“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

Conflict of Justice apologist responds to my objections

Post by Shulem »

Apologist Teancum wrote:Fallacy of reverse premise. Just because royal names are included in a cartouche does not mean it CAN’T be without a cartouche. Especially considering Egyptian spanned many thousands of years and underwent many changes.

But regardless, the Royal Horus name wasn’t in a cartouche. A good researcher doesn’t jump to conclusions.

My response to Teancum on his website:

Royal Egyptian funerary scenes of dynastic Egypt in Abraham’s time and thereafter must include a king’s name contained in the sacred Cartouche. A king of Egypt portrayed in a vignette is accompanied with the king’s name in order to legitimize eternal life and the authority associated with being a king of Egypt. The name therein is required according to royal conventions and the Egyptian religion. The idea of portraying a king outside the standards of Egyptian conventions is inappropriate at best and sacrilegious at worst. It simply was not done. Facsimile No. 3 does not bear the image of an Egyptian king of any dynasty and the funerary spell therein is not a pharaonic earthly scene — hence there is no mortal king portrayed therein. All official representations of an Egyptian king must contain the royal label which means the name must be encircled by the Cartouche. That’s rule #1 when it comes to royal Egyptian art.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Eccentric apologist Ed Goble

Post by Shulem »

Two years ago, I received an email reply from apologist Ed Goble that offered his version of the king’s name for Facsimile No. 3. Goble is an eccentric apologist and operates as a lone wolf in defending the Book of Abraham using his brand of apologetics. As far as I can tell he has little following and his work and theories have been rejected by fellow apologists, more especially from BYU scholars. Here is Goble’s reply which he believes answers the question and solves the problem.

Ed Goble; September 2019 wrote:Now for the name of the Pharoah (above the image of Isis, who is Pharaoh) in Facsimile #3. Here are the precedents. In the Hor papyrus text, the name for, and Hor, the owner of the papyrus, Taykeybit, Usiwer, his mother and his father, the names, which are known names of people in this very papyrus are NOT given in cartouches either. Hor are the consonants HR from the Name Hor or Horos, named after the God Horus, but he is the owner of the Papyrus. Taykebit means Dancer, yet it is a name. but not in a cartouche. Usiwer/Wsrwr is "Osiris the Great", notwithstanding it is the name of the father of Hor, the owner of the papyrus. The precedent of the name Katumin in the Book of the Dead papyrus is similar, which is given as the consonants, alternately as Ktmyn or Ktmdwyn or Yrtmyn. The name of the Pharaoh, as given both by Rhodes and by Ritner, notwithstanding it translates to "Great Isis, mother of the God", (just like how Wsrwr translates as "Osiris the great" is still a name too), breaking out in consonants is Ist-with regard to-Mwt-Ntr. Therefore, the name of Pharaoh from the book of Abraham is Astoret-Motneter. This is no different than Maher-shalal-hashbaz from Isaiah chapter 8. Where is the mystery here? Feel free to share this information with anybody on Mormon Discussions. I have kept my side of the bargain.

According to biblical chronology, Abraham was born about 2,000 years BC. According to the Book of Abraham he was 62 when he set out from Haran but the Bible says he was 75. After living in Haran for 10 years, Abram, Sarah, and Lot, left Canaan because of famine and went to Egypt at about 1873 BC.

This adventure into Egypt would have occurred during the 12 Dynasty ruled by powerful iconic kings in Egyptian history:

1991–1962 BC. Sehotep-ib-re (Amenemhat I)
1971–1926 BC. Kheper-ka-re (Senusret I)
1929–1895 BC. Neb-kau-re (Amenemhat II)
1897–1878 BC. Kha-kheper-re (Senusret II)
1878–1860 BC. Kha-kau-re (Senusret III)
1860–1815 BC. Nemaat-re (Amenemhat III)

Ed Goble’s proposal of introducing the name Astoret-Motneter into the 12th Dynasty is impossible because we know every king who reigned as inscribed on various king’s lists and there is no “Astoret-Motneter”. Given what we know about the 12th Dynasty kings and their disgust towards the vile Asiatic there is no way that a shepherd such as Abraham strolled into the king’s court and sat on the throne. The very idea is preposterous! As mentioned earlier, if there is no Cartouche then there is no king’s name. It’s inconceivable that an Egyptian scribe would record a king’s name on funerary papyri without enclosing it in a Shen ring to symbolize eternal life with the sun god Ra.


Image

Egyptian king during the dynasty of Abraham’s supposed journey to Egypt:

“Khakaure Senusret III was a pharaoh of Egypt. He ruled from 1878 BC to 1839 BC during a time of great power and prosperity, and was the fifth king of the Twelfth Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom.” Wikipedia

Anyway, it’s interesting to note that the birth name of Khakaure (Sesostris III) is Senusret which means: ‘Man of goddess Wosret’. She was a minor goddess whose cult was based in Thebes and three kings of the 12th Dynasty bore her name. But none of this has any direct bearing, connection, or association with the funerary scene of Facsimile No. 3 that was created well over a thousand years later.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Why no royal names in Facsimile No. 3?

Post by Shulem »

I find it interesting that Joseph Smith did not provide proper names for King Pharaoh and his Prince in the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. And yet, Smith generously provides the names and titles for lesser characters, namely: Shulem the waiter and Olimlah the slave. Why did Smith reveal the names of lesser characters and leave off the names of the most important characters in all of Egypt? Smith knew full well that several proper names for Pharaohs were contained in the Bible such as Necho and Shishak. He was also aware of the detailed account in the Book of Jasher about Abraham going into Egypt and the king being infatuated with Sarah’s beauty. Although the name of the king and names of his royal house are not mentioned in Jasher or the Bible, it’s reasonable to think that Smith may have supposed it was written in another account contained in historical records in which he was unfamiliar. Smith knew that there were many historical records and accounts of ancient biblical dealings that he was not versed in and he may have considered the possibility that royal names during Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt may have been mentioned in those accounts.

Therefore, I offer my conjecture that Smith was not willing to chance it. He was not going to risk that some informed scholar could question his revelation about the royal names posted for the King & Prince of Facsimile No. 3. Why take that chance? But providing the proper names for a servant and slave could certainly never be traced or proven otherwise. So, I think Smith neglected to reveal royal names because he feared that they could be disproved.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

FAIR Faithful Answers, Informed Response

Post by Shulem »

Introducing the apologetic FAIR website (formerly FAIRMORMON) as I edit and transfer some of my past thoughts from another thread into this thread here in the Celestial Forum. The material quoted from the FAIR article was taken from the website several years ago. I believe the article has been somewhat edited to better conform with their current position. Nonetheless, I’ll be posting content from the 2013 publication. Therefore, not to be disrespectful or inconsiderate to their new name, I will use their old name “FAIRMORMON” in the citations.

FAIR Faithful Answers Informed Response
FAIRMORMON wrote:The following are common criticisms associated with Facsimile 3: 1) The scene depicted is a known Egyptian vignette which some Egyptologists claim has nothing to do with Abraham, 2) Joseph indicated that specific characters in the facsimile confirmed the identities that he assigned to specific figures, 3) Joseph identified two obviously female figures as "King Pharaoh" and "Prince of Pharaoh."

FAIR is correct about Egyptologists confirming the vignette has nothing to do with Abraham and admits that the prophet Joseph Smith made controversial claims about the hieroglyphic writing and the persons in the vignette. Critics conclude this as proof that Smith mistranslated Facsimile No. 3.

FAIRMORMON wrote:The matter is not as simple as critics would like to have us believe. Like almost all of us, the majority of critics are not experts on Egyptian writing or art

Actually, it’s quite simple. It’s black or white, yeah or nay, true or false. Critics don’t need to be experts to be able to determine certain truth with a little help from nonbiased modern Egyptology.

FAIRMORMON wrote:So, this presents an interesting problem--if we are going to take an "academic" or "intellectual" approach to the problem, both believers and critics must all decide to trust an expert. The problem that we immediately encounter is that there are multiple "experts," and these experts do not all agree. Therefore, we are left to decide which "expert" we will trust. There are LDS experts who believe the Book of Abraham is a genuine artifact, and that it testifies to Joseph Smith' status as a prophet. Non-LDS experts obviously do not agree with that

I agree that an academic and intellectual approach is a sound course to pursue -- an appeal to authority, that of modern Egyptology and the academic university of the discipline. I view the argument of not agreeing over the results as a ploy in rejecting a conclusion from the vast majority of Egyptologists the world over. Latter-day Saint Egyptologists may believe in the validity of the Book of Abraham but they cannot defend the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 within their discipline among their peers because they know the argument will be lost. Apologetic articles about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 would be flatly rejected by the world body of Egyptologists.

FAIRMORMON wrote:Latter-day Saints, as believers unequipped to deal with Egyptology, are not able to really assess that information for ourselves. We would need 15-20 years of schooling to do it. So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation.

This is simply not true. A student of Egyptology can obtain good books on Egyptian grammar, history, art, religion, etc., and within a few years develop a good sense of identity and purpose for basic Egyptian messages and imagery. One does not need a degree in Egyptology to learn how to read the language on a basic level and identify with Egyptian art and culture. There are lots of books and material on the market that can assist anyone in achieving knowledge on the subject.

The apologist makes an either or statement that is somewhat disheartening and does not ring true: “So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation.” From this I gather that both can’t be right; either Egyptologists world over are right or they are wrong, all based on what Joseph Smith’s revelations have to say. In other words, according to the apologists, the Egyptologists are wrong and Joseph Smith is right. I argue that we can trust the collective experts who are the guardians of modern Egyptology and listen to what they have to say about the subject and acquire knowledge ourselves about the language and culture.

FAIRMORMON wrote:Critics' claim that Facsimile #3 alone is enough to settle the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet. This is very convenient for them, because it allows one to focus only on one (very complex) issue that only a few people have the tools to understand. It is, in a sense, to put the critic in an "unassailable position." The critics has made his or her choice, and does not want to debate it or be told he or she is wrong, or return to the question. And, what the critic might consider a "slam dunk" or "vital point," might (from a believer's or some Egyptologist's point of view) really not be so conclusive OR so vital.

Critics (I included) claim that Facsimile No. 3 alone is enough to settle the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was translating Egyptian correctly. It focuses on a presentation given by Joseph Smith and was published in the Times and Seasons as a revelation to the whole world. The Explanations showcase Smith’s professed ability to translate Egyptian documents. This is a perfect opportunity to test the translator and see if he really knew how to translate Egyptian into English. Either the Explanations offered by Joseph Smith are correct or they are not. Modern Egyptology has settled the matter and anyone who possesses basic to moderate skills in Egyptology by studying reliable books on the subject can reasonably determine for themselves whether Joseph Smith was correctly translating and interpreting the Egyptian content of Facsimile No. 3.

Critics have already appealed to modern Egyptology and have concluded that the translations and Explanations given by Joseph Smith for Facsimile No. 3 are false. The following podcasts recorded by Radio Free Mormon who interviewed Egyptologist Robert Ritner are conclusive proof that the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are false.

Radio Free Mormon: Dr. Robert K. Ritner on the Book of Abraham part 1
Radio Free Mormon: Dr. Robert K. Ritner on the Book of Abraham part 2
Radio Free Mormon: Dr. Robert K. Ritner on the Book of Abraham part 3

FAIRMORMON wrote:The problem that we immediately encounter is that there are multiple "experts," and these experts do not all agree.

Wait a second, hold on there, FAIRMORMON. All Egyptologists (including Latter-day Saint Egyptologists) agree that there is no king’s name “given in the characters” of Facsimile No. 3 and neither is the name Shulem “represented by the characters” of that writing. All Egyptologists agree on this conclusion. Therefore, Joseph Smith was wrong.

FAIRMORMON wrote:There are LDS experts who believe the Book of Abraham is a genuine artifact, and that it testifies to Joseph Smith' status as a prophet. Non-LDS experts obviously do not agree with that

Critics recognize that the Church’s position is based purely on faith. We grant that right! We understand that Joseph Smith’s credibility as a translator hinges on whether the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are valid or not. But, science and modern Egyptology have shown otherwise and these conclusions are not based on the faith and testimony of a man who said he could translate Egyptian.
Last edited by Shulem on Mon Jul 04, 2022 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Eccentric apologist Ed Goble

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:52 pm
It’s inconceivable that an Egyptian scribe would record a king’s name on funerary papyri without enclosing it in a Shen ring to symbolize eternal life with the sun god Ra.
What if the scribe was requested to leave out the ring by an Early English committee of tavern bard translators, from the future, who wished to make life easier for FAIR apologists from an even more distant future?

This question in no way signals my usage of hallucinogenic substances.
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: Eccentric apologist Ed Goble

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Tue Oct 05, 2021 11:45 pm
Shulem wrote:
Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:52 pm
It’s inconceivable that an Egyptian scribe would record a king’s name on funerary papyri without enclosing it in a Shen ring to symbolize eternal life with the sun god Ra.
What if the scribe was requested to leave out the ring by an Early English committee of tavern bard translators, from the future, who wished to make life easier for FAIR apologists from an even more distant future?

This question in no way signals my usage of hallucinogenic substances.

If this could be shown to have been the case and that the Egyptian scribe was formerly charged with producing unconventional art that is contrary to the long established conventions of the Egyptian religion and protocol, then so be it. But regardless of whether there is a Cartouche or not, there is no king’s name. It does not exist in the writing. Period.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Eccentric apologist Ed Goble

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 5:34 pm
If this could be shown to have been the case and that the Egyptian scribe was formerly charged with producing unconventional art that is contrary to the long established conventions of the Egyptian religion and protocol, then so be it. But regardless of whether there is a Cartouche or not, there is no king’s name. It does not exist in the writing. Period.
So with the right amount of science fiction, FAIR could solidify its position and perhaps lay the groundwork for another Orson Scott Card novel.
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: Eccentric apologist Ed Goble

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:24 pm
Shulem wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 5:34 pm
If this could be shown to have been the case and that the Egyptian scribe was formerly charged with producing unconventional art that is contrary to the long established conventions of the Egyptian religion and protocol, then so be it. But regardless of whether there is a Cartouche or not, there is no king’s name. It does not exist in the writing. Period.
So with the right amount of science fiction, FAIR could solidify its position and perhaps lay the groundwork for another Orson Scott Card novel.

Sure, FAIR is welcome to consult with Dr. John Gee, Dr. Kerry Muhlestein, and Pseudo-Dr. Ed Goble and come up with some kind of plan to legitimize Joseph Smith’s Explanation that a royal king’s name is given in the characters above Isis’s head.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Golden Plates & Papyrus Translations

Post by Shulem »

I feel impressed to present a statement made by the prophet Joseph Smith about how he literally translated Egyptian into English. Prior to translating the Book of Abraham beginning in 1835, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from so-called reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics (known only to the Nephites) that were etched on gold plates given him by an angel. In 1830, Smith wrote that he had literally translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates by translating it from one language into another.

Joseph Smith (DHC 1:71, TPJS 7) wrote:I wish to mention here, that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing in general; and that said title-page is not by any means a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation. Therefore, in order to correct an error which generally exists concerning it, I give below that part of the title-page of the English version of the Book of Mormon, which is a genuine and literal translation of the title-page of the original Book of Mormon, as recorded on the plates.

I feel impressed to compare Joseph Smith’s ability to translate Egyptian from the gold plates to that of the papyrus of the Book of Abraham, more especially hieroglyphs written on the vignette of Facsimile No. 3.

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

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Let’s compare three examples of Smith’s claims of having translated Egyptian from golden plates to his translation of Egyptian from papyrus:

1. “The title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation”, thus, the title of the golden book was “Book of Mormon” translated from reformed Egyptian into English just as “King Pharaoh, whose name is given” is the literal translation “in the characters above his head”.

2. “Taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated, the language of the whole running the same as all Hebrew writing”, thus, Smith was specific in pointing out that the Egyptian characters for “Book of Mormon” were etched on the last leaf wherein he could identify them. Note how he said reformed Egyptian runs right to left, the same as Hebrew whereby we may conclude that “Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt”, is also literally translated by the prophet “as written above the hand”.

3. “The title-page of the English version of the Book of Mormon, is a genuine and literal translation of the title-page of the original Book of Mormon, as recorded on the plates”, yet again, Smith stressed that the title-page of the golden book was literally translated from reformed Egyptian into the English language -- a “genuine” translation of one language into another, such as Hebrew into English or English into Hebrew or in the case of Facsimile No. 3, Egyptian into English, whereby, “Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters” is a literal translation of the writing “as represented by the characters above his hand.”

Nothing could be more clear. Joseph Smith claimed to literally translate Egyptian and that those translations were genuine.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

“Some of the characters or hieroglyphs”

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith; History of the Church 2:236 wrote:Soon after this some of the Saints in Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphs, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, and another the writings of Joseph of Egypt.

Here we have a clear and definitive statement that Joseph Smith identified a roll consisting of the writings of Abraham and that he translated “some of the characters or hieroglyphs” on that very roll. There has been a great deal of discussion about the length of the roll and speculation about how much of the extant roll is in possession of the Church today. We know that much of the roll is missing. Nonetheless, important fragments still exist including the most important vignette described by Abraham while he was writing the very Book of Abraham in which he pointed his readers “to the representation at the commencement of this record” which is the vignette of Facsimile No. 1. Another important vignette (Facsimile No. 3) on this roll would have been at the end but the original is lost along with other fragments of the roll.

Image

Smith said he “commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphs” on the roll while identifying Abraham’s writings. We are therefore free to speculate which characters or hieroglyphs Smith may have translated. Notice that he said he translated characters “OR” hieroglyphs which seem to indicate that he was eyeing specifically the vignettes which in both cases portray physical drawings of Abraham’s person, moreover, Facsimile No. 3 portrays him sitting on the king’s throne! Could this be what Joseph Smith was looking at when he commenced his translation and identified Abraham in Egypt? It’s reasonable to think that the vignette for Facsimile No. 3 was a key portion of the roll in which Smith first paid attention when he began to translate. The vignettes are central to the message of the roll and are therefore not only most interesting but visually stunning.

I propose that the hieroglyphic characters Smith claimed to translate while learning that Abraham was the author of the roll are those in Facsimile No. 3. There we have Abraham and the Egyptian king together. The following two declarations of the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 work together to show that Smith identify both Abraham and the king by the very characters or hieroglyphs contained in the registers of the writing.

1) Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king
2) King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head

WHAT IS THE KING’S NAME?
Last edited by Shulem on Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply