Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

JulieM · March 16, 2017

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Facsimile 3 depicts Abraham teaching the Egyptians.

No, it does not. Joseph misidentified Osiris (Egyptian God) as being Abraham. He was also wrong about identities of the other figures in the facsimile.

Edited March 16, 2017 by JulieM

CV75 · March 16, 2017

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

A flake?

"Ritner is widely known for his work on Egyptian religious practices, language, medicine, literature, magic, and political history. Within the Mormon studies community, Ritner is known for confirming the conclusions of other Egyptologists who have investigated the Joseph Smith papyri. Ritner has concluded that the Book of Abraham is a "well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith."^[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Ritner

How many other non-LDS Egyptologists agree or would agree with his position? Probably the overwhelming majority, IMO. Are they all flakes as well?

You should focus on the topic instead of personal attacks on others.

Yes, a flake, but it's not a personal attack. You must admit that it is rather eccentric for a scholar to present his opinions (including his mind-read of the Church's motives), so much that the discerning reader will cite them, as facts. This is on topic, since the OP is about using a higher standard of fact in presenting religious material and you are using his article to defend that, but it fails in that very aspect.

Edited March 16, 2017 by CV75

Ahab · March 16, 2017

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, it does not. Joseph misidentified Osiris (Egyptian God) as being Abraham. He was also wrong about identities of the other figures in the facsimile.

The figure can be used to represent either Abraham or Osiris or anyone else who is or was teaching ancient Egyptians with the pharoah's approval. The drawing is flexible in that way. And since Joseph knew Abraham taught some ancient Egyptians with the pharaoh's approval back then, Joseph was correct in putting Abraham in that position.

Would you like to say anything else that is wrong now?

JulieM · March 16, 2017

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

The figure can be used to represent either Abraham or Osiris or anyone else who is or was teaching ancient Egyptians with the pharoah's approval. The drawing is flexible in that way.

Well now you're just embarrassing yourself here and you might want to stop posting as if you're knowledgable on the topic.

You definitely have not answered the CFR properly and should withdraw your claim since you've provided nothing to support your assertion and it's clearly just your opinion.

CV75 · March 16, 2017

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We are discussing two very different issues here. You made a valid point (which I improved), with which I have no problem. Do you see why?

Really doesn't matter who would or would not be happy with your new version. The only question is, Does it provide a valid summary of the facts, and it doesn't. You could have edited it to read as follows:

"The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of writings of Abraham, which had been transmitted (redacted) down through time into the 3rd century B.C. Joseph Smith translated the writings of Abraham from a papyrus of that date which we no longer possess, although we do have a fragmentary funerary papyrus upon which two of the facsimiles were found. Indeed, it is possible that the Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham was located on a portion of that very fragmentary papyrus."

Or you could have presented the LDS position on the matter in a number of other valid, factual ways.

This is a great improvement over what has been put forth in this thread so far. I would add one sentence: “The priest of Elkenah provokes Abraham to unleash his greatness, disabusing the world of the notion that superheroes create arch-villains.”

Ahab · March 16, 2017

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Well now you're just embarrassing yourself here and you might want to stop posting as if you're knowledgable on the topic.

You definitely have not answered the CFR properly and should withdraw your claim since you've provided nothing to support your assertion and it's clearly just your opinion.

I had a feeling that you still wouldn't get it. And you still don't seem to get it, yet.

But since it seems that you just want me to stop trying to teach you what I know, then I will just go ahead and stop now.

clarkgoble · March 16, 2017

3 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

I don't find anything within that reference to indicate the LDS church agrees the Book of Abraham text came from extant papyri, quite to the contrary:

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus.³² Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

I would like to add another comment, if I could. The extant fragments we have of the papyri are those thought to be either what was left from the transfer of the larger body of papyri by the St Louis museum to the Wood Museum in Chicago, or those in the possession of some papyrus through personal acquirement.

The greater body of the papyri was thought to have burned with the Wood Museum in 1871, in the Great Chicago Fire. It is thought by some--we only have about 15% of the original papyri, which is extant today.

Also--it is believed by some we only have about 25% of the original translation which Joseph Smith translated from the papyri.

I think the Church is largely following the position of the faithful scholars here. As I recall while the missing papyri theory hasn't been completely discredited it's not as strong a theory as it was a decade or so ago. (Forgive me as I've really not kept up on all the papers on this subject) I think John Gee's theory was based upon calculating scroll length from how it was rolled. There was a dispute over that between he and an other group. While I may well be wrong here, I think Gee made some errors in his calculations thereby suggesting that the scroll with the vignette we have as fac 1 probably wasn't missing much.

That doesn't mean there weren't other scrolls Joseph didn't have though. I think there's a reasonable argument that Joseph thought the translation came from that scroll although given that he couldn't read Egyptian it's not clear to me how he could have known. I think the evidence is strong that the translation process just didn't give that sort of information. Which is why the missing papyri theory (to the degree I dare say I understand it's current form) is still a viable theory. Joseph's theory about what was on particular papyri may itself be uninformed from a Mormon perspective. This is the idea that the GAEL and so forth were primarily an attempt to work backwards to an understanding of Egyptian/Adamaic.

The main problem is that the translation text appears to refer to the vignettes we have a fac 1 and fac 3. Of course it's also quite possible that Abr 1:14 isn't part of the translation proper but an aside Joseph put there. (I don't know if that's been raised much as a theory although it seems reasonable)

Edited March 16, 2017 by clarkgoble

Ouagadougou · March 16, 2017

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, a flake, but it's not a personal attack. You must admit that it is rather eccentric for a scholar to present his opinions (including his mind-read of the Church's motives), so much that the discerning reader will cite them, as facts. This is on topic, since the OP is about using a higher standard of fact in presenting religious material and you are using his article to defend that, but it fails in that very aspect.

Because his research clearly shows that JS's translation of the facsimiles was a failure. How many non-LDS Egyptiologists would agree with his research? IMO, that vast majority...

JulieM · March 16, 2017

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes, because the "standard" funerary text (with pictures) originated from Abraham. He did it first, and they then followed his example while using details from their own lives.

CFR

Ahab · March 16, 2017

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

CFR

Personal revelation and my understanding of the Book of Abraham and other writings I have read on the topic from writers like Hugh Nibley, among others.

I don't memorize where I read something and I don't expect you to believe me, but I'm touched that you still seem to at least want to try.

Happy learning!

JulieM · March 16, 2017

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Personal revelation and my understanding of the Book of Abraham and other writings I have read on the topic from writers like Hugh Nibley, among others.

I don't memorize where I read something and I don't expect you to believe me, but I'm touched that you still seem to at least want to try.

Happy learning!

That's now two CFR's issued for you in this thread and you have refused to supply references for either of them (other than saying to read the entire Book of Abraham). What you have stated is clearly just your opinion (which you are entitled to) and you should not state them as if they're facts.

You need to supply references or withdraw your claims here.

Edited March 16, 2017 by JulieM

Ahab · March 16, 2017

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That's now two CFR's issued for you in this thread and you have refused to supply references for either of them (other than saying to read the entire Book of Abraham). What you have stated is clearly just your opinion (which you are entitled to) and you should not state them as if they're facts.

You need to supply references or withdraw your claims here.

Thank you for sharing your opinion of what you think I should do. I have already told you (and others) what my statements are based on, and those things are my references.

It's not my problem that you don't like my references or that you want some more or other references than what I have already given to you.

And I'm certainly not going to retract or withdraw anything I have told you.

CV75 · March 17, 2017

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Because his research clearly shows that JS's translation of the facsimiles was a failure. How many non-LDS Egyptiologists would agree with his research? IMO, that vast majority...

You misunderstand. I used "discerning" tongue-in-cheek.

And you are off-topic by taking a stand for "non-LDS Eqyptologists" since religious and secular bias have no place in the discipline and should be filtered out of the assessment of the facts (assessment of research itself often reflects a tolerable level of bias, but Ritner is a bit excessive with his, hence "flaky"). The Church essays strike a good balance in this regard and sufficiently support the decision to keep the current heading, at least to date.

Edited March 17, 2017 by CV75

clarkgoble · March 17, 2017

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

No, it does not. Joseph misidentified Osiris (Egyptian God) as being Abraham. He was also wrong about identities of the other figures in the facsimile.

I think this conflates use with essential meaning. That is one can quote something (speaking broadly here) and what matters for ones quote is how one is using it not its sense in its original setting. So I believe the argument is (correct me if I'm wrong) that the text is utilizing a text with Osiris to represent Abraham. A subtle but important difference.

theplains · March 17, 2017

On 15/03/2017 at 6:16 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Arguments about BoA theories get very complicated so I'm hesitant to wade into BoA discussions.

However, it seems clear that the BoA preface doesn't match the current church understanding of what it is or how it came about. Adjusting the preface would be perfectly reasonable. Joseph edited revelations regularly as understand or needs changed. That's why the church is considered to be a "living" church. In a church of continuing revelation there is no need to be shackled to old, incorrect understandings.

I thought the LDS Church did a good job of explaining her position in this topical article.

Thanks,
Jim

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You misunderstand. I used "discerning" tongue-in-cheek.

And you are off-topic by taking a stand for "non-LDS Eqyptologists" since religious and secular bias have no place in the discipline and should be filtered out of the assessment of the facts (assessment of research itself often reflects a tolerable level of bias, but Ritner is a bit excessive with his, hence "flaky"). The Church essays strike a good balance in this regard and sufficiently support the decision to keep the current heading, at least to date.

So you still refuse to answer the question. I looked and couldn't find one non-LDS Egyptologist that supports JS's translation of the BoA. However, I did find at least 13 additional non-LDS Egyptologists who would agree with Dr. Ritner's findings (below). Are all these doctors and professors also flakes as you claim about Dr. Ritner?

Dr. W. M. Flinders Petrie,
London University

James H. Breasted, Ph.D.,
Haskell Oriental Museum,
Univ. of Chicago

Rev. Prof. C. A. B. Mercer, Ph. D.,
Western Theological Seminary,
Custodian Hibbard Collection,
Egyptian Reproductions

Dr. Friedrich von Bissing,
Prof. of Egyptology,
Univ. of Munich

Dr. John Peters,
Univ. of Pennsylvania

Dr. A. H. Sayce,
Oxford, England

Dr. Arthur C. Mace,
Asst. Curator,
Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York,
Dept. of Egyptian Art

Dr. Edward Meyer,
University of Berlin

John A. Wilson,
Prof. of Egyptology,
University of Chicago

Richard Parker,
Dept. of Egyptology,
Brown University

M. Theodule Deveria,
Egyptologist,
Louvre Museum, Paris

Klaus Bear
Prof. of Egyptology
Oriental Institute
Univ. of Chicago

John A. Wilson
Prof. of Egyptology
University of Chicago

And as Dr. Rinter states, Egyptologists have noted JS's BoA translation failures since the 1800's:

"Scholarly rejection of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham is not new and has continued unabated since the study by Jules Remy and Théodule Devéria in 1861, with multiple scholars (including A. H. Sayce, Arthur Mace, Flinders Petrie, and James H. Breasted) dismissing the book’s validity in 1912. With the rediscovery of the papyri at the Metropolitan Museum in New York in 1967, analysis by John Wilson, Richard Parker and Klaus Baer (all 1968), and even the LDS apologist Hugh Nibley (in 1975) disproved any possibility that the Book of Abraham could be an acceptable translation of the surviving Egyptian papyri. My own works on the papyri (in 2002, 2003, 2011 and 2013)"

The BoA translation, IMO, is a closed case in terms of it authenticity/historicity because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows it is a failed translation (based on the papyrus fragments we DO have today).

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham final.pdf

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/book-of-abraham.html

http://article.archive.nytimes.com/1912/12/29/100076264.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJBTN455PTTBQQNRQ&Expires=1489708638&Signature=eY8w206vRpzhYYPIdBwAfOBEyQY%3D

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/issues/V03N02.pdf

dberrie2000 · March 17, 2017

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yes, facsimile 1, did, as the church essay states:

"The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.26

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

Hi Oua:

Facsimile#1 is not part of the Book of Abraham text. The Book of Abraham--yes, but not the Book of Abraham text. And neither does your quote state the Book of Abraham text came from anything extant. As the quote stated--

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus.³² Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Where do we find anything which connects the Book of Abraham text with the extant papyri? Where is the LDS church admitting the text came from the extant papyri?

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

43 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Oua:

Facsimile#1 is not part of the Book of Abraham text. The Book of Abraham--yes, but not the Book of Abraham text. And neither does your quote state the Book of Abraham text came from anything extant. As the quote stated--

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus.³² Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Where do we find anything which connects the Book of Abraham text with the extant papyri? Where is the LDS church admitting the text came from the extant papyri?

Abraham 1:12 references facsimile # 1:

"12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record."

Also, within the text are archronisms that shouldn't belong in the BoA:

"The Book of Abraham

The Book of Abraham ("BoA") is Joseph Smith's translation of some Egyptian papyrus scrolls that came into his possession in 1835. He stated that one of the scrolls was written by the biblical Abraham "by his own hand." Smith's translation is now accepted as scripture by the LDS church, as part of its Pearl of Great Price. Smith also produced an "Egyptian Grammar" based on his translation.

Modern scholars of ancient Egyptian have also translated the scrolls, and they agree unanimously that the scrolls, which are now in the possession of the Mormon church, are genuine, but they are common Egyptian funeral scrolls, entirely pagan in nature, having nothing to do with Abraham, and from a period 2000 years later than Abraham. The "Grammar" has been said by Egyptologists to prove that Smith had no notion of the Egyptian language. It is pure fantasy: he made it up. (For details, see the links here.)

But even if we did not have the actual papyrus and the testimony of the Egyptologists, proving that it is a hoax, we could recognize the Book of Abraham as such because of the linguistic anachronisms in the text of Smith's "translation." In considering the material below, remember that Abraham supposedly lived somewhere between 2100 and 1700 B.C., according to most Bible chronologists.

I found the following linguistic anachronisms by my own careful reading of the text of the BoA and by researching the words in standard reference works. After I had completed my research I discovered that Stephen E. Thompson had already covered the same ground in his article "Egyptology and the Book of Abraham" in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 28:1:143, Spring 1995. I was gratified to see that my conclusions were confirmed by Thompson, who is a professional Egyptologist.

Robert F. Smith · March 17, 2017

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

A flake?

"Ritner is widely known for his work on Egyptian religious practices, language, medicine, literature, magic, and political history. Within the Mormon studies community, Ritner is known for confirming the conclusions of other Egyptologists who have investigated the Joseph Smith papyri. Ritner has concluded that the Book of Abraham is a "well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith."^[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Ritner

How many other non-LDS Egyptologists agree or would agree with his position? Probably the overwhelming majority, IMO. Are they all flakes as well?

You should focus on the topic instead of personal attacks on others.

What I am looking for is a coherent presentation, and you have had more than enough time to present one. That is a fact, not a personal attack.

Most non-LDS Egyptologists have never heard of the LDS Book of Abraham and are uninterested in it. However, whenever I discuss the BofA, I always cite the opinions of non-LDS Egyptologists on the standard questions which the BofA raises. You would do well to do the same, regardless of your conclusions.

Robert F. Smith · March 17, 2017

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think your version would provide much more clarity than what is in there now.

What about the preface to the Book of Abraham?

There is no preface to the BofA. The preface we have been discussing is the preface to the entire Pearl of Great Price. Perhaps you are referring to the heading of the BofA. Would you like to change it?

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no preface to the BofA. The preface we have been discussing is the preface to the entire Pearl of Great Price. Perhaps you are referring to the heading of the BofA. Would you like to change it?

Preface/heading...but that is what I referenced in my original post. IMO, it is misleading and doesn't paint the whole pic.

Robert F. Smith · March 17, 2017

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

The main problem is that the translation text appears to refer to the vignettes we have a fac 1 and fac 3. Of course it's also quite possible that Abr 1:14 isn't part of the translation proper but an aside Joseph put there. (I don't know if that's been raised much as a theory although it seems reasonable)

The problem with that is that BofA 1:13 states that the illustration (1:14) depicts an ancient Aramaic (Chaldean) bedstead, rather than an Egyptian one. The 3rd century Egyptian illustration (fac 1) thus merely substitutes for the illustration originally used by Abraham himself. The Jewish scribes transmitting the text used an available funerary papyrus illustration (a Sensen papyrus) in passing on the text, the original having been lost centuries before. The events described in BofA 1 take place in Northwest Syria, not in Egypt.

Robert F. Smith · March 17, 2017

7 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Preface/heading...but that is what I referenced in my original post. IMO, it is misleading and doesn't paint the whole pic.

The heading of the BofA can be found on page 29, at the top of chapter 1, and it refers directly to the History of the Church edited by B. H. Roberts. Would you like to re-edit that too? Remember, headings are not meant to be so long and detailed as prefaces.

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I am looking for is a coherent presentation, and you have had more than enough time to present one. That is a fact, not a personal attack.

Most non-LDS Egyptologists have never heard of the LDS Book of Abraham and are uninterested in it. However, whenever I discuss the BofA, I always cite the opinions of non-LDS Egyptologists on the standard questions which the BofA raises. You would do well to do the same, regardless of your conclusions.

I would be interested to see a list of all the non-LDS Egyptiologists that accept Joseph Smith's translations of the BoA as correct or legitimate.

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The heading of the BofA can be found on page 29, at the top of chapter 1, and it refers directly to the History of the Church edited by B. H. Roberts. Would you like to re-edit that too? Remember, headings are not meant to be so long and detailed as prefaces.

In my original post I referenced the following:

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

1. You can't claim it was a translation based on the fragments/facsimiles we do have, IMO.

2. If these are copies of copies of copies of Abraham's writings somehow, you can't claim it was written by the "hand of Abraham."

3. No reference to the fragments we do have being dated third century B.C.E., with no reference of Abraham.

All of these things are listed in the church's essay, but not in the intro/preface/heading above.

I think many people do not realize this...

Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

Recommended Posts

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content