Royal Skousen and the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

My views are pretty clearly laid out in my book, The Pearl of Greatest Price. 

You make it sound as if you contributed to this book's creation (i.e., your views are expressed in your book). 

[Tweed1944]

That is Terryl Givens speaking

[Ryan Dahle]

22 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

That is Terryl Givens speaking

That makes more sense. Your intro and formatting of the quote made it very difficult to distinguish your words from his. 

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

It seems many are joining the catalyst theory. 

It is notable, though, that the top scholars in the Church with formal training in Egyptology tend not to favor the catalyst theory or feel it is necessary, even though they aren't necessarily against it in principle. 

[Tweed1944]

One Egyptologist who I shared Gee's review of Tamas Mekis' book on the hypocephalus said the journal which was published in Europe should not have accepted it because of his strange religious worldview. " Tell Tamas Mekis to ignore it. " Do a search on Google Scholar and see how much work appears in church publications compared to nonlds academic journals by LDS Gee and Muhlestein. . Doesn't it seem strange to you that if he was translating a "missing scroll" that he could also translate the writing in fac 2 no's 8 onwards " "contains writings... Ought not be revealed .... If the world can find out these numbers .... etc . 

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It is notable, though, that the top scholars in the Church with formal training in Egyptology tend not to favor the catalyst theory or feel it is necessary, even though they aren't necessarily against it in principle. 

I think the same thing can be said about the top scholars in the Church at the JSPP in that they favor the catalyst theory. The catalyst theory is more of a textual/historical question and greatly reduces the need for an Egyptologist. It's no surprise that LDS Egyptologist do not favor it. It kind of eliminates most of their work on the BoA.

[Ryan Dahle]

51 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

One Egyptologist who I shared Gee's review of Tamas Mekis' book on the hypocephalus said the journal which was published in Europe should not have accepted it because of his strange religious worldview. " Tell Tamas Mekis to ignore it. " Do a search on Google Scholar and see how much work appears in church publications compared to nonlds academic journals by LDS Gee and Muhlestein.

A better assessment would be to just look at their comprehensive CVs. Of the 148 publications listed in Gee's compiled curriculum vitae from 2019, I counted 70 that were from non-Latter-day Saint publishing outlets. So just under half. Are you somehow implying that he isn't a legitimate Egyptologist, based on his resume? 

57 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

Doesn't it seem strange to you that if he was translating a "missing scroll" that he could also translate the writing in fac 2 no's 8 onwards " "contains writings... Ought not be revealed .... If the world can find out these numbers .... etc . 

The "missing scroll" theory posits that Joseph had a scroll in his possession from which at least some, much, or all of the BofA text was derived. Even if the theory is correct, whether or not Joseph's translation filled in missing lacunae in the papyri fragments can't be known. Thus we can't compare Joseph's approach to possible lacunae in the text with lacunae in the facsimiles.

Even if we could, I'm not sure that anyone would be in a position to determine whether lacunae should or shouldn't be filled in by revelation in any given context. In other words, you first would need to set forward a theory as to why any lacunae in any given context should be expected to be filled in by revelation. As for me, it doesn't seem strange at all that Joseph or God would not think it is necessary to fill in these particular missing portions. And I'm perfectly okay with the theory that Joseph simply used filler text from the extant JSP fragments, probably for aesthetic reasons. 

Interestingly, Joseph's treatment of these characters (opting not to give them explanations) poses somewhat of an obstacle to those who think that Joseph believed his BofA text was translated from the characters adjacent to facsimile 1 (which is one of the major contested issues in the larger debate). See:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads


 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

One Egyptologist who I shared Gee's review of Tamas Mekis' book

While I don’t think it would be civil to drag people into conversations they didn’t join themselves unless they have made public statements that were intended to be shared (such as books and articles and presentations) or have consented to be quoted/paraphrases and namedropped, you saying this and that unidentified expert says this and that gives me no confidence at all in what you are saying. I don’t know you and don’t know how good you are at evaluating sources and with no name attached to your comments, I can’t check to see if your version is accurate, a creation of a fevered brain, or mostly okay with a few misunderstood details or something else.

I would feel the same way about an apologist who is attempting to defend the Book of Abraham by appealing to nameless authorities. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Calm

[Tweed1944]

Why did  the "characters in the BOB adjacent to facsimile 1 " appear in the column of the manuscripts of the Book of Abraham. They even created some characters to fill in the V gap.

So he attempts to interpret figure 3 in facsimile 2 (made to represent God)  something he took from another piece of papyri (check bottom right, the figure in the boat).

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

As is indicated check the holding on the British Museum, top right hand corner. The scarab appears in all.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA35875

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

Check out the "dove" which in the sketch does not show what it really is. The sketch just shows the head which one could mistake for a bird/dove.

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

"The next figure is Nehebkau who offers the wedjat-eye to the sitting deity before him.81 Among some
interpretations in the ba-theology he represents the morning sun assimilated to Khepri, rising from the
underworld. This kind of association is understandable as it represents the tenth ba of Amun, the last ba,
which unifies the chthonic creatures, the snakes, insects and other crawling animals. Nehebkau in this
form appears on the walls of the crypt of the edifice of Taharqa in Karnak. During the ritual of the decade
festival in the crypt of the edifice, Amun unites with his ten bas, among them that last ba is represented by
Nehebkau. With this finishing act of the ritual, Amun is awakened, is reborn, comes up from the shade of
the underworld-crypt, and by coming up to the cult statue at the surface, the sun also comes symbolically
out to light.82 In the funerary context of this scene on Register III, the god and the offering of the wedjat-eye
represents that power which is necessary for the rebirth of the deceased. Myśliwiec in his writings about
Atum also raises an interesting idea in relation to the interpretation of Nehebkau. In his opinion that is
supported by textual evidence, Nehabkau is identified with the Atum-serpent. On P. Brooklyn 47.218.156
Nehebkau appears as an offerer of the young sun-god enclosed within a disk having the pantheistic deity
legend . In this aspect the serpent also unifies the three aspects of the sun-god - Khepri, Ra and
Atum.83 On certain hypocephali Nehebkau is represented as a falcon-headed-snake offering the wedjat-eye.
We can now explain more easily the unity of the forms that perfectly fit in the concept of the register.

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

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Tweed1944
update

[Tweed1944]

I repeat a comment made to me from a BYU scholar in Biblical studies "

"Abraham is a can of worms, and it gets people all worked up in ways that I find nauseating. To stay safe, I would say that the Book of Abraham is a revelation and not a history book."

 

Stay safe with revelation not translation.

[Calm]

Quote

Abraham is a can of worms, and it gets people all worked up…

So worked up perhaps they have to post multiple comments from unidentified scholars as backing for their own position?

[Tweed1944]

Maybe he likes being employed.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Maybe he likes being employed.

I am not criticizing (more like teasing actually in my mind, but I suspect it looks like full on criticism to you, I just think such anonymous authorities are rather funny) him since he is not posting on this message board. Unless it’s you pretending to be someone else so you can distance yourself from your own criticism. 
 

Though his use of “nauseating” if accurate is overly dramatic Imo. 
 

An anonymous poster quoting /paraphrasing anonymous scholars.  Would you find any value in these alleged opinions if it was someone else posting such?

Edited August 17, 2023 by Calm

[Ryan Dahle]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I think the same thing can be said about the top scholars in the Church at the JSPP in that they favor the catalyst theory. The catalyst theory is more of a textual/historical question and greatly reduces the need for an Egyptologist. 

I don't think that is really true. In a number ways, Egyptological expertise plays into the complex assessment of determining the source of the Book of Abraham. In my experience, the Egyptologists in the Church are generally better equipped to assess the situation because they are very familiar with both the historical data AND the Egyptological material. For instance, whether or not the characters adjacent to Vignette #1 should be viewed as necessarily connected with the vignette is an Egyptological question. The typical length of scrolls and what types of texts might be found on what types of scrolls is also an Egyptological question (and no, the length of the Horus scroll and other scrolls is not yet settled, imo). The identification of the characters in the KEP and how they relate to the characters in the extant fragments is also at least partially an Egyptological question (as it deals with the identification of the characters). And so on. 

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

It's no surprise that LDS Egyptologist do not favor it. It kind of eliminates most of their work on the BoA.

This also doesn't seem to be true. The catalyst theory doesn't necessitate that the text of the BofA is not authentic or ancient, nor would it even necessarily mean that the text isn't associated with Ptolemaic-era documents. Nor would it necessarily invalidate the explanations of the facsimiles. I personally don't prefer the catalyst theory, but even if it were true it hardly "eliminates" most of the work of Egyptologists. The fact is that there are many aspects of the explanations of the facsimiles that have ancient Egyptian correspondences or which fit ANE worldviews. And the same thing is true with the text itself. Until someone can actually demonstrate the true source of the text(s)/revelation(s) (under the catalyst theory), and how this information was conveyed to Joseph Smith, and its possible redactions over time, and all of its potential ancient contexts, then all of those discoveries by Latter-day Saint Egyptologists would still be on the table and potentially relevant, until disproven. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Ryan Dahle

[Tweed1944]

Israel Finkelstein has a chapter in his book The Bible Unearthed questioning the historicity of Abraham.  He points out a number of anachronisms.

[Benjamin McGuire]

15 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

I understand Skousen's view of the facsimiles. 

I don't think that you do - you certainly don't seem to present it here.

Skousen believes (and shares this belief with the collection of ideas generally labeled the catalyst theory) that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham text by revelation. However, Skousen believes that there are parts of the Book of Abraham that were not received by revelation - that were additions to the text put in the text by Joseph Smith. You quoted this -

Quote

The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) 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.

Skousen's observation is that there are things in the text which are consistent with a modern editorial layer. I wrote about my similar observations of this point more than twenty years ago on the ZLMB message boards (for those who remember that site). Here are the parts that Skousen believes are an insertion into the revealed text by Joseph Smith:

Quote

... and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record. ... That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.

Skousen claims that this text is not revealed. While my observations were based entirely on the language of the text, Skousen's observations include manuscript evidence pointing to this text as a later insertion into the text of the Book of Abraham. Skousen's conclusion was that Joseph Smith made the assumption that his revelation was coming from a specific piece of papyrus (perhaps because of the nature of the fragmentary image) and so Joseph Smith then, in a non-revelatory action, reinterpreted the image to match his revealed text, and indicated this within the text at the appropriate place. What this means is that while Joseph Smith may have believed that he was restoring facsimile 1 to something like its original state (by filling in the picture to match the story), he was simply repurposing the picture (he wasn't actually restoring it to some original state).

I generally agree with Skousen. I think that it is wrong to describe what Joseph Smith was doing as a restoration of the facsimiles. He was creating something new through appropriation.

Finally, in facsimile 2, we know that some of the 'restorations' weren't really restorations at all, and couldn't be considered restorations in any real sense (nor do I think that Joseph Smith viewed what was being done here as a 'restoration'). Joseph Smith (or one of the individuals working with him) took text and added it to the facsimile from another extant facsimile. We have the original of the material that is used to fill in the empty spaces, from a completely different text. This has the effect of making it look authentic in some ways to a non-specialist, but it isn't an attempt to restore it to some original form.

[Tweed1944]

"repurposing"  the latest buzzword for LDS apologists.  What do you think Smith would have  done with the "Holy Ghost" if it had looked like  Nehebkau.  Smith did not have a clue what he was doing.  

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1It7wOu1Hog3SADHI8F4RPQSH2HElCUrHpCmsIL08ktw/edit

Smith was a "pious fraud"

Edited August 17, 2023 by Tweed1944

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

"repurposing"  the latest buzzword for LDS apologists.

It isn't really a buzzword. That's simply an effort to dismiss the idea without actually addressing it. We can use the word 'appropriate' if you want. Religious groups appropriate material all the time. The Book of Mormon appropriates Old Testament material (and does so while deliberately telling us that it is removing it from its original context and giving it a new context). So let's use the word appropriate then. It fills the same purpose here. And my position remains the same without the buzzword.

[Tweed1944]

Snoopy's  thoughts

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cdOwgBJaECGEzol2pwYiAGoxgAFNBoVD-8ke5C5URF0/edit

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

Snoopy's  thoughts

Take your own advice.

[Tweed1944]

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/printing-plate-for-facsimile-3-circa-16-may-1842/1

Chisel marks in from of the "slave"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o1yLhj419YgEUkbC-8947kO4iLBrs97ANJmH_QEeWJI/edit?usp=sharing

notice the movement of the three figures Maat, Hor and Anubis moving towards Osiris

Edited August 17, 2023 by Tweed1944

[Ryan Dahle]

8 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Israel Finkelstein has a chapter in his book The Bible Unearthed questioning the historicity of Abraham.  He points out a number of anachronisms.

Is it allowed for members of the board to just randomly spew out claims like this, without any real dialogue? Whoever Tweed1944 is, it is clear that he/she is just using the board as a propaganda outlet. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Is it allowed for members of the board to just randomly spew out claims like this, without any real dialogue? Whoever Tweed1944 is, it is clear that he/she is just using the board as a propaganda outlet. 

This poster is a regular (I believe) on another forum ...

This just needs a little context. This isn't about the Book of Abraham, but about the person Abraham. The Finkelstein (and Neil Silberman) book, The Bible Unearthed, (which I own) has a section has a section titled "The Failed Search for the Historical Abraham". There is a discussion there about anachronisms. I think, thought, that @Tweed1944's comments aren't really helpful in understanding what is meant by those anachronisms. The anachronisms point to the fact that the narratives about Abraham were written at a fairly late date. As the authors put it:

Quote

These and other anachronisms suggest an intensive period of writing the patriarchal narratives in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE.

I suspect that the point of this (which isn't mentioned by Tweed) is the suggestion that this makes it more difficult to accept the idea of a fully formed Abraham narrative written by Abraham himself. Of course, I don't really hold this view myself (that the text was written by Abraham). I would suggest (along with others) that the Book of Abraham is at best a composite work, making it pseudepigraphical. In the same sense, so are the five books of Moses - most of which simply cannot have been written by Moses ... for what its worth.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This poster is a regular (I believe) on another forum ...

This just needs a little context. This isn't about the Book of Abraham, but about the person Abraham. The Finkelstein (and Neil Silberman) book, The Bible Unearthed, (which I own) has a section has a section titled "The Failed Search for the Historical Abraham". There is a discussion there about anachronisms. I think, thought, that @Tweed1944's comments aren't really helpful in understanding what is meant by those anachronisms. The anachronisms point to the fact that the narratives about Abraham were written at a fairly late date. As the authors put it:

I suspect that the point of this (which isn't mentioned by Tweed) is the suggestion that this makes it more difficult to accept the idea of a fully formed Abraham narrative written by Abraham himself. Of course, I don't really hold this view myself (that the text was written by Abraham). I would suggest (along with others) that the Book of Abraham is at best a composite work, making it pseudepigraphical. In the same sense, so are the five books of Moses - most of which simply cannot have been written by Moses ... for what its worth.

Ben, I greatly appreciate the time you are taking with putting Tweed’s posts in context

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Skousen claims that this text is not revealed. While my observations were based entirely on the language of the text, Skousen's observations include manuscript evidence pointing to this text as a later insertion into the text of the Book of Abraham. Skousen's conclusion was that Joseph Smith made the assumption that his revelation was coming from a specific piece of papyrus (perhaps because of the nature of the fragmentary image) and so Joseph Smith then, in a non-revelatory action, reinterpreted the image to match his revealed text, and indicated this within the text at the appropriate place. What this means is that while Joseph Smith may have believed that he was restoring facsimile 1 to something like its original state (by filling in the picture to match the story), he was simply repurposing the picture (he wasn't actually restoring it to some original state).

I generally agree with Skousen. I think that it is wrong to describe what Joseph Smith was doing as a restoration of the facsimiles. He was creating something new through appropriation.

The problem is that even if the editorial comment in the text was from Joseph, it doesn't necessarily follow that the relationship between text and the facsimiles wasn't ever intended or perceived by any ancient authors. A big part of the analysis depends on what people think about the explanations in the facsimiles. Do they look like Joseph was simply trying to match up images with the text, merely inferring a relationship? Or are there aspects of the explanations that seem (1) authentically ancient, (2) unlikely for Joseph Smith to think up on his own, and (3) non-inferable from the text itself. If the latter is the case, then it is possible that instead of reflecting Joseph's own inference, the editorial insertion into the text (pointing to its relationship to Facsimile 1) represents an ancient (and not merely modern) perceptual link between the text and images. Ancient cultures were reappropriating iconography long before Joseph Smith came on the scene. That is so well attested that it hardly needs mentioning. 

The issue might further be complicated by the possibility of the text itself and the facsimile interpretations having some content that is ancient and other content that has been repurposed for modern audiences. I think the text of the Book of Mormon is also like this, as it appears to be a dynamic translation, ranging from literal, to functional equivalent, to expansion in some areas. In fact, I suspect that pretty much all of Joseph's translations were like this. If this possibility is correct, it means that one can't simply identify elements that seem to be modern or Joseph's (like his use of Hebrew terms in the Sephardic tradition) and see that as dispositive evidence for a strictly modern repurposing (when it comes to either the text itself or the facsimile interpretations). Another analog would be the temple endowment. It would be fallacious to assume that just because there are aspects of the temple endowment borrowed from freemasonry that the whole thing is Joseph just cribbing off his 19th century environment, or merely creating something new through inspiration. 

As for me, I think there are enough seemingly ancient details in the facsimile explanations meeting the three criteria stated earlier that I don't think these are merely Joseph's "new" creations (even though some aspects of the explanations certainly could be and probably are adaptations for modern audiences or somewhat filtered through Joseph's own understanding of ancient languages, etc.). 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Ryan Dahle