DiscussMormonism.com

The repeated references to this facsimile on this board made me curious to figure out what the big deal is. The seminal work on this topic is Hugh Nibley's 32-page essay entitled "All the Court's a Stage: Facsimile No. 3, A Royal Mumming," which is published in his book Abraham in Egypt.

Perhaps blogger Val Sederholm, PhD describes this analysis of facsimile 3 best:

In a tightly knit yet beautifully written and generously flowing chapter, Nibley moves logically from puzzle to puzzle: King as Isis, Prince as Maat, and King Abraham. Never abandoning ordered argument, Nibley remains the master of every situation, the unraveler of every difficulty, the able counsel for the defence, who marches the scholars to the stand, witness after witness, to argue the case. In the end, the case made with measure and care, and overwhelming evidence, all the credit goes to the Prophet Joseph Smith for his "impressive performance."

How could have Joseph Smith scored such an impressive hit on Facsimile 3 if he weren't a true prophet? I'm thinking about returning to the church over this...

Yeah, I was underwhelmed by Abraham in Egypt. I kept asking over and over while reading it, why on Earth would the Egyptians perserve a record (and depictions) of Abraham and use myths that were so unlike other Egyptian texts?!? I came to the conclusion that they wouldn't and examinations by experts of the Egyptian papyri since then have reinforced that view. So, all I can say is Hugh Nibley is full of gas on this one.

The old adage about lipstick on a pig comes to mind. You can wax on endlessly about Joseph Smith's creative brilliance in the creation of the Book of Abraham. He was an uncommon genius.

To me it's all a big smoke screen (or the lipstick in this case). The simple fact remains: That isn't Abraham and Joseph said that it was.

Tobin wrote:Yeah, I was underwhelmed by Abraham in Egypt. I kept asking over and over while reading it, why on Earth would the Egyptians perserve a record (and depictions) of Abraham and use myths that were so unlike other Egyptian texts?!? I came to the conclusion that they wouldn't and examinations by experts of the Egyptian papyri since then have reinforced that view. So, all I can say is Hugh Nibley is full of gas on this one.

Nibley said it best.

I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago. For heaven's sake I hope we are moving forward here!

Of course the consensus is that every time Joseph Smith claimed to have translated an ancient document, the end result proves he did anything but.

What I am hoping that Paul will explain the unique signficance he gives to this one page of the Book of Abraham.

Analytics wrote:Of course the consensus is that every time Joseph Smith claimed to have translated an ancient document, the end result proves he did anything but.

What I am hoping that Paul will explain the unique signficance he gives to this one page of the Book of Abraham.

I don't know if that is true.

Anyway, I actually like the argument that the Book of Abraham came from pagan Egyptian papyri. It is a litmus test for Mormon Apologists and the depths they'll go to ignore the evidence and be "dishonest". Now, it is still plausible that Joseph Smith revealed the Book of Abraham from the original writings of Abraham and those writings no longer exist. However, you would have to be willing to discount many of the claims of Joseph Smith as being completely wrong. For whatever reason, Mormon Apologists do not like to do that and so they get saddled with preposterous positions.

Facsimile 3 has the following:

1. Abraham mixed up with Osiris
2. King Pharaoh [sic] mixed up with Isis (motherly patron of nature)
3. Prince of Pharaoh mixed up with mistress Maat
4. Shulem (made up person) mixed up with Hor
5. Olimlah, a slave mixed up with Anubis

All very embarrassing!

zeezrom wrote:Facsimile 3 has the following:

1. Abraham mixed up with Osiris
2. King Pharaoh [sic] mixed up with Isis (motherly patron of nature)
3. Prince of Pharaoh mixed up with mistress Maat
4. Shulem (made up person) mixed up with Hor
5. Olimlah, a slave mixed up with Anubis

All very embarrassing!

Thanks for the summary zeezrom. But is there more to it than that? Is there something unique, pivotal, or illustrative about this? The translator didn't do any better on the other fascilimies, did he? So what's the big deal about this one?

Analytics wrote:Thanks for the summary zeezrom. But is there more to it than that? Is there something unique, pivotal, or illustrative about this? The translator didn't do any better on the other fascilimies, did he? So what's the big deal about this one?

He didn't just misinterpret the pictures. He mistranslated the labels that accompany the pictures. And since the labels are published in the Facsimile 3 wood cut, there's no "missing papyrus" argument to be made here. It's 100% clear which text he's supposed to be translating.

CaliforniaKid wrote:He didn't just misinterpret the pictures. He mistranslated the labels that accompany the pictures. And since the labels are published in the Facsimile 3 wood cut, there's no "missing papyrus" argument to be made here. It's 100% clear which text he's supposed to be translating.

My 5th grader learned about Egyptian mythology at school, so I showed him the facsimiles, and he said, but that's not right, Dad. Guess Joseph Smith wasn't smarter than a 5th grader.