Three Book of Abraham questions

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

You dismiss the source (the papyrus), but why do you also ignore the evidence presented in favour of the narrative?  The dismissal of the source is based on several assumptions, and the narrative, standing alone, points to the necessity to re-evaluate those assumptions.

Finally, the demand for peer reviewed papers has already been addressed by Muhlelstein in video #1.  The short answer is that in the field of Egyptology we just don't know what we don't know.  We are currently at the stage of being Galileo in the field of astronomy -- having gone beyond the the geocentric view of the universe but still using epicycles, and awaiting Newton.

If Joseph Smith's translation and explanation of the papyri is correct, he would be the "Newton."

[cinepro]

17 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Good luck in you quest.  But I think you are going to be disappointed if you are looking for anything faith promoting.  No Egyptologist out side of the Mormon box (Gee, Mulhestein, etc.) will give the BoA story any credence because we can now read Egyptian. There is no mystery to this.  The original papyrus can be translated by real professionals.   It is an open and shut case. We have the original Egyptian papyrus that have the facsimiles that are printed in the BoA.  We have Joseph Smith's translation of these facsimiles.   And they don't match. They don't match by a lot.  They are not even close.  It is the the smoking gun.  It doesn't matter what part of the scrolls might be missing or not, or how long the scrolls might of been, or what type of catalyst these 2nd century funeral scrolls might of been to JS, or what JS might of really meant when he said these were written by the hand or Abraham.  The fact is they are not what JS said they were.  It is not a translation.  It is far from it.  Now, the apologist response to this will be to obfuscate by posting links to lengthy articles written by fellow apologist that spin their pet theories of why things are not what they should be.  They will expect you to wade though all of this, and if you don't, they will discount you.  And of course, in the end there is always the big fall back to testimony of why science and evidence is messed up but good feelings are never wrong.

Honestly, that's what I don't understand.  We have hieroglyphs and Joseph Smith's translation of them.  Take Facsimile 3:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-3?lang=eng

It says that the writing above figure #2 is giving Pharaoh's name.  Figure #5 is supposed to have "Shulem" written above his head.  If we can translate that writing, then that's a testable claim.  There would seem to be many testable claims, without needing to worry about missing papyrus or catalyst theories or whatnot.

If Joseph couldn't get these most basic explanations correct, then I don't see why we need to worry about translating lengthy and complex stories and theories about the creation of the world, the universe and the per-existence from missing (or non-existent) sources.

I can understand why Muhlestein and co. feel the need to do what they do; I just don't understand why people so quickly look past the obvious.

Nevermind, I think I do.

 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

When you state that the Book of Abraham contains "details of Abraham that Joseph Smith would not have known" and that there are "a lot of questions the critics cannot answer," what sorts of things do you have in mind exactly?

Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers   http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2005-John-Tvedtnes.pdf

Please see the article for details.

For example, the plain of Olishem is named in the Abraham 1:10 as the place in Ur of the Chaldees where the Egyptians had erected an altar on which they sacrificed human beings. John L. Lundquist has noted that the name is attested in a record of Naram Sin, a 23rd century B.C. king of Akkad as Ulisum and is listed with the (inaudible) mountains and the city Ebla in northwest Syria not far from Abraham’s homeland. Akkadian and Hebrew are both part of the Semitic language family by the way and the exchange between the ‘o’ and ‘u’ is well attested in Semitic languages.

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[theplains]

17 hours ago, Freedom said:

Clearly the critics cannot explain the text itself which contain details of Abraham that Joseph smith would not have known.

Would you give all the examples?

Thanks,
Jim

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers   http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2005-John-Tvedtnes.pdf

Please see the article for details.

For example, the plain of Olishem is named in the Abraham 1:10 as the place in Ur of the Chaldees where the Egyptians had erected an altar on which they sacrificed human beings. John L. Lundquist has noted that the name is attested in a record of Naram Sin, a 23rd century B.C. king of Akkad as Ulisum and is listed with the (inaudible) mountains and the city Ebla in northwest Syria not far from Abraham’s homeland. Akkadian and Hebrew are both part of the Semitic language family by the way and the exchange between the ‘o’ and ‘u’ is well attested in Semitic languages.

I think "Olishem" is a decent hit, but in any case here is the critical argument against it:

Quote

An Old Babylonian copy of an inscription of the Sargonic ruler Naram-Sin (c. 2190–2154 BC) mentions a place named Ulishem (U2-li-śi-imki [Ur Excavation Texts 1, 275 ii 13; see Frayne 1993, 133]), which must have been roughly in the area of Ebla, west of the Euphrates and far west of Haran (see Edzard et al. 1977, 164). Certainly, Ulishim could be superficially linked on phonetic grounds to the Olishem mentioned in the Book of Abraham in connection with the location of “Ur of Chaldea,” where Abraham’s kin are said to have turned to the worship of Egyptian gods and Egyptian sacrificial rites. But a convincing identification would have to be based on much more substantial evidence.

As stressed above, everything we know about the region during the period in question—not to mention the likely location of Biblical Ur in southern Mesopotamia—speaks strongly against it. That the phonetic similarity is accidental (and here it should be pointed out that cuneiform sources attest thousands of place names) is again suggested by its coupling to the place “Potiphar’s Hill,” which likewise is said to be in the land of Ur. Potiphar, of course, is the Egyptian official to whom Joseph is sold in Genesis (37:36; 39:1)— the name Potiphar is Egyptian in derivation (“He-whom-[the sun god]-Re-has-given”) and has no place linguistically or culturally in the toponymy of southern or northern Mesopotamia.

Finally, it must be observed that the identification of Ulishim with an Olishem alleged to be in the area of Ur makes little geographic sense within the context of Abraham’s travels from Ur to Haran and subsequently to Canaan as described in Genesis and the Book of Abraham itself— for Ulishim no doubt lay west of Haran and so the latter could in no conceivable way be considered to be en route from Ulishim to Canaan, Haran being diametrically in the wrong direction.
 

— Christopher Woods, "The Practice of Egyptian Religion at 'Ur of the Chaldees'?" in Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2013), Kindle locations 2170–2183.

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by Nevo

[cdowis]

"could be",
"perhaps",
"makes little sense"
"needs to be more convincing to me personally before I give up being a godless atheist and believe in some phony con as a prophet."

[Freedom]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

You dismiss the source (the papyrus), but why do you also ignore the evidence presented in favour of the narrative?  The dismissal of the source is based on several assumptions, and the narrative, standing alone, points to the necessity to re-evaluate those assumptions.

Finally, the demand for peer reviewed papers has already been addressed by Muhlelstein in video #1.  The short answer is that in the field of Egyptology we just don't know what we don't know.  We are currently at the stage of being Galileo in the field of astronomy -- having gone beyond the the geocentric view of the universe but still using epicycles, and awaiting Newton.

I would suggest you re-read my question and respond a second time because your response does not an any way relate to my question. 

[Freedom]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

But you haven't read any of these things either, have you? You just copied these references from an old article by Kerry Shirts (who I understand is no longer a believer).

When you state that the Book of Abraham contains "details of Abraham that Joseph Smith would not have known" and that there are "a lot of questions the critics cannot answer," what sorts of things do you have in mind exactly? What, in your view, are the top 10 things that Joseph Smith got right that critics have no explanation for?

(By the way, Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham wasn't published by the University of Chicago Press. It was published by FARMS.)

I have read. They are all available online. I would encourage you to read them. stating that Kerry is no longer a member is a cheap way of skirting the issue, It was actualy first published by BYU, and is available through UCP. So you are trying to discredit the source of the information rather than to address the material itself. Do you not see the hypocrasy from such a position. But in an effort to keep the discussion on tract, I will ask my two main question again:

1)  Are there peer reviewed articles on the B of A? My understanding is that there is not much to research since we cannot confidently say we have the original manuscripts and there is not enough academic interest in the doctrinal aspects of the book. I have seen a lot of people point to sunstone, but I do not think this qualifies as a peer reviewed journal.

2) What non-lds research gives credence to the argument presented by John Sorensen and others that the facsimiles could have had a different interpretation prior to the Egyptians use? My understanding is, due to general illiteracy and the difficulty in producing written documents, documents such as the facsimiles would be used by different peoples to mean different things in an effort to create a pseudo written record without having to create your own. This has been established as a regular occurrence in Mesoamerica for example.

 

[cdowis]

29 minutes ago, Freedom said:

I would suggest you re-read my question and respond a second time because your response does not an any way relate to my question. 

You are correct.  We are indeed talking about two different things and I have nothing else to add regarding your particular focus of interest.

Edited November 5, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Good luck in you quest.  But I think you are going to be disappointed if you are looking for anything faith promoting.  No Egyptologist out side of the Mormon box (Gee, Mulhestein, etc.) will give the BoA story any credence because we can now read Egyptian. There is no mystery to this.  The original papyrus can be translated by real professionals.   It is an open and shut case. We have the original Egyptian papyrus that have the facsimiles that are printed in the BoA.  We have Joseph Smith's translation of these facsimiles.   And they don't match. They don't match by a lot.  They are not even close.  It is the the smoking gun.  It doesn't matter what part of the scrolls might be missing or not, or how long the scrolls might of been, or what type of catalyst these 2nd century funeral scrolls might of been to JS, or what JS might of really meant when he said these were written by the hand or Abraham.  The fact is they are not what JS said they were.  It is not a translation.  It is far from it.  Now, the apologist response to this will be to obfuscate by posting links to lengthy articles written by fellow apologist that spin their pet theories of why things are not what they should be.  They will expect you to wade though all of this, and if you don't, they will discount you.  And of course, in the end there is always the big fall back to testimony of why science and evidence is messed up but good feelings are never wrong.

 

On 11/3/2016 at 8:39 PM, Freedom said:

Now hold on a minute, you post these videos as evidence in support, but when challenged for evidence that his claims can actually be collaborate by non-lds scholars you resort to the 'faith'? Why post the videos at all if you recognize that his claims may be suspect? I am not asking  faith question, I am asking for the non-lds scholars who the apologists anonymously reference in all their videos and articles. If they do not actually exist then why would you post them in the first place? I do not take Muhlestein to be a liar, I am just looking for the research that he eludes to but consistently fails to actual reference. 

You should be very satisfied with the citation to Dialogue which HappyJackWagon provided -- a very nice set of mostly scholarly articles by experts, which provide a good, basic introduction to the questions you pose.  sunstoned's above diatribe, on the other hand, is based on extreme bias and lack of knowledge, and he is wrong on nearly every claim he makes.  In addition to which he can't be bothered to read anything on the subject.  The oddest thing is that he says "we can now read Egyptian."  Of course, he does not read Egyptian at all.

You want corroborative evidence for the claims made by Muhlestein (evidence that he alludes to), but you should never expect to find that in a video.  That is not what videos are for.  I provide good documentation to non-Mormon sources in my “A 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 .

[cdowis]

Quote

we can now read Egyptian.

As Nibley points out, we can read it but what does it mean.

I call it the "Chicken of the Sea" fallacy, orf "out in left field" -->> you can read it, but what does it mean?    

Edited November 5, 2016 by cdowis

[Darren10]

21 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I respectfully disagree.  It is that simple.  With the rediscovery of the original papyrus, the foundational narrative of the how the BoA came to be has been proven false.  CFR on your statement on details of Abraham that JS would not have known. No one really knows details of Abraham's life. In fact it is a debate among scholars that he even existed.  Besides, that has never been the focus of much debate among critics.  Probably because it never gets that far  Why argue historic correctness of a book whose claimed origins have been proven fraudulent.  As for the text its self, people can and have found personal meaning and inspiration just about any literary work, including fictional works such as the Work and the Glory, and The Lord of the Rings.  As far as doctrinal contributions goes, lets not forget that the church's ill-advised curse of Cain priesthood restriction teachings were based on the BoA.  

What "original papyrus" was "rediscovered"?

 

And does this help your CFR request? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765592200/How-could-Joseph-know-all-of-this.html?pg=all

[Freedom]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

You should be very satisfied with the citation to Dialogue which HappyJackWagon provided -- a very nice set of mostly scholarly articles by experts, which provide a good, basic introduction to the questions you pose.  sunstoned's above diatribe, on the other hand, is based on extreme bias and lack of knowledge, and he is wrong on nearly every claim he makes.  In addition to which he can't be bothered to read anything on the subject.  The oddest thing is that he says "we can now read Egyptian."  Of course, he does not read Egyptian at all.

You want corroborative evidence for the claims made by Muhlestein (evidence that he alludes to), but you should never expect to find that in a video.  That is not what videos are for.  I provide good documentation to non-Mormon sources in my “A 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 .

 

 

But my understanding is that Dialogue is not a peer reviewed academic journal. I have read the posted articles but did not find an answer to my question. I will review the material again.  

[Calm]

I can't remember if you mentioned this, but is there a reason why you are requiring/need peer reviewed nonLDS information outside of your personal curiosity and a desire to write about it?  Not saying this is unreasonable.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Freedom said:

But my understanding is that Dialogue is not a peer reviewed academic journal. I have read the posted articles but did not find an answer to my question. I will review the material again.  

Some of those articles are by the most prominent American Egyptologists of that time, and are an excellent introduction.  Unless you are an Egyptologist, you need not concern yourself with so-called "peer reviewed" articles, which you would not understand anyhow.  What is needed are sources in peer reviewed academic journals and books, which is what I provide, among other things, in my "Brief Assessment."

[Freedom]

On 11/5/2016 at 0:54 PM, Calm said:

I can't remember if you mentioned this, but is there a reason why you are requiring/need peer reviewed nonLDS information outside of your personal curiosity and a desire to write about it?  Not saying this is unreasonable.

Critics often pose a question such as 'if Muhlestein is a credible scholar, why has he not published any peer reviewed articles about the book of abraham', the argument being that an absence of peer reviewed research is evidence that the book is a fraud. I am looking for a sensible response to this expectation.  

[Freedom]

On 11/5/2016 at 7:49 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Some of those articles are by the most prominent American Egyptologists of that time, and are an excellent introduction.  Unless you are an Egyptologist, you need not concern yourself with so-called "peer reviewed" articles, which you would not understand anyhow.  What is needed are sources in peer reviewed academic journals and books, which is what I provide, among other things, in my "Brief Assessment."

As I just explained to Calm, I am not personally looking for peer reviewed articles, but I am looking for a way to counter critics who dismiss scholars such as Muhlestein because he has not published peer reviewed articles on the book of Abraham. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

As I just explained to Calm, I am not personally looking for peer reviewed articles, but I am looking for a way to counter critics who dismiss scholars such as Muhlestein because he has not published peer reviewed articles on the book of Abraham. 

So, am I to understand that these critics are accepting some other articles which fit their polemic approach to the BofA?  One would be hard-pressed to find any peer reviewed academic journal articles which discuss the BofA pro or con.  Why would those critics you are dealing with even have anything to say or think on the BofA in the absence of peer reviewed articles?  Or do they pretend to cite such articles?  Looks to me as though they are not really interested in a substantive discussion of the issues based on standard Egyptology.  That would be the reason for their refusal to discuss the matter, and the reason why they are apparently only familiar with a video or two.

There are many professional sources available on the issues which the BofA raises.  Are you familiar with them?

For example, the Maxwell Institute has five volumes so far in the series, Studies in the Book of Abraham, and all are available online through the Maxwell Institute.

Hugh Nibley has several books on the subject, all carefully edited by trained Egyptologists, in the series the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, and the are mostly also online at that site.

In other words do you have anything like a bibliography on the subject?  That is the first step.

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, am I to understand that these critics are accepting some other articles which fit their polemic approach to the BofA?  One would be hard-pressed to find any peer reviewed academic journal articles which discuss the BofA pro or con.  Why would those critics you are dealing with even have anything to say or think on the BofA in the absence of peer reviewed articles?  Or do they pretend to cite such articles?  Looks to me as though they are not really interested in a substantive discussion of the issues based on standard Egyptology.  That would be the reason for their refusal to discuss the matter, and the reason why they are apparently only familiar with a video or two.

There are many professional sources available on the issues which the BofA raises.  Are you familiar with them?

For example, the Maxwell Institute has five volumes so far in the series, Studies in the Book of Abraham, and all are available online through the Maxwell Institute.

Hugh Nibley has several books on the subject, all carefully edited by trained Egyptologists, in the series the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, and the are mostly also online at that site.

In other words do you have anything like a bibliography on the subject?  That is the first step.

I am well versed on the subject and have read all the material that is available both pro and con. With all due respect, I do not think you read my questions. I am no neophyte to church critics. 

1)  Are there peer reviewed articles on the B of A? My understanding is that there is not much to research since we cannot confidently say we have the original manuscripts and there is not enough academic interest in the doctrinal aspects of the book. I have seen a lot of people point to sunstone, but I do not think this qualifies as a peer reviewed journal.

2) What non-lds research gives credence to the argument presented by John Sorensen and others that the facsimiles could have had a different interpretation prior to the Egyptians use? My understanding is, due to general illiteracy and the difficulty in producing written documents, documents such as the facsimiles would be used by different peoples to mean different things in an effort to create a pseudo written record without having to create your own. This has been established as a regular occurrence in Mesoamerica for example.

So all I am asking is, are there peer reviewed articles. The answer is no, but I am looking for a simple explanation of why. Further, I am asking for any research that supports the notion put forward by some lds scholars that the facsimiles could have had a different interpretation prior to the Egyptians use. I have read a number of papers that offer various ways to interpret them, but I have not found evidence that they may have predated the eqyptians. 

So I am not looking for assistance in understanding the research, I am looking for simple answers to these two very specific questions. 

 

[Nevo]

12 hours ago, Freedom said:

So I am not looking for assistance in understanding the research, I am looking for simple answers to these two very specific questions.

I am aware of only a handful of articles that touch on the Book of Abraham in non-Mormon academic journals. E.g.,

• D. I. Holmes, "A Stylometric Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A) 155, no. 1 (1992): 91–120.
• Robert K. Ritner, "'The Breathing Permit of Hôr' among the Joseph Smith Papyri," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62, no. 3 (2003): 161–180.
• Samuel Brown, "Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphics, and the Pure Language of Eden," Church History 78, no. 1 (2009): 26–65.

Obviously, the vast majority of peer-reviewed scholarship on the Book of Abraham has been published by Mormon-themed academic journals (e.g., BYU Studies, Journal of Mormon History, The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, and Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought) and by FARMS.

A recent non-LDS academic treatment of the Book of Abraham is Robert Ritner's response to the Gospel Topics essay, "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham": http://signaturebooks.com/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/. Ritner predictably finds Gee's and Muhlestein's arguments unpersuasive and sees the Book of Abraham as non-historical and an invention of Joseph Smith.

As to your second question ("What non-lds research gives credence to the argument presented by John Sorensen and others that the facsimiles could have had a different interpretation prior to the Egyptians use?"), I have no idea what you're referring to. Could you please cite the article(s) where Sorenson makes this argument?

Edited November 8, 2016 by Nevo

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/7/2016 at 11:42 PM, Freedom said:

I am well versed on the subject and have read all the material that is available both pro and con. With all due respect, I do not think you read my questions. I am no neophyte to church critics. 

1)  Are there peer reviewed articles on the B of A? My understanding is that there is not much to research since we cannot confidently say we have the original manuscripts and there is not enough academic interest in the doctrinal aspects of the book. I have seen a lot of people point to sunstone, but I do not think this qualifies as a peer reviewed journal.

2) What non-lds research gives credence to the argument presented by John Sorensen and others that the facsimiles could have had a different interpretation prior to the Egyptians use? My understanding is, due to general illiteracy and the difficulty in producing written documents, documents such as the facsimiles would be used by different peoples to mean different things in an effort to create a pseudo written record without having to create your own. This has been established as a regular occurrence in Mesoamerica for example.

So all I am asking is, are there peer reviewed articles. The answer is no, but I am looking for a simple explanation of why.

You claim to be "well versed" and to have read everything on the BofA pro or con, but your comments here and elsewhere belie those claims.  Suggesting that John Sorenson and Mesoamerica are relevant, for example, seems far outside of standard Egyptology.  And it is standard Egyptology which should pique our interest.  It is there that non-LDS research constantly iimpinges on the BofA, since the contents of the BofA and the facsimilies continually interpret very specific contents of the BofA.  In reasonably assaying the BofA, in other words, one must constantly utilize standard peer reviewed Egyptology.  Why you even ask the question about Sunstone (in your own mind) misses the point entirely.

On 11/7/2016 at 11:42 PM, Freedom said:

Further, I am asking for any research that supports the notion put forward by some lds scholars that the facsimiles could have had a different interpretation prior to the Egyptians use. I have read a number of papers that offer various ways to interpret them, but I have not found evidence that they may have predated the eqyptians. 

So I am not looking for assistance in understanding the research, I am looking for simple answers to these two very specific questions. 

It isn't clear to me why you think that there may have been interpretations of the facsimilies which predated or were prior to the Egyptians.  What are you saying?  Do you have a specific claim in mind?  If so, whose claim?  The facsimiles of the BofA are Egyptian, need to be understood via standard Egyptology, and are not in any sense prior to the Egyptians.

[Kevin Christensen]

It is possible that Freedom has somehow confused BYU Anthropologist and Mesoamericanist John Sorenson with Chicago Lawyer and LDS scholar Kevin Barney with regards to this article.

"The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources" Kevin L. Barney

in Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1098&index=10

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Benjamin Seeker]

I was wondering the same thing. If this the case, because semetic reuse obviously happens post-Egyptian creation of the facsimiles, no one understood what freedom was asking for.

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It is possible that Freedom has somehow confused BYU Anthropologist and Mesoamericanist John Sorenson with Chicago Lawyer and LDS scholar Kevin Barney with regards to this article.

"The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources" Kevin L. Barney

Or perhaps Freedom was thinking of Michael Rhodes's argument that Facsimiles 1 and 3 were originally "illustrations done by Abraham" (circa 2000 B.C.) that were "modified and adapted for use by Hor, the owner of the papyrus" (circa 200 B.C.). According to Rhodes, Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles referred to "the original illustrations made by Abraham," not to the late Ptolemaic-era versions found in the Joseph Smith papyri.

If the question is whether there is any non-LDS research that gives credence to the argument that a priestly family from Thebes in the Greco-Roman period adapted two-millennia-old Egyptian facsimiles drawn by the patriarch Abraham, I believe the answer is no.

As Marc Coenen has noted, "concluding that a record of Abraham or any other text foreign to Ptolemaic Egyptian funerary and/or liturgical practice was once attached to the Smith papyri is an assertion not based upon widely accepted Egyptological analysis" (Marc Coenen, "The Ownership and Dating of Certain Joseph Smith Papyri," in Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2013], Kindle locations 1965–1966).

[Freedom]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You claim to be "well versed" and to have read everything on the BofA pro or con, but your comments here and elsewhere belie those claims.  Suggesting that John Sorenson and Mesoamerica are relevant, for example, seems far outside of standard Egyptology.  And it is standard Egyptology which should pique our interest.  It is there that non-LDS research constantly iimpinges on the BofA, since the contents of the BofA and the facsimilies continually interpret very specific contents of the BofA.  In reasonably assaying the BofA, in other words, one must constantly utilize standard peer reviewed Egyptology.  Why you even ask the question about Sunstone (in your own mind) misses the point entirely.

It isn't clear to me why you think that there may have been interpretations of the facsimilies which predated or were prior to the Egyptians.  What are you saying?  Do you have a specific claim in mind?  If so, whose claim?  The facsimiles of the BofA are Egyptian, need to be understood via standard Egyptology, and are not in any sense prior to the Egyptians.

In other words, you are not able to answer my very simple question, rather you have your standard 'mock the messenger' approach. Your condescending comments aside, I never claimed Sorenson is an expert, but he made a comment as have a few other writers in response to critics of the Book of Abraham. My simple question is, is there any validity to the claim that the facsimiles may have had a different meaning to Abraham and that the facsimilies were adopted by the Egyptians who changed their interpretation. I have never said that I thought there were, but that some have claimed as much and I was wondering if there is any validity to this claim. Next time read my question rather than jumping to your misguided conclusions. You are a smart guy, but you frequently misread what people are saying and give an answer that is completely unrelated to the question. 

You questioning my reference to suntone misses the point. critics ask for peer reviewed articles on the book of abraham by, what they refer to as 'so called scholars like muhlestein. I am simply looking for a clear response to this expectation. Sunstone, as far as I am aware, is not a peer reviewed journal. So let me answer my question for you since you do not seem capable of reading and understanding my questions

1) there is no evidence that the facsimiles have any interpretation that is different than how the Egyptians interpret it. There is no evidence they predate the Egyptians. 

2) there are no peer reviewed articles on the book of abraham specifically just as there are no peer reviewed articles on the book of mormon because we do not have the original text. To demand a peer reviewed article by Muhlestein is misguided because there not peer reviewed articles by anybody.