“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 »

Moksha wrote:
Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:07 am
What if Professors Gee and Muhlestein were able to get members of some Rabbinical college to claim ownership of these Egyptian papyri?

Well, if that be the case, my little black and white friend, then it would be the result of a group of apostate Jews embracing the idolatrous religion of ancient Egypt. In reality, Joseph Smith did just that and didn’t realize that scholars would one day be able to truly decipher hieroglyphs and be able to connect the writing with the pictures. You see, Smith did not know the writing consisted of pagan adoration for the idolatrous images that were represented in the scene! He failed to connect the dots that the language would one day be restored but not through him! It’s remarkable that he went out on such a limb and was willing to gamble his entire reputation in thinking that scholars would never be able to restore the language of ancient “hieroglyphics; the knowledge of which was lost to the world”.

Smith gambled and lost.


Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Terryl Givens and John Gee

Post by Shulem »

Here is a little follow-up on the some of the material presented in the Backyard Professor’s podcast mentioned in my previous post. I’d like to actually take the time to cite some of the quotations Kerry addressed in that video in which he made some excellent comments. I’ll add a little of my own comments for good measure.

Terryl Givens; The Pearl of Greatest Price, Mormonism's Most Controversial Scripture, p. 153 wrote:Facsimile 3 presents perhaps the greatest challenges to Smith’s defenders, since in this instance he translates actual Egyptian characters, not scenes or symbols. For instance, he interprets Figure 2 as “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above the head”; Figure 4 means “Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above his hand”; and Figure 5 means “Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.” However, both Rhodes and Ritner translate those same characters as “Isis the great, the god’s mother,” “Maat, mistress of the gods,” and “The Osiris Hor . . . justified forever.” If Smith was indeed in some oracular manner deciphering elements originating with Abraham in the papyri he possessed, the consensus is that his powers apparently failed him when it came to the actual translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics – at least in this case. No LDS Egyptologist disputes the standard translations of those particular symbols, and they are quite unlike Smith’s rendering. The majority of scholarly opinion, in sum, is dismissive of Smith as an “explainer” of the three facsimiles. Regarding his efforts as a translator of particular glyphs, the consensus finds even few dissenters from the nearly universal rejection. In sum, little has changed from the early twentieth-century assessment presented earlier.

I get the impression that Terryl Givens is stumped with what to do about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 and he knows it!

But, what about Egyptologist John Gee? When will he admit that he’s stumped? What has he said on this very subject?

John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid; Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, 2005, p. 95,96 wrote:Facsimile 3 has always been the most neglected of the three facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. Unfortunately, most of what has been said about this facsimile is seriously wanting at best and highly erroneous at worst. This lamentable state of affairs exists because the basic Egyptological work on Facsimile 3 has not been done, and much of the evidence lies in neglected and unpublished in museums. Furthermore, what an ancient Egyptian understood by a vignette and what a modern Egyptologist understands by the same vignette are by no means the same thing. Until we understand what the Egyptians understood by this scene, we have no hope of telling whether what Joseph Smith said about them matches what the Egyptians thought about them. I have no intentions of explaining Facsimile 3 or providing parallels at this time. I rather desire to debunk a few persistent myths circulating about Facsimile 3.

That has to be the most astounding thing I have ever read from an Egyptologist commenting on a ancient Egyptian funerary vignette. I am simply at a loss for words. I can’t begin to fathom any of Gee’s professional colleagues (who are not members of the Church) agreeing with him on the salient points he made in that statement. On a professional front his statement is grounds for dismissal and termination. With that said, it’s obvious that the book WAS NOT PROFESSIONALLY PEERED REVIEWED! The overall assessment of Facsimile No. 3 is unprofessional Mormon apologetics at work. I think it’s important to note that Gee’s coauthor (Brian M. Hauglid) has abandoned this apologetic approach and Gee now stands alone without his coauthor or support from professional peers outside the Church.

Professor Gee, what’s the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3?

How do you spell, “Shulem”. Can you point to those hieroglyphs in the label above Hor’s hand, please?
Last edited by Shulem on Sun Jul 17, 2022 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Dr. Gee's response

Post by Shulem »

Dear Dr. Gee,

Let’s play the what if game, just for fun. I think this is a valuable exercise to explore parts of our brain that may be stuck and unable to properly process information using the tools of basic logic at our disposal. So, let’s play a little game and see how it goes. Shall we?

Pretend and assume that Michael Chandler never road into Kirtland and that Joseph Smith and the Mormons never acquired the Egyptian artifacts. Imagine that Smith never published his Book of Abraham! There is no such thing as a Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language! The Pearl of Great Price canonized in 1880 is based on Smith’s revelations of the Bible and the Book of Moses.

Do you get where I’m going with all this, John?

Now, let’s suppose that Michael Chandler’s traveling exhibit found its way into Michigan and stumbled across a newly established religious sect headed by a self-proclaimed prophet, seer, and revelator who was the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite). Suppose that Chandler sold his mummies and papyri to President James Strange who afterward published his translations of the papyrus along with translations given by divine revelation.

Dr. Gee, please use your skills as an Egyptologist and examine a print of the papyrus vignette with its accompanying translation and confirm whether it is correct.

Thank you,

Shulem


President James Strange of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) wrote:
Image

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Image

Dr. John Gee wrote:
Image

I can attest that the above interpretation and translation given by James Strange is:

[ ] True
[ ] False
[ ] I’ll check with my colleagues because we don’t know enough about this.
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 »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:23 pm
Moksha wrote:
Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:07 am
What if Professors Gee and Muhlestein were able to get members of some Rabbinical college to claim ownership of these Egyptian papyri?

Well, if that be the case, my little black and white friend, then it would be the result of a group of apostate Jews embracing the idolatrous religion of ancient Egypt. In reality, Joseph Smith did just that and didn’t realize that scholars would one day be able to truly decipher hieroglyphs and be able to connect the writing with the pictures. You see, Smith did not know the writing consisted of pagan adoration for the idolatrous images that were represented in the scene! He failed to connect the dots that the language would one day be restored but not through him! It’s remarkable that he went out on such a limb and was willing to gamble his entire reputation in thinking that scholars would never be able to restore the language of ancient “hieroglyphics; the knowledge of which was lost to the world”.

Smith gambled and lost.
So at some future point, people who have been given the full-court press by LDS missionaries will do their own investigating and run across your numerous articles here at Discuss Mormonism to get the full story of how this all came about.
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

The Missing Name אברם

Post by Shulem »

Readers who are following this thread and paying close attention to the points I’ve been making will note that there are two specific ingredients missing from the characters above the head of Fig. 2 which totally invalidate Joseph Smith’s translation.

1) No king’s name
2) No royal Cartouche

Now, in this same vein I want to call attention to the lack of support for Smith’s claims carry over to Fig. 1 which is suppose to be ABRAM sitting upon the king’s throne. Note that I refer to the name “ABRAM” rather than “ABRAHAM” because when Abram went to Egypt his name was Abram. He hadn’t received the fuller name of “Abraham” = “a father of many nations” until he was 99 years old just prior to the birth of Isaac. So, “while he was in Egypt” he would have been called “Abram” and a signature bearing his name would bear the name “Abram” not Abraham. Thus, when Smith pointed his finger at a particular character and said “that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham”, he should have said ABRAM because the name Abraham couldn’t have existed on the scroll because God hadn’t yet given him the new name. Smith’s inspiration in saying the name Abraham as it relates to the characters or signature on the papyrus was a fatal flaw. An all knowing God through the Spirit would have whispered the name ABRAM and under those circumstances that is the name Smith would have rightly conveyed. But Smith’s inspiration was fatally flawed.

So, where is the signature of “Abram” in the hieroglyphic registers or labels above Fig. 1? Let’s take a moment to glance over at the other explanations in order to help us better understand the pattern Joseph Smith was weaving with his translations:

1) The hieroglyphic writing above Fig. 4 should contain the name of the “Prince”
2) The characters above Fig. 5 should spell the name “Shulem”
3) We may assume that the name “Olimlah” is found in the writing above Fig. 6

Do you see a pattern?

But in spite of all this there is something very important missing above Fig. 1 and it’s absolutely key in proving that Smith’s translations of the labels do not match his explanations in the least degree. The name “Abram” is missing. It’s not contained in the text or found anywhere on the extant fragments that are part of the original roll. In fact, it should be pointed out that there is not a single Hebrew character anywhere on the papyrus. Had the record truly been an Abrahamic document detailing the life and times of Abram there would have been a Hebrew inscription of some form on that roll.

אברם
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 »

I’m just going to come right out and flatly say that had any other religious organization whether Christian or otherwise, produced the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 as a revelation in demonstrating a restoration of Egyptian text and iconography, there is no doubt in my mind that John Gee would categorically deny those claims and demonstrate by legitimate Egyptology that those translations are false.

I believe Muhlestein would do the same.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

What Smith got right

Post by Shulem »

Permit me to shift gears for a moment and mention the elements of the vignette that Joseph Smith got right. There are some aspects expressed within the context of the whole scene that Smith correctly identified and I want to credit him for that. That would be fair.

1) “throne”; Yes, this is a throne.
2) “crown upon his head”; Yes, this is an Egyptian crown worn by persons of sovereignty.
3) “scepter of justice and judgment in his hand”; Careful examination of Osiris in profile will show that he is holding both the crook (heka) and flail (nekhakha). Smith acknowledged this in the singular (“scepter”) but there are in fact two scepters (plural) in his hands.

That’s it. Those are the only things Smith got right in his Explanations. Although there are stars in the upper frieze that designate the starry skies, they are not given to represent a conversation or reasoning upon the principle of astronomy as Smith so indicates, therefore I cannot credit him for designating those stars with astronomy. Smith got his idea or information of Abraham reasoning with astronomy from Josephus (1:8).
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The Missing Name אברם

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:59 am
But in spite of all this there is something very important missing above Fig. 1 and it’s absolutely key in proving that Smith’s translations of the labels do not match his explanations in the least degree. The name “Abram” is missing. It’s not contained in the text or found anywhere on the extant fragments that are part of the original roll. In fact, it should be pointed out that there is not a single Hebrew character anywhere on the papyrus. Had the record truly been an Abrahamic document detailing the life and times of Abram there would have been a Hebrew inscription of some form on that roll.

אברם

Which brings us to the Missing Roll theory which has been something professor Gee has used as a major defense in defending the Book of Abraham translation. He claims that the actual papyrus in which Smith translated was lost and the extant fragments that have survived are remnants from the entire collection but are not key to translation. The Church essay also makes this point.

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham wrote:It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

The assertion or claim that the papyrus used by Smith to translate the Book of Abraham has been thoroughly disproved by the evidence at hand. But this thread is not about that! We are addressing strictly the Facsimile No. 3, moreover, Smith’s explanation for Fig. 2., which is something John Gee has not been able to justify or explain in a manner his professional peers will accept. Professor Gee can’t apply the something “missing” theory on the vignette of Facsimile No. 3 because we have the entire vignette intact via the Facsimile reproduction itself. Although the hieroglyphic characters are in poor form and poorly copied by Reuben Hedlock into the wood-cut (lead plate) for printing, it remains a fact that Egyptologists are able to read the characters above the head of Isis. There are no missing characters! We can see exactly what Smith was looking at when he tendered his interpretation of the characters. We conclude that Joseph Smith could not read Egyptian and could not translate Egyptian, period. There are no ands, ifs, or buts about it.

Where is the king’s name?

Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

It’s true

Post by Shulem »

Truth is truth.

Who will argue that what is true is not true? It’s either true or it is not. What’s more, truth is a knowledge of that truth. The truth has always been true from the very moment it was true and will ever remain true, forever. It is impossible for truth to be untrue. Truth is what is.

And so, let us examine Facsimile No. 3, Fig. 2., in the light of truth. Truth is a knowledge of who that person is and that person is Queen Isis. It always has been and always will be, forever and ever. Truth is knowing that the inscription above her head glorifies her name and title. That is the truth. That is reality. It is an absolute point of understanding in knowing that Queen Isis is the figure represented as Fig. 2., and we know that her name is inscribed above her head as a witness and a testimony to that truth.

Every Egyptian king who ever lived would certify that Fig. 2., is truly Queen Isis. There would be no dissent or misunderstanding. The testimony of every king of Egypt who ever lived would stand universal as one great whole in bearing witness that this person is the Queen of Heaven, Isis herself.

To every truth there is an opposite or in other words things that are not true. It’s either true or it is not. It either is or it isn’t. What is, is, or what isn’t, isn’t. That is how we may examine Facsimile No. 3, Fig. 2., and know for ourselves what is true and in doing we know she is Queen Isis. Nobody can tell us otherwise. Nobody can tell us she isn’t who we know her to be. Nobody can convince us to lie to ourselves and disavow the truth. We know better. We have been shown the truth and we cannot deny it. We know that the only truth is that she is Isis and always will be. Anything other than that is a lie.

Amen.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

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

Post by drumdude »

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.
Post Reply