Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[Guest]

Here is one of my core problems (in pictures).

Robert you would have me believe that this:
That it possesses the following properties:
1. A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.
2. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham,
3. written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

I'll stick to facsimile one for this round.

Facsimile 1: is supposed to contain the history of this:

1:5-10

Now here are the problems.

For years while the original papyrus were lost Egyptologist said that this:
if ever found would look like (missing the head of Anubis):

Please see “Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile 1,” FAIR Wiki, online at http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_1, and note that it is not "the head of Anubis," but a priest wearing an Anubis mask during various rituals. For example, during the "Opening of the Mouth" ritual, the Anubis priest would use a "knife" (kf, kf-psš).

Why is that? Because of a scads of these:
There are tons of them. They are analogous and all contain scads of similarities.

And sure enough when the original papyrus that Joseph possessed was found it looked like:

Now these original has been analyzed and translated and the following can be said about it:
1. A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.
~OK, with caveats. From Egypt, but nowhere near the time frame of Abraham.

TIme frame? Have you ever heard of transmission of texts, like the Bible, or other ancient literature? The Joseph Smith Papyri are surely of Ptolemaic date, but the very large Jewish community in Egypt at that time (they even had a Jewish temple at Leontopolis) transmitted biblical and other texts which they had received. What about this process of copying and editing do you not understand?

2. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham,
~No way. There is no mention of Abraham nor the narrative quoted above in this papyrus (or in any of the papyrus for that matter).

We do not currently have most of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and we certainly lack the Book of Abraham papyrus (unless it is on the back of the Sensen Papyrus).

3. written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)
~No way. Dates way too recent via various dating methodologies.

That is a non sequitur, and is plainly silly. Why would anyone believe that a statement by Saint Paul at the end of any of his epistles (in papyri, codices, or a modern New Testament) saying that he adds his signature "with mine own hand" (I Cor 16:21) requires his original autograph? Copies presumably carry the same statements as the original, even though they don't actually have the original signature.

Now, which is more likely? That Joseph Smith took this:
And made it look like this:
And then created a story around it involving Abraham, as no one in the US at the time could discredit him.

Or that this:


Is actually one of the many of these:
More like (see much more probable rendition top left):

As you may gather from FAIR Wiki (above), Chuck Larson's blatantly sexual interpretation of Facsimile 1 is ridiculous since we do not have any evidence of a second falcon.

and that this translation:
is actually more correct?
Other problems:
The lion couches were used for the preparation of the dead, not for human sacrifice. The names of the gods are made up (yes I have read your paper on the gods names), they are not the name of Egyptian gods, nor the name of any other deities in the region. The names of the gods represented in the canopic gods are known: "They represent the four sons of the god Horus, who are: (fig. 5) Qebehseneuf — receives the intestines, (fig. 6) Duamutef — receives the stomach, (fig. 7) Hapy — receives the lungs, and (fig. 8) Imsety — receives the liver."

I guess you missed the fact that the human sacrifices take place in Northwest Syria (Abr 1:8 "land of Chaldea"), and that the secular sources recognize Elkenah as a primary Hittite & Semitic god in that very area (indeed the name is part of a formula describing the head of pantheon in the Bible). Moreover, Abr 1:13 says that the altar was in the form of a Chaldean (Aramean) bedstead, so that the Egyptian illustration is merely suggestive.
I cannot believe that you read my paper or checked any of the secular scholarly sources I provided.

You can in no way prove that this:
is actually:
as the image is simply not there, nor any Abraham narrative. While there are tons of these:

You would be well-advised to read more widely and see what the actual LDS arguments might be, rather than assuming that the anti-Mormon tirade is automatically true. It might also help if you would acquaint yourself with actual Egyptology from books and articles published by regular Egyptologists.

[_Tobin]

Thank you Robert. I have read what you posted and find it very interesting.

I still don't buy the premise that the papyri were literally written by Abraham (and Joseph of Egypt). Are you really claiming that they are that ? Or do you agree that they must be copies. However, that presents another problem. I see no reason the Egyptians would preserve the original writings of Abraham (and Joseph) in the copies they made. They would have rather quickly altered and adapted them to fit their own traditions, myths, gods, and so on - much as other cultures adapted their depictions to fit their own cultures.

So while I may embrace the idea that God revealed pieces and parts of the meaning behind the original depictions, which may or may not be reflected in part in the depictions we have. I don't know if I could go along with the claim that Joseph Smith was actually taught Egyptian Hierography. Would you claim he had a comprehensive grasp of the language and representations himself? Or would you agree that Joseph Smith speculated about it, looking to the Lord for an understanding of these pieces of these depictions? I would think the latter is more reasonable and that the Book of Abraham is a revealed text like the Book of Mormon and did not come from a knowledge of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics inorder to accomplish it.

[_Robert F Smith]

Robert,
You ever tried to type a wall of text on a cellphone? Empty claims? I am not the one arguing that some where in the papyrus is a story about Abraham. You are.

Laughed out of court....

Try this one:

b) words nearly identical to the Egyptian in fac 2:9-10 (ApocAbr 12:10), which one
9
Egyptologist has told me privately also parallels the ritual Demotic words in SetneKhamwas I:3:12-13.

Un attributed here say. That is of value.

That Egyptologist hasn't yet published that comment and I am not going to steal his thunder (it is a major breach of scholarly etiquette to do so). However, I gave the citation in SetneKhamwas, and anyone can have a qualified Egyptologist check it (it is in Demotic, which not all Egyptologists can read). There are also plenty of English translations of it available -- including one by Robert Ritner in W. K. Simpson, ed., The Literature of Ancient Egypt (Yale, 2003), 453-469. The formula is quoted on p. 456, and you can decide for yourself whether it is relevant. I suppose that you already checked the Apocalypse of Abraham, which has a number of other striking similarities to the LDS Book of Abraham.

As to the use of Hebrew words:
Wikipedia:

Joseph Smith ostensibly translated the majority of the Book of Abraham text in July and a few days in November 1835 and did some minor revisions in March 1842.[6] By October, he had also begun

By November 1835 Joseph and Co. had:
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte ... N02_43.pdf

When he returned to Kirtland on November 20, he brought home,
Joseph Smith tells in his Journal, "a quantity of Hebrew books, for the benefit
of the school," which included a Hebrew Bible, Lexicon and Grammar
let us notice, a Greek Lexicon

Should I think it strange that he was able to throw in some Hebrew?

Not at all, and you should forthrightly mention his correct Hebrew identifications wherever they occur rather than declaring that they are not Egyptian. Of course, since you are not qualified to pass judgment on either language, it would be best if you ask those who are qualified to comment. They will be happy to explain the meanings to you.

[_Robert F Smith]

Thank you Robert. I have read what you posted and find it very interesting.

I still don't buy the premise that the papyri were literally written by Abraham (and Joseph of Egypt). Are you really claiming that they are that ? Or do you agree that they must be copies. However, that presents another problem. I see no reason the Egyptians would preserve the original writings of Abraham (and Joseph) in the copies they made. They would have rather quickly altered and adapted them to fit their own traditions, myths, gods, and so on - much as other cultures adapted their depictions to fit their own cultures.

Hi Tobin:
Of course they are copies.
As I just explained to SteelHead, "Have you ever heard of transmission of texts, like the Bible, or other ancient literature? The Joseph Smith Papyri are surely of Ptolemaic date, but the very large Jewish community in Egypt at that time (they even had a Jewish temple at Leontopolis) transmitted biblical and other texts which they had received." This went on for thousands of years, and it should not surprise us that Jews in Egypt would do what they have always done, editing and copying their ancient texts. As to the likelihood of assimilation, it is a strong possibility, and we do have quite a few borrowings into Hebrew of Egyptian terms and concepts. Yet, right up to the 20th century, the Jewish community in Egypt remained orthodox and did not actually assimilate. Today virtually all of them are gone from Egypt (most now in Israel or the USA).

So while I may embrace the idea that God revealed pieces and parts of the meaning behind the original depictions, which may or may not be reflected in part in the depictions we have. I don't know if I could go along with the claim that Joseph Smith was actually taught Egyptian Hierography. Would you claim he had a comprehensive grasp of the language and representations himself? Or would you agree that Joseph Smith speculated about it, looking to the Lord for an understanding of these pieces of these depictions? I would think the latter is more reasonable and that the Book of Abraham is a revealed text like the Book of Mormon and did not come from a knowledge of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics inorder to accomplish it.

Of course Joseph did not read Egyptian hieroglyphs, nor any other form of Egyptian.
His "translations" were provided by revelation.
Since we do not have access to the Book of Abraham papyrus, and since the facsimiles are merely late adjuncts to the main text, it is very difficult to say more about the method of "translation" than to quote Richard Bushman when asked by a Protestant theology student (at Claremont) how he received the patriarchal blessings he gave as a stake patriarch: "They just come," replied Professor Bushman. He could not explain the mechanics of it.
It is possible that the Book of Abraham was written on a portion of the Sensen papyrus which we do not now have access to.

[_Tobin]

Thank you Robert. This confirms my own views and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I look forward to any other information you have to post and appreciate the material you have posted so far. It has been very enlightening and I will continue to refer to it and other sources as I look into it further.

[Guest]

Since you are able to receive a copy of my paper from SteelHead, you should be responding specifically to my description of the illustration on p. 20, so that you can explain how you reconcile blatant Semitic use of Egyptian iconography for their own purposes. How is it that Semites/Canaanites have no qualms about such use? A 9th century BC king of Ammon (in Transjordan) likewise wears the Osiris crown. Siimilarly for use by 5th century BC Aramaic-speaking peoples in Egypt drawing a lion-couch scene and placing the dedication on it in Aramaic square letters (=post-Exilic Hebrew letters) and using an Aramaic word for "god."

I am not sure what significance you think you are establishing other then what is not being argued. I have no need to reconcile anything since I am not making any arguments against cross cultural influence or other middle eastern groups living in Egypt. I am waiting for evidence that some semantic person created the papyri in Joseph's possession, or that they wrote down a story of Abraham or Joseph. The evidence still clearly shows a lack of this.

Perhaps you would like to point out examples of my biases.

Just a general impression from your posts. You do have a habit of calling anything critical of LDS truth claims anti-Mormon. I find those who tend to use this term tend to be very biased, and considering the evidence, you have to be in order to do apologetics. I don't care about it, since I am more interested in the evidences.

As to Ritner being anti-Mormon, you ought to take a look at Ritner's very intemperate statements in Larry E. Morris, “The Book of Abraham: Ask the Right Questions and Keep On Looking,” FARMS Review, 16/2 (2004),355-380, online at http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=561.
I have also been present when Professor Ritner was in control of his emotions and made a proper presentation -- at UCLA I attended a lecture by him delivered to the faculty and students in the Dept of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. I even bought a copy of his published dissertation there and had him autograph it.

Not sure why you linked to a Ritner hit piece. It kinds hard to establish one as biased with a hit piece attacking him, not to mention how do we make sure we are taking what he said in context, and what are we excluding. Better to just focus on his arguments and evidence. His translations even from fair and farm shows he is consistent with how others like Rhodes translate the papyri and facsimiles.

See above, and note that the three illustrations (facsimiles) accompanying the Book of Abraham are merely adjuncts to the main text of the book, which is not the Sensen text (Book of Breathings).

Well according to the experts fac 1 and 3 do belong to the book of breathings. We have fac 1 in the papyri and are apart of the BoB. We also see use of the hieroglyphs from the same papyri we find fac 1 in the KEP with passages of the Book of Abraham next to those hieroglyphs. It is unreasonable to not conclude Joseph was claiming the BoB as the source of the Book of Abraham text. It's also interesting that fac 3 has text above each person helping to identify who they are. Everything points in the same direction.

Just who is this "main expert" whom you claim to be "most knowledgeable"?

Ritner, Rhodes, Baer, Gee, etc.

I cited plenty of major Egyptologists, none of whom you can refute.

Not sure what I am suppose to refute since you provide nothing that shows standard Egyptology understandings inaccurate. Perhaps you are making incorrect assumptions about what I am arguing and more importantly what I am not arguing.

Calculating the statistical likelihood of Joseph getting so many correct identifications means that it would be impossible for him to have just made it all up.

Would love to see the math and what he is supposed to have gotten right.

That is why anti-Mormons such as the late Wesley P. Walters and the late D. J. Nelson tried to explain Joseph's correct identifications by appealing to knowledge he could have acquired in books available in the early 19th century (Walters in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 16:39 n. 58, detailing sources theoretically available to Joseph; and 30 n. 2, citing Bales and Jensen; Nelson in J. W. Fitzgerald, H. M. Marquardt, and D. J. Nelson, “Discrimination: Is It of God?” [1976], 92).

Those evil antis. How dare they show that knowledge claimed that Joseph couldn't' have known was available. Lets start shooting arrows and draw circles around where they hit.

Also speaking of Joseph Smith, James H. Breasted said that that “it would have been impossible for any American scholar to know enough about Egyptian inscriptions to read them before the publication of Champollion’s grammar.”

Now sure how this helps Joseph since he got almost everything wrong. Again if someone gets almost everything wrong they get an F.

[_Themis]

It is possible that the Book of Abraham was written on a portion of the Sensen papyrus which we do not now have access to.

It's not reasonable given we have three vintages that are part of funerary rituals for the dead. We even know the dead guy, and all the text we have supports the same thing. No mention of Abraham or Joseph stories. It has always been a very poor theory born of desperation. Perhaps that is why given all the evidence against it, many in the apologetic consider the papyri and facsimiles as having nothing to do with Abraham, and that the papyri acted only as a catalyst. My impression is that this idea is the one growing in the apologetic community of people who cannot go where the evidence leads.

[Guest]

It is possible that the Book of Abraham was written on a portion of the Sensen papyrus which we do not now have access to.

It's not reasonable given we have three vintages that are part of funerary rituals for the dead. We even know the dead guy, and all the text we have supports the same thing. No mention of Abraham or Joseph stories. It has always been a very poor theory born of desperation. Perhaps that is why given all the evidence against it, many in the apologetic consider the papyri and facsimiles as having nothing to do with Abraham, and that the papyri acted only as a catalyst. My impression is that this idea is the one growing in the apologetic community of people who cannot go where the evidence leads.

Well, yes, Themis,
There is a long Egyptian tradition of liturgical & ritual texts found in Pyramids, on Coffins, and later in ordinary burials on papyri. The "Breathing Certificate" (Sensen) is part of that tradition. That Breathing Certificate does contain three vignettes, and perhaps you will be willing to admit that we are in agreement that the Breathing Certificate is not the Book of Abraham Papyrus. I also agree that the anti-Mormons have always adopted the view that the Breathing Certificate is the Book of Abraham, "a very poor theory born of desperation." Moreover, the anti-Mormons have virtually adopted the "catalyst" theory only so that they can denounce it. You say "many." Perhaps you could list those "many" for us. I haven't met anyone who actually accepts the "catalyst" theory.
Since there was enough room on the original Breathing Certificate for the Book of Abraham, some anti-Mormons have in desperation claimed that there was not enough room available.
One "impression" which you get entirely wrong is the notion that the rituals described are "funerary." In fact,, the rituals in the long tradition leading up to documents like the Breathing Certificate were performed by the living in Egyptian temples. Egyptians prepared themselves for resurrection by enacting those rituals and by putting right principles into effect in their lives so that they could pass the final judgment and have eternal life.

[_Robert F Smith]

Since you are able to receive a copy of my paper from SteelHead, you should be responding specifically to my description of the illustration on p. 20, so that you can explain how you reconcile blatant Semitic use of Egyptian iconography for their own purposes. How is it that Semites/Canaanites have no qualms about such use? A 9th century BC king of Ammon (in Transjordan) likewise wears the Osiris crown. Siimilarly for use by 5th century BC Aramaic-speaking peoples in Egypt drawing a lion-couch scene and placing the dedication on it in Aramaic square letters (=post-Exilic Hebrew letters) and using an Aramaic word for "god."

I am not sure what significance you think you are establishing other then what is not being argued. I have no need to reconcile anything since I am not making any arguments against cross cultural influence or other middle eastern groups living in Egypt. I am waiting for evidence that some semantic person created the papyri in Joseph's possession, or that they wrote down a story of Abraham or Joseph. The evidence still clearly shows a lack of this.

I see that you continue to fear actually responding to my paper, if you even bothered to read it . . . You clearly do not know that Jews lived in Egypt for thousands of years, nor that major documents such as the Septuagint (LXX) Greek version of the Bible were created by Jews in Egypt, nor that temples like Solomon's were built in Egypt (more than one), nor that we have a lion couch scene from Egypt which refers to Abraham. Since you do not understand the cross cultural nature of the civilizations we are discussing (or at least I am), you come at the issues not even able to spell "Semitic" correctly (semantic). How can you carry on a meaningful discussion when your instant anti-Mormon instinct tells you to deny anything and everything that a Mormon says -- even if it is true?

Perhaps you would like to point out examples of my biases.

Just a general impression from your posts. You do have a habit of calling anything critical of LDS truth claims anti-Mormon. I find those who tend to use this term tend to be very biased, and considering the evidence, you have to be in order to do apologetics. I don't care about it, since I am more interested in the evidences.

If you are so interested in evidences, why don't you discuss them? I find that anti-Mormons do not discuss, and that (like a lynch mob) they are not interested in evidence.

As to Ritner being anti-Mormon, you ought to take a look at Ritner's very intemperate statements in Larry E. Morris, “The Book of Abraham: Ask the Right Questions and Keep On Looking,” FARMS Review, 16/2 (2004),355-380, online at http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=561.
I have also been present when Professor Ritner was in control of his emotions and made a proper presentation -- at UCLA I attended a lecture by him delivered to the faculty and students in the Dept of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. I even bought a copy of his published dissertation there and had him autograph it.

Not sure why you linked to a Ritner hit piece. It kinds hard to establish one as biased with a hit piece attacking him, not to mention how do we make sure we are taking what he said in context, and what are we excluding. Better to just focus on his arguments and evidence. His translations even from fair and farm shows he is consistent with how others like Rhodes translate the papyri and facsimiles.

So as long as Ritner is doing the "hit piece" that's alright with you
Yes, of course Ritner cribs from LDS translations. I don't mind that, but we ought to comment on it, and we ought to call attention to Ritner's failure to conduct himself like a gentleman (John A. Wilson and Klaus Baer did their work without being nasty and vicious).

See above, and note that the three illustrations (facsimiles) accompanying the Book of Abraham are merely adjuncts to the main text of the book, which is not the Sensen text (Book of Breathings).

Well according to the experts fac 1 and 3 do belong to the book of breathings. We have fac 1 in the papyri and are apart of the BoB. We also see use of the hieroglyphs from the same papyri we find fac 1 in the KEP with passages of the Book of Abraham next to those hieroglyphs. It is unreasonable to not conclude Joseph was claiming the BoB as the source of the Book of Abraham text. It's also interesting that fac 3 has text above each person helping to identify who they are. Everything points in the same direction.

I guess you missed my point which is that the Book of Abraham is not the Breathing Certificate, even though it may be on the same papyrus. You also seem to have missed the point that the facsimiles are merely illustrations employed by late copyists to take the place of some earlier illustrations. Again, you do not seem to understand how gods and persons were cross-identified in the ancient world, probably because you were afraid to read my paper.

Just who is this "main expert" whom you claim to be "most knowledgeable"?

Ritner, Rhodes, Baer, Gee, etc.

Three guys are now the one "main expert"? Changing your story.

I cited plenty of major Egyptologists, none of whom you can refute.

Not sure what I am suppose to refute since you provide nothing that shows standard Egyptology understandings inaccurate. Perhaps you are making incorrect assumptions about what I am arguing and more importantly what I am not arguing.

I cited standard Egyptology showing that the anti-Mormon claims are false. I knew that you would try to weasel out of coming to grips with that fact.

Calculating the statistical likelihood of Joseph getting so many correct identifications means that it would be impossible for him to have just made it all up.

Would love to see the math and what he is supposed to have gotten right.

Do the math yourself, but be fair about it. My paper has plenty of meat in it to use for the basis of your stats.

That is why anti-Mormons such as the late Wesley P. Walters and the late D. J. Nelson tried to explain Joseph's correct identifications by appealing to knowledge he could have acquired in books available in the early 19th century (Walters in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 16:39 n. 58, detailing sources theoretically available to Joseph; and 30 n. 2, citing Bales and Jensen; Nelson in J. W. Fitzgerald, H. M. Marquardt, and D. J. Nelson, “Discrimination: Is It of God?” [1976], 92).

Those evil antis. How dare they show that knowledge claimed that Joseph couldn't' have known was available. Lets start shooting arrows and draw circles around where they hit.

Again, when I show your approach to be false, you change the subject and throw in a non sequitur. Walters and Nelson show that counting and studying correct identifications is important -- because they exist. Walters was a friend of mine, even though he was an anti-Mormon, and he at least made an effort to be honest.

Also speaking of Joseph Smith, James H. Breasted said that that “it would have been impossible for any American scholar to know enough about Egyptian inscriptions to read them before the publication of Champollion’s grammar.”

Now sure how this helps Joseph since he got almost everything wrong. Again if someone gets almost everything wrong they get an F.

Again, the great fear you have of coming to grips with my paper is showing here. Even a first-grader knows that a teacher must grade fairly. You never quite got that message?

[_Tobin]

Robert,

Themis is of the attitude that there is nothing to this but smoke and mirrors. He sees no connection between the ancient Egyptians and ancient Israel and does not believe Joseph Smith, with the help of God, could translate or reveal the original writings of Abraham. This is the common approach of the Mormon critic where they fail to see the relevance and importance of what is being discussed and revealed here.

I very much view the papyri as you do.

First, they were copies - not originals as the critics state Mormons must assume.

Second, how closely these copies reflected the original writings is of little import since we don't now possess the whole papyri. Because God revealed the Book of Abraham and translations, God would have been able to restore the original writings and meanings behind the original depictions Abraham made. I think you have pointed out how good Joseph Smith, with God's help, was able to do this. This is what Themis believes is the catalyst theory because he sees no connection between these copies and the originals instead of realizing they are copies and were susceptible to assimilation by the surrounding culture.

Taken together you have the critics view of the matter. They start by representing that Joseph Smith should have been perfect in his knowledge and understanding of these papyri instead of like most fallible human beings would have to figure it out with God's help. They often repeat non-sense arguments like Joseph Smith said they were literally written by Abraham and Joseph or they post a strawman argument such as Joseph Smith must have been given a comprehensive understanding of Egyptian Hierography inorder to translate and proceed to show that he possessed no such knowledge (even though everyone knows he claimed to translate only by the gift and power of God).

It has been my experience that the critics aren't interested in anything that undermines their operating premise that Joseph Smith was a fraud and couldn't translate anything with the help of God. It is really a failure of their own faith in God and unwillingness to seek the truth and speak with God to get a better understanding of the matter. As a result, they are dismissive of anything that indicates something extraordinary happened here and refuse to educate themselves about the matter.