Facsimile No. 3 of the Book of Abraham: Quentin Barney’s 2019 Master’s Thesis Examined

[Philo Sofee]

Thanks Kerry for taking the time to do this. I am sure some of the "guests" include someone from the Fair crowd.

Oh thank you. You have links I have never seen before man! Very valuable...

[Shulem]

The lacunae are restored incorrectly. That is the issue.

Also, keep in mind that chief editor Joseph Smith and his Times and Seasons assistants never claimed to have filled in lucunae correctly. To my knowledge, no claim was ever made that Smith's publication correctly filled in missing material through the instrumentality of an inspired translation.

Everyone knows that Smith filled in the lucunae incorrectly and this has been proven by Egyptologists who are not of the Mormon faith. Can Barney refute that? Can Barney prove that the lucunae are filled in correctly? No, he cannot. And that is the point.

Strike Two!

[Philo Sofee]

The lacunae are restored incorrectly. That is the issue.

Also, keep in mind that chief editor Joseph Smith and his Times and Seasons assistants never claimed to have filled in lucunae correctly. To my knowledge, no claim was ever made that Smith's publication correctly filled in missing material through the instrumentality of an inspired translation.

Everyone knows that Smith filled in the lucunae incorrectly and this has been proven by Egyptologists who are not of the Mormon faith. Can Barney refute that? Can Barney prove that the lucunae are filled in correctly? No, he cannot. And that is the point.

Strike Two!

Oh! The OTHER angle I missed! Ha! Good eye man.......yes, a great point.

[Shulem]

He does use Klaus Baer on p. 19. And then he launches into yet another almost trivial irrelevancy, that there may be more than one meaning intended, and using a very early Mormon source for this claim. So, the implication being that, Egyptologists may not have the final word. So this may possibly and perhaps mean if we are lucky enough, that Joseph Smith’s different meaning is possible, this silly argument used by Harris is used for Joseph Smith’s inspiration?!

Book of Abraham defenders use one irrelevant point after another in a scholarly effort to build their case. But a case of irrelevancies is hardly admissible in proving anything. It's all about "what if" the Egyptologists are wrong? Are Egyptologists wrong? Let's see, there are two Egyptologists of the Mormon faith who are able to read the writing in Facsimile No. 3; both Gee & Muhlestein prove through their own academic ability to read the writing and thus prove by their own actions that Smith was wrong! As far as Gee & Muhlestein are concerned, the writing in the registers which Smith translated only have one correct translation and it's not Smith's!

Strike Three!!!

[Philo Sofee]

He does use Klaus Baer on p. 19. And then he launches into yet another almost trivial irrelevancy, that there may be more than one meaning intended, and using a very early Mormon source for this claim. So, the implication being that, Egyptologists may not have the final word. So this may possibly and perhaps mean if we are lucky enough, that Joseph Smith’s different meaning is possible, this silly argument used by Harris is used for Joseph Smith’s inspiration?!

Book of Abraham defenders use one irrelevant point after another in a scholarly effort to build their case. But a case of irrelevancies is hardly admissible in proving anything. It's all about "what if" the Egyptologists are wrong? Are Egyptologists wrong? Let's see, there are two Egyptologists of the Mormon faith who are able to read the writing in Facsimile No. 3; both Gee & Muhlestein prove through their own academic ability to read the writing and thus prove by their own actions that Smith was wrong! As far as Gee & Muhlestein are concerned, the writing in the registers which Smith translated only have one correct translation and it's not Smith's!

Strike Three!!!

I think it is interesting that Barney does not use either Muhlestein or Gee's translations comparing with Ritner's, but Rhodes alone. And all three of the LDS Egyptologists AGREE with Ritner's translations and have done so IN PRINT and PUBLICATION. Ritner's translation does not come out the same as Joseph Smith's. The Mormon Egyptologists do not translate the Egyptian into being the same as Joseph Smith's.

We ask ourselves, is this what we would expect to see on the hypothesis that Joseph Smith's translations are correct? No it is not! Here is the basis of ALL Mormon cognitive dissonance. Even church leaders cannot force Mormon Egyptologists to come to the same translation as their prophet, they cannot do so and remain credible.

We again ask ourselves, is this what we as believers would find acceptable as evidence to support Joseph Smith's true book of scripture? It is not what we expect. This evidence, then, does not support our testimonies.

So Mormon scholars come up with various and sundry theories to explain why proper translations do not match Joseph Smith's. We ask ourselves, is this the evidence we would expect to see if there is something wrong with Joseph Smith's translations? It is.

This is the entire core. This is the entire foundation for all of the problems of defending Joseph Smith and his translations. Those three notices are the CORE of testimony DEATH in Joseph Smith. It is this which apologetics have to overcome in order to show Joseph Smith is correct. And, much to a believers complete chagrin, it is precisely this which Mormon Egyptologists have utterly failed to do.
And therefor, one can no longer believe...

[Shulem]

P. 24 follows up with Muhlestein with the not familiar theme that not every drawing lined up with the text, therefore this fac no. 3 may not either, and we may be in the clear of our troubles after all.

Muhlestein creates an artificial relief valve in a vain attempt to escape the bubble in which he's trapped. He brings up the point that, "During the time period in which the Joseph Smith Papyri were created, it was common not only for the text and its accompanying picture to be separated from each other, but also for the wrong vignette to be associated with a text, or for vignettes and texts to be completely misaligned on a long scroll."

But what has that to do with our Facsimile No. 3, and the translations and explanations given by Smith? Or in other words, what has it to do with the price of tea in China? Muhlestein is trying to get us to take our eye of the ball and look at other balls instead! In doing so, it's like we're being asked to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Muhlestein attempts to get his readers to associate Smith's papyrus with those from other collections that are less precise in lining up text with the vignettes. It's guilt by association! Or in other words, everyone with red hair is guilty!

Muhlestein states that "The content of a vignette and the content of the text frequently lack any apparent connection"; and in doing this is hoping to get Facsimile No. 3 off the hook. But he can't get Facsimile No. 3, off Joseph Smith's hook because Smith was very precise in lining up his vignette with the text. Persons/characters and the text above them are perfectly lined up and correspond with Smith's translations.

"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."


If that isn't enough to convince any honest person that Smith was connecting the text with the persons they represented, then let's also connect vignette with vignette because they also lines up, just perfect:

1) Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne
2) a crown upon his head
3) the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand
4) in the king’s court

Everything in Facsimile No. 3, lines up beautifully. The text lines up with the characters below. The problem for Muhlestein is that Smith got the translations completely wrong and he tries to get us to not think about this by getting us to look at other papyri which are less precise. It's a complete con job on Muhlestein's part.

I can imagine Muhlestein stealing candy from a baby or pushing an old lady over so he can get across the street first. He's a crook and a con artist.

[Philo Sofee]

P. 24 follows up with Muhlestein with the not familiar theme that not every drawing lined up with the text, therefore this fac no. 3 may not either, and we may be in the clear of our troubles after all.

Muhlestein creates an artificial relief valve in a vain attempt to escape the bubble in which he's trapped. He brings up the point that, "During the time period in which the Joseph Smith Papyri were created, it was common not only for the text and its accompanying picture to be separated from each other, but also for the wrong vignette to be associated with a text, or for vignettes and texts to be completely misaligned on a long scroll."

But what has that to do with our Facsimile No. 3, and the translations and explanations given by Smith? Or in other words, what has it to do with the price of tea in China? Muhlestein is trying to get us to take our eye of the ball and look at other balls instead! In doing so, it's like we're being asked to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Muhlestein attempts to get his readers to associate Smith's papyrus with those from other collections that are less precise in lining up text with the vignettes. It's guilt by association! Or in other words, everyone with red hair is guilty!

Muhlestein states that "The content of a vignette and the content of the text frequently lack any apparent connection"; and in doing this is hoping to get Facsimile No. 3 off the hook. But he can't get Facsimile No. 3, off Joseph Smith's hook because Smith was very precise in lining up his vignette with the text. Persons/characters and the text above them are perfectly lined up and correspond with Smith's translations.

"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."


If that isn't enough to convince any honest person that Smith was connecting the text with the persons they represented, then let's also connect vignette with vignette because they also lines up, just perfect:

1) Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne
2) a crown upon his head
3) the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand
4) in the king’s court

Everything in Facsimile No. 3, lines up beautifully. The text lines up with the characters below. The problem for Muhlestein is that Smith got the translations completely wrong and he tries to get us to not think about this by getting us to look at other papyri which are less precise. It's a complete con job on Muhlestein's part.

I can imagine Muhlestein stealing candy from a baby or pushing an old lady over so he can get across the street first. He's a crook and a con artist.

You... you are like an never-ending fount of knowledge man...

[Shulem]

The Mormon Egyptologists do not translate the Egyptian into being the same as Joseph Smith's.

In fact, Gee, Rhodes, and Muhlestein translate and interpret the Egyptian text and characters in OPPOSITE of Smith, let alone not being "the same" as you point out! The three Mormon Egyptologists are on record for being in direct OPPOSITION to Smith's Explanations of Facsimile No. 3.

For example:

1) Asiatic Abraham as OPPOSED to Osiris
2) Pharaoh's earthly throne as OPPOSED to Osiris's throne in heaven
3) Crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood OPPOSED to Osiris's cult crown of Upper Egypt
4) THE scepter of justice and judgment in his hand OPPOSED to crook and flail in his hands
5) King Pharaoh OPPOSED to goddess Isis
6) King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head OPPOSED to Isis the great, the god's mother
7) Signifies Abraham in Egypt OPPOSED to a cult offering table
8) Prince (male) of Pharaoh as OPPOSED to a female goddess and daughter of Re
9) The king’s principal waiter OPPOSED to resurrected Hor in heaven before Osiris
10) Shulem, as represented by the characters above his hand OPPOSED to Osiris Hor, justified forever
11) Olimlah, a slave OPPOSED to god Anubis as indicated by his name and title above him
12) Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court OPPOSED to a resurrected man being received in heaven

[Shulem]

What all this discussion ignores is everything Joseph Smith himself said about it all. To him it was clear and plain as day. This was Abraham’s signature, autograph, and writing, along with Joseph’s work, and here is what he said, and I got this from this papyri. No apologist today supports Joseph Smith anymore, which irony cannot possibly be thicker on any other subject under the sun. They have to ignore Joseph Smith in order to save him!

Who was going to tell Smith that he was wrong? There wasn't anyone qualified in Kirtland or Nauvoo to challenge him. While just today, in Philo's How Did I Stop Believing My Own Evidence for the Book of Abraham?! thread, hauslern shared a professional statement made by an Egyptologist:

He (Joseph Smith) was in the right place and in the right time (1835) when he could purchase the mummies and the papyri, by these "documents" he had now in his hands some ancient things which could support his previous work on the Book of Mormon. By "translating" these new sources, nobody could have questioned his knowledge concerning the "reformed Egyptian language" of the sources of the Book of Mormon. It was a great catch that allowed him to recruit plenty of followers.

Look I would say he was really a talented person who was able to establish a new church working out its beliefs and doctrines which attracted believers. On the basis of his translations from the Egyptian antiquities, he was a fraud.

I invite John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein to register here on Discuss Mormonism and explain to me how Smith was not a fraud in translating and interpreting Facsimile No. 3, and we can discuss it logically and amicably using professional reference as the standard and leave "faith" out of it. So, what do you say, John & Kerry? You want to come discuss this with Philo & Shulem? Do you think you could handle us?

Bring it on!

[Moksha]

Can Egyptologists ever feel justified in telling ardent Mormons that the dung beetle rolls are not the Everlasting Gobstoppers that their faith claims them to be?