Dove or Nehebkau

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
hauslern
1st Counselor
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Dove or Nehebkau

Post by hauslern »

LDS are using some information on this site to justify Smith's interpretation. It does not seem to have convinced Givens or Skousen.

https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.or ... -figure-7/
drumdude
God
Posts: 5214
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: Dove or Nehebkau

Post by drumdude »

It would be great to know what Givens and Skousen think. All Daniel is willing to tell us on his blog is that he "spoke to them" and nothing substantive as to what they said. I'm guessing if they spoke at all it wasn't very long and wasn't interesting. Daniel is not interested in opening wounds, only interested in desperately and feebly trying to close them.
hauslern
1st Counselor
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Re: Dove or Nehebkau

Post by hauslern »

Givens

Hi Noel

My views are pretty clearly laid out in my book, The Pearl of Greatest Price. In brief, leading LDS authorities and scholars all acknowledged as early as 1912 that JSs explanation of the facsimiles was not consistent with Egyptian scholarship. What came to be called the catalyst theory was put forward more than a century ago-- Joseph Smith produced something that was inspired, but it was likely not a straightforward translation of the papyri he was working with.

As for the future of the facsimiles, I cannot see the church moving away from their position, since the facsimiles and their "explanation" are part of canonized scripture.

Warm regards
Terryl

Skousen
From: <royalskousen45@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: Book of Abraham
To: Noel Hausler <hauslernoel@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Peterson <danielcarlpeterson@gmail.com>, Debbie Peterson <dspegypt@gmail.com>, <John_gee@byu.edu>

Dear Noel,

I definitely do NOT hold a positive view of Joseph Smith’s “interpretation” of the facsimiles. Here’s what’s on my curriculum vitae, at the end in the section entitled “Fundamental Scholarly Discoveries and Academic Accomplishments by Royal Skousen from about 1970 to 2020; first placed online in 2014”, on page 39:

The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book.”

Yes, the facsimiles are shameful “reproductions” and have been so from the 1840s when first published in Times and Seasons. Yes, the engraver took a part from elsewhere on the hypocephalus and used it to fill up the missing part. I myself would like to see the Book of Abraham with the two secondary insertions in the first chapter removed that connect the text with the papyri and, in fact, no facsimiles or any connection with the Kirtland papyri. The actual text of the Book of Abraham has many interesting things, but the whole discussion has been hijacked by the papyri.

I am sending on my views to Dan Peterson and John Gee. I give you permission to post online what I have written in the ending section of my vita.
With best wishes, Royal

Royal:

Noel has misrepresented what I said. And I’ve said very, very little (and, even then, only a while ago and only in response to a specific question from him) about your view. I don’t presume to speak for you and would never do so.

A former member of the Church in Australia, Noel constantly writes to scholars in and out of the Church trying to get them to say things critical of Joseph Smith and the Restoration. He’s been at it for many years.

Dan
hauslern
1st Counselor
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Re: Dove or Nehebkau

Post by hauslern »

Kerry Muhlestein said this in LDS Living Kerry Muhlestein seems to have the same view as Givens. "While we know that the Book of Abraham was received by inspiration and is true scripture, we do not know anything about things that were said regarding the rest of the papyri. Presumably the Lord inspired the Prophet in regards to his translation, but he very well may have been left to his own mechanisms to surmise things about the rest of the papyri." https://www.ldsliving.com/10-things-we- ... ri/s/76295

And is it possible that that's what happened for Joseph Smith as he looked at the papyri? That as he looked at them, it served as a catalyst and opened them up to inspiration, and he gave us the text that God revealed to him, and he assumed it was on the papyrus. That's absolutely possible, I think that's very, very possible. Is it possible that it's a combination of both?" https://www.ldsliving.com/all-in/kerry- ... of-abraham

Slowly things are moving towards admitting he got it wrong. Does this make redundant Nibley's Era articles attacking the 1912 Egyptologists who attacked the Book of Abraham?
Last edited by hauslern on Mon Jun 27, 2022 9:27 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 1623
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Dove or Nehebkau

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

“DCP” wrote: Royal:

Noel has misrepresented what I said. And I’ve said very, very little (and, even then, only a while ago and only in response to a specific question from him) about your view. I don’t presume to speak for you and would never do so.

A former member of the Church in Australia, Noel constantly writes to scholars in and out of the Church trying to get them to say things critical of Joseph Smith and the Restoration. He’s been at it for many years.

Dan
DCP, how did Noel misrepresent what you said?
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
hauslern
1st Counselor
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

Re: Dove or Nehebkau

Post by hauslern »

Some folks from York University in their arcaheology department are involved in Egypt and know of the work of Griggs and Muhlestein. I asked him for his opinion of fac 1 and of course they wrote "It is a scene of mummification in which the internal organs are being placed in the canopic jars under the embalming table - this is another example:"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P1l ... HNVYg/edit
Post Reply