Egyptologists and the Joseph Smith Papyri

[_Brackite]

John Gee has also been proclaiming that the Book of Breathings papyri text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text), was really about ten feet long. John Gee has been proclaiming that, mainly because he wants the LDS people to believe that the text of the book of Abraham was attached after the Book of Brrathings text, at the end part of that papyri roll. However, Egyptologist Dr. Robert Ritner disagrees with that, and he has responded with what John Gee states about that. Here is what Dr. R. Ritner stated and wrote:

There is no justification for Gee's unsubstantiated attempt to more than double this figure to '320 cm (about 10 feet)' in Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 10 and 12–13. Gee presumably wishes to allow space for a supposedly 'lost hieratic text' of The Book of Abraham; his figure derives from the average length of a manufactured (blank) Ptolemaic papyrus roll—not comparable, individual documents cut from such a roll. [R. Ritner, "Among the Joseph Smith Papyri," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62.3 (July 2003): 166n33]

[_CaliforniaKid]

Essential questions:

1) Is the original or copy of the papyri that Joseph Smith derived his Egyptian alphabet still in existence? Is it available? If so, who has it?

In part, yes. A number of the characters are taken from the columns of text next to facsimile 1 on the roll pictured above. Others are drawn from elsewhere (including the so-called Anthon Transcript) or completely fabricated. The papyri are in possession of the LDS church.

2) Is his alphabet yet in existence? Is it available? If so, who has it?

Yes. It is in the possession of the church. A bad copy is available from the UTLM bookstore for 8 dollars. A few scholars are currently sitting on the high-quality digital images of the documents, but they will be published eventually. The Church Historian's Office does not permit anyone but a couple hand-picked TBM scholars to access the actual documents.

3) Is his an accurate translation of the original/copy?

Not even close.

-CK

[_Paul Osborne]

Indeed, funerary literature was the source of all things Egyptian for the early brethren of the Church. You will not find hieroglyphs anywhere within the corpus of Church archives that mirrors what an Egyptologist would expect to find on papyrus if it actually contained the story of Abraham in conventional form. All evidence shows that the brethren worked with funerary text. Historical records show that everything the brethren ever talked about (described) or wrote about was funerary in nature. Every hieroglyph they toyed with was part of a funerary spell. There are no exceptions!

LDS apologists such as John Gee want us to avoid the real evidence and embrace imaginary evidence.


THIS IS WHAT THE PROPHET AND HIS BRETHREN WERE LOOKING AT:

Papyrus EAG Joseph Smith p. U & V




Papyrus EAG Joseph Smith p. U


Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

The evidence is indeed very, very overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text), is indeed the very source from which the Book of Abraham came from.

Brackite,

That was not an accurate statement.

It would read better if it said, "The evidence PROVES that the Book of Breathings text ". . . .

There is no question that funerary literature including the accompanying vignettes was part of the sacred papyri had by the prophet. There is no question that the Facsimiles contained in our Book of Abraham are part of the Book of Abraham. Funerary text goes hand in hand with funerary vignetts.

If John Gee disagrees with me then he is welcome to state the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3 and how it is that the great god Anubis is little more than a black slave.

Paul O

[_Inconceivable]

Essential questions:

1) Is the original or copy of the papyri that Joseph Smith derived his Egyptian alphabet still in existence? Is it available? If so, who has it?

In part, yes. A number of the characters are taken from the columns of text next to facsimile 1 on the roll pictured above. Others are drawn from elsewhere (including the so-called Anthon Transcript) or completely fabricated. The papyri are in possession of the LDS church.

2) Is his alphabet yet in existence? Is it available? If so, who has it?

Yes. It is in the possession of the church. A bad copy is available from the UTLM bookstore for 8 dollars. A few scholars are currently sitting on the high-quality digital images of the documents, but they will be published eventually. The Church Historian's Office does not permit anyone but a couple hand-picked TBM scholars to access the actual documents.

3) Is his an accurate translation of the original/copy?

Not even close.

-CK

Is everyone pretty sure about this?

Well then.. now that we've cut to the chase, I think we're done here.


Why write a book when a simple pamphlet will do?

[_Mephitus]

There are people who need step by step explinations on why their original conceptions on what they believe to be a holy book are wrong.

[_Mercury]

but with that said, he does have weaknesses in critical areas when it comes to Book of Abraham apologetics.

Yah, that whole belief in Mormonism really disqualifies him from talking about the BOOK OF BREATHINGS!

when you say critical areas I think you mean critical beliefs.

Also see belief in the FSM as criteria to comment on pasta and belief in invisible pink unicorns to comment on equestrian affairs.

Why is it that the (self proclaimed in some cases) egyptologist Mormon apologists do not see their faith as the only thing that separates them from actual, powers of ten more credible, egyptologists.

[_Mercury]

There are people who need step by step explinations on why their original conceptions on what they believe to be a holy book are wrong.

It does not phase them. They agree to the first two premises you discuss but then slap the table and say "Aha!" then further some watered down logical phallicy (yes, I spelled that correctly).

to truly reach a Mormon one must first help them see the facade that is their end-all bee-all.

Help them see the scale of the real world. Education is the best thing we can give the believer.

[_Inconceivable]

3) Is his an accurate translation of the original/copy?

...Not even close.

-CK

Understandably, "Not even close" is a subjective term.

Seriously, is there anyone out there that disagrees with CK?

Give or take 20 percent, what proportion was actually dead on?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Inconceivable,

Even Nibley considered the grammar completely worthless. I do believe Paul Osborne has identified one character that Joseph Smith translated correctly (even though he still got the transliteration wrong). It was the sign for "moon," I think, and it is round, which may be how Joseph Smith guessed it. Since there are about 40 characters studied in the Grammar, and each character is both translated and transliterated, that would make the Grammar just over one percent correct.

-CK