“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

[Shulem]

What if Dr. Muhlestein claimed that a roll of Scott gold tissue, containing laser imprinted Reformed Egyptian algorithms, proved that the Book of Abraham was the real deal due to previously unknown information on its 1000 sheet length?

Could Chris Smith's analyzing metrics cope with that? (Squeezing the roll to assess its gentleness would be allowed).

Scroll length and thickness was a red herring -- a total waste of time. I realize it was important to Chris Smith and I don’t fault him for spending so much effort on that project but the whole thing did not interest me in the least. I saw it as a distraction and something the apologists would use to slow things down and avoid what’s really pertinent -- translation fraud.

Dr. Muhlestein is over his head if he thinks to defend Joseph Smith’s translations from the roll Smith ripped from the poor mummy’s arms. Sacred records were brutally torn from the mummies which were later treated like props at a freak circus show for Smith family amusement. The whole affair was a classic display of the greed of man trying to get what they could from buried bodies whether it be treasure or pretended lost books of the Bible. Joseph Smith may fool Dr. Muhlestein as he did me for much of my adult life but I used my God-given mind to think for myself and come to terms with reality. Professor Brian Hauglid has also seen the light. When will Gee & Muhlestein come to terms and realize that it’s pointless to defend the Book of Abraham and the translations Smith provided for Facsimile No. 3?

[Shulem]

I know Smith was heavily influenced by the Adam Clarke Commentary. I devoted an entire thread “Borrowed Robes” – The JST’s Reliance on the Adam Clarke Bible Commentary (RATED PG) on that subject in which it complimented a Radio Free Mormon podcast. Egyptian content in that thread is eye-opening. Could it be that the Adam Clarke Commentary coaxed Smith into using the name-title “Pharaoh” as an anachronism in the Book of Abraham narrative for kings of Egypt? Could it also be this is where he learned that the crocodile was the god of Pharaoh as mentioned in Facsimile No. 1? Sure, why not? One thing I’ve learned about Joseph Smith is he had a habit of borrowing or stealing from other sources.

Josephus expressly says that one part of the oppression suffered by the Israelites in Egypt was occasioned by building pyramids. Exodus 1:14.

In the book of Genesis, and in this book, the word Pharaoh frequently occurs, which, though many suppose it to be a proper name peculiar to one person, and by this supposition confound the acts of several Egyptian kings, yet is to be understood only as a name of office.

It may be necessary to observe that all the Egyptian kings, whatever their own name was, took the surname of Pharaoh when they came to the throne; a name which, in its general acceptation, signified the same as king or monarch, but in its literal meaning, as Bochart has amply proved, it signifies a crocodile, which being a sacred animal among the Egyptians, the word might be added to their kings in order to procure them the greater reverence and respect.

The word “Pharaoh” should not have been used in the story of the Book of Abraham. It does not belong in the Explanation for Facsimile No. 3 as it was not a title used during Abraham’s time. Smith assumed the name was universal in Egypt and representative of all kings of Egypt since its formation. That is simply not true. The title is a later construct used in dynastic Egypt long after Abraham’s time.

[Moksha]

The word “Pharaoh” should not have been used in the story of the Book of Abraham. It does not belong in the Explanation for Facsimile No. 3 as it was not a title used during Abraham’s time. Smith assumed the name was universal in Egypt and representative of all kings of Egypt since its formation. That is simply not true. The title is a later construct used in dynastic Egypt long after Abraham’s time.

Even if Joseph got this wrong, it nevertheless becomes truth for the Saints by virtue of Joseph having said it. Professors Muhlestein and Gee will insist on King Pharaoh, Shulem the head waiter, and Anubis as the chiseled-down slave who attends him. Lying for the Lord/Church/BYU becomes imperative in this case. It is a mostly harmless lie since members are able to retain 90% of their income.

[Shulem]

Here is a perfect example of how apologists apply smoke and mirrors in performing their brand of apologetic tricks of the trade while defending the Book of Abraham’s erroneous translations tendered by Joseph Smith. This is how they attempt to get you to take your eye off the ball. First, they want to remind you how educated and smart they are by being able to cite fancy references and provide lots of footnotes -- all this to point in a direction away from the target. But this does not impress me. These smoke and mirror tricks don’t work with me and everyone should know about them in order to promptly dismiss apologetic propaganda used to deceived readers.

Framing the Book of Abraham: Presumptions and Paradigms

After all, the canonical text of the Book of Abraham purports to be Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of a historical narrative attributed to the eponymous biblical patriarch and preserved on an ancient Egyptian papyrus. This means, at a minimum, that anyone wishing to pass judgment on the authenticity of the text is going to need some kind of training in, or at least exposure to, the following disciplines: (1) Syro-Levantine, Anatolian, and/or Mesopotamian archaeology of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2200–1600 bc), in order to suitably consider the historical plausibility of the events depicted in the text;3 (2) the Hebrew Bible, in order to conduct a proper comparative analysis of the biblical material (specifically Genesis 1:1–2:20; 11:27–12:13) that overlaps with the text;4 (3) Egyptology, including its subdiscipline papyrology and specialization in the funerary literature of the Ptolemaic Period, in order to assess the nature and content of the Joseph Smith Papyri and the three facsimiles that accompany the text, as well as to evaluate the historical and cultural setting of the papyri;5 (4) Greco-Roman Judaism, particularly Egyptian Judaism, in order to evaluate the significance of the many extra-biblical texts relating to Abraham composed during this period;6 (5) nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint history and theology, especially the theology of “translation” and the production of scripture in the religious [Page 265]worldview of Joseph Smith, in order to accurately understand how the Prophet produced the Book of Abraham and what he and contemporaries thought about the text;7 (6) textual criticism, to accurately understand the authorship and transmission of the manuscripts related to Joseph Smith’s Abrahamic project.

Let’s examine Smoot’s apologetic trick and see through the fog of smoke and reveal the mirrors designed to reflect irrelevancy in order to take our eyes and intellect away from the target. This is a prime example of how apologists deceive you:

This means, at a minimum, that anyone wishing to pass judgment on the authenticity of the text is going to need some kind of training in, or at least exposure to, the following disciplines:

(1) Syro-Levantine, Anatolian, and/or Mesopotamian archaeology of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2200–1600 bc), in order to suitably consider the historical plausibility of the events depicted in the text;3

None of this is needed to be able to read and understand the text and message contained in the writing above the head of Fig. 2 in Facsimile No. 3. No need to have any of these qualifications or background. The Explanation given by Smith is false and there is nothing Smoot can say or do to change that. Matters of Syro-Levantine, Anatolian, and/or Mesopotamian archaeology will assist nobody in determining that there is no king’s name in the label as Smith claimed. You can toss all that other stuff out the window. It means absolutely nothing.

(2) the Hebrew Bible, in order to conduct a proper comparative analysis of the biblical material (specifically Genesis 1:1–2:20; 11:27–12:13) that overlaps with the text;4

You don’t need the Bible to be able to determine that there is no king’s name and that Shulem is not found in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. The Bible does not mention the name of any Egyptian king during Abraham’s era.

(3) Egyptology, including its subdiscipline papyrology and specialization in the funerary literature of the Ptolemaic Period, in order to assess the nature and content of the Joseph Smith Papyri and the three facsimiles that accompany the text, as well as to evaluate the historical and cultural setting of the papyri;5

Dr. Ritner made it explicitly clear that his students would be able to recognize a king’s name written in Egyptian hieroglyphic text on “day 1” in his class. Being able to recognize a king’s name is the easiest exercise in reading Egyptian hieroglyphics. Subdiscipline papyrology and specialization is not necessary in order to identify a Cartouche and an obvious royal name enclosed therein.

(4) Greco-Roman Judaism, particularly Egyptian Judaism, in order to evaluate the significance of the many extra-biblical texts relating to Abraham composed during this period;6

None of this is needed in order to come to terms that the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are false. I know what Joseph Smith said about the mummies and papyrus. I don’t need Smoot to try and tell me otherwise and wow me with his superior education in things that serve no purpose in understanding that there is no king’s name in the writing of Facsimile No. 3! It’s really as simple as ABC. You only need know your Egyptian ABCs to know that Smith didn’t know what he was talking about.

(5) nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint history and theology, especially the theology of “translation” and the production of scripture in the religious [Page 265]worldview of Joseph Smith, in order to accurately understand how the Prophet produced the Book of Abraham and what he and contemporaries thought about the text;7

Smoot is trying to change the definition of translation and put words in Joseph Smith’s mouth. I seriously wonder if he has read everything Smith ever said on the subject and if he has, he doesn’t understand what the prophet meant. Joseph Smith said what he meant and meant what he said! I take what Smith said at face value.

What’s the king’s name, Smoot? Can you translate that for me?

(6) textual criticism, to accurately understand the authorship and transmission of the manuscripts related to Joseph Smith’s Abrahamic project.

I’m very critical of the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. I know that Joseph Smith couldn’t read Egyptian. I know that he couldn’t translate Egyptian. I know that there is no king’s name in that writing. There is nothing Smoot can do to justify Smith’s error and produce a king’s name in that text.

[Shulem]

Even if Joseph got this wrong, it nevertheless becomes truth for the Saints by virtue of Joseph having said it. Professors Muhlestein and Gee will insist on King Pharaoh, Shulem the head waiter, and Anubis as the chiseled-down slave who attends him.

The bottom line is that Joseph SAID IT. He said a lot of things about the papyrus, mummies, translations, etc. Others who heard him speak on the subject relayed or repeated what he pretty much said. Everything came from Joseph. The buck stops with him. He said there is a king’s name in the writing. It’s incumbent on believers who are pushing this stuff as part of their canon, which it is, to PROVE IT. This is something that can be proved through the discipline of the human language in and of itself. Faith is not a needed ingredient. It has nothing to do with religion and mysteries of Godliness hidden away in a secret room of the Mormon temple. It’s human language on a sheet of papyrus!

Apologists are stuck at Square One and can’t move forward until they pass that square. All their other so-called direct hits and bullseyes can be easily dealt with. I know all of them, I think, and they’re not very impressive when you take them apart and explain it in logical terms. When it comes down to it, all of them can be explained and shown to be anything short of miraculous.

Now, the apologists are at Square One when it comes to defending the Book of Abraham and it starts with the king’s name. If they can’t handle the heat in the kitchen then maybe it’s time for them to close the door and leave? The pot is boiling over and the stove is on high. The king’s name is not going away. I will ask it over and over and challenge all the Mormon apologists to come forward and tell me the “name” and then we can discuss why they think it’s that name.

[Shulem]

VIDEO

46:00 mark
Robin Jensen & Brian Hauglid--"Joseph Smith Papers, R&T 4: Bk of Abraham" (Benchmark Books, 11/14/18)

There is a subset of scholarship that has really tried to tackle the papyri and vignettes what are called facsimiles and try and to correlate that or not correlate that with Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham. We have not done a lot of that because a lot of that work is not what the Joseph Smith Papers does, the Joseph Smith Papers presents the documents for other scholars to draw their own conclusions, so no, we haven’t done that in our volume, the Explanations in the Facsimiles really is the crux of it, right, particularly Facsimile 3, where, I’m thinking of one of the Explanations says “This is King Pharaoh”, you’ll know that because the characters above his head. So, we have Joseph Smith, presumably, who is making this translation, making this correlation, that these characters mean this is Pharaoh and that is not what it is. Egyptologists recognize who that figure is, they read the characters somewhat for the most part, and that’s not it. So that really is the question, if Joseph says that this is a translation and it’s not actually a translation, what does that mean?

[Philo Sofee]

VIDEO

46:00 mark
Robin Jensen & Brian Hauglid--"Joseph Smith Papers, R&T 4: Bk of Abraham" (Benchmark Books, 11/14/18)

There is a subset of scholarship that has really tried to tackle the papyri and vignettes what are called facsimiles and try and to correlate that or not correlate that with Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham. We have not done a lot of that because a lot of that work is not what the Joseph Smith Papers does, the Joseph Smith Papers presents the documents for other scholars to draw their own conclusions, so no, we haven’t done that in our volume, the Explanations in the Facsimiles really is the crux of it, right, particularly Facsimile 3, where, I’m thinking of one of the Explanations says “This is King Pharaoh”, you’ll know that because the characters above his head. So, we have Joseph Smith, presumably, who is making this translation, making this correlation, that these characters mean this is Pharaoh and that is not what it is. Egyptologists recognize who that figure is, they read the characters somewhat for the most part, and that’s not it. So that really is the question, if Joseph says that this is a translation and it’s not actually a translation, what does that mean?

JUST WOW....... at last! Some honesty from LDS... I am impressed.

[Moksha]

This means, at a minimum, that anyone wishing to pass judgment on the authenticity of the text is going to need some kind of training in, or at least exposure to, the following disciplines:

(1) Syro-Levantine, Anatolian, and/or Mesopotamian archaeology of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2200–1600 bc), in order to suitably, consider the historical plausibility of the events depicted in the text.

Joseph had none of these qualifications when he was writing the book of Abraham.

[Philo Sofee]

This means, at a minimum, that anyone wishing to pass judgment on the authenticity of the text is going to need some kind of training in, or at least exposure to, the following disciplines:

(1) Syro-Levantine, Anatolian, and/or Mesopotamian archaeology of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2200–1600 bc), in order to suitably, consider the historical plausibility of the events depicted in the text.

Joseph had none of these qualifications when he was writing the book of Abraham.

Smoot is just continuing to borrow Nibley's approach which means that no one up until the 1960's, prophets, apostles, missionaries, members, could possibly grasp the Book of Abraham. A pretty ridiculous thing when you realize everyone at one time was using it, reading it, quoting it, and getting the Holy Ghost to tell them it's true. Why would he do that if they didn't grasp what it meant or said?! With just a little bit of careful reflection, Smoot's house of cards come tumblin down... again. it happens every time with the Mopologetic arguments.

[Shulem]

JUST WOW....... at last! Some honesty from LDS... I am impressed.

Do note that Jensen admits that the Explanations of the Facsimiles, “particularly Facsimile 3” leads us to the heart of the matter when he says it “really is the crux of it” and then gives the example of the missing king’s name which questions the translation ability of the prophet. I’ve said time and time again that everything hangs on the king’s name. It seems that Jensen and Hauglid are recognizing this and it is raising serious questions and concerns in scholarly circles of the Church. And, just to define the word “crux” it means “the decisive or most important point at issue.”

John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein don’t have their work cut out for them because there is nothing they can do to produce a king’s name or justify the idea that King Pharaoh is identified in the characters of that register. It is IMPOSSIBLE to come to that conclusion and the day of reconning has come for Book of Abraham apologetics. I’m going to keep sounding off and building the case for my argument that Joseph Smith flat out lied about being able to translate Egyptian. But this needs to be done respectfully and in a courteous manner as much as possible. This is a very touchy subject and nerves are on edge!

Philo, I can tell you that certain threads on this board (CELESTIAL FORUM) will be read by General Authorities of the Church. They will come here and read what is being said on a scholarly level so long as we maintain the rules of this forum but more importantly, do it with a sincere heart and honest to goodness intentions on just telling the truth without trying to make them feel bad about it. That is where we as critics need to make an important shift, at least I do, and I am doing that in this forum. I appreciate your help and assistance in doing this great work.

Behold, thou are called to the work, even my servant Philo Sofee, thou shalt be my scribe or my apostle or prophet, it matters not, and cause the finer points of the Book of Abraham to come to light. Thy voice shall be heard across the earth and thy voice shall sound in every ear and penetrate the walls of every apologetic fortress until they come out and reason with us together and confess that the Book of Abraham is not what it claims to be.

Amen.