“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:At first glance, this appears problematic for Joseph Smith, since, as seen above, scholars identify this figure as the goddess Isis (or sometimes the goddess Hathor, who was often syncretized with Isis), not the Egyptian Pharaoh. If we assume that this identification is correct, a closer look at the attributes and epithets ascribed to the goddess Isis during the time Facsimile 3 was drawn reveals that this identification actually has some justification.

1) Yes, at first glance it definitely appears it’s problematic for Joseph Smith
2) Scholars do correctly identify Isis as Fig. 2
3) No need to assume scholarly identification is correct -- it *IS* correct
4) Ptolemaic or Roman times have nothing to do with Smith’s claims

There are no justifications for Joseph Smith’s false claims. Appeals to Late Egyptian symbolism or beliefs have no bearing on what Smith claimed with regard to a much older era of dynastic Egypt in which Abraham lived. The fact that the papyrus is centuries out of date with what Smith claimed makes no difference and can’t argue to save or justify Smith’s mistakes. The fact that the papyrus is actually much newer than Smith realized is Smith’s problem, and serves to show he didn’t know what he was talking about. Everything Smith said about Facsimile No. 3 is wrong, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! Abraham didn’t author that work and it’s not nearly as old as Smith thought. He was wrong. To apologetically assert that attributes and epithets ascribed to Isis during Late Egypt (when Facsimile No. 3 was actually produced) does nothing to justify Smith’s claims that Fig. 2, whom we know to be Isis, is also an earthly king who allegedly befriended Abraham. In the case of Facsimile No. 3, Isis is Isis, period. Nothing more can be made of that in order to justify Smith’s error.
Last edited by Shulem on Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:These and similar epithets were routinely given to the reigning monarch, whether male or female, and inasmuch as Isis’ name in Egyptian literally means “throne” or “seat,” her shared identity with the office of the Pharaoh is not at all surprising. “As the presumed embodiment of the ‘seat of the throne,’ [Isis] is in a special way bound to kingship and thus to the political aspect of [the king’s] divine nature; her role as mother of Horus and sister-wife of Osiris binds her even more closely into the Egyptian kingship, in which the living King Horus [the Pharaoh] embodies.”

Noble attributes Isis shared with the gods who symbolically governed Egypt from above do nothing to justify Smith’s claim in calling out Fig. 2 as a mortal man-king. The person is Isis. Joseph Smith would have been correct if he had identified that simple fact in his Explanation. But he didn’t know. He had no idea who the person really was and simply used that character to tell his story as he saw it.

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:Accordingly, “with the idea of the Great Lady [Isis] actually” personifying the throne, and thereby the Egyptian kingship, “the incongruity of [Joseph Smith’s identification of] figure 2 [in Facsimile 3] as ‘King Pharaoh’ begins to dissolve.”

No, the problem doesn’t simply dissolve and it’s not going away, not ever. Queen Isis is NOT represented as a king of Egypt in Facsimile No. 3. The only representation of a king in Facsimile No. 3 is that of Osiris (Fig. 1) who is seated upon his throne. Isis is represented as a QUEEN, and Osiris is the KING! The scene takes place in heaven or the afterlife among gods and immortals. It’s not even an earthly scene! The stars in the upper frieze bear witness that the scene is taking place in heaven.

The Bottom Line:

Apologists have no justification using Egyptology to turn Isis into a king in Facsimile No. 3 when the ONLY king that exists in that Facsimile is Osiris himself. Imagine apologists taking their twisted logic and applying their anything goes argument upon the figure of Osiris sitting upon his throne -- this would suggest that Abraham was king of Egypt. Nothing, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. It seems apologists don’t want to accept the truth because they are stuck having to defend Joseph Smith’s errors. But if apologists want to make Isis king of Egypt in order to justify Smith then they need to also take into consideration that the real KING is sitting on the throne and Joseph Smith said that person was Abraham. Therefore, according to the apologists, Abraham was the king of Egypt!

What a mess.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

The Isis & Maat Conundrum

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith wrote: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.

Egyptology Mingled with Mormonism:

1) Pharaoh Isis is the king of Egypt.
2) Prince Maat is the son of King Pharaoh Isis.

Mormon apologists sneakily attempt to justify the conception that Isis is rightly called King Pharaoh per Smith’s interpretation, even while she stands before the throne of her seated husband Osiris who was the original first king of Egypt. Therefore, apologists must deal with an awful conundrum that threatens to turn everything upside down:

Where in all of the corpus of ancient Egyptology is Maat likened to a SON of pharaoh? Is she not a divine woman? Is she not a divine daughter? Is she not a goddess?

Where is she ever called a “HE” except in perverted Mormon scripture?

I believe that I have sufficiently made the point that if the apologists want to justify Isis as being called “King Pharaoh” in Facsimile No. 3, then they will also have to justify Maat as being a MALE.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

I emphasize an important and definitive FACT regarding Joseph Smith’s statement about the person of Fig. 2 in whom he claimed was King Pharaoh of Egypt. I merely highlight the word in which Smith gave that defined the character by which he was revealing the person:

Joseph Smith wrote:Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

This leaves no room for a lady king whether Isis or any other female monarch. Joseph Smith incorrectly identified the person as a MAN. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Joseph Smith was wrong.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: It is by that which I’m not that defines me.

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith wrote:“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Prior to examining the text written above the head of Fig. 2 as it relates to Joseph Smith’s claim, I now make a definitive statement -- an absolute fact based in total reality:

There is no king’s name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 in which to designate a Pharaoh of dynastic Egypt. There is no king’s name, period!

HOW do I come to this basic or raw determination of such monumental proportion? It’s rather simple, there is no royal Cartouche to surround a king’s name. Neither is there a king’s name contained in the hieroglyphs above the head of Isis. There is no king’s name! End of story. But let’s look at what apologetic excuses exists on Pearl of Great Price Central that are designed to lead their ignorant readers down a path leading nowhere.

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:The explanation given for Facsimile No. 3 identifies Figure 2 as “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.” One potential way to identity this figure by Egyptological methods would be to read “the characters [hieroglyphs] above his head.” Unfortunately, the original illustration or vignette from the papyrus is not extant, and so we are forced to decipher the glyphs as they are reproduced in Facsimile 3 by their engraver Reuben Hedlock. While Hedlock appears to have done a fairly commendable job accurately reproducing the facsimiles (at least based on a comparison of Facsimile 1 with the extant original papyrus), he also made some noticeable mistakes. So the first issue at hand in resolving the question of the identity of this figure would be to determine how legible these glyphs actually are.

Note that the apologists admit that “One potential way to identity this figure by Egyptological methods would be to read the characters [hieroglyphs] above his head.” Yes, that is certainly one way. But what is the other way? How about looking at the person in the vignette and determining who she is by the pictorial representation in and of itself? That *IS* another way to determine who the identity of the person is. And I’ve discussed that in detail in previous posts. We can compare this by looking at a photo of Darth Vader and everyone will know the identity without any caption or text to reveal who the person is or their name. Everyone knows Darth Vader when they see him. The same is true for Isis in ancient Egypt. Hardly anything could be more apparent than a depiction of Isis standing next to Osiris as he sits authoritatively upon his heavenly throne.

Fortunately, we do have reasonable degree of preservation of the text through Reuben Hedlock’s engraving but sadly the original papyrus is lost; so, we can’t compare the Facsimile with the original. Nonetheless, the hieroglyphic characters above Isis are discernable through the trained eyes of Egyptologists. It’s relatively easy to determine through a process of elimination what signs they are NOT and what signs they are almost certainly meant to represent by comparing it to typical inscriptions that define Isis that are relatively common in ancient Egyptian funerary art and literature. So, there are keys by which to use to turn this lock. Unfortunately for Joseph Smith, he did not possess these keys or knowledge.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Joseph Smith as a Translator; R.C. Webb

Post by Shulem »

I think at this point it’s entirely appropriate to mention the apologetic book written by a friendly non-Mormon in studying the translation work of Joseph Smith. This book was published by the Church in 1936 by Deseret News Press with an introductory statement saying “A Candid Example of his claims to have Translated Ancient Egyptian Writings, made in the Light of the best Available Knowledge of the Present Day.”

R.C. Webb confessed the true nature of Fig. 2, but recognized there are problems in translating the hieroglyphic text in the registers of Facsimile No. 3. Webb refers to earlier Egyptological examination of the Mormon Facsimile that revealed the personage of Isis was understood to have been the character in question and that she took her rightful position before the judgment seat of Osiris:

Webb (p. 147) wrote:In their judgements in regard to the plate the Egyptological authorities consulted by Bishop Spalding, as well as Prof. Budge (writing in 1903), followed the suggestions imparted by the general appearance of the scenes depicted, and excluded all suppositions to the effect that we might have here a representation of some occurrence elsewhere than in the Court of Osiris, Judge of the dead . . . the general judgment has been that we have here the familiar scene of the Adoration of Osiris by the newly justified deceased; with Maat, goddess of truth, leading the justified by the hand, and Isis standing behind the throne of the Judge.

It’s clear from the very beginning of a professional analysis that the scene depicted in Facsimile No. 3 is in fact a funerary scene pertaining to Egyptian religion and rite. However, Webb’s limitations as far as reading the text on the Facsimile are made abundantly clear when he admits he’s incapable of doing just that:

Webb (p. 153) wrote:For further analysis of this plate, the inscriptions in the columns let down from the top line, or in the horizontal row beneath the base line, can lend no assistance. A few of the characters are suggestive of familiar symbols, and in one or two connections one might see possible combinations, but with characters wrongly faced. On the whole, however, the condition of these inscriptions recalls Prof. Budge’s comment on an ancient scribe, who ‘did not understand what he was writing.’ This may have been an ancient, or may have been the modern wood-engraver, to whom the characterization is necessarily applicable. For these inscriptions can not be read.

Thus we see it becomes necessary to appeal to modern Egyptology in our time when a more thorough study of advanced learning and analysis makes it possible to read the writing in the text of Facsimile No. 3. And in doing so, we learn without a doubt that there is no king’s name in the writing and therefore there is no king in the vignette other than the deceased Osiris who is improperly labeled as Abraham through Joseph Smith’s false reading and interpretation of the character and writing.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Solve for X

Post by Shulem »

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:So the first issue at hand in resolving the question of the identity of this figure would be to determine how legible these glyphs actually are.

In fact, a number of Egyptologists who have examined Facsimile 3 have lamented that the hieroglyphs reproduced by Hedlock were partially or entirely illegible, “leaving them to rely upon comparable scenes from other texts to provide their interpretations of the figures.”

Reliance on other similar or comparable funerary scenes is key to solving the puzzle. This is the key in solving this mystery, much like an algebraic formula is used to solve for X. It’s also basic common sense to collect and gather facts in a logical manner in order to properly analyze the problem that needs solving. Key to deciphering the Egyptian language was the utilization of the Rosetta Stone. By comparing the three languages on the stone the message could be deciphered because each script contained the same message. The Greek was the key. Scholars could read the Greek so that was the catalyst in solving the puzzle for the other two scripts. Likewise, by comparing the inscription above Isis in Facsimile No. 3 with other similar funerary scenes, scholars are able to indirectly reconstruct what is actually written. Thus, the other scenes used to assist in determining the translation become the KEY and instrument in deciphering or solving for X.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Translated by Egyptologists

Post by Shulem »

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:The only two Egyptologists who have made an attempt in print to read the hieroglyphs above Figure 2 render them as:

Robert Ritner (2011)

ȝs.t wr.t mw.t nṯr

“Isis the great, the god’s mother.”


Michael Rhodes (2002)

ỉs.t wr.t mw.t nṯr

“The great Isis, mother of the god.”

For all intents and purposes the two translations provided by Egyptologists Ritner and Rhodes are one in the same. The message carries the same import in identifying the character and her relationship to her divine son who according to Egyptian mythology is Horus, the falcon god.

1) Isis is great
2) Isis is the mother of a god

We rightly conclude that the translation given by modern Egyptology is entirely correct. The translation given by Joseph Smith is entirely incorrect.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Isis, whose name is given in the characters above her head

Post by Shulem »

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:Image

The hieroglyphic caption for Figure 2 of Facsimile 3 as reproduced by Ruben Hedlock in the 1842 Times and Seasons, right, next to Egyptologist Michael D. Rhodes’ transcription, left, published in his 2002 translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri.

The above illustration is very well presented and I commend it. It demonstrates exactly what we need to see.

Well done!

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:The most noticeable difference is in the top three glyphs which form the name Isis. These glyphs were either poorly preserved by Hedlock or poorly drawn by the original ancient Egyptian scribe (it is impossible to tell without the original papyrus fragment), making them effectively illegible. What Egyptologists such as Rhodes (and, it would appear, Ritner) have done is reconstruct and read these glyphs how they think they ought to be read (as the name of Isis), as opposed to how they actually stand in the preserved facsimile.

Rhodes and Ritner have done a fine job reconstructing the the true message written above the head of Fig. 2 and have clearly demonstrated the order of hieroglyphs that were written on the original papyrus that is unfortunately no longer extant. If Joseph Smith had given the following Explanation then I would agree that he was a prophet of God.

Fig. 2. Queen Isis, whose name is given in the characters above her head: “Isis the great, the god’s mother.”
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice

Post by Shulem »

I would like to switch gears by introducing material that was once on an apologetic website that defended the Book of Abraham by attempting to use conventional Egyptology in defense of Joseph Smith’s interpretations. That website “Conflict of Justice” is now defunct and no longer linkable. I’ll take material from another thread contained in the Archives of Discuss Mormonism that preserved this account and express it anew, in this thread here in the Celestial Forum.

Do enjoy.

Conflict of Justice wrote:Joseph Smith:

“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”

Pharaoh’s Horus Name – Pharaoh was the title for the king’s household, not the king’s name, until later in Egypt’s history. Joseph Smith correctly dissociates “King Pharaoh” with the person’s name. So what is the name given in the characters above the head?

The hieroglyphs to the right of the head associates goddess Isis. But Joseph Smith was talking about characters above the head, not to the right of it. Joseph Smith even located the number “2” right in the middle of the character he was referring to. Does this symbol above the head indicate Pharoah’s name? Yes. This is the Horus sun disk. Now, if Joseph Smith were guessing, wouldn’t he have said the hieroglyphic writing was a name rather than the figure’s crown? How is a crown a name? But he is actually correct.

Each king of Egypt had a special “Horus” name–actually two Horus names: one that “designated the pharaoh as the god Horus on earth” and one that linked “pharaoh to the sun, divinity, eternity, earthly gold, and perhaps to Horus’ victory over Seth.” Now, we already saw how Osiris in Figure 1 wore a his crown as a “sign of his earthly rulership.” But astronomy was not just about earthly judgement. This was about judgement in the afterlife as well. The second Horus name is called the the Golden Horus Name and “typically featured the image of a Horus falcon perched above or beside the hieroglyph for gold.” The hieroglyph for gold is the character nebu, which is a half-disk with rays between two hills.

Compare the nebu character with the sun disk atop Isis’s head in figure 2. Perfect match! Joseph Smith was right. There is no falcon in the name, but that’s alright because the falcon was not needed to identify the gold sign nebu with Pharaoh. “The gold sign, without the Horus falcon, appeared in conjunction with the royal names from the time of Djer onwards.” The falcon represents “the final victory of Horus over Seth” and that was already ritualized in Facsimile 1.

It’s not surprising that the king’s Horus name was snuck into Isis’ crown by the artist of Facsimile 3. Egyptians did this kind of thing all the time. Illustrations and shapes were often arranged or drawn to spell out names.

Isis Represents Pharaoh – As the mother of Horus, Isis was the personification of Pharaoh’s throne and seat of power, as Gail Corrington explains:

“Isis was the incarnation of the pharaoh’s ‘throne’. As the throne symbolically ‘created’ or ‘gave birth to’ the pharaoh, so Isis, the incarnate throne, was the mother of the pharaoh.” (Gail Corrington)

Notice that Joseph Smith placed the number 2 at Isis’ crown, not Isis herself. It is totally appropriate to associate her crown with the Horus name of Pharaoh. We see Isis aiding in Abraham’s assumption of justice and dominion “by the politeness of the king,” in a similar way she gives birth to Pharaoh’s position as king. This suggests Pharaoh allowed Abraham to study astronomy and be ordained through Egyptian religious rites to gain the divine governing powers that were meant for Egyptian rulers, a politeness which Pharaohs were known to do for esteemed foreign visitors.

With reference to Fig. 2, the apologist attempts to get us to take our eye off the ball and our eyes off what Joseph Smith was actually identifying -- hieroglyphic characters and words, not a crown! The apologist knows there is no king’s name in the hieroglyphs “above his head”, so an attempt is made to change Smith’s original interpretation. He points to the crown as if to imply it’s the characters above the head that Smith referred to. Then, the apologist attempts to symbolically justify Smith’s explanation by stating that crowns are worn by kings. So, there you have it, a king’s name is in the symbolism of wearing a crown.

But this approach is not consistent. Smith earlier mentioned a crown above the head of Fig.1 (“with a crown upon his head”), and stated specifically what that crown represented. He didn’t say “characters above his head”, but a crown; therefore there is a marked difference between characters and crowns, but the apologist ignores that and tries to find a way to produce a king. Notice how the apologist doesn’t offer a name even though the need for a name is consistent with Smith’s other translations: Shulem and Olimlah. But we never get a king’s name from the apologist because there isn’t one!

The apologist thinks it’s justified to label the crown as the characters because the “2” (print numeral) is directly above the crown and therefore it refers to the crown and not the characters in the register above the head to the immediate right of the crown. But isn’t it obvious that the location where the “2” is placed is for convenience, an aesthetic good fit?

It’s interesting to note that Joseph Smith was known to point at hieroglyphs on his papyri and claim they represented the very autograph of Abraham. He’s on record for doing that. The apologist certainly doesn’t want to bring that up or tie it together with what Smith was doing with Facsimile No. 3. I think the most important point to make in proving the apologist is wrong about identifying the crown as Smith’s characters is that Smith said essentially the same thing about Fig. 5, but in this example it’s the hand, not the head:

“represented by the characters above his hand”

Obviously there is no crown above the characters above the hand. No crown at all! Just characters, Egyptian text. And guess what? The name Shulem is not found therein.

Conflict of Justice wrote:Does this symbol above the head indicate Pharaoh’s name? Yes.

No, it does not indicate a Pharaoh’s name, period. It is a crown, sacred regalia worn by Isis a goddess (not a king) -- nothing more. The crown does not represent or is indicative of the name of an Egyptian king. This apologetic assertion is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and is a flim-flam interpretation. A big deal is made of the placement of the “2” being directly above the crown as if that is what Smith was looking at with consideration to the characters rather than the actual hieroglyphic text to the right of the crown. The apologist is wrong and is simply trying to get readers to take their eye off the ball.

Why is the “2” placed directly above the crown and not some other part of the lead printing plate?

Image

Space is limited on the plate, and as I said previously, it’s obvious that the spot where the “2” was placed is convenient and is a good fit. But more importantly, according to the Explanation, the numeral “2” represents TWO things, not just one:

1. King Pharaoh
2. Name is given in the characters above his head

The “2” is placed in the best spot on the block to present the person and the hieroglyphic script above. The person just so happens to be wearing a crown although Smith doesn’t bother with those details as he did with the character in Fig. No. 1.

Bottom line: The “2” represents the person below who is wearing a crown and the hieroglyphic text above the head.
Post Reply