FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments

[_Shulem]

As for Abraham sitting on a king's throne—another detail not mentioned in Genesis—note this example from Qisas al-Anbiya' (Stories of the Prophets), an Islamic text compiled in AD 1310: "The chamberlain brought Abraham to the king. The king looked at Abraham; he was good looking and handsome. The king honoured Abraham and seated him at his side."23

Well it just so happens that Abraham was a great folk hero in different cultures – so what. The Explanations of the Facsimile are still wrong even though Islam and the Book of Abraham talk about Abraham being honored. It changes nothing.

Morris concludes,
Ritner may counter that such parallels do not establish the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. That is true, but certainly they deserve some mention. At the very least, these parallels show that "all of this nonsense" is not really an appropriate description of Joseph Smith's interpretation. Fairness demands that Ritner, in his dismissal of the content of the Book of Abraham, at least mention similarities between it and other texts about Abraham and point readers to other sources of information.

Just when you think the apologist is beginning to be reasonable he completely falls apart at the seams. The apologist should confess that parallels from other cultures are not going to make Joseph Smith’s translations correct. What is nonsense? This is nonsense:

1. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head
2. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
3. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
4. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

Either the above is true or it is not. Either Joseph Smith saw God or he did not. Either the above is nonsense or it is not. Either the above was translated correctly or it was not.

It's really that simple.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

Criticism regarding Joseph's interpretation of specific textual elements of Facsimile 3
Critics focus on three specific interpretations which reference an interpretation of characters in the facsimile. Joseph Smith provides the following identifications for three of the figures in the facsimile:
• 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.
What is notable in these particular identifications is that Joseph isn't simply assigning an identify to each figure, but is indicating that characters located near each figure confirm the assignments. Egyptologists note that the characters have an entirely different meaning.

Alas, it appears the apologist is beginning to appeal to reason and summarizes succinctly that Joseph Smith’s interpretations are not in agreement with conventional Egyptology. I appreciate that the apologist is pointing out that persons drawn in the vignette are directly linked to the hieroglyphic writing – like a family portrait would bear the name of the family at the header/footer or a photo of a US President would include his real name and title.

All of this, of course, does not paint a pretty picture for the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 which Joseph Smith published to the world in declaring his divine ability to translate Egyptian. The apologist has a serious problem on his hands.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

Shulem
We do not know why Joseph assigned the name "Shulem" to figure #5.

Well, you really don’t need to know why. You just need to know that he did and the assigning/translating of the name is bogus.

Hugh Nibley notes,
But where does Abraham come in? What gives a "family-night" aspect to our Facsimile 3 is figure 5, who commands the center of the stage. Instead of his being Abraham or Pharaoh, as we might expect, he is simply "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters." To the eye of common sense, all of Joseph Smith's interpretations are enigmatic;

“Enigmatic” is an understatement, Mr. Nibley. This is not simply a matter that is difficult to interpret or understand. It’s a matter of a false translation, period. It is completely unEgyptian and has no common sense whatsoever to those who read, write, and speak Egyptian.

Hugh Nibley notes,

to illustrate his story best, the man on the throne should be Pharaoh, of course, and the man standing before him with upraised hand would obviously be Abraham teaching him about the stars, while figure 6 would necessarily be Abraham's servant (Eliezer was, according to tradition, a black man).252

No sir. The man on the throne is Osiris, a god of Egypt being depicted in a standard convention known to all of ancient Egypt. Joseph Smith unwittingly offered a wrong explanation.

Hugh Nibley notes,

But if we consult the Egyptian parallels to this scene instead of our own wit and experience, we learn that the person normally standing in the position of 5 is the owner of the stele and is almost always some important servant in the palace, boasting in the biographical inscription of his glorious proximity to the king. Hall's collection of biographical stelae includes a Chief of Bowmen, Singer of Amon, Chief Builder, Scribe of the Temple, Chief Workman of Amon, Fan Bearer, King's Messenger, Guardian of the Treasury, Director of Works, King's Chief Charioteer, Standard Bearer, Pharaoh's Chief Boatman, Intendant of Pharaoh's Boat-crew, Warden of the Harim, the Queen's Chief Cook, Chief of Palace Security, etc.253 All these men, by no means of royal blood, but familiars of the palace, have the honor of serving the king in intimate family situations and are seen coming before him to pay their respects at family gatherings.

Hugh Nibley liked to talk technical in order to get our minds to wonder away from the main point which is Joseph Smith was wrong. It was part of his dishonest apologetic tactic. What he said above changes nothing regarding the Explanations which are still 100% false.

Hugh Nibley notes,

Some of them, like the King's Chief Charioteer, have good Syrian and Canaanite names, like our "Shulem"—how naturally he fits into the picture as "one of the King's principal waiters!" The fact that high serving posts that brought one into close personal contact with Pharaoh—the greatest blessing that life had to offer to an Egyptian—were held by men of alien (Canaanite) blood shows that the doors of opportunity at the court were open even to foreigners like Abraham and his descendants.

The name Shulem is not contained in the writing as Joseph Smith said and neither does anyone by that so-called unEgyptian name “naturally” fit into the picture as a waiter. What Joseph Smith did was unnatural, inappropriate, unEgyptian, incorrect, and utterly dishonest. We see how Hugh Nibley blatantly shares in Joseph Smith’s dishonesty. The man had no shame.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

But why "Shulem"? He plays no part in the story.

You’re right about that, he plays no part in the story, whatsoever.

His name never appears elsewhere; he simply pops up and then disappears.

His name doesn’t exist in the hieroglyphic writing as Joseph Smith said. It’s all in the mind

And yet he is the center of attention in Facsimile 3!

The person in the center of Facsimile No. 3 is an Egyptian by the name of Hor who is standing before the gods of Egypt. The center of attention as far as Shulem is concerned is only in the mind of Joseph Smith which is not grounded in fact or reality.

That is just the point:

The point being that Joseph Smith is academically 100% wrong and falsified Egyptian iconography and lied about his ability to read the writing.

These palace servants would in their biographical stelae glorify the moment of their greatest splendor for the edification of their posterity forever after. This would be one sure means of guaranteeing a preservation of Abraham's story in Egypt. We are told in the book of Jubilees that Joseph in Egypt remembered how his father Jacob used to read the words of Abraham to the family circle.254 We also know that the Egyptians in their histories made fullest use of all sources available—especially the material on the autobiographical stelae served to enlighten and instruct posterity.255

Blah, blah, blah.

Facsimile 3 may well be a copy on papyrus of the funeral stele of one Shulem who memorialized an occasion when he was introduced to an illustrious fellow Canaanite in the palace.

Dream on. The apologist throws out this giant “WHAT IF” in a desperate attempt to save Joseph Smith’s explanation by simply saying that the explanation just hasn’t been discovered yet. But this does nothing to save his argument. The figures in the Facsimile are properly identified by Egyptologists not by Joseph Smith. Egyptologists can read the writing, not Joseph Smith.

A "principal waiter" (wdpw) could be a very high official indeed, something like an Intendant of the Palace. Shulem is the useful transmitter and timely witness who confirms for us the story of Abraham at court.

“Confirms the story”? You’ve got to be kidding me! Has the apologist gone mad and lost all sense of reality? Nothing is confirmed to support Joseph Smith’s false claims. There is no Shulem, period. The person is Hor. Joseph Smith was wrong and Egyptologists have confirmed that. It’s incredible how the apologists state things as if they have won the argument. Who do they think they are really fooling other than themselves and gullible Mormons.

The apologist wants us to think it’s reasonable to turn a waiter into a nobleman. But they can never turn a god into a slave. That is what they will have to do to Anubis to convert him to Olimlah.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

Criticism regarding Joseph's interpretation of specific visual elements of Facsimile 3
Figure 2, identified by Joseph as "King Pharaoh" and figure 4, identified by Joseph as "Prince of Pharaoh" are obviously drawn as female figures.

It’s obvious to me that the persons are female seeing that I have good eyesight and a good understanding of ancient Egypt for a layperson of the 21 century who appreciates Egyptology. But I can’t speak for others, more especially for Americans of the 19th century looking at the same figures. I would however assume that most people would identify the persons in question as being female.

The fact that they are drawn as females is so obvious, in fact, that critics take this as evidence of Joseph's lack of ability to interpret the facsimiles in any fashion whatsoever.

First, let us thank the apologist for admitting that it is a “FACT” that the persons in question were drawn as females by the ancient artists. It’s reasonable to expect that the apologist admit that the hieroglyphic labels vouch they are female. Egyptologists and critics of the Book of Abraham take that as proof that the interpretations offered by Joseph Smith’s Explanations are completely wrong. And since it is proven that his Explanations are wrong it goes to follow that he lacks the ability to interpret the Facsimile because of his ignorance of modern Egyptology and his inability to read and decipher the ancient language.

Since the figures would obviously have appeared as females even to Joseph's eye, why then are they interpreted as two of the primary male figures?

The apologist assumes that the figures would appear female to Joseph’s eye but we cannot be sure what Joseph Smith thought other than what he actually said or wrote. Anything else is pure speculation. Regardless of why Joseph Smith identified them as male, he was dead wrong. They are female, goddesses of ancient Egypt having a function completely different than what Joseph described in his Explanations.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

Regarding the identification of these figures, John Gee notes,
Facsimile 3 has received the least attention. The principal complaint raised by the critics has been regarding the female attire worn by figures 2 and 4, who are identified as male royalty. It has been documented, however, that on certain occasions, for certain ritual purposes, some Egyptian men dressed up as women.

Let the apologists feel free to post the vignettes of those men dressing up as women and let’s look at the evidence. I’ve researched one such example that Hugh Nibley used in his footnotes for this same argument and discovered that he greatly exaggerated this claim. I’ve also discussed this with an Egyptologist and we can safely dismiss John Gee and Hugh Nibley’s apologetic as a ruse.

This business about men dressing up as woman in order to save Facsimile No. 3, from Gee’s standpoint is ridiculous. How many people does Gee think are going to fall for that excuse? Nibley tried the same thing and I actually bothered to look up one of his chief references through the interlibrary loan system. I then passed off his reference to an Egyptologist for his opinion and was informed that Nibley's position "does not justify his ideas".

Any mention of kings dressing up as women is extremely rare in literature form, but using such cases to justify an eccentric interpretation of a fairly common scene is preposterous. The thought of pharaoh being visited by a foreign visitor while he himself dresses up as a woman is complete disregard for the truth and for the historical iconographic evidence that makes such an idea ridiculous.

Egyptologist Juan Castillos said:

“Wildung's statement does not justify Nibley's ideas since what it says is that the Pharaoh UNDER VERY SPECIFIC AND UNIQUE circumstances could be described as adopting a god or goddess as his divine manifestation but from there to assume that a Pharaoh will appear dressed up as a goddess while receiving a foreign visitor (as FARMS people say) not only is an undue extension of an obscure and infrequent religious conception but also not supported by the extant iconography where the king always appears as a man and as a king... I think it's another example of FARMS people splitting hairs and distorting facts in order to defend their unlikely views.”

J.J. Castillos

Paul O

[_bcuzbcuz]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_3

Latter-day Saints, as believers unequipped to deal with Egyptology, are not able to really assess that information for ourselves. We would need 15-20 years of schooling to do it. So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation.

This is not true! A student of Egyptology can obtain good books on Egyptian grammar, history, art, religion, etc., and within a few years develop a basic sense of identity and purpose for basic Egyptian messages and imagery. One does not need a degree in Egyptology to learn how to read the language on a basic level and identify with Egyptian art and culture. There are lots of books and material on the market that can assist anyone in achieving knowledge on the subject.

The dishonest apologist makes an either or statement that is utterly dishonest and untrue: “So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation”.

You make an excellent point. The crap from FairMormon about needing 15-20 years of schooling to gain basic information from Egyptian texts is exactly that, crap. I am one such "student of Egyptology". After retiring from my chosen career, earlier this year, I decided to go back to university to study a subject I have had an immense interest in for many years. I'm now into the third month of my studies in Egyptology at the University of Uppsala, that has a respected college of Ancient History and Egyptian Studies.

Granted, I have to read approx. 1000 pages a month and study a minimum of 6 hours a day to maintain good grades, but, hey, us pensioners have lots of time on our hands. I can now read some basic hieroglyphic texts and by the end of my second year I will be able to read both Hieroglyphic, Hieratic and probably demotic texts, although my major is history and not languages. All the basic texts can be bought on-line and delivered in a few days and are readily available to anyone willing to spend the time and money.

FairMormon is blowing smoke and it's not out of their mouths

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Granted, I have to read approx. 1000 pages a month and study a minimum of 6 hours a day to maintain good grades, but, hey, us pensioners have lots of time on our hands. I can now read some basic hieroglyphic texts and by the end of my second year I will be able to read both Hieroglyphic, Hieratic and probably demotic texts, although my major is history and not languages. All the basic texts can be bought on-line and delivered in a few days and are readily available to anyone willing to spend the time and money.

How many Hieroglyphics must one commit to memory in order to read ancient Egyptian inscriptions? I'm guessing you have a huge pile of flash cards.

[_Res Ipsa]

I guess I have to agree with FAIRMORMON -- it does put critics in a unassailable position. ;-)

[_The Erotic Apologist]

These "appeals to complexity" (or whatever you want to call them) were doubtless very effective before the internet. But now, after nearly two decades of ubiquitous internet access, this strategy just doesn't work anymore. In fact it's quickly becoming counterproductive. Personally, I find it all rather patronizing and insulting.

The "appeal to complexity" is the method used by apologists to succor enquiring minds without offering real answers. LDS people who question the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are simply given a pat on the back and told that it's just too hard to explain and to not worry about it. This is certainly a form of lying. I have to believe that Mormon apologists have perfected the art of lying. They are good at it and able to fool a great many ignorant LDS people.

Paul O

"They are good at it and able to fool a great many ignorant LDS people."

Yes, they certainly are good at it, but it really only works when the knowledge needed to turn complexity into comprehension is unavailable. But now that much of this knowledge is so readily accessible, these "appeals to complexity" no longer work. So then why do these old fossils continue with this losing strategy? Can't they see the rules of the game have changed? Can't they see that mounting a cavalry charge against advancing tanks is a suicidal proposition?