“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

drumdude wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:46 pm
Shulem, is there a post somewhere detailing your journey from Book of Abraham apologist to critic? I haven't been following the LDS message boards that go back to the old days circa 2006 so I'm not very in the know on it.

Well, since you ask, I politely refer to my general announcement made exactly 12 years ago that I was quitting the church. I think that was a defining moment for me and things just went from there as I continued my post-Mormon journey through life trying to navigate and figure out what I was going to do. As a side note, the most damaging antiMormon material for me in my quest to defend the Book of Abraham was Charles M. Larson’s (1992) book “By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri”.


I quit the Church!!! (Terrestrial Forum Rated PG)
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Moksha »

Here is some mention of the early Shulem influence on Mormon thinking:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/26 ... ad/page/2/

Evidence that an epiphany happened to Shulem:

https://book-of-abraham-facsimile-no-3.my-free.website/
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Appeal to Authority

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:49 pm
Dr. Robert K. Ritner wrote:
Ph.D. (with honors) in Egyptology from the University of Chicago in 1987

Image

No amount of special pleading can change the female “Isis the great, the god’s mother” (Facsimile 3, Fig. 2) into the male “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his hand,” as even the LDS author Michael D. Rhodes accepts. Here Smith also misunderstands “Pharaoh” as a personal name rather than a title meaning “king,” so he reads “king king” for a goddess’s name that he claims to have understood on the papyrus!


Dr. Ritner provides a point-blank explanation of Smith’s explanation for the so-called king’s name written in the writing above the head in a podcast with John Dehlin and Radio Free Mormon. Professor Ritner makes no qualms in stating that Smith was wrong and the hieroglyphic writing has nothing to do with a king’s name.

Dial in at the 3:09 hour mark
Radio Free Mormon: Dr. Robert K. Ritner on the Book of Abraham part 2

Dr. Robert K. Ritner wrote:What we got there is a text that is completely legible that says “Isis the great, the god’s mother”. That’s reading from top to bottom, it’s immediately in front of her head, between her and Osiris. So, the text goes from top to bottom and it says, “Isis the great, mother of the god”, the god being referred to as mother of the god is a standard title that represents Horus the god who is born when she copulates with Osiris after his death. Now I want to point out that this translation “Isis the great, the mother of the god” is so well recognized that it was also recognized by Klaus Baer, by Hugh Nibley, by John Gee, by Michael D. Rhodes. All of them have recognized that this specific text can be read in Egyptian hieroglyphs by the signs by her head, it can be read and translated as “Isis the great, mother of the god.” I point that out because in Smith’s analysis he specifically refers to this as a translation that he’s getting this interpretation by these signs which means he’s actually now admitting here he is translating the Egyptian and what everyone in modern times has said is that is not true, that he cannot translate, and that in fact it doesn’t say what he’s saying.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Jeff Lindsay

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay wrote: Image

If you're looking for a reason to reject Joseph and the Book of Abraham, this is the perfect place to start. Yes, he failed to render the names Isis and Maat.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Indeed, it’s a “perfect” place to recognize that Joseph Smith could NOT read or translate Egyptian text. I agree with you, Jeff. Joseph Smith “failed to render the names Isis and Maat” for the ancient persons he directly identified in Facsimile No. 3.

Jeff Lindsay wrote: Image

The actual text above the figures says "Isis the great, the god's mother" and "Maat, mistress of the gods." He got the genders wrong. But is that the end of the story? No--see the discussion above about females sometimes representing males.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Jeff, you’re a man. Right? I won’t call you a lady! I promise you that, and I’m a man of my word. Neither will I call Isis a man in Facsimile No. 3, because she’s a lady. But it seems Smith needed eyeglasses because he failed to perceive that the figure was female. All that talk of magic spectacles and looking in holes through seer stones to clarify vision suggests that Joseph had a hard time seeing. He needed glasses because his vision was dim! Smith really thought that Isis was a male Egyptian character! Same goes for Maat. He didn’t know better. It’s reasonable to assume this was his first encounter in viewing Egyptian funerary art and he was clueless of who the persons were and what the hieroglyphics actually said.

Jeff Lindsay wrote: Image

The actual text above the figures says "Isis the great, the god's mother" and "Maat, mistress of the gods." He got the genders wrong. But is that the end of the story? No--see the discussion above about females sometimes representing males. But even if we accept that, Joseph renders the names incorrectly. How do we deal with that?
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Jeff, I know that the Books of Mormon & Abraham are fiction made up by Joseph Smith and that the so-called restoration of the gospel was Smith’s attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant Reformation in order to establish another religion founded on his idea that he’s the new prophet to usher in the coming of Christ.

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are more than just “blunders” but are signposts that register quite clearly that Smith couldn’t read Egyptian. Whether it was Smith’s “human error” or error given him from the Holy Ghost, it *IS* error, period. Joseph Smith was mistaken on all counts in interpreting and translating Facsimile No. 3 and the Spirit that enlightened him was also wrong. I get the sure impression you know mistakes were made.

The translations and interpretations given by Joseph Smith were received by his brethren as being literal representations of what was actually on the papyri: The Books of Abraham & Joseph, literally. The declaration that the rolls were literal records of the patriarchs was exactly what Smith claimed. He claimed nothing less than what the hieroglyphics literally said. There is no “perhaps” about it because Smith claimed to literally translate Egyptian when he interpreted the vignettes.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Jeff Lindsay

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay wrote: Image

Again, it is OBVIOUS that they are women, so what was Joseph thinking? If we step back for a moment and recognize that he wasn't blind, and open ourselves to the possibility of Joseph looking at levels of meaning beyond immediate, literal representation, then we can at least explore the possibility that in some way these female figures are serving as figurative representations of something else. Is it even remotely possible that Isis could represent Pharaoh and Maat a prince?
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Yes, it’s OBVIOUS they are women to us but not necessarily to the virgin eyes of Joseph Smith who seems to have suffered poor vision and needed spectacles and seer stones in order to see clearly. Smith had no inkling whatsoever of what Egyptian funerary art represented and his introduction to funerary art led to explanations that prove he was totally ignorant.

Jeff, I understand you need to explore the possibility that Smith was looking at Isis and Maat in some convoluted way in order to make them be who they really are as we know them to be. Mental gymnastics is a performing art! Have at it. Been there, done that. But in the end, you know better and you can’t lie to yourself. It’s time to let go, Jeff. Just let go.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay wrote: Image

The word "Isis" written above Figure 2's head can, without delicate mental gymnastics, be rather directly linked to Pharaoh--rather precisely as stated by Joseph. Again, not literally--obviously not literally, because she is female, of course--but in a rather direct and simple metaphorical link. Isis = throne = symbol of Pharaoh. Not too tricky.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Jeff,

Allow me to help you better understand and see what Joseph Smith actually said insomuch as he said what he meant and meant what he said. Consider the placement of the facsimiles in the Book of Breathing which is the roll in which the Book of Abraham story is derived via characters used by Smith to decipher hieroglyphics. The vignette of Facsimile No. 1 was taken from the roll in which Smith translated. Dr. Ritner has thoroughly explained that Facsimile No. 1 is typical to the beginning of the Book of Breathing and Facsimile No. 3 is typical to the end or the final scene that takes place when the benefactor enters paradise and receives an eternal reward. Recall that the text in the Book of Abraham refers specifically to the illustration of the altar upon which Abraham was to be sacrificed:

“And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.”

Abraham points out the altar in which he illustrates at the commencement of the record in Facsimile No. 1. Thus, an actual item illustrated in that vignette is literally interpreted in the text as the altar. While writing the story he drew a picture or an illustration of what actually happened in *that* story. Now, imagine if a second definer was placed in the text coupled with its illustration and see how it would match perfectly:

“There was great mourning in Chaldea, and also in the court of Pharaoh; which Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood. Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth” AND THAT YOU MAY HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF THIS KING, I WILL REFER YOU TO THE REPRESENTATION AT THE ENDING OF THIS RECORD (Facsimile No. 3! This is where the name of this king is literally written above his head in hieroglyphs.)

Plug the text into the illustration and a literal interpretation of what the figure is supposed to be is based on the text itself!

1) The “altar” in the text is the same altar being illustrated in the vignette
2) The “king” in the text is the same king being illustrated in the vignette

Fig. 2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Both were literal explanations given by Joseph Smith of what was depicted in the vignettes. Concocting mental gymnastics in order to convert something literal into something symbolic is a futile exercise. You cannot exonerate Joseph Smith’s false interpretations by dismissing what he literally expressed as mere symbolism. That is giving yourself license to say and do anything with Smith’s words. It’s trickery and utter chaos.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Jeff Lindsay

Post by Moksha »

Jeff Lindsay wrote: Is it even remotely possible that Isis could represent Pharaoh and Maat as a prince?
Much easier to consider writing by candlelight at a table and not being able to see the facsimile clearly. Maybe there was a bottle of wine involved to cause a stupor of thought. It's always easier to make stuff up while sitting at the computer.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:07 pm
Jeff Lindsay wrote: Is it even remotely possible that Isis could represent Pharaoh and Maat as a prince?
Much easier to consider writing by candlelight at a table and not being able to see the facsimile clearly. Maybe there was a bottle of wine involved to cause a stupor of thought. It's always easier to make stuff up while sitting at the computer.

Lindsay’s creative mental gymnastics allows him to embrace Smith’s interpretation of the hieroglyphic writing as a king’s name because a THRONE is one of the hieroglyphic characters used to spell the name “Isis” and thus in this respect “King Pharaoh” materialized in that fashion. Problem solved. But this is not right. Smith indicated “CHARACTERS” above the head, not just a lone “character” as Lindsay idolizes. Smith ascribed all of the characters above the head to represent the person below as King Pharaoh and within those characters was also the “NAME” of the king. But Lindsay seems satisfied in thinking that the throne hieroglyph solves everything. But what happens when we try to plug Lindsay’s apologetics into Shulem? This is where Lindsay totally falls apart and he more or less admits it:

Jeff Lindsay wrote: Image

But why did Joseph say Shulem's name is on the Facsimile, when it isn't? I don't know. Perhaps it's a mistake. Perhaps something has been switched or lost that would clarify things. Perhaps Joseph was just dozing here, while still getting inspiration on many aspects of the story.

Could there be some aspect of correctness in what Joseph said about Shulem? Joseph's comment regarding Figure 5 is "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand." What does "represented" mean? Is a symbolic representation of the waiter sufficient, or does it need to literally spell out Shulem? I don't know. I lean toward the possibility that Joseph understood the scene that was meant to be conveyed by the editors of the Book of Abraham with their adaptation of an Egyptian drawing, but that Joseph made a mistake in assuming that Shulem's name was written on the facsimile by his hand. However, if subsequent information reveals that there was another drawing that Joseph's comments better fit, or that Shulem's name is somehow represented in other ways on that drawing or on the orignal drawing that went with the Book of Abraham, then I'll be OK. For now, in light of abundant evidences that Joseph understood some broad and counterintuitive Egyptian concepts associated with the facsimilies, I'm not going to dump the Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith because of an apparent minor error. But if you're looking for a reason to abandon both, this is as good as any--and yet I think you'd be making a mistake far more serious than Joseph's.

Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Wow, just wow. What can I say?

Here we see that Lindsay’s mental gymnastics in trying to find links within the hieroglyphs to justify Smith’s erroneous interpretation is simply too hard to concoct without venturing into what would appear as obvious ridiculous territory and turn the whole thing into a circus act. Even Lindsay has limits and like Dirty Harry said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Philo Sofee »

Your analysis of Lindsay is admirable. He simply has no basis and he knows it, but he is brainwashed into imagining that he just has to save poor dying testimonies or its all his fault. Mormonism is such a sad religion for that reason alone. I LOVE Alan Watts take on it all and go with it... His new book "Just So" is an absolute delight! And it's readable in a single day easy, chock full of ideas and insights that make you smile and say "Yeah!"
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Jeff Lindsay

Post by Moksha »

Jeff Lindsay wrote:I'm not going to dump the Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith because of this gross deception that has been abundantly documented by Shulem and dozens of others an apparent minor error. But if you're looking for a reason to abandon both, this proven deception is as good as any...
Jeff Lindsay failed to mention that you could simply replace the dead horse of the Book of Abraham with a working knowledge of the new movie Dune in order to boost your faith in Joseph's prophecies. Remember what Joseph said about the Gom Jabrar, how Elder Vladimir Harkonnen should receive new Temple building contracts, and how the FAIR Legion of Imperial Sardaukar should debate RFM.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply