Book of Abraham - still a problem

[Tweed1944]

Royal Skousen in his CV suggested that the facsimiles be dropped from the Book of Abraham.

BYU Studies had a special edition devoted to the Book of Abraham.

This quote is interesting.

"

" "Despite some important advances in scholarship, “we [still] do not
[entirely] know to what we really should compare the facsimiles.” For
instance, we must ask if Joseph Smith meant to give us “an interpretation
[of the facsimiles] that ancient Egyptians would have held, or one that
only a small group of priests interested in Abraham would have held, or
one that a group of ancient Jews in Egypt would have held, or something
another group altogether would have held.” Or, alternatively, “was he
giving us an interpretation we needed to receive for our spiritual benefit
regardless of how any ancient groups would have seen these?” The fact is
that we don’t know for sure. While we “can make a pretty good case for the
idea that some Egyptians could have viewed Facsimile 1 the way Joseph
Smith presents it, [we are still] not sure that is the methodology we should
be employing. We just don’t know enough about what Joseph Smith was
doing to be sure about any possible comparisons, or lack thereof.”13
What is clear from all of this is that “much more work needs to be
done before we can understand the facsimiles in their ancient Egyptian
setting, and only then will it be meaningful to ask whether that understanding matches that of Joseph Smith (to the extent that we understand even that)." p.213

 

Dr Cooney “Much more work needs to be done…” just like the person in the meeting saying we have to revisit the thing we all just agreed on. "

 

[Pyreaux]

Not many critics touch the content, but I've seen many anti-mos saying the facsimiles are "mistranslated" seemingly based on facsimile 2 has a bit of text, but Joseph never translated the text, somehow the non-translation statement is taken as a translation.

[InCognitus]

46 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

Royal Skousen in his CV suggested that the facsimiles be dropped from the Book of Abraham.

I didn't read Skousen as saying that he wanted the facsimiles "dropped from the published editions of the Book of Abraham", but that the published facsimiles from the papyri should be considered "extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book" (https://humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Royal-Skousen-VITA.18-7.pdf, page 39).

Jeff Lindsey talks about that statement on his site here:  https://www.arisefromthedust.com/royal-skousens-interesting-theory-on/

46 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

BYU Studies had a special edition devoted to the Book of Abraham.

Yes, this issue of BYU Studies is a keeper.  But how does any of this fit into your thread title, "Book of Abraham - still a problem"?  There are many views on how the translation occurred, etc., but this issue of BYU Studies doesn't present the book of Abraham as a "problem" in any way.  In fact, the conclusion portrays the book of Abraham in very positive ways:

"As the preceding has shown, the Book of Abraham is an inexhaustible source of exploration and critical investigation, and the work of scholarly examination into this book shows no signs of slowing. On the contrary, we see multiple welcoming avenues for additional study. The net result of this review, in the meantime, has been the (re)discovery of numerous points of convergence between the Book of Abraham and the ancient world and theological and narrative aspects of the book that invite more sustained investigation." (p. 283)

And:

"We are, of course, well aware of the controversy that still surrounds the Book of Abraham, and we do not presume that this offering has once and for all settled the debate. But what we have seen nevertheless does help us plausibly situate the Book of Abraham in the ancient environment from whence it purports to derive, informs how we might approach the text going forward, and positively affects our evaluation of Joseph Smith’s claims to prophetic inspiration. Just as intellectual honesty demands we acknowledge the remaining gaps in our understanding and the ways in which the Book of Abraham still lacks verification based on available evidence, so too does it demand that this positive evidence not be overlooked, ignored, dismissed out of hand, or downplayed, even if it is inconvenient for certain worldviews and ideological commitments." (p. 283-284)

So why are you trying to spin something good and positive as "still a problem"?

Edited July 2, 2023 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

When a prophet gazes into a fire, he can "translate" it by the gift and power of God .

He could " translate"  the pattern on the wallpaper in his room, if such inspired him!

For thousands of years humans have been looking at patterns in sand, and tea leaves, the clouds, waves in the oceans, mandalas, or various abstract patterns, to break with the fallacies of human language and open themselves to inspiration.

And the fundamentalist, literalist  critics who know nothing about the spirit keep parroting the same drivel.

When the Spirit speaks AND the spirit confirms the content through each reader's own personal testimony in a spiritual experience,  it is a denial of spiritual experience and a lapse into the self contradictory dogma of logical positivism to deny the utility of human experience itself.

All human knowledge is based on human experience and the interpretation of human experience.

To deny the Book of Abraham is to deny revelation itself. 

Sure, a lot of people do not believe in revelation

But why be LDS AND deny revelation?

How is that intellectually justifiable?

Edited July 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Tweed1944]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Not many critics touch the content, but I've seen many anti-mos saying the facsimiles are "mistranslated" seemingly based on facsimile 2 has a bit of text, but Joseph never translated the text, somehow the non-translation statement is taken as a translation.

Have a look at Hungarian Egyptologist Tamas Mekis paper on the hypocephalus. He has written a huge book on the subject which was reviewed by John Gee. In the BYU Studies Volume he gets cited many times

It is interesting that Smith falsely restored  parts of facsimile 2. Just look at the holdings in the British Museum.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fc7q4KNlr01H7J4xr7HnU_yL8ACaQC08kAoEkVt3DDc/edit

Kara Cooney when reading the above said to me "  “Much more work needs to be done…” just like the person in the meeting saying we have to revisit the thing we all just agreed on. "

Dr Cooney has some cool youtube videos on Osiris 

Kerry Shirts (The Backyard Professor has done an interesting video on the hypocephalus. He now has access to the BYU Studies Journal so I expect he will respond to the apologetic response

Edited July 2, 2023 by Tweed1944
update

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

Kerry Shirts (The Backyard Professor has done an interesting video on the hypocephalus. He now has access to the BYU Studies Journal so I expect he will respond to the apologetic response

I miss Kerry- we were kinda buddies until he caught the logical positivism disease from Riskas.

I'd love to hear from him!

Unfortunately logical positivism is dead.  It is self-contradictory.

Google "logical positivism is dead" .  Be prepared for MANY responses.

Positivism says, roughly:

Quote

 

"For a statement to be true, it must have empirical evidence".

 

Unfortunately the above statement has NO empirical evidence!! 

There is NO empirical evidence that any statement must have empirical evidence to be "true".   But yes I would love to talk with Kerry on the subject of Riskas' highly contradictory book.

Please let him know I would love to chat with him!!

Edited July 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

Have a look at Hungarian Egyptologist Tamas Mekis paper on the hypocephalus. He has written a huge book on the subject which was reviewed by John Gee. In the BYU Studies Volume he gets cited many times

It is interesting that Smith falsely restored  parts of facsimile 2. Just look at the holdings in the British Museum.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fc7q4KNlr01H7J4xr7HnU_yL8ACaQC08kAoEkVt3DDc/edit

Kara Cooney when reading the above said to me "  “Much more work needs to be done…” just like the person in the meeting saying we have to revisit the thing we all just agreed on. "

Dr Cooney has some cool youtube videos on Osiris 

Kerry Shirts (The Backyard Professor has done an interesting video on the hypocephalus. He now has access to the BYU Studies Journal so I expect he will respond to the apologetic response

I am also sure that @Kevin Christensen would love to respond to this thread.

Incidentally, look at the definition of "translate" in the Webster's Dictionary of 1828

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

I am sure you will find the word's meanings were VERY different than they are now.

Quote

 

TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Tweed1944]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am also sure that @Kevin Christensen would love to respond to this thread.

Incidentally, look at the definition of "translate" in the Webster's Dictionary of 1828

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

I am sure you will find the word's meanings were VERY different than they are now.

 

Here we again when in a corner bring in Kuhn.

 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Not many critics touch the content, but I've seen many anti-mos saying the facsimiles are "mistranslated" seemingly based on facsimile 2 has a bit of text, but Joseph never translated the text, somehow the non-translation statement is taken as a translation.

Have a look at Hungarian Egyptologist Tamas Mekis paper on the hypocephalus. He has written a huge book on the subject which was reviewed by John Gee. In the BYU Studies Volume he gets cited many times

It is interesting that Smith falsely restored  parts of facsimile 2. Just look at the holdings in the British Museum.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fc7q4KNlr01H7J4xr7HnU_yL8ACaQC08kAoEkVt3DDc/edit

What Pyreaux says is correct, the missing portions of Facsimile 2 weren't translated by Joseph Smith, and in fact this actually demonstrates that Joseph never did any translation of JSP XI (the Book of Breathing), from which some of the text was copied:

See:  Translating the Book of Abraham: The Answer Under Our Heads

"[T]he papyri fragment known as JSP 11 has text on Facsimile 2 and Joseph Smith deliberately declined from translating that text, for providing an explanation of Facsimile 2. So if there is any concrete evidence regarding how Joseph Smith felt regarding JSP 11, we get that from his  explanation of Facsimile 2."

And comparing the restoration to other hypocephalus examples, it was done rather well in my opinion.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

Here we again when in a corner bring in Kuhn.

 

Unless in your wisdom we should ignore postmodernism and  contemporary philosophy, persist in your Fundamentalist literalism.

So tell me what truth is, if you like.

Kuhn was popularizer of a century or two of the strongest philosophies of the 17 and 18 hundreds.

Kant vs Hume, AND the synthetic apriori. Peirce, James, Ryle, Dewey, Heidegger, the Existentialists, Teilhard de Chardin, Wittgenstein, Royce, Davidson, Lewis, Rorty, -- and that's just the beginning.

Kuhn summarized it and got the  credit.  Good for him!

Best wishes. 

 

 

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Not many critics touch the content, but I've seen many anti-mos saying the facsimiles are "mistranslated" seemingly based on facsimile 2 has a bit of text, but Joseph never translated the text, somehow the non-translation statement is taken as a translation.

The problem is not that "anti-mos" saying the facsimiles are mistranslated.  The problem is that the scientific community, most notably, Egyptologist say the facsimiles are mistranslated.  And the term mistranslation is being kind. There is no correlation at all between what JS said the facsimiles mean and their real meaning.  The church would do well to just de-canonize the BoA just like they did with the Lectures of Faith.

[InCognitus]

27 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

There is no correlation at all between what JS said the facsimiles mean and their real meaning.

You really set yourself up for an easy disproval of your statement. "No correlation at all" requires just one point of correlation to disprove your statement.  The BYU Studies issue mentioned in the OP has a nice navigation page set up for the Book of Abraham here:  https://byustudies.byu.edu/abraham/

To pick one point to disprove your statement, look at the article on:  The Four Sons of Horus (Facsimile 2, Figure 6)

Quote

Figure 6 of Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham was interpreted straightforwardly by Joseph Smith as “represent[ing] this earth in its four quarters.” Based on contemporary nineteenth-­century usage of this biblical idiom (Rev. 20:8), Joseph Smith evidently meant the figures represent the four cardinal points (north, east, south, and west). This interpretation finds ready support from the ancient Egyptians.

The four entities in figure 6 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.” 

And quoting Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (New York: Thames and Hudson, 2003), "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 Qebesenuef with the west."

This is a nice summary of others:

 

[Tweed1944]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

What Pyreaux says is correct, the missing portions of Facsimile 2 weren't translated by Joseph Smith, and in fact this actually demonstrates that Joseph never did any translation of JSP XI (the Book of Breathing), from which some of the text was copied:

See:  Translating the Book of Abraham: The Answer Under Our Heads

"[T]he papyri fragment known as JSP 11 has text on Facsimile 2 and Joseph Smith deliberately declined from translating that text, for providing an explanation of Facsimile 2. So if there is any concrete evidence regarding how Joseph Smith felt regarding JSP 11, we get that from his  explanation of Facsimile 2."

And comparing the restoration to other hypocephalus examples, it was done rather well in my opinion.  

If you look at the sketch figure 3 is missing. When you check what Smith put in the gap it seems o have come from another piece of papyri. Check the figure bottom right.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-87zHvKQxp8XKlhrkl_xaDCsESUbc5VapxQ3Q9Dge0E/edit

[Tweed1944]

Check the British Museum holdings the  register seems to be a figure in a boat with a scarab (insect)

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?object=hypocephalus&fbclid=IwAR1mf5jmVTStsjGiXmrJUcL-MsgRjROS6tLwPKSjYravybT7o5hzRooFkQA

[Tweed1944]

Klaus Baer in a Dialogue article said there were no fibers in the glue above the standing figure. How do we know the standing figure was holding a knife.?

Perhaps a jar

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P1llnhvfouDJwhhGFoVBzXpf3-Feor1WHO-xWnHNVYg/edit

 

[CA Steve]

17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Not many critics touch the content...

I am not sure who you mean by critics or touch(ing), but numerous people have addressed the text in a variety of ways. There are recent works by Dan Vogel, Brian Hauglid, Robert Ritner, Michael Marquardt, David Bokovoy, Christopher Woods, Brent Metcalfe, and Christopher Smith who might fall into the critical category and, if you are a firm believer in the missing scroll theory and hold that the Book of Abraham is an actual translation in the traditional sense, then people like Matt Grey, Terryl Givens, Robin Jensen, Michael MacKay and others at the JSP's might also be critics.

 

There is a lot of critical textual work.

[Dario_M]

More work needs to be done??? That's kinda difficult without the golden plates to investigate. And nobody knows where the plates are. Or if those plates even really excisted for real. However...without those records it's kinda pointless to do more work on this and to figure this out some more isn't it? 

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am not sure who you mean by critics or touch(ing), but numerous people have addressed the text in a variety of ways. There are recent works by Dan Vogel, Brian Hauglid, Robert Ritner, Michael Marquardt, David Bokovoy, Christopher Woods, Brent Metcalfe, and Christopher Smith who might fall into the critical category and, if you are a firm believer in the missing scroll theory and hold that the Book of Abraham is an actual translation in the traditional sense, then people like Matt Grey, Terryl Givens, Robin Jensen, Michael MacKay and others at the JSP's might also be critics.

There is a lot of critical textual work.

Except Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham adequately proved the unique details in the content of The Book of Abraham happen to be authentic traditions of Abraham; names, places, cult centers, substitute kings, the woman who discovered Egypt under water. However one figures he gleaned the information, maybe he squeezed lemon juice on the back of it and looked through special spectacles, there is not much argument over the results.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

More work needs to be done??? That's kinda difficult without the golden plates to investigate. And nobody knows where the plates are. Or if those plates even really excisted for real. However...without those records it's kinda pointless to do more work on this and to figure this out some more isn't it? 

This is long after the Golden Plates, Joseph translated The Book of Abraham from roles of Egyptian papyrus and it was put in the Pearl of Great Price. Its where Abraham is depicted as an astronomer and the Lord tells him a lesson using the star "Kolob" and its the primary source for the LDS concept of the pre-mortal life. The papyrus was donated to the Chicago Museum and thought to be destroyed during the Great Chicago Fire. Modernly, a few fragments were discovered, one fraction of one facsimile (the illustrations that were to go with the Book of Abraham), and its papyrus is a match to a fragment of papyrus with the Book of Breathings (an Egyptian funeral text).

So, some assume the Book of Breathings is the source of the Book of Abraham, critics say its mistranslated, believers say it could have been a catalyst for a revelation, or there are still large portions missing (over 75%), maybe the Book of Abraham's true source is still missing/or destroyed.

Joseph had interpreted (not "translated") the imagery of the facsimiles. If the facsimiles (the illustrations) went to the Book of Breathings, such illustrations were also commonly taken by Egyptians from other texts and used as illustrations for their own texts and there could be multiple interpretations of the same illustration depending on the intention of the author.

Here today they are complaining that the damage to the facsimile that were drawn in, then when added to the Book of Abraham were not filled in correctly, therefore there is a suggestion the images perhaps should be removed from the book as non-canon, while the critics overplay their hand, suggesting the entire Book of Abraham be removed (even though there isn't much issue with the content).

Edited July 3, 2023 by Pyreaux

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Except Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham adequately proved the unique details in the content of The Book of Abraham happen to be authentic traditions of Abraham; names, places, cult centers, substitute kings, the woman who discovered Egypt under water. However one figures he gleaned the information, maybe he squeezed lemon juice on the back of it and looked through special spectacles, there is not much argument over the results.

Which details were not known at the time the Book of Abraham was produced?

[Pyreaux]

29 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Which details were not known at the time the Book of Abraham was produced?

The idolatry of Terah, the premortal existence of spirits and other items are seen in the Apocalypse of Abraham, which the first English translation was released in August 1898.

[Tweed1944]

Look at facsimile 3. Note the position of the feet first of Osiris (Abraham)  and "King Pharaoh"   both feet together and compare with Maat (Prince of Pharaoh), Hor (waiter) and Anubis (slave) who have their feet as perhaps moving towards the others. They are bringing Hor before Osiris. Why are they holding the "waiter"  Was there any concept of social distance. ?  

[Tweed1944]

On 7/3/2023 at 7:38 AM, InCognitus said:

I didn't read Skousen as saying that he wanted the facsimiles "dropped from the published editions of the Book of Abraham", but that the published facsimiles from the papyri should be considered "extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book" (https://humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Royal-Skousen-VITA.18-7.pdf, page 39).

Jeff Lindsey talks about that statement on his site here:  https://www.arisefromthedust.com/royal-skousens-interesting-theory-on/

Yes, this issue of BYU Studies is a keeper.  But how does any of this fit into your thread title, "Book of Abraham - still a problem"?  There are many views on how the translation occurred, etc., but this issue of BYU Studies doesn't present the book of Abraham as a "problem" in any way.  In fact, the conclusion portrays the book of Abraham in very positive ways:

"As the preceding has shown, the Book of Abraham is an inexhaustible source of exploration and critical investigation, and the work of scholarly examination into this book shows no signs of slowing. On the contrary, we see multiple welcoming avenues for additional study. The net result of this review, in the meantime, has been the (re)discovery of numerous points of convergence between the Book of Abraham and the ancient world and theological and narrative aspects of the book that invite more sustained investigation." (p. 283)

And:

"We are, of course, well aware of the controversy that still surrounds the Book of Abraham, and we do not presume that this offering has once and for all settled the debate. But what we have seen nevertheless does help us plausibly situate the Book of Abraham in the ancient environment from whence it purports to derive, informs how we might approach the text going forward, and positively affects our evaluation of Joseph Smith’s claims to prophetic inspiration. Just as intellectual honesty demands we acknowledge the remaining gaps in our understanding and the ways in which the Book of Abraham still lacks verification based on available evidence, so too does it demand that this positive evidence not be overlooked, ignored, dismissed out of hand, or downplayed, even if it is inconvenient for certain worldviews and ideological commitments." (p. 283-284)

So why are you trying to spin something good and positive as "still a problem"?

The email I got from Skousen gave me permission to quote his CV comments. There were stronger comments in his  email. 

Givens is public about his views

"Hi 

My views are pretty clearly laid out in my book, The Pearl of Greatest Price.  In brief, leading LDS authorities and scholars all acknowledged as early as 1912 that JSs explanation of the facsimiles was not consistent with Egyptian scholarship. What came to be called the catalyst theory was put forward more than a century ago-- JS produced something that was inspired, but it was likely not a straightforward translation of the papyri he was working with.

 

As for the future of the facsimiles, I cannot see the church moving away from their position, since the facsimiles and their "explanation" are part of canonized scripture.

 

Warm regards

Terryl

 

Well we must just wait for  Stephen  Smoots  presentation. 

[Pyreaux]

24 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

Look at facsimile 3. Note the position of the feet first of Osiris (Abraham)  and "King Pharaoh"   both feet together and compare with Maat (Prince of Pharaoh), Hor (waiter) and Anubis (slave) who have their feet as perhaps moving towards the others. They are bringing Hor before Osiris. Why are they holding the "waiter"  Was there any concept of social distance. ?  

Facsimiles 1 and 3 are ritual scenes, so why should we conclude a scene cannot represent ‘A’ because it represents ‘B’!? Egyptian presentations depended on seeing the greatest possible number of meanings in the briefest possible formulation, where as critics keep insisting on the least possible number of meanings, namely one, to every item. Facsimile 3 the person on the throne is indeed Osiris, and yet he is supposed to be a normal human being. The deceased in Egyptian funerary texts is regularly designated as “the Osiris [insert So-and-So],” and if this constant exchange, mixing, shifting of identification of persons happens on every such written text, why should we expect perfectly logical unilinear consistency in a drawing?

[Tweed1944]

Do you notice in facsimile 2 Smith gave his interpretations to pictures but from figure 8 onward its "cannot be revealed unto the world"  "ought not be revealed  at the present time"  "will be given in the own due time"  He just could not translate writing. Did he still have the seer stone?

The figure in the middle  seems to be falsy restored the figure in the middle seems to always have multiple heads (more than 2)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYqfTAwR2xVx0gKruLt_ylbU9hBz4EZ7pqSh0uUm8lg/edit

 

Is figure 7 a "dove" or "Nehebkau" ? In the sketch you only have the head of the figure visable which Smith must have mistaken for a dove or bird.Imagine if he had an undamaged hypocephalus what would he have made with figures displaying genitals ?

Read Tamas Mekis' paper  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VgOxxk8XnSlK-ZfZ-3B__Xz_CazOQ0O7dOj0O6CI9Ko/edit