Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Robert Ritner - Book of Abraham Interview


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There are many "upstream" assumptions that affect our assessment of "downstream" evidences.

I wonder about that.

Gee's recent article is worth reading: Four Idolatrous Gods in the Book of Abraham

From the abstract:

And from the conclusion:

Glib dismissals like "simply aren't their names" and "gobbledygook" just don't work for me.  There is too much interesting stuff coming out, too many unknowns.  Too many data points that can't be summarily brushed aside.

Ok, so let's see if we can sum this up.  
 

No one really knows when Abraham lived, or where his land was located, if he did live...

Since we don't really know time and place, we can make some assumptions and open our window to time and place pretty wide to see if we can find some ancient words, no matter their origin other than they come from the middle east somewhere at sometime.  And then try and change whatever names for gods we do find to fit these odd sounding names in the BoA.  If we can make some sketchy sounding connections in naming the jars on the Egyptian Facsimile names that, if you squint hard enough, relate to some deity from some era and from some peoples in the ANE then it appears Joseph was inspired when he named the jars, typically representing completely others, because, I mean, they are old characters and all of that.  

My problem is the names don't match.  And that doesn't matter anyway.  If they did, it doesn't mean it makes sense they randomly end up on an Egyptian facsimile replacing for some unknown reason already known Egyptian objects.  

This argument tends to express something like "it doesn't matter what we come up with in our defense.  As long as it's something...it's effective."  

Quote

Tentative identifications can be provided for all four of the deities mentioned in the first chapter of the Book of Abraham. Three (Elkenah, Libnah, and Korash) are close phonetically.

Define close.

Quote

Three (Elkenah, Libnah, and Korash) are close geographically to the site of Abraham’s sacrifice;

Perhaps if we can actually pinpoint the location of his sacrifice site...that seems to be a particular problem with this conclusion.

Quote

Two (Elkenah and Korash) are superregional deities whose geographical attestation covers Abraham’s homeland.

Where's his homeland?  I suppose since it's debated, as well as his actual existence, it appears Gee assumes the northern location near norther Syria or SOuthern Turkey and not Mesopotamia, where, it is said most scholars locate him.  No big deal...but it makes you wonder if these tenuous, if that, connections work for the southerly location.  

Quote

As there are few sources from the region in Abraham’s day (Middle Bronze Age), all of them are attested in the Late Bronze Age with indications that at least one of them (Korash) goes back to the Middle Bronze Age.

So roughly a 900 years span?  THat's a pretty wide range.  Nearly a millennia.  That does open the window wide enough to make some really sketchy connections I guess, but it also makes the connections as weak as they appear, to be even less significant, it seems to me.

Quote

For those deities for whom we have more information than just their name, one (Elkenah) seems to be involved in a ritual in which individuals were asked to engage in sexual immorality or face death, which parallels Abraham 1:11.

Let's see:  

Quote

Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of aHam. These virgins were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bbow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians.

So...hmm...somehow he's saying these 3 virgins who were sacrificed were asked to engage in sexual immorality or face death?  It looks like he's either mixing things up or making things up.  

Quote

One (Korash) is involved in cursing those seen as disobedient to the king, who were destroyed, which parallels Abraham 1:5‒13.

k.

Quote

This might seem like a meagre amount of information, but it represents a significant step forward in research on the Book of Abraham. [Page 150]Twenty years ago almost none of this was known. It was certainly not known when Joseph Smith published the Book of Abraham.

What are the odds of Joseph Smith guessing right?

Guessing what right?  The closest connection he makes is Korash or Kursa for Hittites might have something to do with destroying those who were disobedient to the king.  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think "he's completely wrong" is not justified here.  Far from it, actually.

Yep.  Again, there are many "upstream" assumptions that affect our assessment of "downstream" evidences.  Bias affects us all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes...indeed bias affects us all.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

 

And here is the main problem for the critics on this point: You can't persuasively argue against the possibility that an ANE subculture may have associated different deities with these canopic figures than is currently known.

That would be the point of possibilities.  But again, stating something is possible hardly means that possibility is evidence confirming historicity.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In other words, you have no idea what the probability is that Joseph Smith was "wrong" on this point. Syncretism was so prevalent among ANE cultures that to argue against the possibility that these figures could have been associated with different gods is just silly. It is unreasonable to be anything more than neutral towards that possibility.

Look.  it's possible some unknown person wrote a BoA in egyptian and used cute eygptian pictures, imagining in his head that these pictures represented the story of Abraham that he wrote.  I mean it's possible.  But that's not evidence supporting the claim.  THat's simply saying, some really odd, unheard of thing possibly happened.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So that leaves us with Joseph Smith, against all likely odds, "guessing" a symbolic association with these figures that is essentially a bulls eye. And then when you start actually looking at the names which you describe as "goggledygook" we find that there is, contrary to your assertion, support for their authenticity: 

No we don't.  And bullseye simply is not so.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You can continue to point to an absence of evidence for the specific association of these names with these four figures, but in the end that absence of evidence will never amount to persuasive evidence of absence. Generally speaking, it is very difficult to prove, or even persuasively argue, for a negative in the ancient world. So, for me, the only evidence that counts for much on this topic, and many like it, is the positive evidence in favor of Joseph Smith's explanation.

you do you.  that's fine.  But just know, your methods are terribly unsupportable.  The reasonable method is to look for reliable evidence to support the claim and if it is not there or that which is presented is not reasonable then there is no reason to accept the claim.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It is expected that you and many others won't accept that positive evidence, but I think you will have a hard time coming up with a valid argument for why it should be dismissed.

uh...I think the weak nature of the 4 sons of Horus being some random panoply of various gods whose names don't match, who have no connection to Abraham or Egypt is not evidence and is extremely easy to dismiss.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Do you have any actual evidence, other than a mere absence of evidence, to counteract the positive evidence for the authenticity of the names (generally speaking), and especially Joseph Smith's clearly correct explanation of their symbolism? 

So it's my job to show evidence that the 4 sons of Horus aren't a combination of various gods from the ANE misspelled by Joseph to not even sound very close to the names of the ANE gods?  Welll...sure the evidence that these are representations as the sons of HOrus and not these others is found in every single Egyptological explanation that they are representing the sons of Horus.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

 

Late Edit: Looks like Smac and I are thinking along the same lines. Sorry for any redundancy. He posted while I was still creating my post.

Its ok.  You two have different ideas in explanation.  

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok, so let's see if we can sum this up.  

"Sum this up" seems to have a strong connotation to it, something along the lines of "Let's see if we can ignore most of what Gee says, and distort and caricature and ridicule and summarily dismiss the rest."

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No one really knows when Abraham lived, or where his land was located, if he did live...

Yes.  So we're dealing with some ambiguities, and we're starting with room for differing assumptions and interpretations.

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Since we don't really know time and place, we can make some assumptions and open our window to time and place pretty wide to see if we can find some ancient words, no matter their origin other than they come from the middle east somewhere at sometime.  And then try and change whatever names for gods we do find to fit these odd sounding names in the BoA.  If we can make some sketchy sounding connections in naming the jars on the Egyptian Facsimile names that, if you squint hard enough, relate to some deity from some era and from some peoples in the ANE then it appears Joseph was inspired when he named the jars, typically representing completely others, because, I mean, they are old characters and all of that.  

This really doesn't do much for me.  You aren't saying anything substantive.  You aren't engaging the evidence, you are ridiculing it and dismissing it out of hand.  Phrases like "squint hard enough" and "sketchy sounding" and such mark your assessment as unserious and off-the-cuff (particularly since you apparently were not previously aware fo Gee's article, and so have only had a few minutes to read it).

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My problem is the names don't match. 

This sort of conclusory stuff doesn't work for me.  You aren't engaging the evidence.  

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And that doesn't matter anyway.  If they did, it doesn't mean it makes sense they randomly end up on an Egyptian facsimile replacing for some unknown reason already known Egyptian objects.  

Right.  We're wrong no matter what.  The evidence "doesn't matter anyway."  Examining and discussing the evidence "doesn't matter."

"Heads the critics win, tails the Latter-day Saints lose" could be a bumper sticker on the back of your car.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

And bullseye simply is not so.

Facsimile 2, figure 6 is definitely a bullseye. The language Joseph Smith used has to be understood in the context of 19th century usage, which means that earth in its four quarters is clearly synonymous with the earth and its cardinal points. Once again here is footnote 2 from the PofGPC article:

Quote

Thus George Stanley Faber, A General and Connected View of the Prophecies, Relative to the Conversion, Restoration, Union, and Future Glory of the Houses of Judah and Israel (London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1808), 2:84, emphasis in original: “[N]ot merely from the north, but . . . from the east, the south, and the west, that is (in the language of St. John) from the four quarters of the earth.”; Robert Hodgson, The Works of the Right Reverend Beilby Porteus, D. D. Late Bishop of London (London: G. Sidney, 1811), 218: “[A]nd they shall gather together his elect (that is, shall collect disciples and converts to the faith) from the four winds, from the four quarters of the earth; or, as St. Luke expresses it, ‘from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south.’”; Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (London: Joseph Ogle Robinson, 1828), 3:1415: “As the city had four equal sides, answering to the four quarters of the world, east, west, north, and south; so in each side there were three gates, signifying that from all quarters of the earth there shall be some who shall get safe to heaven and be received there, and that there is a free entrance from one part of the world as from the other.”; Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York, NY: S. Converse, 1828), s.v. quarter: “A region in the hemisphere or great circle; primarily, one of the four cardinal points; as the four quarters of the globe; but used indifferently for any region or point of compass.”; William L. Roy, A New and Original Exposition on the Book of Revelation (New York, NY: D. Fanshaw, 1848), 13, emphasis in original. “Standing on (at) the four corners of the earth. They were placed as sentinels over the hostile armies, there to watch their movements, and prevent them from marching into Judea until the servants of God were sealed. Each of them had his particular station and duty assigned to him. One was stationed in the east, the other in the west, one in the north, and the other in the south.”; William Henry Scott, The Interpretation of the Apocalypse and Chief Prophetical Scriptures Connected With It (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1853), 185–186: “Rome is spoken of as overrunning and subduing the ‘whole earth,’ not merely in reference to the vast extent of her empire in point of territory, or the multitude of kingdoms which she absorded one after another, but properly and immediately because the four quarters of the earth, North, East, West, and South, are all incorporated by Rome into herself.”; Peter Canvan, “The Earth, As We Find It,” Saints’ Herald 20, no. 5 (March 1, 1873): 139: “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth. . . . The four corners may be represented by the north, south, east, west, which are the cardinal points.

 With that in mind, we have the following statements from Joseph Smith and various scholars about the symbolism of the 4 canopic jars:

  • Joseph Smith: "Represents this earth in its four quarters" (which as shown above is synonymous with the cardinal points or directions in his day)
  • Richard H. Wilkinson: "The group ... are often given geographic associations and hence became a kind of “regional” group. . . . The four gods were sometimes depicted on the sides of the canopic chest and had specific symbolic orientations, with Imsety usually being aligned with the south, Hapy with the north, Duamutef with the east and Qebehsenuef with the west."
  • James P. Allen: "representing the cardinal directions"
  • Manfred Lurker: "each [of the sons of Horus] had a characteristic head and was associated with one of the four cardinal points of the compass"
  • Geraldine Pinch: "The four sons were also associated with the four directions (south, north, east, and west)
  • Michael D. Rhodes: "They were the gods of the four quarters of the earth ... and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points."
  • E. Wallis Budge: "Each was supposed to be the lord of one of the quarters of the world, and finally became the god of one of the cardinal points."
  • Maarten J. Raven: the primary purpose of the Sons of Horus was to act as “the four corners of the universe and the four supports of heaven, and only secondarily with the protection of the body’s integrity.”

This is unquestionably a bullseye. 

Edited by Ryan Dahle
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Sum this up" seems to have a strong connotation to it, something along the lines of "Let's see if we can ignore most of what Gee says, and distort and caricature and ridicule and summarily dismiss the rest."

I admit, the whole piece is so far from evidence as I see it, it's merely a deflection.  I suppose as that is the case, I wonder what you might expect one who sees his piece as so bad to do?  

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  So we're dealing with some ambiguities, and we're starting with room for differing assumptions and interpretations.

That's fine, actually.  Its where it goes when examining that room, it seems to me.  

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This really doesn't do much for me.  You aren't saying anything substantive.  You aren't engaging the evidence, you are ridiculing it and dismissing it out of hand.  Phrases like "squint hard enough" and "sketchy sounding" and such mark your assessment as unserious and off-the-cuff (particularly since you apparently were not previously aware fo Gee's article, and so have only had a few minutes to read it).

Its hard to take seriously because there is not much there.  It basically says there are these 4 gods among many from various places and peoples from eras that appear in a different era from Abraham (for the most part.  1 apparently might have gone back to the middle Bronze Age, which might be close), and may or may not have been found in the super-region in which he may have lived, if he lived.  Adding things like "preserved a myth, supposedly [Page 141]Canaanite", and "may actually be voiceless ", and "This may be a variation of mqrw", and "Kurša could be a form' and "it could also represent a male deity ".  From these estimations and guesses and possibilities, Gee concludes:  "What are the odds of Joseph Smith guessing right?"  I ask again...guessing right about what?  SOme of this may be the case and it may be that Libnah or Korash really mean something that was thought of by Hittites.  but alas, there is no connection.  There is no Abraham defining these gods, nor no Egyptians using them in facsimiles.  Its simply taking a large swath of time, place and peoples and seeing if we can possibly find names of deities, among many deities, that can tenuously come close to these names found on this explanation offered by Joseph Smith.  

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This sort of conclusory stuff doesn't work for me.  You aren't engaging the evidence.  

If it ain't evidence it aint' evidence, smac.  It's simply explanation of a possibility.  That's not evidence.  

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  We're wrong no matter what.  The evidence "doesn't matter anyway."  Examining and discussing the evidence "doesn't matter."

"Heads the critics win, tails the Latter-day Saints lose" could be a bumper sticker on the back of your car.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nah...if you can actually provide something that is evidence then we can get somewhere.  Remember I, being charitable, already granted 1.5 items of evidence for your case.  But as hard as I'm trying to be charitable here, there is nothing that can be seen as evidence.  

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Facsimile 2, figure 6 is definitely a bullseye. The language Joseph Smith used has to be understood in the context of 19th century usage, which means that earth in its four quarters is clearly synonymous with the earth and its cardinal points. Once again here is footnote 2 from the PofGPC article:

 With that in mind, we have the following statements from Joseph Smith and other scholars about the symbolism of the 4 canopic jars:

  • Joseph Smith: "Represents this earth in its four quarters" (which as shown above is synonymous with the cardinal points or directions in his day)
  • Richard H. Wilkinson: "The group ... are often given geographic associations and hence became a kind of “regional” group. . . . The four gods were sometimes depicted on the sides of the canopic chest and had specific symbolic orientations, with Imsety usually being aligned with the south, Hapy with the north, Duamutef with the east and Qebehsenuef with the west."
  • James P. Allen: "representing the cardinal directions"
  • Manfred Lurker: "each [of the sons of Horus] had a characteristic head and was associated with one of the four cardinal points of the compass"
  • Geraldine Pinch: "The four sons were also associated with the four directions (south, north, east, and west)
  • Michael D. Rhodes: "They were the gods of the four quarters of the earth ... and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points."
  • E. Wallis Budge: "Each was supposed to be the lord of one of the quarters of the world, and finally became the god of one of the cardinal points."
  • Maarten J. Raven: the primary purpose of the Sons of Horus was to act as “the four corners of the universe and the four supports of heaven, and only secondarily with the protection of the body’s integrity.”

This is unquestionably a bullseye. 

Can you define bullseye?  Smac is trying to argue these 4 aren't representing the 4 sons of Horus, and you're trying to argue, or so it seems, that these are the four sons of Horus and at times some have suggested it's possible these four sons represent the four cardinal direction points.  

What if Joseph in consulting Adam Clarke's commentary decided the four jars represent the 4 beasts from Revelation, and in so consulting alluded to the 4 quarters of the earth?  Probably more likely than God telling him something that doesn't make sense, it seems to me.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I admit, the whole piece is so far from evidence as I see it, it's merely a deflection.  I suppose as that is the case, I wonder what you might expect one who sees his piece as so bad to do?  

That's fine, actually.  Its where it goes when examining that room, it seems to me.  

Its hard to take seriously because there is not much there.  It basically says there are these 4 gods among many from various places and peoples from eras that appear in a different era from Abraham (for the most part.  1 apparently might have gone back to the middle Bronze Age, which might be close), and may or may not have been found in the super-region in which he may have lived, if he lived.  Adding things like "preserved a myth, supposedly [Page 141]Canaanite", and "may actually be voiceless ", and "This may be a variation of mqrw", and "Kurša could be a form' and "it could also represent a male deity ".  From these estimations and guesses and possibilities, Gee concludes:  "What are the odds of Joseph Smith guessing right?"  I ask again...guessing right about what?  SOme of this may be the case and it may be that Libnah or Korash really mean something that was thought of by Hittites.  but alas, there is no connection.  There is no Abraham defining these gods, nor no Egyptians using them in facsimiles.  Its simply taking a large swath of time, place and peoples and seeing if we can possibly find names of deities, among many deities, that can tenuously come close to these names found on this explanation offered by Joseph Smith.  

If it ain't evidence it aint' evidence, smac.  It's simply explanation of a possibility.  That's not evidence.  

Nah...if you can actually provide something that is evidence then we can get somewhere.  Remember I, being charitable, already granted 1.5 items of evidence for your case.  But as hard as I'm trying to be charitable here, there is nothing that can be seen as evidence.  

I don't see your treatment of the subject to be serious or fairminded.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So it's my job to show evidence that the 4 sons of Horus aren't a combination of various gods from the ANE misspelled by Joseph to not even sound very close to the names of the ANE gods?   

Look. Here is what we can confidently say about Joseph's explanations of these figures:

  1. The symbolic representation he provided for facsimile 2, figure 6 ("Represents this earth in its four quarters") is supported by current Egyptology, is extremely unlikely to have been "guessed," and there is currently no explanation for how Joseph likely gained access to this knowledge (but I remain open to the possibility that such a channel might exist; as I previously stated). 
  2. The names he associated with the canopic jars in Facsimile 1 are attested in relevant ancient contexts. The chances of him guessing 4 names in a row that could linguistically be associated with known deities from the approximate times and relevant regions seems to be very unlikely, as Gee points out.
  3. The relationship between the names Joseph gave in Facsimile 1 and the canopic jars aren't attested in extant documents.

By my count, that is two positive evidences and a mere absence of evidence. Looks like all the actual evidence is towards the affirmative on this one, seeing that an absence of evidence isn't actually evidence, especially when the type of thing that is being assumed to fill this gap (the presence of syncretism and the fluidity in identifying various gods with different symbols) is well-attested in ANE cultures. 

I mean, you can keep just saying you disagree and there is no evidence or whatever, but it seems like that is about all you can do here. Maybe you have an actual refutation of this line of logic, in all its constituent parts, but I doubt it. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Facsimile 2, figure 6 is definitely a bullseye. The language Joseph Smith used has to be understood in the context of 19th century usage, which means that earth in its four quarters is clearly synonymous with the earth and its cardinal points. Once again here is footnote 2 from the PofGPC article:

 With that in mind, we have the following statements from Joseph Smith and other scholars about the symbolism of the 4 canopic jars:

  • Joseph Smith: "Represents this earth in its four quarters" (which as shown above is synonymous with the cardinal points or directions in his day)
  • Richard H. Wilkinson: "The group ... are often given geographic associations and hence became a kind of “regional” group. . . . The four gods were sometimes depicted on the sides of the canopic chest and had specific symbolic orientations, with Imsety usually being aligned with the south, Hapy with the north, Duamutef with the east and Qebehsenuef with the west."
  • James P. Allen: "representing the cardinal directions"
  • Manfred Lurker: "each [of the sons of Horus] had a characteristic head and was associated with one of the four cardinal points of the compass"
  • Geraldine Pinch: "The four sons were also associated with the four directions (south, north, east, and west)
  • Michael D. Rhodes: "They were the gods of the four quarters of the earth ... and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points."
  • E. Wallis Budge: "Each was supposed to be the lord of one of the quarters of the world, and finally became the god of one of the cardinal points."
  • Maarten J. Raven: the primary purpose of the Sons of Horus was to act as “the four corners of the universe and the four supports of heaven, and only secondarily with the protection of the body’s integrity.”

This is unquestionably a bullseye. 

Come critics are intractably absolutist in their declarations that there is zero evidence for the truth claims of the Church.  It's a surprisingly dogmatic and unreasoned position to take, particularly given the pose they so often strike (that they are basing their position on "evidence" and "reason").

I have a theory as to why this is so.  I've articulated it a few times on this board, such as here (from 2007!) :

Quote
Quote

{Daniel Peterson}: Having carefully studied the relevant publications of Nibley, the Hiltons, the Astons, Kent Brown, and Potter and Wellington, you know that NHM isn't all "they can come up with" even in terms of Arabian culture and geography, and you also know both that NHM is pretty good indeed and that it's a richer and more complex hit than critics such as yourself are ever willing to acknowledge.

Critics such as Jaybear constantly complain that there is no "evidence" for the BoM's provenance. They use this as a bludgeon with which to beat the Church.

So you would think that these professedly open-minded folks would be willing to evaluate NHM, because it does a pretty good job of meeting the criteria for "evidence" proffered by our critics.

But they aren't willing. Instead, they become remarkably dense, shrill, and unreasonable. And I think I know why. I call it the "Transmission Gap Theory," and I've explained it here:

Quote

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity.

...

William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

Quote

William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility.

Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps.

William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject.

William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

I wonder, though, if this argument yields the same result for the Book of Mormon as it does for the Bible.

The distinction I see between the two is the method of transmission. Speaking broadly, the Bible has a discernable historical pedigree, a pedigree wherein the text can be historically traced back, without significant gaps, to antiquity (though not necessarily to the original authors). This historical pedigree, coupled with the fact that some toponymns mentioned in the Bible are verified or verifiable...makes the Bible comparable in many ways to other ancient texts.

The rejoinder to this is that a historical pedigree + some archaeological verification does not equal evidence in favor of the Bible's truth claims. As Hamblin noted, The Odyssey has a historical pedigree and some archaeological verification, but that doesn't mean that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.

But what about the Book of Mormon? Could its lack of a traceable historical pedigree + some archaeological verification actually work in its favor? Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

However, the Book of Mormon belies these assumptions. There is a built-in gap, a giant one, in the transmission process for that book. So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discover persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

...

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Brandt Gardner agrees with me:

Quote
Quote

{Smac}: Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

{Brant}: That is a major difference in the issue of archaeology and text. The Book of Mormon is more dangerous than the Bible. If the Bible is historical and deals with religion, it can be seen as no different from any other historical text (they usually incorporate the dominant religion in the older traditions). The Book of Mormon, however, is a problem. If it is historical it becomes harder to dismiss. It is much easier to dismiss it at every turn, and therefore the level of archaeological support required by its critics is much different than that required for any other text of similar purported age.

Quote

So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discovery persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

{Brant}: Yes. Dangerous.

Quote

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Precisely. That is the reason that you won't see many non-believers giving any quarter here. Evidence that would be sufficient for Homer, for instance, is not sufficient for the Book of Mormon (actually - it wouldn't be for me either - I would want more -). Still, there is a point at which more should be sufficient.

I'm not sure how significant the NHM/Wadi Sayq evidence is. Yet. But Jaybear's glib (and markedly ignorant) dismissal of it provides further validation of some of the premises behind my Transmission Gap Theory.

There is an inverse relationship between the caliber of empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon and the rationality of anti-Mormon critics like Jaybear. That is, as the former increases, the latter decreases.

Switch out "NHM/Wadi Sayq" for Facsimile 2, figure 6.  Or the NHM altar.  Or the Seal of Mulek.  Or cement and barley in Mesoameria.  Or Sheum.  Or tumbaga.  Or the statements of the Witnesses.  Or anything else.  

Critics of a certain bent (described by Daniel Peterson as "self-identified atheistic materialists or naturalists") have, philosophically and rhetorically speaking, painted themselves into a corner.  They cannot tolerate even the possibility that the Church's claims are true, or even that these claims are plausible.  It's not an "all or nothing" scenario for them.  There is only one opton for them, and that is that the Church is a sham.  A fraud.  To quote Dan Peterson:

Quote

The most serious contemporary criticisms of the Book of Mormon and of Mormonism more broadly tend to come not from self-proclaimed orthodox (i.e., usually Evangelical) Christians, but from self-identified atheistic materialists or naturalists. The Utah-based historian Dale Morgan, largely forgotten today but still much admired in certain small contemporary circles, wrote a 1945 letter to the believing Latter-day Saint historian Juanita Brooks. In it, he identifies the fundamental issue with unusual candor:

Quote

With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.

 

I am happy to be a Latter-day Saint.  Acting from a position of faith, and without perfect knowledge, I must acknowledge the possibility that God does not exist, that there is no life after death, and all the dark nihilisms that are attendant to that postulation.  But by choice I have decided to exercise faith, to examine the claims of the Church, to give them a fair hearing, to see out guidance from God, to put the precepts into practice in my daily life, and to see if the Restored Gospel really can be what it claims to be.  So far I have received much confirmation and ratification of these things.  The "upstream" matters are beautiful to me, and are not only comforting and uplifting, they are reasonable and sensible.  The "downstream" matters are likewise overwhelmingly wonderful.  There are a few that are confusing and difficult, but that's to be expected.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Can you define bullseye?  Smac is trying to argue these 4 aren't representing the 4 sons of Horus, and you're trying to argue, or so it seems, that these are the four sons of Horus and at times some have suggested it's possible these four sons represent the four cardinal direction points.  

Bullseye: something that is precisely correct. My argument is only that the symbolism attached to Facsimile 2, figure 6 is a bullseye. I never said otherwise. 

As for the apparent discrepancy, let's say there are several symbols and several names with which these jars were associated in ANE societies. It isn't hard to imagine a situation where the the authentic symbolism is present in Joseph Smith's explanation in Facsimile 2 and yet where the names differ in Facsimile 1. Once again, any familiarity with all of the variations and complexities made possible through ANE syncretism should help you understand how easily such a situation could arise.

Edited by Ryan Dahle
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What if Joseph in consulting Adam Clarke's commentary decided the four jars represent the 4 beasts from Revelation, and in so consulting alluded to the 4 quarters of the earth?

Well, if you think there may be good evidence for that line of reasoning, go ahead and explore it. Right now, it is just unsupported speculation. 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Can you define bullseye?  Smac is trying to argue these 4 aren't representing the 4 sons of Horus, and you're trying to argue, or so it seems, that these are the four sons of Horus and at times some have suggested it's possible these four sons represent the four cardinal direction points.  

I sure would appreciate you not misrepresenting me.

Quote

What if Joseph in consulting Adam Clarke's commentary decided the four jars represent the 4 beasts from Revelation, and in so consulting alluded to the 4 quarters of the earth?  Probably more likely than God telling him something that doesn't make sense, it seems to me.  

It is increasingly clear that you subscribed to the "Dale Morgan" school of thought as to what "evidence" means: anything other than what can support the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Literally anything else, even if it lacks a scintilla of supporting or corroborating reasoning and is sheer, unsupported ad hoc speculation, is - in your view - more "probable."

Well, okay then.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Look. Here is what we can confidently say about Joseph's explanations of these figures:

  1. The symbolic representation he provided for facsimile 2, figure 6 ("Represents this earth in its four quarters") is supported by current Egyptology, is extremely unlikely to have been "guessed," and there is currently no explanation for how Joseph likely gained access to this knowledge (but I remain open to the possibility that such a channel might exist; as I previously stated). 

Yes there is explanation (which doesn't matter because to force an explanation on another is attempting to re-align the burden of proof.  and it's still a tenuous connection at best.  These four sons represent many things, one happens to be possibly the four cardinal directions.  Now if Joseph had said they represent more than this item and it's attested to, then that's perhaps something.  the problem remains, the four sons of Horus can represent the four cardinal directions.  But the four idolatrous gods of the Hittites or Mesopotamia do not.  So if Gee is correct in that these four were meant to represent the four idolatrous gods of other peoples in times not connected to Abraham nor Egypt, then there is no connection at all to the cardinal direction points.  This all seems like an attempt to have a piece of cake and eat it to.  Or shooting shots in every direction in hopes to hit a target.  

The explanation that is a more reasonable conclusion than Joseph had these names put in his head by God is Joseph, who was intimately familiar with Adam Clarke's commentary and was not shy about employing it as revelation from God when he was creating revelation from God, saw the four beasts explanation.  Decided the four jars looked similar to the four beasts Clarke connects with those mentioned in Revelation, and decided the four jars represent the four quarters of Earth.  I readily grant, this is also a very tenuous explanation, but the point is it's a different one that happens to be even more reasonable then thinking God magically put the names in Joseph's head--particularly since those names do not in any way connect to Egypt, Abraham, or the  estimated time of Abraham's life.  

16 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:
  1. The names he associated with the canopic jars in Facsimile 1 are attested in relevant ancient contexts. The chances of him guessing 4 names in a row that could linguistically be associated with known deities from the approximate times and relevant regions seems to be very unlikely, as Gee points out.

Why?  There are many deities to choose from?  And the names are not a direct match at all.  They simply have one or two components that can be loosely connected.  If they were a direct match, then we'd have something.  But they are not.  Elkenah being ʾl qn ʾr isn't a match.  We already know, and apparently Joseph did know too that El represented God.  THat's the only connection between these two names it seems to me.  We have to first assume a northern location for Abraham rather than the normally preferred southern, first.  

Zibnah becomes Zappana which I'm not seeing any connection here.

Mahmackrah is Mkr.  Gee suggests this is "at least somewhat close".  I admit I don't see it.  the letter "M" is the connection that concludes that Joseph definitely got something right here?
Kursa, the hunting bag, is the god Korash, connection again being the first letter.  Of course the Kursa representing a god, according to Gee is from an era other than Abraham's time.  

 

I don't think I"m trying to be difficult.  I'm trying to evaluate the evidence and it doesn't seem to be fitting well.  

16 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:
  1. The relationship between the names Joseph gave in Facsimile 1 and the canopic jars aren't attested in extant documents.

Yep.  

16 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

By my count, that is two positive evidences and a mere absence of evidence. Looks like all the actual evidence is towards the affirmative on this one, seeing that an absence of evidence isn't actually evidence, especially when the type of thing that is being assumed to fill this gap (the presence of syncretism and the fluidity in identifying various gods with different symbols) is well-attested in ANE cultures. 

I mean, you can keep just saying you disagree and there is no evidence or whatever, but it seems like that is about all you can do here. Maybe you have an actual refutation of this line of logic, in all its constituent parts, but I doubt it. 

I've already pointed out plenty of reasons why this attempt to suggest Joseph got it right is problematic.  There is no "right" here.  It is simply attempts to tenuously connect names that Joseph through in an Egyptian facsimile to anything that could remotely seem like a god.  None of the connections are very close or connect-able.  

Link to comment
17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I sure would appreciate you not misrepresenting me.

It is increasingly clear that you subscribed to the "Dale Morgan" school of thought as to what "evidence" means: anything other than what can support the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Literally anything else, even if it lacks a scintilla of supporting or corroborating reasoning and is sheer, unsupported ad hoc speculation, is - in your view - more "probable."

Well, okay then.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm more than happy to be corrected.  Are the four jars in the facsimile representative of the four sons of Horus?  Or are they represented as random gods from different eras and peoples in the super region around the assumed northern location of Abraham's assumed birth?  If you say they are the four sons, then the names aren't at all a match.  If you say they are four randomized gods from different peoples and eras of the north western areas of ancient Semitic connection, then saying they represent the four quarters doesn't really match.  (unfortunately the names matching, as Gee argues is about as weak as we will see, in trying to assume the burden of proof for an ancient origin of the BoA story).  

For you it appears its, "heads I win, and tails you lose".  

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm more than happy to be corrected. 

Okay.

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are the four jars in the facsimile representative of the four sons of Horus? 

Usually, yes.  Per John Gee, that is the "standard interpretation," but also that evidence indicates that "the symbols did not remain stagnant throughout history, as is usually assumed."  "{T}hough the canopic jar became widely used in the funerary equipment {starting in the Fifth Dynasty (from the early 25th century BC until the mid 24th century BC)}, no evidence exists to connect it with the Sons of Horus until the First Intermediate Period {c. 2181–2055 BC}."  

Hence the "standard interpretation" is not the only one.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The four entities in Figure 6 {of Facsimile 2} represent the four sons of the god Horus: Hapi, Imsety, Duamutef, and Qebehsenuef. Over the span of millennia of Egyptian religion, these gods took on various forms as well as mythological roles and aspects. One such role was, indeed, as representing the four cardinal directions. “By virtue of its association with the cardinal directions,” observes one Egyptologist, “four is the most common symbol of ‘completeness’ in Egyptian numerological symbolism and ritual repetition.” As another Egyptologist has summarized,

Quote

The earliest reference to these four gods is found in the Pyramid Texts [ca. 2350–2100 BC] where they are said to be the children and also the “souls” of {the god} Horus. They are also called the “friends of the king” and assist the deceased monarch in ascending into the sky (PT 1278–79). The same gods were also known as the sons of Osiris and were later said to be members of the group called “the seven blessed ones” whose job was to protect the netherworld god’s coffin. Their afterlife mythology led to important roles in the funerary assemblage, particularly in association with the containers now traditionally called canopic jars in which the internal organs of the deceased were preserved. . . . The group may have been based on the symbolic completeness of the number four alone, but they are often given geographic associations and hence became a kind of “regional” group. . . . The four gods were sometimes depicted on the sides of the canopic chest and had specific symbolic orientations, with Imsety usually being aligned with the south, Hapy with the north, Duamutef with the east and Qebehsenuef with the west.

This understanding is shared widely among Egyptologists today. James P. Allen, in his translation and commentary on the Pyramid Texts, simply identifies the four Sons of Horus as “representing the cardinal directions.” Manfred Lurker explains that “each [of the sons of Horus] had a characteristic head and was associated with one of the four cardinal points of the compass and one of the four ‘protective’ goddesses” associated therewith.

Geraldine Pinch concurs, writing, “{The four Sons of Horus} were the traditional guardians of the four canopic jars used to hold mummified organs. Imsety generally protected the liver, Hapy the lungs, Duamutef the stomach, and Qebehsenuef the intestines. The four sons were also associated with the four directions (south, north, east, and west) and with the four vital components for survival after death: the heart, the ba, the ka, and the mummy.” “They were the gods of the four quarters of the earth,” remarks Michael D. Rhodes, “and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points. They also were guardians of the viscera of the dead, and their images were carved on the four canopic jars into which the internal organs were placed.”

Another Egyptologist, Maarten J. Raven, argues that the primary purpose of the Sons of Horus was to act as “the four corners of the universe and the four supports of heaven, and only secondarily with the protection of the body’s integrity.”

The association of the Sons of Horus with the earth’s cardinal directions is explicit in one scene where, represented “as birds flying out to the four corners of the cosmos,” they herald the accession of king Rameses II to the throne.
...
While Joseph Smith’s succinct interpretation of Figure 6 in Facsimile 2 might have left out some additional details we know about the Sons of Horus (roles which evolved over the span of Egyptian religious history), it nevertheless converges nicely with current Egyptological knowledge.

So the four canopic jars could be or represent the sons of Horus, the sons of Osiris, the cardinal directions / earth in its four quarters / , four corners of the universe / four corners of the cosmos, four ‘protective’ goddesses” associated with the cardinal directions, protectors of viscera of the dead, and members of the group called “the seven blessed ones” whose job was to protect the netherworld god’s coffin.

As for whether they could further fit within the parameters of Joseph Smith's descriptions, John Tvedtnes has some interesting thoughts here.  And Kevin Barney here.  And John Gee here.

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or are they represented as random gods from different eras and peoples in the super region around the assumed northern location of Abraham's assumed birth? 

"Random gods" is a characterization of yours, so I won't try to account for it or address it.

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you say they are the four sons, then the names aren't at all a match.

I encourage you to give the matter further study.  Looking for a static, one-to-one "match" on the symbolism of Egyptian canopic jars seems like a less-than-ideal way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Usually, yes.  Per John Gee, that is the "standard interpretation," but also that evidence indicates that "the symbols did not remain stagnant throughout history, as is usually assumed."  "{T}hough the canopic jar became widely used in the funerary equipment {starting in the Fifth Dynasty (from the early 25th century BC until the mid 24th century BC)}, no evidence exists to connect it with the Sons of Horus until the First Intermediate Period {c. 2181–2055 BC}."  

Hence the "standard interpretation" is not the only one.  See, e.g., here:

So the four canopic jars could be or represent the sons of Horus, the sons of Osiris, the cardinal directions / earth in its four quarters / , four corners of the universe / four corners of the cosmos, four ‘protective’ goddesses” associated with the cardinal directions, protectors of viscera of the dead, and members of the group called “the seven blessed ones” whose job was to protect the netherworld god’s coffin.

As for whether they could further fit within the parameters of Joseph Smith's descriptions, John Tvedtnes has some interesting thoughts here.  And Kevin Barney here.  And John Gee here.

"Random gods" is a characterization of yours, so I won't try to account for it or address it.

I encourage you to give the matter further study.  Looking for a static, one-to-one "match" on the symbolism of Egyptian canopic jars seems like a less-than-ideal way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the discussion, Smac.  It doesn't appear we'll find any resolution here.  I can appreciate the levels of complexity I think, but when it comes to evidence to support the claims, I think we need more than complicated possibilities of what might have happened.  I've read the material and am left unsatisfied.  I'm ready to agree to disagree and leave what transpired as is.  Until next time, old chum.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Yes there is explanation (which doesn't matter because to force an explanation on another is attempting to re-align the burden of proof.  and it's still a tenuous connection at best.  These four sons represent many things, one happens to be possibly the four cardinal directions.  Now if Joseph had said they represent more than this item and it's attested to, then that's perhaps something.  the problem remains, the four sons of Horus can represent the four cardinal directions.  But the four idolatrous gods of the Hittites or Mesopotamia do not.  So if Gee is correct in that these four were meant to represent the four idolatrous gods of other peoples in times not connected to Abraham nor Egypt, then there is no connection at all to the cardinal direction points.  This all seems like an attempt to have a piece of cake and eat it to.  Or shooting shots in every direction in hopes to hit a target.  

The explanation that is a more reasonable conclusion than Joseph had these names put in his head by God is Joseph, who was intimately familiar with Adam Clarke's commentary and was not shy about employing it as revelation from God when he was creating revelation from God, saw the four beasts explanation.  Decided the four jars looked similar to the four beasts Clarke connects with those mentioned in Revelation, and decided the four jars represent the four quarters of Earth.  I readily grant, this is also a very tenuous explanation, but the point is it's a different one that happens to be even more reasonable then thinking God magically put the names in Joseph's head--particularly since those names do not in any way connect to Egypt, Abraham, or the  estimated time of Abraham's life.  

In other words, the best you can come up with is a very tenuous explanation for how Joseph clearly "guessed" something right, and no matter how tenuous it is, it will always be better than a miraculous explanation. Got it.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Why?  There are many deities to choose from?  And the names are not a direct match at all.  They simply have one or two components that can be loosely connected.  If they were a direct match, then we'd have something.  But they are not.  Elkenah being ʾl qn ʾr isn't a match.  We already know, and apparently Joseph did know too that El represented God.  THat's the only connection between these two names it seems to me.  We have to first assume a northern location for Abraham rather than the normally preferred southern, first.  

Zibnah becomes Zappana which I'm not seeing any connection here.

Mahmackrah is Mkr.  Gee suggests this is "at least somewhat close"I admit I don't see it.  the letter "M" is the connection that concludes that Joseph definitely got something right here?
Kursa, the hunting bag, is the god Korash, connection again being the first letter.  Of course the Kursa representing a god, according to Gee is from an era other than Abraham's time.  

 

I don't think I"m trying to be difficult.  I'm trying to evaluate the evidence and it doesn't seem to be fitting well.  

You should probably leave the linguistic critique to the scholars with linguistic training. I think we both admit that there is probably a lot you don't see here. I'm actually quite sure of that. I'm not a linguistic scholar, but I've done enough linguistic analysis to know that amateur comparison of English transliterations simply isn't reliable. 

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I've already pointed out plenty of reasons why this attempt to suggest Joseph got it right is problematic.  There is no "right" here.  It is simply attempts to tenuously connect names that Joseph through in an Egyptian facsimile to anything that could remotely seem like a god.  None of the connections are very close or connect-able.

The problem is, the evidence that Joseph got something right isn't "tenuous." It is a demonstrable fact. You seem to be confusing that fact with the explanation that God was responsible for his correct interpretation. As for the names, I simply trust Gee over you. And as for the names in Facsimile 1 not matching the names typically associated with these figures, I already explained that multiple times. 

So I still see it as (1) a clear bullseye, (2) a highly plausible set of names, and (3) a mere absence of evidence for connecting those names to the canopic jars (with ample precedent for assuming that type of connection could exist and that there is just currently no evidence for it). 

Unless you can come up with 

  • a plausible, rather than a highly tenuous, explanation for Joseph's correct interpretation of Facsimile 2, figure 6
  • an informed and competent linguistic critique that overturns Gee's analysis of the names from Facsimile 1,
  • or evidence that the names in facsimile 1 couldn't be associated with the canopic jars depicted therein,

I think there isn't much left to say. It's still two lines of good evidence to.... none. You don't have any actual evidence to back up your position, just a very strong bias against God.  

Edited by Ryan Dahle
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks for the discussion, Smac.  It doesn't appear we'll find any resolution here. 

I wasn't really expecting "resolution."  

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can appreciate the levels of complexity I think, but when it comes to evidence to support the claims, I think we need more than complicated possibilities of what might have happened. 

I think we can only work with what we've got.  With what's available.  

You seem to have a preconceived set of expectations about what "evidence" means, about how probative it is, about the quantum of evidence that is required to reach "resolution," and so on.  If so, I think think these expectations are quite unrealistic.  And unnecessarily so.  Nobody in the Church is presenting evidence, argument, ideas, etc. to reach "resolution" about "claims."  Folks like Gee, Muhlestein, Nibley, Rhodes, Barney, Tvedtnes, Peterson, Lindsay, etc. are not trying to reach a "resolution."  They are presenting arguments and ideas in terms of plausibility.  Plausibility of "downstream" issues.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've read the material and am left unsatisfied. 

In the eleven minutes between my post and yours you read and absorbed "the material" I provided?  The Gee article? The Pearl of Great Price Central article?  The articles by Tvedtnes and Barney?  And you perused the voluminous footnoted citations as well?

You gave these materials a fair review and hearing in eleven minutes?

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm ready to agree to disagree and leave what transpired as is.  Until next time, old chum.  

As you like.  We seem to be talking past each other anyway.  

"Plausibility," not "resolution," is the order of the day.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You should probably leave the linguistic critique to the scholars with linguistic training. I think we both admit that there is probably a lot you don't see here. I'm actually quite sure of that. I'm not a linguistic scholar, but I've done enough linguistic analysis to know that amateur comparison of English transliterations simply isn't reliable. 

A few weeks ago, during a family dinner, my children and I got into a discussion about English transliterations.  I asked them if they had ever heard of "Peking Duck," and they said they had.  I asked them what they thought Peking Duck might have to do with the capital of China, Beijing.  They guessed "Um, people eat Peking Duck in Beijing?"  I then asked them what they think "Peking" means in relation to "Beijing," and they could not answer.  

I then explained that "Peking" and "Beijing" are the same thing.  They were confused.  I explained that "Peking" and "Beijing" both mean the exact same thing (translated as "Northern Capital"), that they refer to the same Chinese characters (北京), but that "Peking" is the romanization of these characters using the Postal system, whereas "Beijing" is the romanized form from the Pinyin system.  Meanwhile, the Wade-Giles system, used in Taiwan, renders these characters as "Pei-ching."

When I told my kids that all three romanizations, "Peking" ("Pehking" in the 1907 Postal system) "Pei-ching" and "Beijing" sound the same when verbalized, they were flabbergasted, saying these differences in spelling were "crazy" and "make no sense."  I said "Welcome to linguistics."

Meanwhile, the capital city of the southern Chinese province where Hong Kong is located has been variously romanized as "Quang-tcheou," "Canton," "Kwangchow," "Kuang-chou" and "Guăngzhōu." 

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In other words, the best you can come up with is a very tenuous explanation for how Joseph clearly "guessed" something right, and no matter how tenuous it is, it will always be better than a miraculous explanation. Got it.

Well, I think you mischaracterize it a bit, but one thing is certain miracles are always the least likely explanation.  That you want to have room to make miracle explanations as likely as evidence-based explanations is a problem, for sure, when it comes to discussing these things.  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say miracle and try to force the miracle as valid explanation based on stuff like one name somewhat weakly appears like it could be a little similar to another name in history.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You should probably leave the linguistic critique to the scholars with linguistic training.

Sure.  And I hope they battle it out.  But I don't think Gee is a linguist, trained in something other than Egyptian, so whatever he offers is as easily addressed by anyone else.  Now if it were a true linguist specializing in those ancient languages maybe we can settle on something here.  As of now we have some pretty weak looking connections, that even if they did connect wouldn't really make sense anyway--since they aren't connected to Abraham or Egyptian.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think we both admit that there is probably a lot you don't see here. I'm actually quite sure of that. I'm not a linguistic scholar, but I've done enough linguistic analysis to know that amateur comparison of English transliterations simply isn't reliable. 

Then why is Gee concluding Joseph got something right, definitively?  That doesn't make sense.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The problem is, the evidence that Joseph got something right isn't "tenuous." It is a demonstrable fact. You seem to be confusing that fact with the explanation that God was responsible for his correct interpretation. As for the names, I simply trust Gee over you. And as for the names in Facsimile 1 not matching the names typically associated with these figures, I already explained that multiple times. 

So I still see it as (1) a clear bullseye, (2) a highly plausible set of names, and (3) a mere absence of evidence for connecting those names to the canopic jars (with ample precedent for assuming that type of connection could exist and that there is just currently no evidence for it). 

Ok...all based on "trust Gee over" me.  Gotcha.  I"m just going with what I can perceive until or unless someone expert in these languages can clarify.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Unless you can come up with 

  • a plausible, rather than a highly tenuous, explanation for Joseph's correct interpretation of Facsimile 2, figure 6

That's stacking the deck.  There is no clear correct here.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:
  • an informed and competent linguistic critique that overturns Gee's analysis of the names from Facsimile 1,

I'd  be eager myself to see someone look at what Gee produced and provide feedback.  Of course if it's to be a scholarly publication you'd think Gee would need someone qualified scholars to review it.  But that doesn't happen with apologetics.  we have to do things like trust the person who wrote something down and got it published without any reason whatsoever to trust that which was written.  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:
  • or evidence that the names in facsimile 1 couldn't be associated with the canopic jars depicted therein,

That's a good point.  I might go back to Ritner's comments to see whether he addressed this specificially (i Kind of think he did).  

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think there isn't much left to say. It's still two lines of good evidence to.... none. You don't have any actual evidence to back up your position, just a very strong bias against God.  

I only have evidence to back up my position--the BoA is a modern attempted rendition of mythical Abraham sources.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I wasn't really expecting "resolution."  

I think we can only work with what we've got.  With what's available.  

You seem to have a preconceived set of expectations about what "evidence" means, about how probative it is, about the quantum of evidence that is required to reach "resolution," and so on.  If so, I think think these expectations are quite unrealistic.  And unnecessarily so.  Nobody in the Church is presenting evidence, argument, ideas, etc. to reach "resolution" about "claims."  Folks like Gee, Muhlestein, Nibley, Rhodes, Barney, Tvedtnes, Peterson, Lindsay, etc. are not trying to reach a "resolution."  They are presenting arguments and ideas in terms of plausibility.  Plausibility of "downstream" issues.

In the eleven minutes between my post and yours you read and absorbed "the material" I provided?  The Gee article? The Pearl of Great Price Central article?  The articles by Tvedtnes and Barney?  And you perused the voluminous footnoted citations as well?

Are you kidding?  I've read them all a few times before.  My comment that I've read them, is suggesting I already read them.  I even picked apart Gee's article already for your enjoyment.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You gave these materials a fair review and hearing in eleven minutes?

Don't be silly.  Its been over 20 years ago I first encountered apologetic arguments for the BoA.    

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  We seem to be talking past each other anyway.  

"Plausibility," not "resolution," is the order of the day.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Are you kidding?  I've read them all a few times before.  My comment that I've read them, is suggesting I already read them.  I even picked apart Gee's article already for your enjoyment.  

Don't be silly.  Its been over 20 years ago I first encountered apologetic arguments for the BoA.    

And yet here you are, referencing expectations about "resolution" instead of plausibility.  Proponents of the BoA have never pursued the former, and yet you are faulting them for not attaining it.  Weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet here you are, referencing expectations about "resolution" instead of plausibility.  Proponents of the BoA have never pursued the former, and yet you are faulting them for not attaining it.  Weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

My goodness you're really playing off my resolution comment.  I simply pointed out we aren't reaching a resolution not that I expected to.  Agreeing to disagree when dogma is involved and possibly at stake seems reasonable to me at some point. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My goodness you're really playing off my resolution comment. 

Your perspective is awfully hard to understand.  

Quote

I simply pointed out we aren't reaching a resolution not that I expected to.  Agreeing to disagree when dogma is involved and possibly at stake seems reasonable to me at some point. 

Your continued use of "dogma" is interesting.  Not only have I rejected it, but your position seems far more dogmatic than mine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your perspective is awfully hard to understand.  

Your continued use of "dogma" is interesting.  Not only have I rejected it, but your position seems far more dogmatic than mine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hm...what might you mean with your dogma comment?  Are you saying religion, and yours in particular, has no dogma?  What authority might you think I look to giving me principles which are incontrovertibly true?  I thought that was the game of religion.  I have no authority feeding me principles that I can't disagree with.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...