CaliforniaKid's interesting thread on the Book of Abraham facsimiles

[_Fortigurn]

To me, this is pretty much throwing in the towel on the Book of Abraham. Essentially, he's telling us that "wrong but inspired" is good enough.

MG: before this thread progresses any farther it might be well to do some more reading. I'd be interested in the comments that a few of the erudite scholars here have in regards to Barney's essay.

Go here:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... chapid=168

Semitic adoption of Egyptian concepts is an interesting twist on things.

Critical problems:

* Barney wants to claim that the text is not an accurate representation of what 'Abraham' really wrote, but was in reality a late copy which had passed through several copying, translation, and redaction processes: But the LDS church claimed this text was 'written by his [Abraham's] own hand upon papyrus' (a classic case of Internet Mormonism versus chapel Mormonism)

* Barney argues that what the text means to modern Egyptologists is not necessarily what it would have meant to contemporary Egyptians: This is patently absurd, because it is tantamount to claiming that modern Egyptologists are not in fact Egyptologists, and have no understanding of ancient Egyptian or what such artefacts would have meant to contemporary Egyptians

* Barney finishes with a conclusion which causes more problems than it solves: His only solution is a 'Semitic Adaption' theory for which he acknowledges there is no evidence, and which necessitates an abandonment of what the LDS church traditionally taught about the Book of Abraham

[_maklelan]

I know what he's doing, and I agree with you. I'm not trying to tell David what he means anymore than you are. Joseph indeed had a loose definition of translation, but if we take him at his word, then the plates, the papyri, and the Bible itself were merely props or catalysts for inspiration. Why bother calling them translations at all?

The 1828 dictionary reads thusly under "translate":

TRANSLA'TE, v.t. [L. translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see
death. Heb. 16.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

I don't know why, exactly, he used the word, but he did. Como viene la pelota, no?

[_maklelan]

Every single example you point out actually just demonstrates ever more clearly just how egregiously Joseph Smith was just making it all up. It doesn't help Book of Abraham apologetics, it just reminds everyone reading the thread how bad some of the other apologetics are as well.

Joseph Smith said that the characters above these figures' heads meant something particular, and they actually mean something else. There is no definition of "translation" other than "translation: to pull something out of your ass" which can possibly explain this uncomfortable fact.

Mak, I've got to tell you, that you are simply unwilling to consider the idea that Joseph Smith made this up and was wrong. You will always be stuck in a mental world of obfuscation and rationalization until you are willing to face all of the possibilities, and take them seriously.

And you've completely avoided engaging Joseph Smith's unique and consistent use of the word "translate," which is the entire point of David's statement. Rather than regurgitate again how you feel about us (we already know, there's no need to continue to repeat it), why don't you consider the situation in the context of his use of the word?

[_CaliforniaKid]

mak,

I responded to David's post over on MAD. If you feel his catalyst theory is the best option, perhaps you could comment over there on why my criticisms of it are inaccurate. You would be filling an important role in the conversation, since David appears to have bowed out. Thanks,

-CK

[_Fortigurn]

I know what he's doing, and I agree with you. I'm not trying to tell David what he means anymore than you are. Joseph indeed had a loose definition of translation, but if we take him at his word, then the plates, the papyri, and the Bible itself were merely props or catalysts for inspiration. Why bother calling them translations at all?

The 1828 dictionary reads thusly under "translate":

[...]

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

I've identified the meaning Smith used.

I don't know why, exactly, he used the word, but he did. Como viene la pelota, no?

He was very clear about why he chose to use that word. He chose to use it because that's what he was claiming to do.

[_Fortigurn]

And you've completely avoided engaging Joseph Smith's unique and consistent use of the word "translate," which is the entire point of David's statement.

Unique it might be, consistent it is not. He claimed to be reading one language and rendering it into English. That's the meaning of 'translate'. Later Mormon apologists have invented a new meaning of 'translate', and placed it in Smith's mouth.

[_Sethbag]

Consistent? ROFL.

Let's see.

Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon from Reformed Egyptian as written on the Golden Plates, whereas witnesses to the translation said that the plates weren't even around most of the time.

Joseph Smith claimed to translate a scroll written by John the Revelator which may or may not ever have existed, but which he certainly didn't ever claim to have possessed. There is no functional difference between this claim and "pulling it out of thin air".

Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham from characters written on the Egyptian papyrus that he had in his possession, a claim that is now modified by the Internet Mormons of our day into some jargonized term with wishy-washy meaning, but something more akin to "received the meaning of the story as direct revelation after inquiring about the meaning of the papyrus".

Joseph Smith claimed to translate portions of the Bible from English into... English? Yes, he "translated" the Bible from English as it was written down in the Bible, into English as it should have been, according to Joseph Smith.

Where do you get this idea that Joseph Smith's use of the word "translate" was consistent? From what I can see, it was all over the map, and meant literally a different thing in every single case where something was claimed to have been "translated".

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I know what he's doing, and I agree with you. I'm not trying to tell David what he means anymore than you are. Joseph indeed had a loose definition of translation, but if we take him at his word, then the plates, the papyri, and the Bible itself were merely props or catalysts for inspiration. Why bother calling them translations at all?

The 1828 dictionary reads thusly under "translate":

TRANSLA'TE, v.t. [L. translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see
death. Heb. 16.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

I don't know why, exactly, he used the word, but he did. Como viene la pelota, no?

He chose to use that word for the same reason anybody chooses their words - to communicate. Everything I've read on the Book of Abraham from contemporary sources suggests Joseph Smith and those around him thought he was translating Ancient Egyptian characters, written by Abraham's own hand upon the papyrus scroll in Joseph's possessions, and he was translating Abraham's words into English so the current generation could understand them. It's as simple as that. No need to redefine "translate".

[_bcspace]

In response, there have been some obvious red herrings and some honest admissions from TBMs that it is indeed problematic. The interesting post for me is David Bokovoy's statement that the obvious error in translation does not mean the book isn't inspired.

I think ignoring the information that Lachoneus provided is the big story here. For example.....

Ramses [the king] himself in the shape of a goddess" (fig. 71).129 There you have it—the Lady Hathor, who is figure 2 in Facsimile 3, may be none other than Pharaoh himself. The two ladies in the Facsimile, figures 2 and 4, will be readily identified by any novice as the goddesses Hathor and Maat. They seem indispensable to scenes having to do with the transmission of power and authority. The spectacle of men, kings, and princes at that, dressed as women, calls for a brief notice on the fundamental issue peculiar to the Egyptians and the Book of Abraham, namely, the tension between the claims of patriarchal vs. matriarchal succession.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=48&chapid=294

Now I'd expect Fortigurn to brush off something like this (perhaps being too long and too involved for his lazy research attitude), but I'd expect someone like CaliforniaKid to take a real look at it (not yet saying he's not).

[_CaliforniaKid]

BCSpace,

The crossdressing explanation is so far out there that I don't even know where to begin refuting it. But in any case, my thread is about the translation of the characters over people's heads, not about the ways the apologists reinterpret the vignette to fit Joseph Smith's explanation.

-CK