The first 6:00 minutes is an introduction and quick history about the papyri.
The next 1:30 discusses the translation process and all three men agree that no one knows, except that it was done by revelation. Why the apologists keep making a big deal about this is beyond me. No critic ever claimed to know the exact process.
The next 4:00 minutes discusses the “age of the papyrus” which should have been entitled the age of the papyri, since there was more than one papyrus. Kerry Muhelstein says some members are concerned about the fact that it purports to be the handwriting of Abraham, because the papyri date to a much later period. He goes on to explain that it was originally written by Abraham, but that it was copied over and over and over again through the centuries. He says, “when you recopy it you’re still going to write, ‘written by the hand of Abraham,’ because the text itself the original story was written by Abraham.” He doesn’t provide any evidence for this aside from his own say-so. To me, it makes no sense for subsequent scribes to say their copy is "by the hand" of Abraham. The apologists have produced not a single example of this ever occurring in the history of Ancient Near East documents, and just when you think he is prepared to back up his statement with evidence, the video quickly fades out as the narrator then starts in with a photo of John Gee, and goes on to say:
“Professor John Gee has identified another Egyptian text, the Tale of Setne, that describes the place in which the book which Thoth wrote by his own hand when he came down following the Gods. Professor Gee notes that in this text, the book is said to be written by his own hand upon papyrus which should not be taken as anything more than authorship. In other words the phrase, by his own hand was the ancient way of saying that the text was written by a particular person. As LDS researcher Russel C. McGregor and Kerry Shirts have reported, ‘it is obvious from reading the Hebrew Bible, that the phrase By His Own Hand is a Hebrew idiom, beyadh, which means by the authority of. In other words, Abraham may not have even touched these documents which bear his name, the very ones that fell into the hands of Joseph Smith in the 1830’s, since Abraham could have had them commissioned and written for him. Yet, for all this the documents would still bear his signature since they were authorized by him, by his own hand, even though a scribe may have written them, instead of Abraham.”
This is immediately followed with comments from Mike and Kerry:
Mike Ash: “Again, there were copies of copies so that’s not a problem that the documents themselves don’t date to that period.”
Kerry: “The fact that we have a copy from 200 B.C just tells us that this has been an important document for a long time. They wanted it to last so they recopied it and a number of people thought it was important enough that they wanted their own copies, that’s why we have another copy made of this about 200 B.C.”
Now, you really have to listen to this closely several times to appreciate just how convoluted this apologetic really is. First we have Kerry admitting the obvious by saying the phrase “by his own hand” means Abraham wrote the original text. Then immediately we are introduced to an apologetic argument by Kerry Shirts and Russell McGregor (of all people) who assert that the phrase doesn’t have to have anything at all to do with literal use of the hand. For those who are unfamiliar with the argument by McGregor and Shirts, the narrator quoted them word for word, from their FARMS Review published back in 1999. Their argument uses two examples from the Bible where “hand” is used metaphorically. The scriptures they use, which the video fails to produce, are:
Exodus 9:35 - “and the heart of Pharaoh is strong, and he hath not sent the sons of Israel away, as Jehovah hath spoken by the hand of Moses.”
1 Samuel 28:15 – “God hath turned aside from me, and hath not answered me any more, either by the hand of the prophets, or by dreams; and I call for thee to let me know what I do.'
Notice that neither of these scriptures refer to a literal hand, nor do they refer to written documents. Muhlstein had already conceded that this phrase was used because Abraham literally wrote the original document with his literal hand. But seconds later, Shirts and McGregor argue the opposite. So when I say FAIR is throwing the kitchen sink at this, I’m not kidding. The narrator is ignorant enough of these arguments that he misses out that they essentially contradict one another.
Shirts and McGregor decided that it was enough to point out that these biblical phrases have some of the same words from the phrase “by his own hand,” therefore they should be understood as synonymous in meaning (metaphors). This is the epitome of eisegesis. Using this logic, all anthropomorphic references apologists love to use, must be understood as mere metaphors, but I digress. As most Hebrew experts acknowledge, “Hand” is a metaphor throughout the Hebrew Bible usually referring to power, particularly the power of God. McGregor and Shirts assert incorrectly that “the phrase by his own hand is a Hebrew idiom beyadh, which means by the authority of.” The second half of this statement is correct, but their problem is that they fail to make a distinction between the phrase, “by the hand of” and “by his own hand.” Do I really need to explain to them how context makes a difference when determining a concrete or metaphorical meaning? In the context of documents, there is no reason to suppose metaphor when speaking of a hand doing the writing. To do so would be intentionally ambiguous.
So, while McGregor and Shirts argue that “by the hand of” always means “by the authority of,” the Exodus scripture they use to support their argument actually undermines it since in this verse it is Moses who is speaking on God’s authority, not his own. McGregor’s argument would require that it be by the authority of Moses, since it was by Moses’ hand that God spoke. But did Moses authorize the lord to speak? No, it’s the other way around. Hence, their argument can be dismissed on is merits, or lack thereof.
Again, we have Muhelstein saying the phrase refers to Abraham actually writing the original document, and then immediately we are told by McGregor and Shirts that the phrase refers to an "authority" by which the job was commissioned to some other scribe.
And then we have the argument by John Gee.
As Egyptian images and a photo of John Gee fade in and out, the narrator explains:
“Professor John Gee has identified another Egyptian text, the Tale of Setne, that describes the place in which the book which Thoth wrote by his own hand when he came down following the Gods. Professor Gee notes that in this text, the book is said to be written by his own hand upon papyrus which should not be taken as anything more than authorship. In other words the phrase, by his own hand was the ancient way of saying that the text was written by a particular person.”
So John Gee managed to find a similar phrase in an Egyptian text about a document written in someone's hand, and concluded that "by his own hand" should mean nothing more than authorship. Why did he conclude this? How did he conclude this? Since this video substantiates nothing with references, I can only assume Gee’s argument rests on the following remark found in the Tale of Setne:
“Pharaoh said to him: “My son Setne, you have heard the words that this chieftain spoke before me, saying ‘Is there a good scribe and learned man in Egypt who can read this document that is in my hand, without breaking its seal, and shall learn what is written in it without opening it?’” (Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings Volume III, Miriam Lichtheim, p 142)
Now I read through the Tale of Setne several times and have found no reason to conclude what John Gee asserted. There is nothing in this tale that would suggest “in my hand” doesn’t refer to a literal writing, so Gee’s reference to Setne is irrelevant and he is simply asserting something to be true without evidence. So it would seem Gee also disagrees with the McGregor/Shirts theory, which makes you wonder why FAIR decided to mention them at all. You have two Egyptologists in agreement and then you throw in two amateur apologists who contradict them? FAIR is free to choose its own poison, but what irks me the most about this is how the narrator uses Gee’s unfounded assertion to claim two ludicrous positions and present them as established facts
1. “the book is said to be written by his own hand upon papyrus”
On the contrary, the Tale of Setne says nothing about “papyrus” nor does it say the phrase “by his own hand.” The Narrator says this to strengthen the supposed parallel with the Book of Abraham reference, which says precisely, “by his own hand upon papyrus.” I catch apologists doing this kind of thing all the time, and it is hard to chalk it up to accident every time. At some point you have to say to yourself, these guys know exactly what they're doing here, but they just don't care about the truth.
2. “In other words the phrase, by his own hand was the ancient way of saying that the text was written by a particular person.”
Absolutely absurd. If this were true, then there’d be a plethora of examples from which they could invoke. Yet, all they provided were two biblical passages, which upon examination contradict their point, along with the bald assertion provided by John Gee supported by an irrelevant reference to Setne. That’s it. There is no evidence that “by his own hand” was an ancient way, let alone “the” ancient way, to say anything.
None!
More later...