Another Try: Book of Abraham Translation Evidence from Sensen Papyrus and KEP

[cdowis]

A scientist will consider the  imponderable contradictions of quantum mechanics with reality, such as the Copenhagn effect, without  wincing, but bring up similar issues regarding  science and religion, there a loud  howls of "intellectual dishonesty"  and derision for anyone who is bold enough to be open minded on the issues.(cdowis)

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ~Richard Feynman 

Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most successful theory in the history of science. It enables physicists, chemists, and technicians to calculate and predict the outcome of a vast number of experiments and to create new and advanced technology based on the insight into the behavior of atomic objects. But it is also a theory that challenges our imagination. It seems to violate some fundamental principles of classical physics, principles that eventually have become a part of western common sense since the rise of the modern worldview in the Renaissance.  -- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

But this is for another thread, so let's back on topic.

Edited September 11, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

I am curious whether Muhelstein's videos?  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh0_JF2hqI-4hYEqtrTmIZRAM__uSNnbk

For example, regarding the Fac 1   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcqbcvKgDe8&list=PLh0_JF2hqI-4hYEqtrTmIZRAM__uSNnbk&index=3 

So, what is it among these bite-sized videos that you find needs to be dealt with?  Muhlestein also gives formal lectures and publishes documented studies on such issues.  However, even though he has operated an annual excavation in Egypt, he is quite young and new to the debate.  Others have written and published far more extensively on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

A scientist will consider the  imponderable contradictions of quantum mechanics with reality, such as the Copenhagn effect, without  wincing, but bring up similar issues regarding  science and religion, there a loud  howls of "intellectual dishonesty"  and derision for anyone who is bold enough to be open minded on the issues.(cdowis)

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ~Richard Feynman 

Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most successful theory in the history of science. It enables physicists, chemists, and technicians to calculate and predict the outcome of a vast number of experiments and to create new and advanced technology based on the insight into the behavior of atomic objects. But it is also a theory that challenges our imagination. It seems to violate some fundamental principles of classical physics, principles that eventually have become a part of western common sense since the rise of the modern worldview in the Renaissance.  -- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

But this is for another thread, so let's back on topic.

I think that what Mark Bukowski is saying (and I agree with him and his sources), we must divide up the areas of science and religion into two separate categories of endeavor: (1) math & engineering, and (2) phenomenology.  Otherwise we risk making a category mistake in our discussions.

[cdowis]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, what is it among these bite-sized videos that you find needs to be dealt with?  Muhlestein also gives formal lectures and publishes documented studies on such issues.  However, even though he has operated an annual excavation in Egypt, he is quite young and new to the debate.  Others have written and published far more extensively on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham.

Again, just curious.  Are you familiar with the history of the deciphering of the Mayan language.  I believe that has a direct application here.

You know, I have had alot of respect for you, but lately your thinking seems to be..... rather clouded.  Nothing personal, but your comments have become rather ordinary  -- the kind of stuff I see on youtube comment section.  
I had expected better.

But perhaps that's just me.

Edited September 11, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Kerry Muhlestein,. PhD in Egyptology at UCLA talks about recent research on the Book of Abraham. He has served as the chairman of a national committee for the American Research Center in Egypt and serves on their Research Supporting Member Council. He has also served on a committee for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, and currently serves on their Board of Trustees and as a Vice President of the organization. He is also a Senior Fellow of the William F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research. He is involved with the International Association of Egyptologists, and has worked with Educational Testing Services on their AP World History test. He gave a presentation at the international Egyptological conference in Moscow in the fall of 2009.

He has published articles in professional journals including the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology.

A sampling of Dr. Muhlestein’s other Egyptological work includes: “Binding with Heraldic Plants,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, 2 vols., ed. Jean-Claude Goyon and Christine Cardin (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Department Oosterse Studies, 2007), 1335–41; “Empty Threats? How Egyptians’ Self-Ontology Affect the Way We Read Many Texts,” JSSEA 34 (2007): 115–30; “Execration Ritual,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Jacco Dieleman and Willeke Wendrich (Los Angeles, Cali.: UCLA, 2008), online athttp://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz000s3mqr (Accessed February 27, 2013); “Royal Executions: Evidence Bearing on the Subject of Sanctioned Killing in the Middle Kingdom,” in The Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 51/2 (2008): 181–208; “Teaching Egyptian History: Some Discipline-Specific Pedagogical Notes,” in The Journal of Egyptian History, 2/1–2 (2009): 173–231.

Edited September 11, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

46 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Again, just curious.  Are you familiar with the history of the deciphering of the Mayan language.  I believe that has a direct application here.

You know, I have had alot of respect for you, but lately your thinking seems to be..... rather clouded.  Your comments have become rather ordinary.  I dare say that  I had expected better.

But perhaps that's just me.

Sorry to have been so cloudy and boring, but you aren't giving me much direction here.  Not sure what questions you are really asking.

As to a comparison with the decipherment of Mayan, maybe so.  A Russian Egyptologist, Yuri Knorozov, did the best initial work, and received high praise for it from a range of Mesoamericanists (including Tatiana Proskouriakoff), but was utterly rejected by lord & master J. Eric S. Thompson -- who was completely wrong.  Since then the decipherment of Classic Maya has continued apace by a whole range of scholars such as Houston, Schele, and Taube (who was one of my teachers at UCLA).  However, pre-classic Maya has so far resisted decipherment.

One of the features of hieroglyphic writing is the use of logograms (single glyphs) to represent a whole word or concept.  Both John Gee (Egyptologist) and John Sorenson (anthropologist) have theorized that the use of logograms in the Book of Mormon plates are what made the writing so compact, and the late Hugh Nibley even provided a specific, graphic example of that for Egyptian in one of his books.  Since that is a standard Egyptological concept, it shouldn't be at all controversial, but it applies as well to Mayan.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think that what Mark Bukowski is saying (and I agree with him and his sources), we must divide up the areas of science and religion into two separate categories of endeavor: (1) math & engineering, and (2) phenomenology.  Otherwise we risk making a category mistake in our discussions.

And then Bob you have this.  I don't think others will understand or even read this but you will appreciate it fully.  Quine is another TOP philosopher of the 20th century

In case someone else is actually following this discussion- Carnap was on of the originators of positivism- the idea that every "truth" had to be empirically verifiable.

Quine effectively demolished that idea in his watershed paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism.   The wiki article is not the best but it is OK.

Quote

 

Analyticity would be acceptable if we allowed for the verification theory of meaning: an analytic statement would be one synonymous with a logical truth, which would be an extreme case of meaning where empirical verification is not needed, because it is "confirmed no matter what". "So, if the verification theory can be accepted as an adequate account of statement synonymy, the notion of analyticity is saved after all."

The problem that naturally follows is how statements are to be verified. An empiricist would say that it can only be done using empirical evidence. So some form of reductionism - "the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience" - must be assumed in order for an empiricist to 'save' the notion of analyticity. Such reductionism, says Quine, presents just as intractable a problem as did analyticity.

In order to prove that all meaningful statements can be translated into a sense-datum language, a reductionist would surely have to confront "the task of specifying a sense-datum language and showing how to translate the rest of significant discourse, statement by statement, into it." To illustrate the difficulty of doing so, Quine describes Rudolf Carnap's attempt in his book Der logische Aufbau der Welt.

Quine first observes that Carnap's starting point was not the strictest possible, as his "sense-datum language" included not only sense-events but also "the notations of logic, up through higher set theory... Empiricists there are who would boggle at such prodigality." Nonetheless, says Quine, Carnap showed great ingenuity in defining sensory concepts "which, but for his constructions, one would not have dreamed were definable on so slender a basis." However, even such admirable efforts left Carnap, by his own admission, far short of completing the whole project.

Finally, Quine objects in principle to Carnap's proposed translation of statements like "quality q is at point-instant x;y;z;t" into his sense-datum language, because he does not define the connective "is at". Without statements of this kind, it is difficult to see, even in principle, how Carnap's project could have been completed.

The difficulty that Carnap encountered shows that reductionism is, at best, unproven and very difficult to prove. Until a reductionist can produce an acceptable proof, Quine maintains that reductionism is another "metaphysical article of faith".

 

Again we have the view that scientism is a quasi-religion.  Its presumptions are strictly metaphysics and are unfalsifiable- bringing up yet again our old friend Popper.

Pragmatically of course it works extremely well!  But as far as providing access to "the world as it IS"- not so much.

In order to justify the idea that religion must be proven empirically, one would have to refute Quine, Rorty and all of Pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey, Davidson, Plantinga etc etc, and all of Phenomenology and existentialism, Kirkegaard, etc etc etc.

That's why Dawkins et al are such fools.   And who do we see here every day?  Dawkins proteges who have watched a video on Youtube and think they are not atheists because one cannot provide evidence for religious subjects.

Balderdash!

(balderdash- a running race between two bald guys)

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"Special pleading"?  Oh my I am impressed!  You took a course on logical fallacies!  Good for you.

As far as I can tell you' responded with sarcasm.  Let's not make this personal.  I am trying to argue ideas, not people.  You seem to want to demonstrate your knowledge of philosophy is better than mine.  If it makes it any easier for you, I concede that that is probably the case.  Don't take anything that I say being some kind of challenge to your knowledge philosophy.  I'm sure you know your stuff, but you are not an authority on testing ideas anymore than I am.  

I am proposing that is okay to ask questions and ask for evidence. For some reason that has really hit a nerve on this board.  I never expect that to be considered a controversial or "ridiculous" proposition.  The OP lost his cool simply when I ask for evidence.  For some reason he took that almost as if it was a personal attack.  That reaction was unexpected.

You also seem to think there is a problem with asking for evidence and are are reading much more into what I am saying that what I have actaully said. 

If I understand your position correctly you more or less think that religion is a special zone where that should not be held to inquiry. I see that position as special pleading.  I see that you don't take religion as literal.  That makes sense, that being the case we probably agree on far more many things than we disagree.  But the OP, the church founders, the current leaders, and most members of the LDS church do take the foundation events of the churches founding literally. This thread is about a literal claim involving literal papyrus. If there is any literalness at all in ones religiousness believes than that religion does not get as pass.  People can dodge and act offended when someone asks for evidence.  But calls for evidence will not go away.  All literal claims can expect to face some scrutiny.   At the very least, asking for what evidence supports a claim is never a bad idea.

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What might be helpful would be to admit first that none of the three facsimiles published with the BofA text were contemporary with Abraham's time.

Let's get back to the original statement.  

ME: 
On what basis are we to admit the dating?

YOU:
I am speaking rhetorically of something that has already been done with precision for each of the Joseph Smith Papyri.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You did not answer my question, but for us to take your word for it.  "Trust me, the experts have spoken and humble yourselves, bow down to their superior knowledge and wisdom."
For example, what were their assumptions?  Did you listen to the video on Figure 1, that it was not an ordinary funeral text.  Did they deal with the unique features of this facsimile?

==You want us to agree that the facsimiles definitely  have nothing to Abraham, but you give no basis for that concession.  As in 1912, the experts have spoken!!==

 

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

As far as I can tell you' responded with sarcasm.  Let's not make this personal.  I am trying to argue ideas, not people.  You seem to want to demonstrate your knowledge of philosophy is better than mine.  If it makes it any easier for you, I concede that that is probably the case.  Don't take anything that I say being some kind of challenge to your knowledge philosophy.  I'm sure you know your stuff, but you are not an authority on testing ideas anymore than I am.  

I am proposing that is okay to ask questions and ask for evidence. For some reason that has really hit a nerve on this board.  I never expect that to be considered a controversial or "ridiculous" proposition.  The OP lost his cool simply when I ask for evidence.  For some reason he took that almost as if it was a personal attack.  That reaction was unexpected.

You also seem to think there is a problem with asking for evidence and are are reading much more into what I am saying that what I have actaully said. 

If I understand your position correctly you more or less think that religion is a special zone where that should not be held to inquiry. I see that position as special pleading.  I see that you don't take religion as literal.  That makes sense, that being the case we probably agree on far more many things than we disagree.  But the OP, the church founders, the current leaders, and most members of the LDS church do take the foundation events of the churches founding literally. This thread is about a literal claim involving literal papyrus. If there is any literalness at all in ones religiousness believes than that religion does not get as pass.  People can dodge and act offended when someone asks for evidence.  But calls for evidence will not go away.  All literal claims can expect to face some scrutiny.   At the very least, asking for what evidence supports a claim is never a bad idea.

We get many atheists here who ask the same questions always about evidence.  When you see the exact same stuff from every new poster, the minute one says the word "evidence" we tend to know where he/she is going with that point, at least speaking from my point of view.

Typically, quite frankly I test them to see if they know what they are talking about or have anything new that I can learn.

Others here have spoken about evidence of translation for the BOA- if you want to address them, fine.

I am questioning if that is even a relevant question - I don't think the BOA needs "evidence" to be the word of God and I have good reason to believe that, reasons which you refuse to address.

I am not responsible for what others think.

You have failed to converse- your posts keep repeating the same point about the need for evidence and think that religion is about "special pleading"  I have answered three or four times and you do not seem to even understand the position or even attempt to make your case other than repeating that one should ask for "evidence" regarding religion.

Yes many LDS are literalists.  That does not apply to me.  One does not need to be a literalist to be LDS.

The question in my mind is whether or not the LDS religion can be justified logically, and clearly to me, it can.  The fact that others believe for reasons I consider "illogical" is irrelevant to me.  There are a lot of people who are wonderful folks who are illogical.  We have the freedom to be illogical.

I see no need to continue to respond to you when you have not responded to my posts- you just keep repeating the same point.  I have answered you three or four times with no substantive response from you.  I hope you are here to do more than to parrot all the usual objections, otherwise I am afraid you will get the usual answers and learn little.

You will not dissuade any of the usual members of the board to your position because they have heard them literally hundreds of times.  But your time is yours.

I did not mean to be offensive, but it seemed to me your attitude was that you were here to "educate" us, and I can assure you that that is not necessary.  In my opinion, it was you who started with a condescending attiude

But that is water under the bridge, and I apologize if I was not charitable.   I should have turned the other cheek rather than have given offense.

Edited September 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, cdowis said:

CFR 

If you are talking about the KEP, you need to demonstrate that JS was the author and was used in the translation process.  Can we assume you have seen the latest research.

"A translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs 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."

 Reference:  The Book of Abraham," Times and Seasons 3 (1842): 704. KEPA 4, the manuscript used for publication of the first installments of the Book of Abraham and written in the hand of Willard Richards, likewise contains this caption used in the Times and Seasons.

Now go ahead and discount what the prophet said.  Throw JS under the bus.  You apologist are good at that.

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes many LDS are literalists.  That does not apply to me.  One does not need to be a literalist to be LDS.

The question in my mind is whether or not the LDS religion can be justified logically, and clearly to me, it can.  The fact that others believe for reasons I consider "illogical" is irrelevant to me.  There are a lot of people who are wonderful folks who are illogical.  We have the freedom to be illogical.

<snip>

You will not dissuade any of the usual members of the board to your position because they have heard them literally hundreds of times.  But your time is yours.

Don't be too sure.  I've read this board for a few years as a literal believer. I made a commit to do my best to discover what is real, that means I was (and still am) willing to change my views with the right evidence.  Seeking truth isn't game of us-verus-them.  The best way to turn a literalist into a nonliteralist is to just ask them to explain their evidence and how they arrived at their literalist views.  If you'd like to see more members become nonliteralist then it might be wise explore how literalist ideas and claims in religion can be tested.

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Whether it works to the advantage of pro or con views is irrelevant, and Joseph Smith's comments are very important.  Your statements here are false.

Your reckless and uninformed comments here are not only false, but show how difficult it is for you to stay on track when discussing the BofA -- for which you mistakenly substitute BoM.  You need to slow down, marshal your evidence, and discuss it in detail.  Pick a particular aspect of the ongoing debate, and tell us how it has convinced you.  We have been over this subject many times before on this board, as I'm sure you recall.

Reckless? I quote the prophet Joseph Smith.  You call this reckess?

"A translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs 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."

 Reference:  The Book of Abraham," Times and Seasons 3 (1842): 704. KEPA 4, the manuscript used for publication of the first installments of the Book of Abraham and written in the hand of Willard Richards, likewise contains this caption used in the Times and Seasons.

Edited September 11, 2016 by sunstoned

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Let's get back to the original statement.  

ME: 
On what basis are we to admit the dating?

YOU:
I am speaking rhetorically of something that has already been done with precision for each of the Joseph Smith Papyri.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You did not answer my question, but for us to take your word for it.  "Trust me, the experts have spoken and humble yourselves, bow down to their superior knowledge and wisdom."
For example, what were their assumptions?  Did you listen to the video on Figure 1, that it was not an ordinary funeral text.  Did they deal with the unique features of this facsimile?

==You want us to agree that the facsimiles definitely  have nothing to Abraham, but you give no basis for that concession.  As in 1912, the experts have spoken!!==

Actually, I said nothing of the kind.  I was merely pointing out to you that the dating of the Joseph Smith Papyri is a done deal.  I offered bibliographic references, if you want them.  I don't know why any of that would upset you or anyone else.  That is the easy part.

I have no problem with Kerry Muhlestein's video on fac 1, and I doubt that any qualified Egyptologist would.  It is rather in explaining the context and meaning of the facsimiles that the hard work begins.  I thought that you were already aware of my position on this matter from my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Reckless? I quote the prophet Joseph Smith.  You call this reckess?

This is very dishonest of you, which is probably why you use a pseudonym.  You knew I was responding to your deliberately false remarks:

 

Quote

sunstoned said:

For any of this to work to the advantage of the apologist, the testimony of JS has to be discounted.

 

Quote

"A translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs 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."

 Reference:  The Book of Abraham," Times and Seasons 3 (1842): 704. KEPA 4, the manuscript used for publication of the first installments of the Book of Abraham and written in the hand of Willard Richards, likewise contains this caption used in the Times and Seasons.

I am glad to see you have done some repenting, and are now quoting Joseph Smith.  I hope that you will continue to provide such honest information.  Honesty is the warp and woof of good scholarship.  Pretending and playing childish games is not.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, I said nothing of the kind.  I was merely pointing out to you that the dating of the Joseph Smith Papyri is a done deal.  

I still do not understand.  Let me ask this way -- do they assume that this facsimile a unique original, or a copy of previous facsimiles.  What is the dating of the "original" copy of this particular facsimile.

I offered bibliographic references, if you want them.  I don't know why any of that would upset you or anyone else.  That is the easy part.

You made the assertion.  The burden is on you to explain the basis of that assertion. 

I have no problem with Kerry Muhlestein's video on fac 1, and I doubt that any qualified Egyptologist would.

Finally, we are getting somewhere.  Now, is you lack of doubt based on wishful thinking, or actual fact?  You are sooooooooooo certain about the "detailed" analysis, and cannot answer a simple question about a fundamental assumption on the basis of their analysis.

What does their analysis conclude was happening to the figure on the couch.  Was it being mummified, was it being resurrected, or was it struggling to escape a human sacrifice?  How did they compare this figure to "similar" facsimiles.  I don't need a bibliography, I need you to tell me the answer since you made the assertion.

 It is rather in explaining the context and meaning of the facsimiles that the hard work begins.  I thought that you were already aware of my position on this matter from my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Please answer my questions.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

"A translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs 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."

 Reference:  The Book of Abraham," Times and Seasons 3 (1842): 704. KEPA 4, the manuscript used for publication of the first installments of the Book of Abraham and written in the hand of Willard Richards, likewise contains this caption used in the Times and Seasons.

Now go ahead and discount what the prophet said.  Throw JS under the bus.  You apologist are good at that.

 

I am speaking specifically of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar portion of the KEP. 

Edited September 11, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Actually, I said nothing of the kind.  I was merely pointing out to you that the dating of the Joseph Smith Papyri is a done deal.  

I still do not understand.  Let me ask this way -- do they assume that this facsimile a unique original, or a copy of previous facsimiles.  What is the dating of the "original" copy of this particular facsimile.

I offered bibliographic references, if you want them.  I don't know why any of that would upset you or anyone else.  That is the easy part.

You made the assertion.  The burden is on you to explain the basis of that assertion. 

I have no problem with Kerry Muhlestein's video on fac 1, and I doubt that any qualified Egyptologist would.

Finally, we are getting somewhere.  Now, is you lack of doubt based on wishful thinking, or actual fact?  You are sooooooooooo certain about the "detailed" analysis, and cannot answer a simple question about a fundamental assumption on the basis of their analysis.

What does their analysis conclude was happening to the figure on the couch.  Was it being mummified, was it being resurrected, or was it struggling to escape a human sacrifice?  How did they compare this figure to "similar" facsimiles.  I don't need a bibliography, I need you to tell me the answer since you made the assertion.

 It is rather in explaining the context and meaning of the facsimiles that the hard work begins.  I thought that you were already aware of my position on this matter from my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, athttp://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Please answer my questions.

Still not clear to me what you want me to do:  Am I supposed to quote or summarize the opinions of the Egyptologists on all these matters, or should I simply quote myself -- since you appear uninterested in reading anything published with footnotes??  In my brief assessment of the BofA (which you refuse to read), I begin commenting on the facsimiles on page 4.  Do you find what I say there confusing, meaningless, or wrong?  Is your only interest in professional dating of the papyri?  Egyptologist John Gee has an excellent Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (FARMS, 2000), which is available online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/a-guide-to-the-joseph-smith-papyri/ .  He dates the JSP generally to the Ptolemaic period (specifically from the late 3rd century BC to the first half of the 2nd century BC), and goes over the characteristics of each of the surviving papyri.  He discusses what that might mean.  Do you think that he is wrong?

You say that I have made various assertions and that therefore I should somehow respond to each of your queries.  Not clear to me which assertions I am supposed to have made, and you should quote when making such claims.

[cdowis]

I will try one more time ====>>>

According to the "detailed analysis" of which you have volumes of professional articles with copious footnotes, is the facsimile 1 a unique document, or is it a copy/ transmittal  of an earlier facsimile.

If the former, we then  have the dating of the facsimile, as you claim in your original post, but if the latter, then what is the dating of the original from which this was copied.

If you are still confused, still unable to understand what I am asking, you still want me to read publications with extensive footnotes to get the answer, then I give you the very last word.

Edited September 11, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, I said nothing of the kind.  I was merely pointing out to you that the dating of the Joseph Smith Papyri is a done deal.  I offered bibliographic references, if you want them.  I don't know why any of that would upset you or anyone else.  That is the easy part.

I have no problem with Kerry Muhlestein's video on fac 1, and I doubt that any qualified Egyptologist would.  It is rather in explaining the context and meaning of the facsimiles that the hard work begins.  I thought that you were already aware of my position on this matter from my “Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

 

I downloaded your pdf, probably a year ago. I´ve tried several times to complete a reading of it but cannot. It either comes down to it being bl...ing boring or that the mental gymnastics required to move from page to page just gives me a headache.

I´ve never really managed to work out whether your conclusion is that Joseph Smith´s Book of Abraham is completely a construct of a revelation given to him or whether the pictures and hieroglyphs actually contain the hidden messages of Abraham. You quote Gee several times and I´ve read his work elsewhere where he tries to link to the word Abraham, both from the facsimile of the BofA as well as other glyphs.

So in five words or less (OK, use as many words as you need) what is your bottom line point of view as to the link between the papyri, that the church bought back in the 1830s, to the text found in the BofA?    

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I downloaded your pdf, probably a year ago. I´ve tried several times to complete a reading of it but cannot. It either comes down to it being bl...ing boring or that the mental gymnastics required to move from page to page just gives me a headache.

I´ve never really managed to work out whether your conclusion is that Joseph Smith´s Book of Abraham is completely a construct of a revelation given to him or whether the pictures and hieroglyphs actually contain the hidden messages of Abraham. You quote Gee several times and I´ve read his work elsewhere where he tries to link to the word Abraham, both from the facsimile of the BofA as well as other glyphs.

So in five words or less (OK, use as many words as you need) what is your bottom line point of view as to the link between the papyri, that the church bought back in the 1830s, to the text found in the BofA?    

I presented two separate abstracts with my paper -- sorry you find it so boring.  Here are both abstracts:

Quote

Aside from those matters of history and literature well-known and available to the inquiring mind in the early 19th century, there are a number of compelling empirical reasons for considering the LDS Book of Abraham to be an ancient document somehow transmitted down through time to Joseph Smith. Scansion of disinterested scholarly opinion on a selection of related biblical and Egyptological matters helps to provide a realistic assessment and test of claims internal to the Book of Abraham, and to allay many of the partisan concerns which have been expressed over the years.

Quote

The LDS Book of Abraham was first published by Joseph Smith in 1843. It is part of the official Mormon Canon of Scripture. This brief assessment compares the Book of Abraham with modern Egyptology and finds it to be an accurate and reliable text, as transmitted by the Jewish community in Egypt down to Ptolemaic times.

Do you find any of that problematic or absurd?  Or does it just give you a headache?

You asked about "the link between the papyri, that the church bought back in the 1830s, to the text found in the BofA?"  However, so far as we  know, the LDS Church does not currently possess the papyrus from which the the text of the BofA was translated.  As you know many of the papyri and fragments have been lost in the interim.  All we have are three accompanying facsimiles, which may have been on the same Ptolemaic period papyrus, and perhaps part of which is still under the glue backing of the SenSen Papyrus of Hor.  We simply do not know.

Those accompanying facsimiles (illustrations) are not copies of the documents created by or available to Abraham around two thousand years earlier, but are merely documents utilized by members of the very large Jewish community in Egypt in the transmission of the Abrahamic materials through time (as is the case for other such Jewish materials of the same sort).  The language and illustrations were naturally changed through time, as was always the case for such Jewish documents.  I give very specific and copious examples of all of that in my paper -- which is so boring.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

I will try one more time ====>>>

According to the "detailed analysis" of which you have volumes of professional articles with copious footnotes, is the facsimile 1 a unique document, or is it a copy/ transmittal  of an earlier facsimile.

If the former, we then  have the dating of the facsimile, as you claim in your original post, but if the latter, then what is the dating of the original from which this was copied.

If you are still confused, still unable to understand what I am asking, you still want me to read publications with extensive footnotes to get the answer, then I give you the very last word.

Let's see, cdowis.  I told you that I have no problem with the Kerry Muhlstein video in which he discusses the unusual nature of parts of  BofA facsimile 1, and asked whether you had specific questions about it.  I told you that I discuss the facsimiles beginning on page 4 of my paper.  You seem to reject both comments: don't want to read, and refuse to discuss the matter.  That is what is called intransigence.  Most of us don't respond well to browbeating and the blame game.  This is a discussion board, cdowis, and involves give and take.  You need to accept part of the responsibility for that discussion.

You can see some of what might interest you in my reply to bcuzbcuz, above.

[RevTestament]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Still not clear to me what you want me to do:  Am I supposed to quote or summarize the opinions of the Egyptologists on all these matters, or should I simply quote myself -- since you appear uninterested in reading anything published with footnotes??  In my brief assessment of the BofA (which you refuse to read), I begin commenting on the facsimiles on page 4.  Do you find what I say there confusing, meaningless, or wrong?  Is your only interest in professional dating of the papyri?  Egyptologist John Gee has an excellent Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (FARMS, 2000), which is available online at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/a-guide-to-the-joseph-smith-papyri/ .  He dates the JSP generally to the Ptolemaic period (specifically from the late 3rd century BC to the first half of the 2nd century BC), and goes over the characteristics of each of the surviving papyri.  He discusses what that might mean.  Do you think that he is wrong?

You say that I have made various assertions and that therefore I should somehow respond to each of your queries.  Not clear to me which assertions I am supposed to have made, and you should quote when making such claims.

Robert did you ever write the "Commentary on Abraham"?

[bcuzbcuz]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I presented two separate abstracts with my paper -- sorry you find it so boring.  Here are both abstracts:

Do you find any of that problematic or absurd?  Or does it just give you a headache?

You asked about "the link between the papyri, that the church bought back in the 1830s, to the text found in the BofA?"  However, so far as we  know, the LDS Church does not currently possess the papyrus from which the the text of the BofA was translated.  As you know many of the papyri and fragments have been lost in the interim.  All we have are three accompanying facsimiles, which may have been on the same Ptolemaic period papyrus, and perhaps part of which is still under the glue backing of the SenSen Papyrus of Hor.  We simply do not know.

Those accompanying facsimiles (illustrations) are not copies of the documents created by or available to Abraham around two thousand years earlier, but are merely documents utilized by members of the very large Jewish community in Egypt in the transmission of the Abrahamic materials through time (as is the case for other such Jewish materials of the same sort).  The language and illustrations were naturally changed through time, as was always the case for such Jewish documents.  I give very specific and copious examples of all of that in my paper -- which is so boring.

You state, "As far as we know, the LDS church does not currently possess the papyrus from which the text of the BofA was translated. We actually we don´t know the opposite to that either. We don´t know if the Bof A comes solely from the papyrus that the church currently holds (two facsimiles not withstanding).

You further infer  that the documents the church does have are merely supplementary materials used by the Jewish community and are not Abrahamic materials, nor even copies, but rather Jewish community documents using Egyptian symbolism to convey some message. There simply is not enough proof of any such things. The links drawn don´t connect

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You state, "As far as we know, the LDS church does not currently possess the papyrus from which the text of the BofA was translated. We actually we don´t know the opposite to that either. We don´t know if the Bof A comes solely from the papyrus that the church currently holds (two facsimiles not withstanding).

Emma Smith wrote that the book came from another papyrus, as do I think all the witnesses of the time who spoke on the subject. The Book of Abraham itself alludes to Facsimile 1 as a separate attachment to the book. Seems fairly conclusive. The Book of Abraham was the large scroll that got burned up in the Chicago fire.