Polygamy Porter wrote:However, we all know your article would be a laughing stock if you attempted to foist it upon any non Mormon scholars.
Although my acquaintance with non-Mormon scholars is probably nothing compared to yours and although your training in ancient history and languages and your experience with the Near East undoubtedly eclipse mine, I don't know that at all.
I'm fully aware that my mostly secularized colleagues would find my particular religious allegiance quirky -- I talk about this very fact in my introduction to the new issue of the FARMS Review -- but there's nothing in that article that I would not stand behind even in their company. While I might or might not be able to convince them of any particular given point, I'm quite confident of the assertions I make in it.
Hi All Here,
Most LDS Apologists believe and maintain in the missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham. These LDS Apologists believe that the Book of Abraham was in no way translated from the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text). These LDS Apologists believe that the Book of Abraham was translated from a Missing Papyrus text, now no longer available to us. However, Virtually All of the Evidence Points to the Book of Abraham having been translated from the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen).
Here is what Kevin Graham wrote and quoted from Brent Metcalfe on the “FAIR"/MA&D Message Board many, many months ago there:
We also get all these wild excuses as to how the Breathings text couldn`t have possibily been the source for the Book of Abraham translation, but not one single LDS apologetic even acknolwedges the many reasons to believe it was. Here is a list provided by Metcalfe:
1. Facsimile 1 is the opening vignette in the Breathing Permit of Hôr.
2. Facsimile 3 is the closing vignette in the Breathing Permit of Hôr. (The Hôr papyrus fragment for Fac. 3 is not extant. Still, the Fac. 3 woodcut preserves the identity of the deceased—Hôr—confirming that it too belongs to Hôr's Breathing Permit.)
3. The BoAbr identifies Facsimile 1 (the opening vignette in Hôr's Breathing Permit) as an illustration placed at the "commencement" (Abr. 1:12) or "beginning" (Abr. 1:14) of patriarch Abraham's record.
4. Vignette Facsimile 3 (from the Breathing Permit of Hôr), according to Smith, also illustrates scenes from Abraham's life.
5. In keeping with the BoAbr claim that Facsimile 1 opened the record, all extant dictated BoAbr manuscripts (MS 1a [fldr. 2], MS 1b [fldr. 3], and MS 2 [fldr. 1]) contain authentic hieratic copied sequentially from the contiguous portion of the Breathing Permit of Hôr only. (There are two minor exceptions to sequence, but those characters too originate from Hôr's Breathing Permit. Invented, non-authentic Egyptian characters also appear on the manuscripts at points where the papyrus fragment has a lacuna.)
6. All authentic Egyptian characters in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language were copied from the Breathing Permit of Hôr.
7. Aside from hypocephalus Facsimile 2 (the original of which is no longer extant), Hôr's Breathing Permit is the only papyrus that is associated with Joseph Smith's BoAbr—an association that is attested to repeatedly in the BoAbr text and its antecedent manuscripts.
Point #5 is the true kicker, and to explain exactly how this worked, here is a photo of a KEP manuscript to the right.
( The Bold Emphasis is Mine here; It is Kevin quoting from Brent. )
The evidence is indeed extremely very, very Overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text is indeed the very source for the Book of Abraham, and from which the Book of Abraham was translated from.
Last edited by MSNbot Media on Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Polygamy Porter wrote:However, we all know your article would be a laughing stock if you attempted to foist it upon any non Mormon scholars.
Although my acquaintance with non-Mormon scholars is probably nothing compared to yours and although your training in ancient history and languages and your experience with the Near East undoubtedly eclipse mine, I don't know that at all.
I'm fully aware that my mostly secularized colleagues would find my particular religious allegiance quirky -- I talk about this very fact in my introduction to the new issue of the FARMS Review -- but there's nothing in that article that I would not stand behind even in their company. While I might or might not be able to convince them of any particular given point, I'm quite confident of the assertions I make in it.
Sorry that should been typed out as "tow the lie".
So you would stand up in a group of Egyptologists and tell them that you believe they are wrong because you prayed about it?
I'd pay just to witness such an event.
"No, you are wrong about his translation not being supported by Egyptology"
What is it about ancientness that leads people to assume that something is correct? Human beings have been around on this planet for over a hundred thousand years, and human beings have believed a lot of things. In ancient times, people believed in (thanks Richard Dawkins) the "juju up the mountain". If you found evidence for this "juju up the mountain" in Joseph Smith's writings, would the fact that some ancient tribe also believed that be proof that it was correct?
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that one could find some kind of parallel between something Joseph Smith wrote, and something believed in by ancient Israelites, or ancient Phoenicians, or whoever. So what? What if this ancient belief also happens to be just made up crap? So Joseph Smith wrote something with parallels to some ancient crap made up by the shamanistic priests of some bronze-age warrior society? Wow, stunning, it must be true!
Going back to the whole "divine council" thing. Mormons seem to latch onto this idea like superglue because Mormons believe in many gods (or at least, in this context, that Jesus was a "god" at the time he counciled with Elohim), and the rest of Christianity does not. So, if you find any evidence at all to suggest that ancient Israelites believed that at some point some gods got together and held a pow-wow about something, that's proof that Mormonism's beliefs are supported by ancient Israelite beliefs which go beyond what traditional Christianity offers, and as I mentioned above, for some reason ancient beliefs are seen to be somehow authoritative and true. The funny thing is, ancient Israelite religion evolved from the ancient religion of the area, with Baal and Jahweh being brothers under El, with other gods thrown in the mix as well, and a whole tradition that differs markedly from the concept of God as Mormons believe. Scholars track an evolution of ancient Israelite religion from polytheistic to monotheistic. So modern Christianity has its ideas inherited from a time after the transition to monotheism, while Mormonism has some beliefs which happen to "parallel" the ancient polytheistic beliefs. So freaking what? The ancient beliefs were mythology, no more reflective of reality than the stories of Hera and Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Hephaestus, Mars, Hades, and the rest of the gang. So Mormonisms beliefs are correct because there are parallels to ancient mythology? Go for it, if it works for you.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
For the record, I agree it's "toe the line", in reference to people standing lined up together on some line, like a military formation. Interestingly, "tow the line" would also make sense in that one could imagine a group of people pulling a line on a ship, for instance, and you are supposed to tow that line in unison with them. "2, 6, heave!" With everyone towing the line at the same time, you get stuff done. So I can see where people would think of that. But in reference to the original figure of speech, I believe it was in fact "toe the line" referring to standing aligned with others on some imaginary line, rather than the rope-pulling analogy.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
By the way, here's the Wikipedia article on the idiomatic phrase "toe the line" and its origin. If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true, you know, because, like, it's the Internet. :-)
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:Keep in mind that the word "translation" will be redefined to mean whatever it has to mean to fit whatever it is Joseph Smith is thought to have done. So, if Joseph converted one chunk of Egyptian into English by recognizing what the Egyptian meant, and then rendering that with equivelant English, then that's translation (in the usual sense), and if Joseph looked at an Egyptian character, asked God what it meant, and God filled his mind with the words of the Book of Abraham a la "catalyst theory", then that's "translation" too, of a peculiarly Mormon apologetic sort. The meaning of the term is slippery to an apologist, though I would venture to guess that to the chapel Mormons who wrote all of the things so far quoted in this thread, the word "translate" was used in its usual, English language, non-jargonized by apologists form.
Paul, you remind me of an old sitcom episode I saw so many years ago that I don't even recall what show it was from, where a member of the family the sitcom was about got sucked into some cult that worshipped a head of lettuce. I like to use the analogy that Joseph Smith, under the apologists excuses for how the Book of Abraham came about, could have "translated" a box of jelly donuts into the Book of Abraham, and that would have been just fine. I know we could count on Paul Osborne to tell us that box of jelly donuts really did contain the words of the Book of Abraham, as recorded in the Adamic through sacred techniques passed down from time immemorial by master bakers.
Listen up, pal. There is no question that Joseph Smith was translating characters into concepts through inspiration. Through a character came a train of thought. Just look how a single character could produce a whole sentence! A few of them could produce a whole paragraph! Now that is not something any prudent person after the manner of the world would do in effort to convince others that a conventional translation was in the makings. That was not how the prophet translated.
Here are some examples that prove my point. Notice how the prophet could take a known ancient character (Jahoheh, equivalent to a hieroglyph) and come up with several levels of information. Clearly this is NOT a conventional translation. Therefore, we LDS are not obligated to accept a conventional translation for the record presented to the Church for canonization.
If you disagree with me, then perhaps you might like to explain to me how the above information should be viewed as a conventional translation (based off of a single character) by those who saw the prophet translate. I don't think there is anything you can say to demonstrate how the KEP readings should be considered a conventional translation. Try if you will, but you will fall flat on your butt. And I'll be there to kick you when you're down, you can be sure of that.