Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Hello again Cousin.

The methodology for distinguishing what is authentically ancient among whatever else exists in the KEP is already demonstrated to us.  Hugh Nibley demonstrated this in his defense of the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham over many decades, and all that has to be done is a similar type of defense for the contents of the KEP.  Someone needs to do for the KEP what Hugh Nibley did for the Facsimiles.  I am in the process, and when people see the peer-reviewed result, they will realize that all they have to do is follow the same pattern as has been laid out before us in Message of the Joseph Smith PapyriTemple and CosmosOne Eternal Round, and so forth and so on.  In other words, the only reason that Facsimile #2 is given the time of day is because Nibley and Rhodes dug in and found stuff to vindicate them.  Nobody wants to touch the KEP because they assume that Joseph Smith is not responsible.  All of the critics know he's responsible, and they have nothing invested in it to defend.  It is the apologists that insist he is not, because they don't want to defend it, so they make Phelps into the scapegoat and punching bag.  Well, the time has come for a different approach.  The time has come to vindicate the KEP as a rehydration of an ancient production that is just as real as the rest of Joseph Smith's productions in the Book of Abraham and in the Explanations of the Facsimiles.  What will emerge is that the same exact system is used, as I demonstrate.

.  It is a myth that any of the KEP constitute an effort to translate or prepare a translation key to the Book of Abraham.  The available documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C.  How do we know that?  Bill Schryver has shown conclusively that William W. Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and that he was the “dominant force” in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88).   How do we know that?  By examining the May 27, 1835 letter of Phelps to his wife in which he discusses his ideas on encipherment (cf. the July 17, 1835 History of the Church entry).  That is before the mummies and papyri show up in Kirtland.

Moreover, as Gee points out, the KEP evidence shows that all those MSS were copied from an original translation MS, and constitute only parts of the first couple of chapters of the BofA -- Gee examined Joseph's journal entries to show that the entire BofA translation MS had been completed by late 1835.  Yet the KEP never use the later portions.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, EdGoble said:

........................  There is a missing papyri either way.  I just don't think there was another papyrus attached to the Hor Breathing papyrus, and I don't think Joseph Smith ever had a papyrus with the Book of Abraham text in his hands.  I think that a visionary experience is as functional as an actual papyrus in hand.  And I think that ancient Egyptians in the time of the priest Hor (probably Hor himself directing his scribes), produced a non-extant redaction of the Book of Abraham text that is associated with Hor's Breathing papyrus.  This would be the missing papyrus that I also believe in.  I just think Joseph never had it, and I don't think that the forensic evidence in the extant papyri and in the KEP support the notion that he ever had it.  I think there is good evidence that he produced the text from a revelatory experience, and I don't think that apologetics that try to show that Joseph Smith had such a thing in his hands are well supported.

So, although you accept actual pseudepigrapha, such as The Testament of Abraham or the Apocalypse of Abraham, in the case of the BofA, you discount the  possibility that Joseph had an actual papyrus from which he did an inspired translation.  I see two problems with that scenario:  (1) Joseph was explicit about there being a papyrus, and (2) there were actual such papyri in the ancient world -- indeed, you even posit that one existed, even though Joseph did not have it.

I have already made the case that the internal contents of the BofA indicate its authenticity, but that would not count for you since Joseph didn't have it, but was able to access it via some sort of clairvoyance.  Your scenario seems to me more difficult to believe than that Joseph simply had a papyrus in his possession, just as he claimed.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Calm said:

Have they redone the actual measurements?  I figured it would be out of date except perhaps for those that were listed in the thread.

Basically there's two scrolls both discuss. The "Abraham" one and then one up in Ontario. But they didn't test on other scrolls that I could see. (Again - been a long time since I'm addressed this topic so my memory is a bit fuzzy) John said Cook's formula was off whereas I think Cook did a good job in his last article saying John misused Cook's formula. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Could we have numerals here from a language that belongs to a family of languages that anciently had influences from both Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan, that originated in the area of the Himalayas, where those two language families cross over and made its way across the ancient world?  

Ibn Sa'id gives an account of migrations of an Austroasiatic group called the Kumr to Aden (Yemen) and East Africa. The Kumr would be related to the Mon-Khmer and the Sino-Tibetan Pyu and Kayin:

"And the people of Kumr and the merchants of the territories of Maharaj [East Indies] come to them [East Africans], associate with them, and trade with them."

4ehrrzGOF3-3000x3000.png


Imagine that. A colony of Burmese-Cambodians (possibly speaking a Sino-Tibetan dialect) at the mouth of the Red Sea. Ibn al-Mujawir described these migrations extending northwards and describes the ruins left by Khmer colonies in Yemen:

"These people are dead, their power ended, and the route closed by which they came. There is nobody left who has knowledge of the maritime activities of these people or can tell under what conditions they lived and what they did. The monuments built by this people exist to this day their construction is durable, being built of stone and mortar obtained from the valleys and mountains of this country."

My hypothesis is that the Kumr had colonies in Oman, Yemen, Egypt and down into Mozambique from a very early period, when we start to see evidence of Israelite diaspora (Lemba and Malabar Jews) expanding throughout the Indian Ocean. This would help to explain the frequent (mis)identification of the Khmer with the Israelite Rechabites, and possible confusion between the Mon (Rahmans/Ramans) and the Rhammanitae of Yemen.

It sounds far fetched, but the number of references to these "Chinese" (described as Turk-like in some accounts) from Aden to the Comoros can't be easily dismissed. Genetic testing clearly demonstrates that there was contact.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to comment
On 3/16/2018 at 12:15 PM, EdGoble said:

The number two here sticks out to me like a sore thumb and screams that it is from the Sino-Tibetan language family.  Many of those languages have Ni for their vocalization for the number two, such as in Japanese.  The number 3 here matches S forms in Sino-Tibetan as well as in some Indo-European forms such as in Iran.  The number 4 matches with an Indo-European form such as in the Greek "Tessera," in our word Tesseract.  The number 5 matches kind of with Indo-European forms such as in the Greek form Pente, from which we get the word pentagram.  The three forms for 8, 9 and 10 match with many Indo-European forms of 8, 9 and 10.  Could we have numerals here from a language that belongs to a family of languages that anciently had influences from both Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan, that originated in the area of the Himalayas, where those two language families cross over and made its way across the ancient world?  Could it be something that came to be known in Egypt among the priests of the Greco-Roman era that had access to all kinds of things in the Library of Alexandria?  Certainly it is not ancient Egyptian as we know it, but that doesn't mean it isn't something ancient.

Ed, you might find this work interesting:http://www.academia.edu/6100676/Decomposition_of_Hamito-Semitic_Roots_into_their_Ultimate_Primeval_Components

Link to comment
On 3/16/2018 at 9:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

.  It is a myth that any of the KEP constitute an effort to translate or prepare a translation key to the Book of Abraham.  The available documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C.  How do we know that?  Bill Schryver has shown conclusively that William W. Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and that he was the “dominant force” in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88).   How do we know that?  By examining the May 27, 1835 letter of Phelps to his wife in which he discusses his ideas on encipherment (cf. the July 17, 1835 History of the Church entry).  That is before the mummies and papyri show up in Kirtland.

Moreover, as Gee points out, the KEP evidence shows that all those MSS were copied from an original translation MS, and constitute only parts of the first couple of chapters of the BofA -- Gee examined Joseph's journal entries to show that the entire BofA translation MS had been completed by late 1835.  Yet the KEP never use the later portions.

No kidding that they are not a translation key for the text of the Book of Abraham to be able to translate it.

If you could understand that I am saying that it is a separate production entirely, a recovery of a separate ancient content entirely from the Book of Abraham, separate, yet still related, you would start to understand what I am getting at.

You wouldn't presume that the Explanations for the Book of Abraham are the same as the text for the Book of Abraham would you?  They are separate documents from the text of the Book of Abraham.  Separate, yet related.  The explanations for the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham represent even more material that used to have ancient originals that we do not have, just like the text of the Book of Abraham.

Edited by EdGoble
Link to comment
On 3/16/2018 at 10:09 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So, although you accept actual pseudepigrapha, such as The Testament of Abraham or the Apocalypse of Abraham, in the case of the BofA, you discount the  possibility that Joseph had an actual papyrus from which he did an inspired translation.  I see two problems with that scenario:  (1) Joseph was explicit about there being a papyrus, and (2) there were actual such papyri in the ancient world -- indeed, you even posit that one existed, even though Joseph did not have it.

I have already made the case that the internal contents of the BofA indicate its authenticity, but that would not count for you since Joseph didn't have it, but was able to access it via some sort of clairvoyance.  Your scenario seems to me more difficult to believe than that Joseph simply had a papyrus in his possession, just as he claimed.

I don't discount the possibility.  I think it is the lesser likely possibility, and it is a point that doesn't matter for the part of my proposal that is the most important part.

It is not difficult to believe that Joseph Smith had access to the text via revelation D&C section 7 style.

 

Edited by EdGoble
Link to comment
On 3/17/2018 at 12:02 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

Ibn Sa'id gives an account of migrations of an Austroasiatic group called the Kumr to Aden (Yemen) and East Africa. The Kumr would be related to the Mon-Khmer and the Sino-Tibetan Pyu and Kayin:

"And the people of Kumr and the merchants of the territories of Maharaj [East Indies] come to them [East Africans], associate with them, and trade with them."

4ehrrzGOF3-3000x3000.png


Imagine that. A colony of Burmese-Cambodians (possibly speaking a Sino-Tibetan dialect) at the mouth of the Red Sea. Ibn al-Mujawir described these migrations extending northwards and describes the ruins left by Khmer colonies in Yemen:

"These people are dead, their power ended, and the route closed by which they came. There is nobody left who has knowledge of the maritime activities of these people or can tell under what conditions they lived and what they did. The monuments built by this people exist to this day their construction is durable, being built of stone and mortar obtained from the valleys and mountains of this country."

My hypothesis is that the Kumr had colonies in Oman, Yemen, Egypt and down into Mozambique from a very early period, when we start to see evidence of Israelite diaspora (Lemba and Malabar Jews) expanding throughout the Indian Ocean. This would help to explain the frequent (mis)identification of the Khmer with the Israelite Rechabites, and possible confusion between the Mon (Rahmans/Ramans) and the Rhammanitae of Yemen.

It sounds far fetched, but the number of references to these "Chinese" (described as Turk-like in some accounts) from Aden to the Comoros can't be easily dismissed. Genetic testing clearly demonstrates that there was contact.

Very cool.  And in the wikipedia article, it does show their numerals, that the number two is Kni, showing the Sino-Tibetan derivation.

I have looked for the closest numeral sets that I could find to Joseph Smith's Egyptian numerals in the KEP, and the closest that I could find were in the Himalayas with the Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan cross over.  If you look at this article, you will see that the closest that I could find were the Magari, the Kanashi, the Thami, and the Bhramu, all either central Himalayan or Western Himalayan.  They have the first three numerals apparently derived from Sino-Tibetan, and some of the rest derived from Indo-European, precisely like Joseph Smith's Egyptian numerals:

Magari: kat(1) nis (2) som(3) buli(4) ba-nga(5) ch`a(6) sa:t(7) a:th(8) nau(9) das(10)

Kanashi: idi(1) ñish(2) shum(3) pu(4) nga(5) tso(6) saot(7) ath(8) nou(9) das(10)

Thami: diware(1) nis(2) tin (3) cha:r(4) pa:nch(5) ch`au(6) sa:t(7) a:t`(8) nan(9) das(10)

Bhramu:  de:(1) ni(2) swo:m(3) bi(4) ba:nga:(5)

As you can see, like Japanese, we have Ichi, Ni, San for the first three numerals.  Joseph Smith's Egyptian number one starts out with Eh, like Ichi or idi.  Then Ni for two.  Then an S form such as with Magari, Thami, Japanese, Bhramu.  For the number four, we have a ch/t numeral, like in Indo-European in Thami.  Then like in Magari, a b/v form for 5, and then for 8, 9 and 10, an a, na, da/ta set.  These show this pattern where we have Sino-Tibetan for the first part of the set, and Indo-European for the last part of the set, just like with Joseph Smith's Egyptian.

Now, for the Pyu numerals that you point to, they seem to be more classically from the Sino-Tibetan group instead of being a mix as these above are.  Nevertheless, what you point out is of a lot of merit in that it shows how these groups in their migrations end up in very unexpected places.  This is precisely the pattern that I am looking for.

As for Cinepro's criticisms of "casting my net wide," I believe I am in good company, and if we don't cast our net wide, at least at first, we will never be able to focus in on the parts of the world that we need to in order to find the evidence where things actually start to make sense and then finally, when we can finally get all the pieces together to figure out what is going on,, we can start to make sense of it all.  Otherwise, we remain in the dark.  So what else should I do to find the evidence I need to make sense of this.  Certainly, these numerals from the KEP are not Ancient Egyptian, regardless of what they are called.  If they are something else, then they are ancient, and we need to figure out what they are.  Where else should we look other than the places that have the same types of numerals?  The fact that other places have the same types of numerals means that these numerals have a basis in the ancient world, in the real world, and that means they weren't made up, and that means they were revealed, and that means that Phelps and Joseph Smith were part of a revelatory council that produced actual revelation of ancient content.

Edited by EdGoble
Link to comment
1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

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

As for Cinepro's criticisms of "casting my net wide," I believe I am in good company, and if we don't cast our net wide, at least at first, we will never be able to focus in on the parts of the world that we need to in order to find the evidence where things actually start to make sense and then finally, when we can finally get all the pieces together to figure out what is going on,, we can start to make sense of it all.  Otherwise, we remain in the dark.  So what else should I do to find the evidence I need to make sense of this.  Certainly, these numerals from the KEP are not Ancient Egyptian, regardless of what they are called.  If they are something else, then they are ancient, and we need to figure out what they are.  Where else should we look other than the places that have the same types of numerals?  The fact that other places have the same types of numerals means that these numerals have a basis in the ancient world, in the real world, and that means they weren't made up, and that means they were revealed, and that means that Phelps and Joseph Smith were part of a revelatory council that produced actual revelation of ancient content.

Part of the problem of "casting the net wide" has to do with statistical likelihood.  The wider your net, the more likely you are to find correlations of some kind, any kind.  The question then is relevance -- what have these unrelated odds and ends have to do with one another?  Accidental matching might be the true reason for any correlations: linguistic, symbolic, etc.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Part of the problem of "casting the net wide" has to do with statistical likelihood.  The wider your net, the more likely you are to find correlations of some kind, any kind.  The question then is relevance -- what have these unrelated odds and ends have to do with one another?  Accidental matching might be the true reason for any correlations: linguistic, symbolic, etc.

That type of criticism is expected, and there are always expected to be two sides to any suggestion, where some people may feel it has plausibility, and others do not.  A real world correlation has to start where it has to start.  And where is that?  It has to start somewhere.  Then we build our case exploring plausible reasoning after we identify these hits.  In other words, I'm not just going to sit back and do nothing while real world correlations actually do exist in spite of those that naysay about it.  That's like saying Nibley should never use the Astana veil to build a case on ancient temples just because it is from Central Asia, or other Chinese or asian evidences of ancient temple worship.  That's like allowing ourselves to be swayed with naysayers that are critics about the evidence for Nahom in Arabia.

In other words, my critics aren't just Anti-Mormon ones, but they are still critics nonetheless.  They are not my allies, and I am not going to sit around and be paralyzed because of critics.  I will move forward with my case and make it.  I will marshal the evidence I have in spite of the criticisms.  I will submit my work for peer review when it is done as I have found that out to be my pathway forward.  And then those that will be my allies that are linguists will be found, and those that will be my critics will come out of the woodwork too, some one one side, and some on another.  And we shall see who will be swayed to my side or not.  Either way, I can't be paralyzed by my critics, be it you, or anyone else, just because you happen to be one with credentials.  It never stopped me before.  It won't stop me now.  Either I'm right, or I'm seeing shapes in clouds.  I am not paralyzed by your non-acceptance.

And if your criticism should be taken to its logical conclusion, we should toss out all of Nibley's work.  But I know you wouldn't do that.  The only significant difference between my work and his is that his has won acceptance, and mine has to go through the motions to gain acceptance.

Another thing I want to emphasize is that this "casting the net wide" thing has more to do only with discovery than anything else.  We cannot properly know ahead of time where evidence will exist.  We don't necessarily want to cast it wide if initially we find what we are looking for in a localized setting.  We only broaden our search if we don't find what we are looking for at first.  Is it right or wrong?  Only after proper analysis of the evidence and explanation can we know.  And then, the critic will never want to give it the time of day anyway, because the critic is automatically shut off to the possibility to begin with, usually because it contradicts some cherished point of view.  Like in this case, the cherished point of view that the KEP is uninspired, yet somehow the Book of Abraham is, but they were translated by the same people.  So those that conveniently claim that are willing to subjectively and conveniently pass one off on Phelps, make him the scapegoat, call him uninspired, and then for the other, they conveniently say, oh yes, Joseph Smith is responsible, and are die hards for defending those translations, and are willing to cast the net as wide as possible for defending those.  Thus, the double standard is actually kind of not only convenient, but sort of sickening at the same time.  There is not a lot of apologetics that are more convenient than the double standard that exists between Book of Abraham apologetics by apologists that are perfectly willing to defend the Book of Abraham, but are willing to dismiss the KEP and blame it on Phelps. Sorry.  The buck stops with Joseph Smith for both of them, and they both need defending, and what is good for the goose is good for another goose.

Edited by EdGoble
Link to comment
2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

................... there are always expected to be two sides to any suggestion, where some people may feel it has plausibility, and others do not.  A real world correlation has to start where it has to start.  And where is that?  It has to start somewhere.  Then we build our case exploring plausible reasoning after we identify these hits.  In other words, I'm not just going to sit back and do nothing while real world correlations actually do exist in spite of those that naysay about it.  ...........................That's like allowing ourselves to be swayed with naysayers that are critics about the evidence for Nahom in Arabia.

There are always going to be many sides, not simply two, and attempts at correlation should begin close to home -- as they have for Nahom.

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

.........................Either I'm right, or I'm seeing shapes in clouds.................

And if your criticism should be taken to its logical conclusion, we should toss out all of Nibley's work.  But I know you wouldn't do that.  The only significant difference between my work and his is that his has won acceptance, and mine has to go through the motions to gain acceptance.

Nibley, Albright, Joseph Campbell, de Santillana & von Dechend, and other synthesists have not always gained acceptance, but they have obtained a respectful hearing, and have made major strides in correlating myth, ritual, and symbol worldwide because they have been so methodical about the task.  We must be cautious.  Just making wild assertions is not the best way to go.  Instead, we need to begin with standard archeology and linguistics close to home.  Only they should we branch out with suggested connections -- hopefully tight and not loose connections.  In other words, all work on the BofA must begin with standard Egyptology, then correlate that with specific ancient Near Eastern phenomena.  Other comparisons may then be justified, but only on a systematic and well-attested basis.

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Another thing I want to emphasize is that this "casting the net wide" thing has more to do only with discovery than anything else. 

That is precisely the problem.  Instead of working it out inductively and methodically, the notion of "discovery" means that we will do what Barry Fell did with New World inscriptions and artifacts -- jump to hasty conclusions.  Cyrus Gordon was much more cautious, and thus obtained better results.

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

We cannot properly know ahead of time where evidence will exist.  We don't necessarily want to cast it wide if initially we find what we are looking for in a localized setting.  We only broaden our search if we don't find what we are looking for at first.  Is it right or wrong?  Only after proper analysis of the evidence and explanation can we know.  And then, the critic will never want to give it the time of day anyway, because the critic is automatically shut off to the possibility to begin with, usually because it contradicts some cherished point of view.  Like in this case, the cherished point of view that the KEP is uninspired, yet somehow the Book of Abraham is, but they were translated by the same people.  So those that conveniently claim that are willing to subjectively and conveniently pass one off on Phelps, make him the scapegoat, call him uninspired, and then for the other, they conveniently say, oh yes, Joseph Smith is responsible, and are die hards for defending those translations, and are willing to cast the net as wide as possible for defending those.  Thus, the double standard is actually kind of not only convenient, but sort of sickening and dishonest at the same time.  There is not a lot of apologetics that are more dishonest than the double standard that exists between Book of Abraham apologetics by apologists that are perfectly willing to defend the Book of Abraham, but are willing to dismiss the KEP and blame it on Phelps.  It is disgusting, and dishonest.  Sorry.  The buck stops with Joseph Smith for both of them, and they both need defending, and what is good for the goose is good for another goose.

All of these assertions are dependent upon substantive argument for their legitimacy or lack of it.  Everyone should accept that at the outset, even if it removes some of our cherished scenarios.  Attributing everything to Joseph is probably not the best starting point in such discussion, as though no others could be independent actors and have their own ideas.  Otherwise, how are we to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Otherwise, how are we to separate the wheat from the chaff?

You thump the drum of accepted this and accepted that, and standard Egyptology this and that.  No kidding. 

Well, start with what is accepted then, to demonstrate the system and its principles.  Start with Nibley's and Rhodes translations.  What is the ancient Egyptian SYSTEM that justifies these translations, because Robert Ritner says they do not translate.  But Nibley and Rhodes do.  Why?  What is it that justifies them as translations then?  It isn't Egyptological, or Ritner would accept it.  So please don't lecture me on accepted Egyptology.  What is accepted Egyptology in what Nibley and Rhodes have done?  There isn't.  Mormon apologetics is not accepted Egyptology.  Robert Ritner is representative of what is accepted Egyptology.  Mormon Apologetics is something else, accepted among its own, but not by those on the outside.

Edited by EdGoble
Link to comment
4 hours ago, EdGoble said:

You thump the drum of accepted this and accepted that, and standard Egyptology this and that.  No kidding. 

Well, start with what is accepted then, to demonstrate the system and its principles.  Start with Nibley's and Rhodes translations.  What is the ancient Egyptian SYSTEM that justifies these translations, because Robert Ritner says they do not translate.  But Nibley and Rhodes do.  Why?  What is it that justifies them as translations then?  It isn't Egyptological, or Ritner would accept it.  So please don't lecture me on accepted Egyptology.  What is accepted Egyptology in what Nibley and Rhodes have done?  There isn't.  Mormon apologetics is not accepted Egyptology.  Robert Ritner is representative of what is accepted Egyptology.  Mormon Apologetics is something else, accepted among its own, but not by those on the outside.

So-called "apologetics" is probably not the best place to begin an investigation of anything, and the raison d'etre of scholarship is not apologetics.  Without that basic understanding, a lot of unnecessary problems are created.

By himself, Robert Ritner is not representative of standard Egyptology.  He is, however, part of the mainstream of Egyptology in his dissertation and other publications generally, and his scholarship generally holds up.  Standard Egyptology is definable through a broad assessment of the last century or so of work in that field.  And then it is best taken at its most rational and even-handed.  When Ritner is exercising outright disdain and anger, he is not likely representative of anything but hatred and intolerance.  Not scholarship.

I regularly cite the scholarly work of Ritner.  For example, when he interprets Egyptian nfr as "goodly," I and my colleagues think it applicable to 1 Ne 1:1.  When he agrees that the Israelite tribal name Zebulon is found in the Egyptian Execration Texts, he is on target.  When Ritner claims that Egyptian use of Semitic magic spells goes back at least to the Old Kingdom (Pyramid Texts), we take careful note.  When Ritner refers to some amulets in the Egyptian Demotic Tale of Setne Khamwas II 5:16, as "phylacteries," I think it is interesting.  When Ritner says that the heavens are “symbolized by a celestial cow bearing the bark of the sun,” I understand him to be agreeing with Joseph Smith's interpretation of Fac 2:5.  What's not to like?

Link to comment
20 hours ago, EdGoble said:

If you look at this article, you will see that the closest that I could find were the Magari, the Kanashi, the Thami, and the Bhramu, all either central Himalayan or Western Himalayan. 

This is an interesting grouping for a number of reasons. I'll skip the details because it would distract from the OP, but in short, these West Himalayan languages are clustered around the west himalayan kingdom of Zhang-Zhung

There's a lot of interesting material related to the claims that many of these groups that migrated east (eg, the Kayin, Kuchin and the Bnei Menashe) are descendants of Joseph from the Tribe of Manasseh. Here's an article: The lost Jews of Churachandpur

"The ‘lost tribe fever’ has overwhelmed the Kukis of Manipur, particularly in recent years, sparking claims and counterclaims between pro-Jewish and Christian groups. Though all the Kuki people agree that they are the descendants of Israel, there is a division among them."

But nevermind, not the right continent. Must be a coincidence.

20 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Now, for the Pyu numerals that you point to, they seem to be more classically from the Sino-Tibetan group instead of being a mix as these above are.  Nevertheless, what you point out is of a lot of merit in that it shows how these groups in their migrations end up in very unexpected places.  This is precisely the pattern that I am looking for.

The Indo-European influence would come later, with the arrival of Indian brahmans sometime around the 3rd century AD. Also, Malay and Siamese folklore describes a descendant of Alexander or Cyrus (coincidentally named Marong/Maroni) arriving at some point and sending a number of families back to Rom/Ramaah. This could be a hint at the Kamara colonies in Yemen. Surely it has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. Wrong continent.

With two new ancient DNA studies published this month, we now know that the Kumr were much more widespread than expected. Imagine the Yangtze River in China being inhabited by a group that very closely resembles the Mon-Khmer and austronesians, also with Andaman genetic markers that have recently turned up in South America.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So-called "apologetics" is probably not the best place to begin an investigation of anything, and the raison d'etre of scholarship is not apologetics.  Without that basic understanding, a lot of unnecessary problems are created.

By himself, Robert Ritner is not representative of standard Egyptology.  He is, however, part of the mainstream of Egyptology in his dissertation and other publications generally, and his scholarship generally holds up.  Standard Egyptology is definable through a broad assessment of the last century or so of work in that field.  And then it is best taken at its most rational and even-handed.  When Ritner is exercising outright disdain and anger, he is not likely representative of anything but hatred and intolerance.  Not scholarship.

I regularly cite the scholarly work of Ritner.  For example, when he interprets Egyptian nfr as "goodly," I and my colleagues think it applicable to 1 Ne 1:1.  When he agrees that the Israelite tribal name Zebulon is found in the Egyptian Execration Texts, he is on target.  When Ritner claims that Egyptian use of Semitic magic spells goes back at least to the Old Kingdom (Pyramid Texts), we take careful note.  When Ritner refers to some amulets in the Egyptian Demotic Tale of Setne Khamwas II 5:16, as "phylacteries," I think it is interesting.  When Ritner says that the heavens are “symbolized by a celestial cow bearing the bark of the sun,” I understand him to be agreeing with Joseph Smith's interpretation of Fac 2:5.  What's not to like?

Tell you what.  You and your colleagues can continue to play in your Mormon apologetics accepted sandbox that is not accepted by secular Egyptologists, because you aren't accepted.  And you can continue to believe that somehow the secular consensus someday will accept what is in your sandbox, which they won't.  The secular Egyptology is accepted Egyptology, not what you do.  And you can continue to pretend that I'm not good enough to be a part of your clique, and that I'm not good enough to be a part of your sandbox, that only your accepted group is good enough to be a part.  That's ok.  I've gotten along fine without your acceptance this long.  It continues to be discouraging personally, but I have learned to live with the discouragement.  You do not build me up, and continue to keep trying to tear me down because I'm not good enough for you.  You do not edify your fellow latter day saints.  You seek to spread the spirit of discouragement among those that you disagree with to try to dominate but I still get back up after the discouragement.  Rather than helping me and being a support, you seek to destroy what I'm doing.

Because regardless of what you pretend to, a large measure of what you are doing is faith based apologetics like the rest of us, but you also want control.  You can continue to blather about how you don't think my stuff is good enough, while I continue to do my work and be serious about what I am doing.  I can quote from accepted scholarly papers as much as you can, which I do.  So just quit pretending with the sanctimony, and I will just continue on with my work, and we will all get along better.

When my work is peer reviewed and published, then it will be accepted.  That is my goal.  That is where this is going.  And despite the fact that you don't accept it because of your manufactured reasons, that doesn't mean that someone will not, in a blind peer review, when my identity will not be an impediment anymore to its acceptance.  You can blather on and on about how I'm not good enough and what I'm doing is not good enough.  But the peer review process is my judge, and some of my material will make it through, regardless of who you think you are.

Edited by EdGoble
Link to comment
3 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Not necessarily.  I think this is all very good stuff.

You may recall a few years back, some DNA testing was done on Egyptian mummies and both tests found maternal haplogroup M1:

  1. M1 has been observed among ancient Egyptian mummies excavated at the Abusir el-Meleq archaeological site in Middle Egypt, which date from the Pre-Ptolemaic/late New Kingdom and Roman periods. [link]
  2. The ancient Egyptian aristocrats Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht were also found to belong to the M1a1 subclade. The half-brothers lived during the 12th Dynasty, with their tomb located at the Deir Rifeh cemetery in Middle Egypt. [link]

The problem with haplogroup M is that it is far more diverse in Asia particularly in Bangladesh, China, India, Japan, Nepal, and Tibet, where frequencies range from 60%-80% peaking in Japan and Tibet. Only the following two variants are found in Africa:

  • M1 as found in the Egyptian mummies and other places in the Nile Valley, Horn of Africa, Maghreb, and Sahara
  • M23 found in Madagascar, which was colonized by the Asian Kumr we discussed earlier

This would suggest a back migration of M1 from Asia into the Nile Valley, as detailed in this paper:

Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa

Here is their conclusion on M1 as found in the Pre-Ptolemaic/late New Kingdom and Roman period Egyptian mummies:

"This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance."

For a list of all the places Haplogroup M has been found, you can check the wiki

You may also see that Bronze-age samples from Terqa in Syria were found to be maternal M found in modern Himalayan populations: 

"Ancient mitochondrial DNA from freshly unearthed remains (teeth) of 4 individuals deeply deposited in slightly alkaline soil of ancient Terqa and Tell Masaikh (ancient Kar-Assurnasirpal, located on the Euphrates 5 km upstream from Terqa) was analysed in 2013. Dated to the period between 2500 BC and 500 AD the studied individuals carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Paleolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, they are present in people inhabiting todays India, Pakistan, Tibet and Himalayas ... We anticipate that the analysed remains from Mesopotamia belonged to people with genetic affinity to the Indian subcontinent since the distribution of identified ancient haplotypes indicates solid link with populations from the region of South Asia-Tibet (Trans-Himalaya). They may have been descendants of migrants from much earlier times, spreading the clades of the macrohaplogroup M throughout Eurasia and founding regional Mesopotamian groups like that of Terqa or just merchants moving along trade routes passing near or through the region." [link]

Nevermind the naysayers, you may be onto something.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to comment
4 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Tell you what.  You and your colleagues can continue to play in your Mormon apologetics accepted sandbox that is not accepted by secular Egyptologists, because you aren't accepted.  And you can continue to believe that somehow the secular consensus someday will accept what is in your sandbox, which they won't.  The secular Egyptology is accepted Egyptology, not what you do.  And you can continue to pretend that I'm not good enough to be a part of your clique, and that I'm not good enough to be a part of your sandbox, that only your accepted group is good enough to be a part.  That's ok.  I've gotten along fine without your acceptance this long.  It continues to be discouraging personally, but I have learned to live with the discouragement.  You do not build me up, and continue to keep trying to tear me down because I'm not good enough for you.  You do not edify your fellow latter day saints.  You seek to spread the spirit of discouragement among those that you disagree with to try to dominate but I still get back up after the discouragement.  Rather than helping me and being a support, you seek to destroy what I'm doing.

Because regardless of what you pretend to, a large measure of what you are doing is faith based apologetics like the rest of us, but you also want control.  You can continue to blather about how you don't think my stuff is good enough, while I continue to do my work and be serious about what I am doing.  I can quote from accepted scholarly papers as much as you can, which I do.  So just quit pretending with the sanctimony, and I will just continue on with my work, and we will all get along better.

When my work is peer reviewed and published, then it will be accepted.  That is my goal.  That is where this is going.  And despite the fact that you don't accept it because of your manufactured reasons, that doesn't mean that someone will not, in a blind peer review, when my identity will not be an impediment anymore to its acceptance.  You can blather on and on about how I'm not good enough and what I'm doing is not good enough.  But the peer review process is my judge, and some of my material will make it through, regardless of who you think you are.

Wow, Ed.  I can't find one thing here which is even remotely true.  You desperately need to learn how to carry on a scholarly conversation.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wow, Ed.  I can't find one thing here which is even remotely true.  You desperately need to learn how to carry on a scholarly conversation.

Hmm.  I am way past the point of desperation in trying to get through to certain people.  Desperation was where I was at two or three years ago.

Now I'm just plain cynical and tired, and have almost no hope or expectation left.

I do have to say that I regret the last remark and apologize, but aside from the emotion, it does represent what I think.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone with a faith-based point of view is not doing science, and Egyptology as a science is about science, not faith.  That is just something that as LDS we have to live with.  We don't do science when apologetics is brought into it.  Secular science is simply what apologists do not do, because it is not science by definition.

I guess this conversation has run its course.  I can't see what else there is to say here.

Edited by EdGoble
Link to comment
1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

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

Like when a certain Egyptologist to be told me that he would not look at my material because it is not peer reviewed, ...........

That young man is at the beginning of a long process, but he is smart and understands how to keep his professors happy -- very important when you want a PhD.

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

I can't think of a way to have a scholarly conversation to get through to you or anyone like you.  You are not open to my points of view.  It always seems to go this way.  You already think you know what I believe.

I have no idea what you believe, but I am certain that you don't know how to express it (whatever it is).  Scholarship is a learned behavior, with all sorts of rules of documentation and presentation.  Clarity, coherence, and standardized scholarship are key.

1 hour ago, EdGoble said:

As far as I'm concerned, anyone with a faith-based point of view is not doing science, and Egyptology as a science is about science, not faith.  That is just something that as LDS we have to live with.  We don't do science when apologetics is brought into it.  Secular science is simply what apologists do not do, because it is not science by definition.

Strictly adhering to standard science can be very helpful to an apologist who is fair and even-handed.  He needs to cite standard sources, and use standard, logical arguments.  I gave you several examples of basic research and translation by Robert Ritner which an apologist can freely cite.  Peer review is not required, and probably unlikely on anything connected to Mormonism.  It is simply too controversial.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That young man is at the beginning of a long process, but he is smart and understands how to keep his professors happy -- very important when you want a PhD.

I have no idea what you believe, but I am certain that you don't know how to express it (whatever it is).  Scholarship is a learned behavior, with all sorts of rules of documentation and presentation.  Clarity, coherence, and standardized scholarship are key.

Strictly adhering to standard science can be very helpful to an apologist who is fair and even-handed.  He needs to cite standard sources, and use standard, logical arguments.  I gave you several examples of basic research and translation by Robert Ritner which an apologist can freely cite.  Peer review is not required, and probably unlikely on anything connected to Mormonism.  It is simply too controversial.

Again, I apologize.  However, I certainly don't mean to say that a peer reviewed secular journal would print Mormon material.

But even within Mormon circles, it has its own "peer review", in certain organizations, which for some Mormons is enough.  And this is what I refer to.

If peer review were not required, it would not be the excuse that all Mormon scholars continually give me for not looking at my material.  What then is your suggestion?  Just live with the fact that I am a pariah of sorts in these people's eyes and go to Sunstone instead and present, and forget about them?  And live with the fact that my material will never be accepted?  Is this basically it then?  Just forget about it and lose all hope?

Edited by EdGoble
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

Again, I apologize.  However, I certainly don't mean to say that a peer reviewed secular journal would print Mormon material.

But even within Mormon circles, it has its own "peer review", in certain organizations, which for some Mormons is enough.  And this is what I refer to.

If peer review were not required, it would not be the excuse that all Mormon scholars continually give me for not looking at my material.  What then is your suggestion.  Just live with the fact that I am a pariah of sorts in these people's eyes and go to Sunstone instead and present, and forget about them?

Peer review serves the notion  that scholarship is a communal endeavor, and  that we keep each other honest.  I've had plenty of rejections, and have tried to learn something from them.

You might want to prepare a colorful Power Point presentation, and see if that stirs the pot. If you are trying to do something as revolutionary as Moran & Kelley, The Alphabet and Ancient Calendar Signs, that may be the best way to handle it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...