For Paul -- The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

[_Simon Belmont]

Paul,

I do not claim to be an expert in Egyptology or the Book of Abraham, but that is okay because neither are you.

Your mantra has been that the characters in the Facsimiles are not what the Book of Abraham says they are.

Nibley writes:

There is a doctoral dissertation that has just come out of Germany by a young man who has taken over a hundred facsimiles matching our facsimile number three, private and so forth and so on, and compared them. The results show that they all look very much alike. But the accompanying inscriptions show that they tell the widest variety of stories.

And

[the position that] Anubis is never drawn with a human head. How can we say that: "Never"? Even in Bonnet's Lexikon you can find Anubis drawn with a human head (with the head of a priest clearly drawn beneath the Anubis mask) you see; every Egyptian who looked at it knew that this was a man, a human priest wearing a mask ... The point is that it does show that a figure standing in the position of Anubis wearing the same outfit Anubis does, does not have to be Anubis or have his head.

And

The point is that the man with the Anubis head is a priest; he is the priest of Pharaoh and he is sacrificing. That is Anubis' business: he is to wrap up the dead and send him on his way; and this is regarded as a form of sacrifice, too. With the incision he makes, the embalming priest is performing a sacrifice. The person has to follow the example of Osiris being sacrificed, and so forth.

So in summary, Nibley is saying that, based on modern research, Ancient Egyptians used the same symbolism but told vastly different stories.

Without attacking Nibley, can you address these arguments?

[_Hades]

Paul,

I do not claim to be an expert in Egyptology or the Book of Abraham, but that is okay because neither are you.

Your mantra has been that the characters in the Facsimiles are not what the Book of Abraham says they are.

Nibley writes:

There is a doctoral dissertation that has just come out of Germany by a young man who has taken over a hundred facsimiles matching our facsimile number three, private and so forth and so on, and compared them. The results show that they all look very much alike. But the accompanying inscriptions show that they tell the widest variety of stories.

And

[the position that] Anubis is never drawn with a human head. How can we say that: "Never"? Even in Bonnet's Lexikon you can find Anubis drawn with a human head (with the head of a priest clearly drawn beneath the Anubis mask) you see; every Egyptian who looked at it knew that this was a man, a human priest wearing a mask ... The point is that it does show that a figure standing in the position of Anubis wearing the same outfit Anubis does, does not have to be Anubis or have his head.

And

The point is that the man with the Anubis head is a priest; he is the priest of Pharaoh and he is sacrificing. That is Anubis' business: he is to wrap up the dead and send him on his way; and this is regarded as a form of sacrifice, too. With the incision he makes, the embalming priest is performing a sacrifice. The person has to follow the example of Osiris being sacrificed, and so forth.

So in summary, Nibley is saying that, based on modern research, Ancient Egyptians used the same symbolism but told vastly different stories.

Without attacking Nibley, can you address these arguments?

What does any of this have to do with Abraham?

[_truth dancer]

Hey Simon,

OK, I am not an expert on the Book of Abraham, Nibley, or anything else discussed in this conversation.

However, without even going into anything specifically, let me tell you what I see as CLARING problems right off the bat.

There is a doctoral dissertation that has just come out of Germany by a young man who has taken over a hundred facsimiles matching our facsimile number three, private and so forth and so on, and compared them. The results show that they all look very much alike. But the accompanying inscriptions show that they tell the widest variety of stories.

Really? Where is this doctoral dissertation? Who wrote it? Where can we find it? I'll bet you, a hot cocoa that there is nothing there at all. There may be a dissertation somewhere, in some country but I will pretty much guarantee it does NOT confirm Nibley's assertions.

[the position that] Anubis is never drawn with a human head. How can we say that: "Never"? Even in Bonnet's Lexikon you can find Anubis drawn with a human head (with the head of a priest clearly drawn beneath the Anubis mask) you see; every Egyptian who looked at it knew that this was a man, a human priest wearing a mask ... The point is that it does show that a figure standing in the position of Anubis wearing the same outfit Anubis does, does not have to be Anubis or have his head.

Really? Do real Egyptian experts agree with Nibley? Of course not. He is a lone voice coming up with %$#@ (stuff). He is making stuff up. This is how he worked. He just put stuff out there and hoped no one would question it.

My understanding is that Anubis was a God... half human/half jackal. Who in the world (not to mention the ancient Egyptian world), thinks Anubis was a priest, (I mean besides Nibley and his followers)?

And what... just because a figure looks like Anubis, is placed where Anubis should be, and is like other figures depicting Anubis, it could be something else? Are you kidding? This is nonsense.

It is like saying, just because you see a figure who looks like Jesus dying on the cross, who has a crown of thorns on his head and a wound on his side, with Mary praying nearby, and a sign, "King of the Jews," over head, and the name Jesus underneath, it doesn't mean it is Jesus.

OK then... (sigh)




~td~

[_Simon Belmont]

Hey Simon,

OK, I am not an expert on the Book of Abraham, Nibley, or anything else discussed in this conversation.

However, without even going into anything specifically, let me tell you what I see as CLARING problems right off the bat.

Really? Where is this doctoral dissertation? Who wrote it? Where can we find it? I'll bet you, a hot cocoa that there is nothing there at all. There may be a dissertation somewhere, in some country but I will pretty much guarantee it does NOT confirm Nibley's assertions.

We may never know. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that there is such a dissertation.

Really? Do real Egyptian experts agree with Nibley? Of course not.

How do you know that other Egyptology experts disagree with Nibley about this specific point?

He is a lone voice coming up with %$#@ (stuff). He is making stuff up. This is how he worked. He just put stuff out there and hoped no one would question it.

I thought you were not a Nibley expert. How, therefore, can you read his mind?

My understanding is that Anubis was a God... half human/half jackal. Who in the world (not to mention the ancient Egyptian world), thinks Anubis was a priest, (I mean besides Nibley and his followers)?

And what... just because a figure looks like Anubis, is placed where Anubis should be, and is like other figures depicting Anubis, it could be something else? Are you kidding? This is nonsense.

Did you read the OP? Here is the relevant quotation:

Even in Bonnet's Lexikon you can find Anubis drawn with a human head (with the head of a priest clearly drawn beneath the Anubis mask) you see; every Egyptian who looked at it knew that this was a man, a human priest wearing a mask ... The point is that it does show that a figure standing in the position of Anubis wearing the same outfit Anubis does, does not have to be Anubis or have his head.

Unless you can show that he "made this up" I do not see how you can simply dismiss it.

It is like saying, just because you see a figure who looks like Jesus dying on the cross, who has a crown of thorns on his head and a wound on his side, with Mary praying nearby, and a sign, "King of the Jews," over head, and the name Jesus underneath, it doesn't mean it is Jesus.

A stunning false analogy.

[_Simon Belmont]

What does any of this have to do with Abraham?

Excellent contribution!

[_zeezrom]

We may never know. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that there is such a dissertation.

OMG

[_Aristotle Smith]

Simon,

Allow me to summarize your position.

1) Some dude writes a dissertation where he says that similar scenes can tell different stories and that these scenes are similar to the 3rd facsimile.

2) There is a picture somewhere of Anubis which is a priest wearing an Anubis mask.

Responding to #1: Your point #1 doesn't actually address what Paul's criticisms are. Paul says the explanation of the iconography is wrong. You (and Nibley) say they can tell different stories. So right there you are comparing apples and oranges. But, let's take it further. In that dissertation does the iconography always symbolize the same people? If so, then Paul's point is strengthened. The point you need to make is that the iconography is stable, but the meanings assigned to the iconography changes. Your quote doesn't do that, and Nibley doesn't address the substance of the argument.

Responding to #2: So we have a person wearing an Anubis mask. What does this show? That someone who is going to be represented as Anubis has to look like Anubis. Or, if a figure in a picture looks like Anubis, then it's safe to assume that it is Anubis. No matter how you slice it, Anubis is supposed to look like Anubis, that's how iconography/symbolism works.

By the way, Nibley likes to dazzle with BS. He's usually too smart to directly address criticisms, but prefers to meander around an issue tossing out as much information as he can. When you read Nibley responding to an argument from critics you have to be precise. Map out the critical argument and then try and figure out Nibley's argument. Very often you will find that Nibley doesn't respond to the actual critical argument or you will find logical gaffes or logical omissions in Nibley's arguments.

But, and this is critical, you have to get to know the documents that Nibley is citing. His ability to dazzle depends on the reader's ignorance of the sources he is citing. The average reader will look at the hundreds of footnotes and be dazzled. However, once you become familiar with the sources, Nibley's stuff falls apart like a house of cards.

[Guest]

We may never know. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that there is such a dissertation.

Why make the assumption. We need to be able to look at the dissertation in order to confirm Nibley's position is correct. Also how does he get different stories from these facsimiles unless he can read them. Another wards experts like him would see these facsimiles and give the same story that the others have including a couple of LDS ones. So the problem you have is that we know the story because we have the facsimiles and the some of the papyri that goes with it. The story is not really in dispute. That's why some like Will want to get rid of the facsimiles and argue the Abraham story is on some missing portion(a really poor argument, but they don't have much choice unless you want to go the catalyst route)

by the way Joseph and company screwed up by adding the head, not because there was a head in their papyri, but because that part was most likely missing in his day. I believe(I could be wrong) Chris Smith brought something up about the top portion had similar looking parts missing suggesting it was probably torn while removing it from it's protective case.

Edit: by the way one of the things I noticed when studying this issue(I'm not stating any expertise) was that all the problems that Egyptologists had with facsimile #3 were found in the missing part further suggesting it was missing in Joseph Smith day and why they just put in what they thought it should be

[_Hades]

What does any of this have to do with Abraham?

Excellent contribution!

A valid question, brought to you from the real world. Here in the real world no one believes that Abraham wrote The Book of Breathings.

[_Runtu]

Paul,

I do not claim to be an expert in Egyptology or the Book of Abraham, but that is okay because neither are you.

Your mantra has been that the characters in the Facsimiles are not what the Book of Abraham says they are.

That would be because they aren't what the Book of Abraham says they are. I don't know of anyone with any expertise who thinks that Joseph's Smith's explanations of the facsimiles are in any way correct.

There is a doctoral dissertation that has just come out of Germany by a young man who has taken over a hundred facsimiles matching our facsimile number three, private and so forth and so on, and compared them. The results show that they all look very much alike. But the accompanying inscriptions show that they tell the widest variety of stories.

As has been pointed out, an unnamed German dissertation from many years ago isn't exactly convincing.

[the position that] Anubis is never drawn with a human head. How can we say that: "Never"? Even in Bonnet's Lexikon you can find Anubis drawn with a human head (with the head of a priest clearly drawn beneath the Anubis mask) you see; every Egyptian who looked at it knew that this was a man, a human priest wearing a mask ... The point is that it does show that a figure standing in the position of Anubis wearing the same outfit Anubis does, does not have to be Anubis or have his head.

This is kind of silly. According to Nibley, Anubis is either represented himself, or by a priest wearing an Anubis-head mask, resurrecting the deceased person. The Book of Abraham has no Anubis head or mask but instead has a bare-headed priest with a knife about to sacrifice a living person.

The point is that it does show that a figure standing in the position of Anubis wearing the same outfit Anubis does, does not have to be Anubis or have his head.

To summarize:

1. The figure stands in the position of Anubis and wears Anubis's clothing.
2. Some figures show the head of Anubis, while others show the priest wearing a mask representing Anubis.
3. Nevertheless, this figure doesn't have to represent Anubis.

Clear enough?

This might make some remote sense if Nibley is correct in saying that the facsmiles "tell the widest variety of stories," but he has provided nothing other than a passing reference to an unnamed dissertation.

The point is that the man with the Anubis head is a priest; he is the priest of Pharaoh and he is sacrificing. That is Anubis' business: he is to wrap up the dead and send him on his way; and this is regarded as a form of sacrifice, too.

In what way is embalming someone "regarded as a form of sacrifice"?

With the incision he makes, the embalming priest is performing a sacrifice. The person has to follow the example of Osiris being sacrificed, and so forth.

There is no incision involved. The knife the priest in Facsimile 1 holds was added by Joseph Smith. No incision, no sacrifice.

So in summary, Nibley is saying that, based on modern research, Ancient Egyptians used the same symbolism but told vastly different stories.

Except he provides no modern research and no examples of even slightly different stories.

Without attacking Nibley, can you address these arguments?

Does recognizing extremely poor arguments equal "attacking" someone?