Shulem wrote:
You know more about Book of Abraham problems than the key persons who supervised the printing press for the Times and Seasons as previously shown in one of my earlier posts, namely: Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Reuben Hedlock.
OK, here's the thing. Studies of the Book of Abraham have produced a treasure trove of research and information. The fact is, there is a lot we know and a lot we don't know in full. The research is wonderfully complex with all kind of convoluted answers from both the critics and the apologists. One apologist that I don't think we've mentioned in this thread (I could be mistaken) is Kerry Muhlestein. I think this final comment he made in a rather long essay is worth thinking about:
there are many concepts having to do with the Book of Abraham that we are still trying to understand. Do we currently have all the answers? Certainly not. Do we have better answers than our critics? Unabashedly yes. Do we understand as much as we would like? No, and this is part of why we are in such an intensive study of the Book of Abraham. There are so many things we want to understand and so many fruitful avenues of research. I expect that I will spend my life trying to better understand this wonderfully complex book and its accompanying story. Will questions arise in the future for which we will not immediately have answers? Undoubtedly. Are there questions that arise from the facsimiles that I cannot explain now? Yes. Joseph identifies certain people in Facsimile 3 and points out that their names are indicated by the hieroglyphs over their heads. As I translate these hieroglyphs, they do not match Joseph’s interpretations. There are some facts that cast light on this. I am not disturbed by Joseph labeling Figure 2 as a male when the picture and text identify a female. This happened more often in Egyptian papyri than one would think. Strikingly, the ancient owner of Facsimile 3 was pictured as both a male and female in his own Book of the Dead. Yet this does not fully satisfy my questions about how I understand the labels Egyptologically as opposed to how Joseph Smith understood them.
While I am not satisfied with the answer thus far, I am not concerned. During more than a decade of research on this subject, I have often found that I have misunderstood the Book of Abraham and made incorrect assumptions about it. Even more frequently I have found mistakes and inaccuracies in my own professional discipline, Egyptology. We are a fairly young discipline, and just as research on the Book of Abraham is a work in progress, so is Egyptology as a whole. Our history as a discipline is full of gaffes, mistakes, stumbles, and wonderful discoveries and corrections. Many of these corrections have been immensely helpful in my efforts to understand the Book of Abraham.
Thus, while there are questions which have not been fully answered, I know that the search for answers is part of scholarly progress. As an Egyptologist I have far more unanswered questions regarding Egyptian history than I have regarding the Book of Abraham. I was once dissatisfied with the question of human sacrifice as depicted in Facsimile 1, and no answer appeared to be forthcoming. But we have learned more, and now I am satisfied. I once was dissatisfied with explanations of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, but as we have done further research I have become satisfied (though I still have questions as to what they really represent). Claims of textual anachronisms once gave me pause, but research has answered each of these questions. How grateful I am that I did not abandon my faith over these questions, for they have now been answered so well. As we wrestle with these issues, undoubtedly both critics and defenders will make missteps along the way. Most likely there will be questions for which we will not find answers in my lifetime. Perhaps we will in the next. We have eventually found answers to past questions, so I research furiously but wait patiently for answers to current ones.
https://rsc.BYU.edu/archived/volume-11- ... nd-answers
I know you're an expert Paul. I know Kerry Muhlestein is an expert and an Egyptologist. I have seem him and others ridiculed on this board. Ritner is used as the example of how an Egyptologist fatally slayed the apologists. But a layperson finds themself caught in the middle between two groups of people. Those that have evidence that they believe destroys the Book of Abraham and those that believe they have evidence that supports the Book of Abraham. I can't help but think that one's worldview also enters into which of these two camps. Of course each group is going to say "Come, we have the truth!"
I want to find out more, and read more about the Book of Abraham. Like I said, this is one area that I haven't studied as deeply as some others. Should I simply take Paul's word for it that Fac.3 is the 'smoking gun'? I don't think that would be wise. If I was convinced through deeper study that he has the upper hand over Kerry Muhlestein, Gee, and others (can you recommend other good researchers out there?) then I would have some adjustments to make. I am not at that place. How do I know, for a fact, that others here on this isolated board in the universe of boards/forums have actually given the time and effort to look at all the evidence, including those somewhat complex arguments for antiquity given by Muhlestein and Co.?
I don't.
But I do want to read the paper Fence Sitter linked to and I want to spend some more time with Kerry Muhlestein's paper I linked to above and gain some further light and knowledge on this topic. Others that haven't covered all the bases...I'd suggest the same thing. Those that have covered ALL the bases...awesome.
Regards,
MG
