, how he received new knowledge about spirits, intelligences, etc., and that they also contain a retelling of the creation story? I'm ready to correct my understanding if I'm missing something, but Nibley's point seems to boil down to saying that since modern translations are nonsensical because we can't neither grasp the full meaning nor the intent behind ancient Egyptian texts, then we can't know for sure whether Joseph Smith's rendering actually is the real deal or not.
Recommended Posts