Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Rongo, never mind (and I am totally calm here, just asking you to do what you'd said you would do ).

I had copied and pasted a list of statements you had made (primarily CFR battering), but decided, like you, "never mind." Still, I think I've shown at least that you don't want to describe the value that you feel the Book of Abraham has. 

I know you won't find any quotes here to support what you've accused me of, so I'll save you the trouble.

You keep using the word "accused." You're the one who said you value it, and I asked you to explain. Oh, well.

I've already said that there is no smoking JulieM gun where you outright say that you don't find any value in the Book of Abraham. You just can't or don't want to discuss the value that you see in it.

And, I've been courteous enough to answer your questions and respond to you.

I think we've both been courteous to each other. But are you really saying that you have fully answered the questions I asked?

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).

Wait! I thought you loved reading it!  I really do encourage you to see what competent apologists have written about the BoA, not just what critics have. 

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

Well, maybe I have misunderstood your intentions. Your posting style strikes me (not just in this thread, but elsewhere) as being very careful not to go "whole hog" critical, but always favoring critical approaches to the Church, scripture, Church history, etc. This is a general impression I have, a "taste in the mouth." Subjective, and may vary according to the observer. But I have also noticed a tendency on your part to "CFR batter" people. I don't like that, no matter who does it, and I wish we had less of it here. People should have to substantiate claims, but CFRs are brandished as a weapon too often. 

It doesn't seem like you liked being asked to clarify things you didn't want to clarify, or being asked to go down paths you didn't want to go down. 

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

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?

 

So you agree that at least the facismilies are a complete fraud?  

Only a part of the BoA is a failed translation, so the words/text must be true because of additional papyri we will never find?  

I am basing this on the evidence we do have (existing fragments) and their (Egyptologists') expertise.  I'm willing to bet it would probably be 0 would agree that the BoA is a translated ancient text, IMO.  I am focused on what we do have...you are focused on something we don't have...

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I had copied and pasted a list of statements you had made (primarily CFR battering), but decided, like you, "never mind." Still, I think I've shown at least that you don't want to describe the value that you feel the Book of Abraham has. 

 

 

You keep using the word "accused." You're the one who said you value it, and I asked you to explain. Oh, well.

I've already said that there is no smoking JulieM gun where you outright say that you don't find any value in the Book of Abraham. You just can't or don't want to discuss the value that you see in it.

 

 

I think we've both been courteous to each other. But are you really saying that you have fully answered the questions I asked?

 

 

Wait! I thought you loved reading it!  I really do encourage you to see what competent apologists have written about the BoA, not just what critics have. 

 

 

Well, maybe I have misunderstood your intentions. Your posting style strikes me (not just in this thread, but elsewhere) as being very careful not to go "whole hog" critical, but always favoring critical approaches to the Church, scripture, Church history, etc. This is a general impression I have, a "taste in the mouth." Subjective, and may vary according to the observer. But I have also noticed a tendency on your part to "CFR batter" people. I don't like that, no matter who does it, and I wish we had less of it here. People should have to substantiate claims, but CFRs are brandished as a weapon too often. 

It doesn't seem like you liked being asked to clarify things you didn't want to clarify, or being asked to go down paths you didn't want to go down. 

Rongo, I've explained to you several times how I feel and how I'm looking into this topic right now.  That's why I was interested in and was following this thread and why I asked for and pursued getting any references (so I could read them).  I know there are a lot of theories and I'll look at all of them.

And yes, I've enjoyed reading the Book of Abraham in the past and I'm currently reading it again.

I've been honest about my feelings and how I'm trying to figure out what to believe. I do believe Joseph was inspired to write the book and I do find value in what it contains.  

I have no hard feelings for what you mistakenly took my asking for references to mean or indicate, but you were not right.  I've answered most of your questions with honesty and for some the answer right now is "I don't know how I feel about that yet".  Thus the studying and reading I'm doing.

Edited March 21, 2017 by JulieM

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours 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.

But the angle with a flaming sword story is totally legit, right?  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

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

The  matter is very simple:  Someone who is sincere and honest will always reflect accurately what another person says.  Sincere and honest people will always correctly summarize or restate what an opponent says, instead of engaging in deliberate polemic subterfuge -- which is, unfortunately, what you do.  it can sometimes be difficult to read sources carefully and to take them into account when composing one's views, but it is essential.  I see no evidence that you have made any effort at all to do this.  You haven't read my paper, and have not reacted to it objectively.  The same applies to the Gospel Topics Essays.  When have you ever correctly stated their content?  It's as easy as English 101 in school, in which the assignment is to summarize what is being read, and to do so accurately.  You fail the assignment each time.

The great Egyptologist James Wilson called the words of Sayce and Breasted "indignant snorts."  You blindly quote Sayce and Breasted, not because you know anything about them or about Egyptology (you obviously don't), but because they share your apriori and prejudiced views -- and express it in the most childish manner possible.  When he spoke about the same issues, Prof. Wilson conducted himself like a gentleman.

Instead of dealing in fact, you prefer to engage in wild speculation about what some hypothetical 100 Egyptologists might say about this or that, when in fact you know nothing about the subject-matter involved.  This is always the way of lowbrow anti-Mormonism.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Fac 1 was not drawn by Abraham, nor by anyone in his time (it is a very late document from Ptolemaic times).  Why do I say that?  As I pointed out already, the text of the BofA itself makes it impossible.  The text says explicitly that Abraham provided an illustration of an Aramaic (Chaldean) bedstead in northwest Syria, where the sacrificial events take place.  The Jews transmitting the BofA in Ptolemaic times in Egypt simply substituted a couple of typical Sensen text illustrations (Fac 1 & 3).  Was that sort of thing done by Semites living in Egypt?  Of course, and I provide specific examples in my paper, which I have cited several times already.

[dberrie2000]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

 

So you agree that at least the facismilies are a complete fraud?  

 

The facsimiles are not part of the Book of Abraham text.

Only a part of the BoA is a failed translation, so the words/text must be true because of additional papyri we will never find?

And just where do we find that claim? That sounds like more like sensationalism, than like an honest evaluation of the possibilities, IMO. My position is that nothing we have extant relates to the Book of Abraham text. What is anyone going to use to test the origins or authenticity of the Book of Abraham text?

There is at least one possibility--and that is the missing papyri Joseph Smith possessed in Nauvoo, and which was witnessed and described by numerous witnesses, in recorded statements.

I am basing this on the evidence we do have (existing fragments) and their (Egyptologists') expertise.  I'm willing to bet it would probably be 0 would agree that the BoA is a translated ancient text, IMO.  I am focused on what we do have...you are focused on something we don't have... 

As has already been established--there is nothing in the extant papyri that relates to the Book of Abraham text, which can be easily established--so that is out of the running.

What can't be established or denied--is that the Book of Abraham text came from the missing papyri. That becomes the primary question now, by reason of default of the extant papyri to make any connections to the Book of Abraham text.

 

 

 

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The  matter is very simple:  Someone who is sincere and honest will always reflect accurately what another person says.  Sincere and honest people will always correctly summarize or restate what an opponent says, instead of engaging in deliberate polemic subterfuge -- which is, unfortunately, what you do.

Will try to at least.  I don't see a lot of evidence that it is a given they will get it right no matter how sincere and honest they are.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Will try to at least.  I don't see a lot of evidence that it is a given they will get it right no matter how sincere and honest they are.

Yet I have found in detailed conversation with very well-informed anti-Mormons, that we can find agreement on the facts -- it was the interpretation upon which we differed -- while maintaining mutual respect and admiration.

The late Rev Wesley P. Walters, for example, was the best and most effective anti-Mormon I have ever met.  We became friends and I saw him often.  We shared the latest discoveries in Joseph Smith research, and found ourselves in agreement on a host of issues.  He used his academic training very effectively, but then so did I.  We could say the same of our friend Rob Bowman, who spent some fruitful time on this board.  It has been a learning experience for me here, and I am sure it was for him as well.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The  matter is very simple:  Someone who is sincere and honest will always reflect accurately what another person says.  Sincere and honest people will always correctly summarize or restate what an opponent says, instead of engaging in deliberate polemic subterfuge -- which is, unfortunately, what you do.  it can sometimes be difficult to read sources carefully and to take them into account when composing one's views, but it is essential.  I see no evidence that you have made any effort at all to do this.  You haven't read my paper, and have not reacted to it objectively.  The same applies to the Gospel Topics Essays.  When have you ever correctly stated their content?  It's as easy as English 101 in school, in which the assignment is to summarize what is being read, and to do so accurately.  You fail the assignment each time.

The great Egyptologist James Wilson called the words of Sayce and Breasted "indignant snorts."  You blindly quote Sayce and Breasted, not because you know anything about them or about Egyptology (you obviously don't), but because they share your apriori and prejudiced views -- and express it in the most childish manner possible.  When he spoke about the same issues, Prof. Wilson conducted himself like a gentleman.

Instead of dealing in fact, you prefer to engage in wild speculation about what some hypothetical 100 Egyptologists might say about this or that, when in fact you know nothing about the subject-matter involved.  This is always the way of lowbrow anti-Mormonism.

I actually read through most of your essay--and I don't agree with your description as to why certain anachronisms are in the BoA.  Rather, I agree with what Thomas had to say in his essay below.  IMO, non-LDS Egyptologists would also agree that such anachronisms would not be contained in an ancient text written by the hand of Abraham.  

Is that sincere and honest enough for you?  

 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N01_155.pdf

 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Fac 1 was not drawn by Abraham, nor by anyone in his time (it is a very late document from Ptolemaic times).  Why do I say that?  As I pointed out already, the text of the BofA itself makes it impossible.  The text says explicitly that Abraham provided an illustration of an Aramaic (Chaldean) bedstead in northwest Syria, where the sacrificial events take place.  The Jews transmitting the BofA in Ptolemaic times in Egypt simply substituted a couple of typical Sensen text illustrations (Fac 1 & 3).  Was that sort of thing done by Semites living in Egypt?  Of course, and I provide specific examples in my paper, which I have cited several times already.

I see.  So for you it is indeed a funerary text, but it is standing in for the original illustration of the book of Abraham. And Joseph was able to translate the original anyway, even though he only had the inaccurate copy, this funerary text.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

But the angle with a flaming sword story is totally legit, right?  

 

Is it a right angle?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet I have found in detailed conversation with very well-informed anti-Mormons, that we can find agreement on the facts -- it was the interpretation upon which we differed -- while maintaining mutual respect and admiration..

It is an ideal to strive for and hopefully reached in most civil discussions.  I may be somewhat overly cynical from my time reading conversations on the internet and seeing so much confusion and misunderstandings among what I hope are sincere people trying to understand, but bias getting in the way.  I can just imagine the multitude of mistakes I am likely making. (Family reunions have also added to my low expectations of decent understanding.)

Edited March 21, 2017 by Calm

[dberrie2000]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And Joseph was able to translate the original anyway, even though he only had the inaccurate copy, this funerary text.

What is your evidence the Book of Abraham text came from a funerary text?

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, dberrie2000 said:

What is your evidence the Book of Abraham text came from a funerary text?

I said this,

"I see.  So for you it is indeed a funerary text, but it is standing in for the original illustration of the book of Abraham. And Joseph was able to translate the original anyway, even though he only had the inaccurate copy, this funerary text."

...to Robert F. Smith.

I was speaking specifically Fascimile 1, trying to restate his position on it.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

What is your evidence the Book of Abraham text came from a funerary text?

I think you need to do some research on this. Google it. There are many sources out there. You keep coming back and asking questions about very basic, and broadly (almost universally) accepted facts. You're coming across as very uninformed.

[dberrie2000]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you need to do some research on this. Google it. There are many sources out there. You keep coming back and asking questions about very basic, and broadly (almost universally) accepted facts. You're coming across as very uninformed.

Hi Happy:

If it is so simple--then perhaps you would not mind answering the question:-- "What is your evidence the Book of Abraham text came from a funerary text"?

[dberrie2000]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I said this,

"I see.  So for you it is indeed a funerary text, but it is standing in for the original illustration of the book of Abraham. And Joseph was able to translate the original anyway, even though he only had the inaccurate copy, this funerary text."

...to Robert F. Smith.

I was speaking specifically Fascimile 1, trying to restate his position on it.

Hi Meadow:

Then what is your evidence Joseph Smith--"only had the inaccurate copy, this funerary text."

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Meadow:

Then what is your evidence Joseph Smith--"only had the inaccurate copy, this funerary text."

Again, I was restating Robert's theory. I was not making an assertion.

As far as we know, Facsimile 1 and others are only fragments from the original scrolls from which Joseph claimed to translate the BofA. However, we have Facsimile 1 and Joseph's interpretation of it. According to Egyptologists, it is a common funerary document which does not correspond to Joseph's interpretation. 

Thus, it would appear that Joseph's interpretation of F1 is a failed attempt at translation. And this would diminish the credibility of his other acclaimed BofA translations.

However, Robert seems to theorize that the scrolls were centuries-old copies of the BofA original, and at some point, a scribe substituted a common funerary image for the original, but that Joseph through divine inspiration was still able to extract the meaning of the original rather than this common funerary document.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I actually read through most of your essay--and I don't agree with your description as to why certain anachronisms are in the BoA.  Rather, I agree with what Thomas had to say in his essay below.  IMO, non-LDS Egyptologists would also agree that such anachronisms would not be contained in an ancient text written by the hand of Abraham.  

Is that sincere and honest enough for you?  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N01_155.pdf .

I think you meant to refer to Mormon Egyptologist Thompson, not Thomas.

You have a more restrained comment here, certainly, and I don't really care whether anyone agrees with me.  The case I made was based squarely upon the views of standard, non-Mormon Egyptologists (and some other ancient Near Eastern experts).  My real concern is about whether you accept their scholarship as normative.  Because, if you do not, no sincere exchange of views is possible.  That is the true dilemma:  Your opinion arrayed against objective fact, and against reasonable scholarly interpretation.

You opinion on what non-LDS Egyptologists might say is irrelevant since you know nothing of the subject.  The honest approach is to depend on what non-Mormon Egyptologists have actually said, and which can be cited.  What are some specific examples of your objections to points made in my essay?

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I see.  So for you it is indeed a funerary text, but it is standing in for the original illustration of the book of Abraham. And Joseph was able to translate the original anyway, even though he only had the inaccurate copy, this funerary text.

No, just the illustrations were used.  If the BofA was on that same Sensen papyrus, then it is located on the glued backing where we cannot see it, or in now lost portions of that papyrus.  It was, by the way, common practice in ancient Egypt to copy more than one account on a papyrus.  The BofA is not a funerary text, and was not translated from one.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you need to do some research on this. Google it. There are many sources out there. You keep coming back and asking questions about very basic, and broadly (almost universally) accepted facts. You're coming across as very uninformed.

His questions are legitimate.  As I said to Meadowchik:  "The BofA is not a funerary text, and was not translated from one."

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Happy:

If it is so simple--then perhaps you would not mind answering the question:-- "What is your evidence the Book of Abraham text came from a funerary text"?

You're wasting our time with these kinds of questions, especially when it's already been answered in this very thread. What kind of evidence will you accept? Church source? Academic? What do you want to see? Seriously, have you studied this yourself at all? You should really look into it.

Quote

Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

Conclusion

The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity. The book’s status as scripture lies in the eternal truths it teaches and the powerful spirit it conveys. The book of Abraham imparts profound truths about the nature of God, His relationship to us as His children, and the purpose of this mortal life. The truth of the book of Abraham is ultimately found through careful study of its teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit.

The conclusion of the church's essay seems to state that it doesn't matter what was on the papyrus because what is most important is the truth  that is imparted. Why would they say that if they were confident of the papyrus/origin story?

Additional sources

S. J. Wolfe with Robert Singerman, Mummies in Nineteenth Century America: Ancient Egyptians as Artifacts (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2009); and John T. Irwin, American Hieroglyphics: The Symbol of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics in the American Renaissance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980).

H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995), 36–85. 

You can even check out wikepedia if you want to see what is commonly accepted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

And there are like a thousand other sources.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

His questions are legitimate.  As I said to Meadowchik:  "The BofA is not a funerary text, and was not translated from one."

This is why the topic is so frustrating. On one hand we have apologists claiming that Abraham taught the Egyptians and gave them the funerary texts which proves the BoA is legit, while on the other people claim that the BoA isn't from the funerary text at all, even though it is widely accepted.

This kind of conversation quickly becomes pointless, and I think we're at that point.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is why the topic is so frustrating. On one hand we have apologists claiming that Abraham taught the Egyptians and gave them the funerary texts which proves the BoA is legit, while on the other people claim that the BoA isn't from the funerary text at all, even though it is widely accepted.

This kind of conversation quickly becomes pointless, and I think we're at that point.

I know of no scholars (Mormon or non-Mormon) who make the silly claim that Abraham gave the Egyptians funerary texts.  And it is equally silly to claim that the giving of such texts would prove the BofA legit.  Moreover, no one has been able to show that the BofA was translated from any funerary text.  Indeed, that is absurd.  The only claim I know of is the anti-Mormon claim that Joseph pretended to translate the BofA from a funerary text.  Not the same thing at all.  Pseuto-sources are not real sources, by definition.  Of course, it is always fun to create straw-man claims with which to slap down them cursed Mormons -- teach em a well-deserved lesson.  Right?!