Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I don't think there are any additional papyri (or that more will be found).  My point is that JS never mentioned copies of papyri or that they were from third century B.C. (and did not mention Abraham's name).  He stated it was a translation from Abraham himself--and that was/is a lie or mistake IMO.  I also think it is a closed case and the church is backed into a corner.  Why was there no mention for so long that the papyri were copies of copies or that there were possibly missing papyri?  It's because the Church believed JS had TRANSLATED the actual writings of Abraham himself.  Once it was revealed that his translation did not match the fragments we DO have in our possession--it was then when the church started to change its narrative and propose different theories.  The church even admits in its own essay that it's a failed translation (based on what we do have) and apologists just hang on to some theory that some other papyri might have existed.    

Your statement here repeats the same straw-man fallacies you have been using all along, as though mere assertion made them true.

One of your most egregious fallacies is the constant use of an anthropomorphic "Church," as though there is a corporate superbeing who believes the schlock you are purveying.  The person(s) writing the Gospel Topics Essay on the BofA, for example, is an actual human being, a scholar who was asked to write anonymously on a specific subject.  Naturally, his Essay had to pass muster with some of the Brethren, and then was published, with any necessary editing.  This is true of nearly all official commentary on behalf of the LDS Church, whether teaching manuals or other sorts of official material.  The same applies to any corporate entity, from the Methodist Church to a government agency, whether we are talking about sunday school manuals or IRS regulations.

I have no problem with you or anyone else complaining that such publications do not meet your expectations, but I at least expect a coherent case be made for the faults detected and claimed -- and that is what you do not give to us here.  You have so twisted what the Essay says that it becomes apparent that your analysis is overwhelmed by your deep-seated prejudice or lack of logic on your part.  This has become typical of so much that we see on social media today, in which preconceptions are proved not by evidence but by mere naked assertion.  A logical presentation based on fact would help you make your case.  Why do you prefer fake facts instead?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/17/2017 at 3:27 PM, Darren10 said:

That is very interesting. My link by Kevin Barnes stated this in reverse order. That Semitic story tellers took existing Egyptian hieroglyphs which told a story of Egyptian characters and reinterpreted them to tell a Semitic story with Semitic characters. In the end, it points to the possibility that not only did Joseph Smith not get the Egyptian characters "wrong", but he got the reinterpretation of the characters right. If what Rhodes says is true then it seems the reinterpretation was reinterpreted. Would you say that is accurate?

This works both ways:  Literati in any culture were in the habit of using well-known stories or motifs from other cultures and transferring them into another language and culture.  There are many specific examples of that, so there is no question but that it took place.  That does not mean that someone can say anything at all and have it automatically be true.  Ancient authors worked within rigid limits.  We need to abide by those limitations.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Can you quote where I've indicated that I "find no value in" the Book of Abraham?

I can go back and find quotes that struck me that way, yes. That won't happen today or tomorrow (Sunday), though. 

In the meantime, can you answer the questions I asked, that you appear to be avoiding? These aren't research questions; they are questions about what you think and believe.

1) What value do you find in the Book of Abraham? You have already stated that you enjoy reading it. Do you find value in it other than that you enjoy reading it, or is that it? If so, can you explain that?

2) You have said that you believe that the papyri were a catalyst for Joseph Smith, but that he was mistaken and didn't translate anything correctly. So, what does that mean, exactly? What is the BoA, then? Fictional literature (inspiring or otherwise)? Inspired scripture that God revealed through Joseph Smith, while getting the translation details completely wrong?

Breaking that down into more simple questions that get at the same thing:

2a) Do you believe that Abraham was an actual person who actually existed?

2b) Do you believe that he actually was a real prophet?

2c) Do you believe that the stories and traditions about Abraham contained in the text and explanation of the facsimiles in the BoA accurately transmit events that happened to Abraham, not recorded in the Bible?

Thank you in advance!

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I can go back and find quotes that struck me that way, yes. That won't happen today or tomorrow (Sunday), though. 

I don't like that you accused me of something that I haven't done.   I've not stated that I find no value in the Book of Abraham here, but just the opposite.  I believe Joseph was inspired to write it and I enjoy reading it (as I already posted earlier) and I've explained my views on the papyri.

(And I already answered you as to why I enjoy reading the Book of Abraham in an earlier post as well.)

The rest I'm still reading and studying as this is a fairly recent area of research for me (something else I've stated here too).  I actually started reading it again last night and yes, I'm enjoying it.  I find myself hoping that Abraham actually existed, but I don't know that he did.

I don't think something has to be historically factual to have value though.  I know many who don't believe the Book of Mormon is true history, yet find great value in what it teaches.  Same with the parables that Christ taught.

I'll wait to hear from you regarding where I stated or indicated that I find no value in the Book of Abraham.

Edited March 19, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

That's what I don't understand, why do we not use this translation of the Bible? I know I've been told why, but have forgotten. And I know that the Community of Christ has a copy of it and when visiting Nauvoo, I was able to purchase it. Why not use it then?

We do use it to enhance our understanding of the Bible. My guess is that since it's obviously not finished, it is not used to replace the Bible. Furthermore, I would speculate that adding a "brand new Bible" into the mix, would further confuse the Mormon message ot the world. By not using it, our focus is on the Book of Mormon being a very harmonious companion to the Bible instead of, "hey, in addition to the Book of Mormon, Joesph Smith rewrote the Bible". 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I don't like that you accused me of something that I haven't done.   I've not stated that I find no value in the Book of Abraham here, but just the opposite.  I believe Joseph was inspired to write it and I enjoy reading it (as I already posted earlier) and I've explained my views on the papyri.

(And I already answered you as to why I enjoy reading the Book of Abraham in an earlier post as well.)

The rest I'm still reading and studying as this is a fairly recent area of research for me (something else I've stated here too).  I actually started reading it again last night and yes, I'm enjoying it.  I find myself hoping that Abraham actually existed, but I don't know that he did.

I don't think something has to be historically factual to have value though.  I know many who don't believe the Book of Mormon is true history, yet find great value in what it teaches.  Same with the parables that Christ taught.

I'll wait to hear from you regarding where I stated or indicated that I find no value in the Book of Abraham.

Thanks for the info, always interesting to hear others' povs.

[Meadowchik]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 9:08 PM, ksfisher said:

Do we know that the fragments that we have today are what was used?  Or was the translation limited to the portion that is now missing? 

We have Joseph's actual interpretation of the images displayed in our scripture, which indeed does not correspond to egyptologist translation.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your statement here repeats the same straw-man fallacies you have been using all along, as though mere assertion made them true.

One of your most egregious fallacies is the constant use of an anthropomorphic "Church," as though there is a corporate superbeing who believes the schlock you are purveying.  The person(s) writing the Gospel Topics Essay on the BofA, for example, is an actual human being, a scholar who was asked to write anonymously on a specific subject.  Naturally, his Essay had to pass muster with some of the Brethren, and then was published, with any necessary editing.  This is true of nearly all official commentary on behalf of the LDS Church, whether teaching manuals or other sorts of official material.  The same applies to any corporate entity, from the Methodist Church to a government agency, whether we are talking about sunday school manuals or IRS regulations.

I have no problem with you or anyone else complaining that such publications do not meet your expectations, but I at least expect a coherent case be made for the faults detected and claimed -- and that is what you do not give to us here.  You have so twisted what the Essay says that it becomes apparent that your analysis is overwhelmed by your deep-seated prejudice or lack of logic on your part.  This has become typical of so much that we see on social media today, in which preconceptions are proved not by evidence but by mere naked assertion.  A logical presentation based on fact would help you make your case.  Why do you prefer fake facts instead?

Aren't the images replicated in our scriptures ones Joseph actually interpreted? He identified the personages and who they represented? But now we know according to Egyptology that his specific translation of this sample was nowhere close?

[dberrie2000]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We have Joseph's actual interpretation of the images displayed in our scripture, which indeed does not correspond to egyptologist translation.

The Book of Abraham text does not contain any images. I believe ksfisher's question was linked to the translation of the Book of Abraham text.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

The Book of Abraham text does not contain any images. I believe ksfisher's question was linked to the translation of the Book of Abraham text.

He was imo implying that since we only have portions of the original scrolls that we cannot be sure that the BofA is is mistranslated.  My point is that we do have remnants with Joseph's corresponding interpretation for that remnant which we know to be nothing close to a translation according to Egyptology.

As far as I know we have no examples demonstrating Joseph Smith had the ability to translate anything, by the power of God or otherwise.  

[dberrie2000]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

He was imo implying that since we only have portions of the original scrolls that we cannot be sure that the BofA is is mistranslated.

Hi Meadow:

That's a legitimate concern--seeing there is no correlation between the extant papyri and the Book of Abraham text, as far as the actual translation goes.

My point is that we do have remnants with Joseph's corresponding interpretation for that remnant which we know to be nothing close to a translation according to Egyptology. 

You are right--it has nothing to do with the translation. There is no connection there whatsoever. It's ludicrous that one character would occupy 176 English words. And has already been posted--there is doubt the manuscript we do have is even an original translation--which brings the question to bear--did the original even have the characters on them?

As far as I know we have no examples demonstrating Joseph Smith had the ability to translate anything, by the power of God or otherwise.

I still have not seen a reasonable explanation as to the origins of the Book of Mormon. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Aren't the images replicated in our scriptures ones Joseph actually interpreted? He identified the personages and who they represented? But now we know according to Egyptology that his specific translation of this sample was nowhere close?

But that is exactly opposite of the facts.  It is frequently asserted that Joseph's explanations for the items in the facsimiles were "nowhere close' to standard Egyptology, which is contrary to fact.  Indeed, some of the smartest anti-Mormons have been careful to find excuses why Joseph got so many of the items correct, e.g., claiming that it was mere coincidence, or that it was pictorially obvious, etc.  One guy, who pretended to know Egyptology, even declared Joseph correct on one item in particular, only to later backtrack and claim that Joseph was wrong on that same item.  He was infuriated when that was pointed out to him.  In my own assessment of Joseph's score on making correct identifications, I have always been careful to quote Egyptologists not involved in the angry debate. Instead, I have sought disinterested third-party expert opinion on just what each item actually represents in standard Egyptology.  One gets far more unbiased mileage that way.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But that is exactly opposite of the facts.  It is frequently asserted that Joseph's explanations for the items in the facsimiles were "nowhere close' to standard Egyptology, which is contrary to fact.  Indeed, some of the smartest anti-Mormons have been careful to find excuses why Joseph got so many of the items correct, e.g., claiming that it was mere coincidence, or that it was pictorially obvious, etc.  One guy, who pretended to know Egyptology, even declared Joseph correct on one item in particular, only to later backtrack and claim that Joseph was wrong on that same item.  He was infuriated when that was pointed out to him.  In my own assessment of Joseph's score on making correct identifications, I have always been careful to quote Egyptologists not involved in the angry debate. Instead, I have sought disinterested third-party expert opinion on just what each item actually represents in standard Egyptology.  One gets far more unbiased mileage that way.

Okay, CFR.

[sjdawg]

On 3/16/2017 at 0:28 AM, The Nehor said:

God told me. Hope that clears that up.

I had an uncle who once said that God told him (while he was in the temple) that he should go ahead and continue with the extra-marital affair he was having. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear.  

[dberrie2000]

On 3/18/2017 at 6:47 PM, Ouagadougou said:

 I mentioned this in a previous post:

The original publication of the 1842 BoA had facsimile 1 on the cover and then proceeded with the text.  Additionally, Abraham 1: 12-13 make reference to facsimile 1 as well.  

This shows that the BoA, IMO, illustrates that its primary source (Breathing Permit of Hor) is the same record that begins with facsimile 1

While no one can question what you believe--the Book of Abraham text translation shares nothing in common with the extant fragments. That, IMO--is proof positive the Book of Abraham text translation did not come from the extant papyri.

Also, look at several of the anacronisms in the BoA.  If JS used papyri from Abraham's time, then why would certain words be used in that translation that didn't come about until thousands of years later. 

The same reason any translation of ancient manuscripts use words in translation into their own language and time frame--which might have not been used in the times of antiquity, and possibility did not carry the same definition parameters.

 

 

[dberrie2000]

On 3/18/2017 at 6:34 PM, Ouagadougou said:

There is no need to justify my position...like I said, based on the evidence we DO have, I believe the BoA is a complete fraud.  

But that is just my point--we don't have anything--period--which to compare to the Book of Abraham text. The extant papyri certainly does not share anything in common with the Book of Abraham text translation. There was additional papyri--and, if the witness accounts are true-- much more. There were scrolls--which none are extant today. There are descriptions of the size of the scrolls, which the fragments cannot even come close to filling a measurement of. The possibility remains--the Book of Abraham text might have come from those missing scrolls. And an argument can be made those scrolls could have wound up in the Wood Museum--which burned in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Until all those points are in the definitive column, and despite of it--one can continue to opine whatever opinion they wish--whenever they wish--that is their right to do so. But to place opinions in the "closed case" file is nothing short of speculation--on either side of the argument.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 

Quote

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But that is exactly opposite of the facts.  It is frequently asserted that Joseph's explanations for the items in the facsimiles were "nowhere close' to standard Egyptology, which is contrary to fact.  Indeed, some of the smartest anti-Mormons have been careful to find excuses why Joseph got so many of the items correct, e.g., claiming that it was mere coincidence, or that it was pictorially obvious, etc.  One guy, who pretended to know Egyptology, even declared Joseph correct on one item in particular, only to later backtrack and claim that Joseph was wrong on that same item.  He was infuriated when that was pointed out to him.  In my own assessment of Joseph's score on making correct identifications, I have always been careful to quote Egyptologists not involved in the angry debate. Instead, I have sought disinterested third-party expert opinion on just what each item actually represents in standard Egyptology.  One gets far more unbiased mileage that way.

Okay, CFR.

Facsimile 2:3   Part of Joseph=s explanation is as follows:

Quote

a.  Is made to represent God,

b.  sitting upon his throne,

c.  clothed with power

d.  and authority;

e.  with a crown of eternal light upon his head;

S. A. B. Mercer said of items a through d, that, although Joseph Ahere comes nearer the truth than anywhere else@ B a significant admission B Awho would not guess that a person, apparently sitting upon a throne,  would be most likely to be possessed of >power and authority?=  It is only such people who are accustomed to sit upon thrones.@^[1]  D. J. Nelson also found item b to be Apictorially obvious,@ and d to be Ainferred from b,@ all other items being false interpretations (private communication 1975).

There are a great many inferences which one could draw from a strange being seated in a boat and surrounded by equally strange symbols, and there are valid questions to be asked: Why is it that Joseph finds both Fac. 2:3 and 2:7 to represent AGod@ seated Aupon his throne@?  Assuming that Joseph suspected that certain beings depicted on Egyptian papyri represented gods, how did he know which of these gods would or could have been appropriately identified with the God of Abraham?  Why are certain of the most obvious identifications lacking, e.g., the boat, in his explanations?  How is it that Joseph manages to foresee the exact meaning of the w3s-scepter being held in Fac. 2:3?  Is the overhead disk obviously a Acrown of eternal light@? 

John A. Wilson interpreted the scene as Athe sun-god Re in his barque,@ which accompanies Book of the Dead spell 101, describing Re) as a Astrider over the water, who comes forth from the floods,@ goes to post Aposition,@ and passes by the Sacred Eye.

Terming Joseph=s explanations for register 3 Aa sad joke,@ A. Lythgoe nevertheless admitted that Joseph was correct in saying that a god is pictured, though he Ais the chief god of a polytheistic people@ versus the God of a monotheistic Abraham.^[2]  Breasted seconded the motion, adding that the Egyptians Aknew nothing of Abraham=s God, or Abraham=s religion.@^[3]  The ignorant and arrogant notion that Re) and El are mutually exclusive begins to be undercut when Mercer says that the Babylonian equivalent of Re) is Shamash,^[4] and this is true more than to the extent that Shamash is the ASun.@  The Egyptians did in fact know something about foreign gods, and cross-cultural equivalents were well-known.  Note, for example, how broadly C. H. Gordon defines such cross-identifications as Zeus Amon Re' Marduk Ahura-Mazda =El Yahweh, etc., all as one and the same God.^[5]  Moreover, scholars today understand Abraham and the early Hebrews as polytheists.^[6]

Items c and d have God Aclothed with power and authority,@ i.e., possessing or holding Apower and authority@ (cf. Moses 7:3, Psalms 104:1, 132:16, II Chronicles 6:41).  Here Joseph finds his position being upheld practically word-for-word by modern Egyptologists (as is the case in Fac. 2:6).  Though he did not give the correct name for it, Mercer defined the w3s-scepter in the left hand of Re' in Fac. 2:3 as Athe royal sceptre which gave dominion over heaven and earth,@^[7] Adominion@ being synonymous with Aauthority.@  Budge said that it meant Apower.@^[8]  Gardiner saw it as Adivine power, dominion,@^[9] both Faulkner and Scamuzzi as Adominion,@^[10] Brunner as Apower,@^[11] while J. G. Griffiths defined the w3s as meaning Apower, might,@^[12] and, according to te Velde, Apower,@ while also symbolizing Aorder,@ among other things.^[13]  The consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of Joseph Smith here, as Prof. K. Baer reluctantly but readily admitted during a question-and-answer session at BYU, August 23, 1974.

Biblically, scepter and throne are associated with Ajustice, judgment, righteousness, equity, truth, and mercy@ (Psalms 45:7, 89:15, 97:2, Proverbs 16:12, 20:28, I Kings 7:7; Esther 4:11, 5:2; Hebrews 1:8).^[14]  In Hebrew there is thus no hint of power and authority!!  As usual, Joseph Smith=s Abraham is right on target.

Facsimile 2:6   Represents the (this) earth in its four quarters. 

T. Devéria alluded to them as Athe gods of the four cardinal points@^[15] (referring, of course, to the register at the base of the tableau in Fac 3:5): ASouth, North, West, and East,@ rs(y), mht(y), imnt(y), i3bt(y), the reading of part of the lower register of Fac. 3, and which corresponds to the order of the figures in the other two facsimiles,^[16] as well as in Papyrus Joseph Smith III.A (illustration to Book of the Dead spell 125).^[17]

S. A. B. Mercer said: 

Quote

Joseph Smith says they represent Athe earth in its four quarters@BAquarters@ are not Acardinal points.@  However, credit must be given for a certain similarity, though it is merely a coincidence in number and in general treatment.^[18]

 

D.J. Nelson said two things early on:

Quote

(As Joseph Smith, Jr. indicates in his explanation of Facsimile No. 2, Fig. 6, they were the gods of the four cardinal points of the compass.  This statement is quite correct.)^[19]

Joseph Smith correctly identified them as representing the four quarters of the earth!^[20]

Later Nelson contradicted himself, declaring Joseph identification here Afalse@ (private communication, 1975).

Yet, already in 1895, fully 18 years before Mercer=s grudging denial, E. Budge began saying that these four gods Awere supposed to preside over the four quarters of the world, and subsequently were acknowledged to be the gods of the cardinal points,@^[21] and he continued to say this: AEach god ruled over one quarter of the world,@ Athe gods of the four quarters of the earth,@^[22] Athe four [quarters of the world],@^[23] or the gods of the four Aquarters of heaven.@^[24] those Afour pillars@ are the Afour cardinal points.@^[25]  Mercer ought to have known very well that to be a god of a cardinal point meant that that god ruled over the corresponding quarter of the Earth, and there were other quadrilateral functions to be fulfilled also.

Completely ignoring Budge, and John Gee's "Notes on the Sons of Horus,"^[26] and nearly everything else in standard Egyptology (which I have detailed above), Stephen E. Thompson quickly dismissed the possibility that any of the Egyptian parallels here might be relevant or legitimate,^[27] though he was aware of Egyptian gods of the cardinal directions apart from the Sons of Horus.^[28]

Abraham=s ancient Semitic world knew well the division of the Earth into four quarters,^[29] and even personified them.^[30]  We need to admit that Joseph got it right, here and elsewhere. 

---

^[1] Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:23.

^[2] Lythgoe, New York Times, Dec 29, 1912, part V, p. 1.

^[3] Breasted in Spalding, JSAT, 25; also quoted in Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:10.

^[4] Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:33.

^[5] Gordon in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15^th ed., Macropaedia, 12:917-920.

^[6] E. T. Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monograph 2 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980); C. E. L=Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Dagan, and the Rephaim, Harvard Semitic Monograph 21 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979).

^[7] Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:23.

^[8] Budge, The Mummy, 2^nd ed. (Collier), 221.

^[9] Gardiner, JEA, 36:7,12 n. 1.

^[10] Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, rev. ed. (Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1985), 178,184, for Book of the Dead illustration and text: Alife and dominion@; Scamuzzi, Egyptian Art in the Egyptian Museum of Turin, plate XXXIII.

^[11] Brunner, AfO, 23:119-120.

^[12] Griffiths, JEA, 56:229-230, on E. Winter, Untersuchungen zu den aegyptischen Tempelreliefs der griechisch-roemischen Zeit (Vienna, 1968).

^[13] H. te Velde, Seth, 89-90.

^[14] Discussed by Z. W. Falk, Vetus Testamentum, 10:72-74, citing H. Brunner, VT, 8:426-428, and P. A. A. Boeser in Glanville, ed., Studies Presented to F. Ll. Griffith, 45.

^[15] Devéria, Bibliothèque Égyptologique, 4:201.

^[16] Baer, Dialogue, III/3:127; Nelson, Translation & Study of Fac. 3, 27-28.

^[17] Cf. Nelson, JSP, I:29-32.

^[18] Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:19,24.

^[19] Nelson, JSP, I:32; P. JS III.A.

^[20] Nelson, JSER, 4.

^[21] Budge, Book of the Dead (1895/1967), ci; cf. Budge, The Mummy, 1^st ed., 195.

^[22] Budge, Book of the Dead: Papyrus of Ani (1913/1916/1960), 192,130-131.

^[23] Budge, Book of the Dead (1895/1967), 339, on spell 83:4; cf. pp. 278-279.

^[24] Budge, Gods of the Egyptians (1904), I:210; cf. Pyramid Text 1777; Wilson in Pritchard, ed., ANET, 3^rd ed., 8 n. 6, citing Sethe, Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte, II, ''1456-1457.

^[25] Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Utterance 217 n. 2; cf. Pyramid Texts 321, 348, 464, 470, 552, 601, 2078-2079.

^[26] FARMS Preliminary Report, GEE-91 (FARMS, 1991).

^[27] Thompson, Dialogue, 28/1 (Spring 1995), 152.

^[28] Thompson, Dialogue, 28/1, n. 48, citing D. Kessler, "Himmelsrichtungen," in Helck & Otto, eds., Lexikon der Ägyptologie (Harrassowitz, 1975-1986), II:1213-1215; cf. n. 47, citing M. Heerma van Voss, "Horuskinder," in LÄ, III:53, in which he reverses the directions of Duamutef and Qebehsenuef B but the standard order was not rigidly adhered to anyhow.

^[29] Dahood, Biblica, 52:397; Palmer, Biblica, 46:357-358; Gordon, Revue d=assyriologie, 31:101-108; Malamat, BA, 34/1:2-22; CAD, S, 16:215, citing Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 23:4, 25:5, 27:4; Tablet UM, 29-16-42:25-26,28; H. B. Rosén, "Some Thoughts on the System of Designation of the Cardinal Points in Ancient Semitic Languages," in A. S. Kaye, ed., Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau On the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, November 14th, 1991, 2 vols. (Harrassowitz, 1991), II:1337-1344.

^[30] Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, 4:258, citing RA, 22:171 recto 50.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Ouagadougou]

On 18.03.2017 at 9:23 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You have so twisted what the Essay says that it becomes apparent that your analysis is overwhelmed by your deep-seated prejudice or lack of logic on your part.

Please explain how I have twisted the essays, along with my deep-seated prejudice?

If my conclusions/views of the BoA aligned with what you wanted a believed, then I'm sure you would never make such ridiculous statements.

If we were to have 100 non-LDS Egyptologists examin the BoA (separately), how many would argree that it is an ancient, historical text and written by the hand of Abraham, as JS claimed?

I don't think any of them would...and yet I am prejudice?  If the BoA were actual historical, authentic historical scripture, IMO, it would be one of the most valuable documents today.  The thing is, it's immediately apparent that it's a fraud, IMO. 

 "To sum up, then, these three fac-similes of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price' depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization.”

- James H. Breasted, Ph. D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago; quoted in F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator, 1912, pp. 26-27

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the Goddess [in Facsimile No. 1] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.”

- Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology, printed in Joseph Smith Jun. As a Translator, by F.S. Spaulding, p. 8

[JulieM]

On March 18, 2017 at 11:46 PM, rongo said:

I can go back and find quotes that struck me that way, yes. That won't happen today or tomorrow (Sunday), though. 

....

You have said that you believe that the papyri were a catalyst for Joseph Smith, but that he was mistaken and didn't translate anything correctly. So, what does that mean, exactly? 

Hey Rongo, here's something I read through last night that explains some of what I believe if this helps:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ldsscriptureteachings.org/2017/02/22/the-catalyst-theory-of-the-book-of-abraham/amp/

I'm also waiting for you to post what you said you'd do  (quotes from me here stating or indicating that I find "no value" in the Book of Abraham.) 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I had an uncle who once said that God told him (while he was in the temple) that he should go ahead and continue with the extra-marital affair he was having. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear.  

Well, that is his own fault. While in the temple renewing covenants he was actively breaking he was expecting revelation? Sounds like he is a bit of a moron.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I'm also waiting for you to post what you said you'd do  (quotes from me here stating or indicating that I find "no value" in the Book of Abraham.) 

Calm down, Julie! Some of us work for a living!  

You could at least wait as long as I needed to for you to finally respond to my initial posts, too . . .  

I don't like that you accused me of something that I haven't done.

I haven’t accused you of anything, Julie. I’ve been trying to figure out exactly where you stand on the Book of Abraham on the spectrum between believer and unbeliever, and I needed clarification from you to do that. I asked you to explain two things:

1) What you enjoy reading from Hugh Nibley

and

2) What you enjoy about reading the Book of Abraham.

with a related question

2a) What you find of value in the Book of Abraham

What lay behind me asking this was your confident insistence that Joseph Smith had gotten everything wrong in Facsimile 3. I posted a few references from Hugh Nibley that (arguably) refute this common canard, and you didn’t reply at all (which is unusual for you). When I bumped it for you, you admitted that you hadn’t read any of Nibley’s BoA apologetics, but that you “enjoy reading his writings.”  When I asked what you *had* read of Nibley, you said, “I own all of my parents old books and they loved Nibley [which is a diversion from my question --- owning your parents books and them loving Nibley doesn’t answer my question of what you have read from Nibley].  I've used many of them to help me with lessons and talks I've had to give.  My favorite of his books is just short chapters with quotes on different topics [which would be “Of All Things,” a collection of short quotes from him, more pop-culture-ish and not his actual treatment of BoA arguments].  I honestly feel that he was kind of quirky or thought outside of the box on some things and I love that.”

I will forgo asking you what things he said that you find to be “kind of quirky or . . . outside the box” that you “love.” It doesn’t seem to me that you have very much familiarity with or exposure to Nibley, Gee, Rhodes, or other pro-BoA arguments at all, and that you instead focus entirely on what critics of the BoA have written about it and argue --- and assume with those critics that that is the final word and is unassailable (i.e., that defenses of the BoA are desperate and a huge stretch, compared to the scholarship of Egyptologists who have weighed in on it). It seems like you hold this view without having any idea of the arguments and points that competent apologists have made. I’m guessing that you haven’t actually read much of Ritner, the 1912 critics, or Klaus Baer and John A. Wilson either --- other than critics’ executive summaries posted online?

(And I already answered you as to why I enjoy reading the Book of Abraham in an earlier post as well.)

No, you actually didn’t. At all. You repeated that you enjoy reading it, but that’s all you said. That’s why I asked you  a couple of times what, other than the fact that you say you enjoy reading it, you enjoy about the Book of Abraham. I wanted to see what you would say about that, and your silence and inability/refusal to give any examples is as revealing as your silence and inability to discuss details about Nibley (which you only finally admitted after repeated questions).  

May I ask where I've ever posted that I don't find any value in what is in the Book of Abraham? . . . Can you quote where I've indicated that I "find no value in" the Book of Abraham?

You haven’t overtly come out and said that you find “no” value in the Book of Abraham. You do accept every criticism of the Book of Abraham, though, to the point where your “honest, gut reaction . . . is that Joseph simply just got it wrong . . . Joseph was just mistaken.” If you do find value in it, shouldn’t you be able to describe what you find to be of value, and what you find valuable in the Book of Abraham? Why is it so hard for you if you, indeed, find value in it? What is the value of it?

I’m willing to take you at your word that you find value in the Book of Abraham, but that is actually meaningless to me without knowing why you do and what you find in it that’s valuable.

I had asked you: “Therefore, what? You think Joseph just got it wrong, he was just mistaken, but you also think he was inspired to write it and that the scrolls were a catalyst for Joseph. A catalyst for what? Something that was mistaken and just wrong, but nonetheless inspired?”

You answered:

“Yes, I believe this [the catalyst theory described at the link above] as many now seem to also believe (that I've discussed it with).”

Referring to a link and letting that stand as your stance isn’t super helpful, because it leaves many other questions. For example, you have stated that you “find [your]self hoping that Abraham actually existed, but [you] don't know that he did.” You also state that you “don't think something has to be historically factual to have value.” This raises again for me the question of what value you find in it, when you don’t even believe that Abraham even existed and you don’t believe the papyri have anything at all --- at all --- to do with Abraham. I anxiously wait for you to explain this value. Then, you mention that “many who don't believe the Book of Mormon is true history, yet find great value in what it teaches.” I know people like this, too. Like you, they say they find value in it, but when pressed, have an extremely difficult time expressing anything. It seems like more of a throw-away line when pressed. You mention the inevitable “Same with the parables that Christ taught,” but isn’t the primary witness of the New Testament that Christ’s incarnation, atonement, and resurrection really happened, not the simple, inspiring stories that he taught?

And, if the only value you find in the Book of Abraham is of a parable nature, I wonder how many examples you could actually cite and what the power and impact of the parables of the non-literal story of Abraham in the BoA would be.

I think one of the important witnesses of the Book of Abraham is akin to that of the Book of Mormon: as a physical, spiritually verifiable testimony of the historicity of the scriptures and the foundation for the Church. Most secular scholars today doubt that Abraham actually existed (this may well actually be 100% among non-Mormon Egyptologists), and this is an important factor in their superficial dismissal of the Book of Abraham. How many (of those who have actually given it any hearing at all) would honestly be willing to entertain the possibility that Joseph Smith might have had access to important knowledge, when they don’t believe the historical figure that is its subject even existed?

[HappyJackWagon]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, that is his own fault. While in the temple renewing covenants he was actively breaking he was expecting revelation? Sounds like he is a bit of a moron.

Was God holding a flaming sword?

[dberrie2000]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

If we were to have 100 non-LDS Egyptologists examin the BoA (separately), how many would argree that it is an ancient, historical text and written by the hand of Abraham, as JS claimed?

 

My question would be--what are they going to use a a gauge--seeing there is nothing which relates to the Book of Abraham text translation?

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Facsimile 2:3   Part of Joseph=s explanation is as follows:

S. A. B. Mercer said of items a through d, that, although Joseph Ahere comes nearer the truth than anywhere else@ B a significant admission B Awho would not guess that a person, apparently sitting upon a throne,  would be most likely to be possessed of >power and

.....

 

Thanks very much for all those references, Robert.  I apologise, but I was expecting them to be about the big picture that appears in the Standard Works. Facsimile 1. 

I remember pouring over that thing as a child and trying to make sense of it.

[JulieM]

Rongo, never mind (and I am totally calm here, just asking you to do what you'd said you would do ).  I know you won't find any quotes here to support what you've accused me of, so I'll save you the trouble.

And, I've been courteous enough to answer your questions and respond to you.  I've told you that this is a new area of research for me and I am trying to read all I can regarding it.  Thus the numerous requests for any references tying Abraham to the origination of the facsimiles or funery texts.  Some of what has been posted was info I'd not heard before.  I'd love to see references for this.

I've told you that I'm not sure what I believe yet, but I'm looking at resources and reading the Book of Abraham again (I'll admit it's been years).  I've also told you what my beliefs are leaning towards.  But I'm open to reading new information I find or others can share too.

I just don't appreciate being accused of something I haven't done here and I'm sorry if you misunderstood my intentions.

Edited March 20, 2017 by JulieM