NOM

Seems like there is a lot of interest in the Book of Abraham controversy and current apologetic efforts to obfuscate the issue. Here is some additional information that just wrecks the apologists' arguments.

There is an Egyptologist with the University of Chicago, Robert K. Ritner, who initially published an actual translation of the Joseph Smith papyri, with some commentary regarding the veracity of the Book of Abraham. Find the original paper here:

http://www.utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf

Subsequent to the University of Chicago paper, the Church issued the Book of Abraham Gospel Topic discussion, find it here:

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation- ... of-abraham

As a specific response to the Church's apologetic efforts regarding the Book of Abraham, Dr. Ritner wrote this:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchica ... inal-2.pdf

Massively damaging stuff.

Archimedes wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:23 pm

Seems like there is a lot of interest in the Book of Abraham controversy and current apologetic efforts to obfuscate the issue. Here is some additional information that just wrecks the apologists' arguments.

There is an Egyptologist with the University of Chicago, Robert K. Ritner, who initially published an actual translation of the Joseph Smith papyri, with some commentary regarding the veracity of the Book of Abraham. Find the original paper here:

http://www.utlm.org/other/robertritnerpapyriarticle.pdf

Subsequent to the University of Chicago paper, the Church issued the Book of Abraham Gospel Topic discussion, find it here:

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation- ... of-abraham

As a specific response to the Church's apologetic efforts regarding the Book of Abraham, Dr. Ritner wrote this:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchica ... inal-2.pdf

Massively damaging stuff.

Interesting that the history does mention more than one scroll but no mention made of how long they actually we're. I have doubts they were of any significant length.

What is even more crazy is Joseph's extraction of a ”certificate" from Chandler, owner of the mummies, that Joseph's initial translation was correct and better than all of the previous efforts made by "learned" men.

That Joseph was so smart. If Chandler could certify the translation, I wonder why he brought it to Joseph to be translated in the first place???

Yeah, that Joseph was pretty cagey alright...

Archimedes wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:23 pm

As a specific response to the Church's apologetic efforts regarding the Book of Abraham, Dr. Ritner wrote this:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchica ... inal-2.pdf

That is a great read. Thanks!

When I wrote the following in another thread, I hadn't read Ritner's response, and searching for "Pharaoh" on lds.org (and in my LDS scriptures app) didn't turn up anything in the facsimiles.

Reuben wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:34 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:51 am

And why would Nephi say "his name shall be Jesus Christ," considering that neither of those words are his name. But then, the pharaoh in the Book of Abraham is named Pharaoh.

Weird. It's like this in the Old Testament, too.

So I did some Googling. It looks like "Pharaoh" is the English spelling of the Greek spelling of the Egyptian word "Pero," which is a royal title that replaced "Your Majesty" (and probably "His Majesty" and similar) at some point. Given that, the only thing that jumps out as potentially problematic is the phrase "the Pharaohs." But I don't know Egyptian.

Ritner, who does know Egyptian, calls out "King Pharaoh" in the "translation" of Facsimile 3 as meaning that Joseph Smith thought "Pharaoh" was a proper name, because "King Pharaoh" really means "King King." If I had found "King Pharaoh" earlier, just going by what I had read, I would have said "King Pharaoh" means "King His Majesty," which is just as stupid.

(But maybe it's repetition for emphasis! Like "Wo, wo, wo unto you" and such. That pharaoh was like, WAY king. Extremely king.)

It's weird that lds.org searches don't turn up hits in the facsimile translations.

The only way to make the Book of Abraham stomach-able is to pretend there are missing scrolls, which matches NOTHING beyond a few off-hand accounts backed by no evidence whatsoever, and in some cases contradicted by the evidence that we do have.

And even if you concede there might be other scrolls, how do you account for the fact that Joseph Smith got *everything* wrong with what we do have?

That's like if you turn in 3 reports and they are all a failing grade, but then you say "Yeah, but the one you didn't read was a damned masterpiece."

The LDS essay is an absolute trainwreck - Hagoth's work in deconstructing it is more inspired than Joseph's "translation" will ever be.

The Book of Abraham is obviously a figment of Joseph's imagination. Other evidence for this is the fantastic story of the discovery of Egypt, presumably after the flood, in Abraham chapter 1:21-31. I'm curious if any apologists are going to try to defend that.

Any notion of where the content came from? JS seems to have ripped off most of his material from somewhere else, has there been any analysis of the content of the BoA to see if some of the source material relates closely to 19th century writings or teachings?

Archimedes wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:23 pm

Massively damaging stuff.

Thanks for posting these, good reads.

The "whatever happened to the lectures on faith?" Question may become the "whatever happened to the pearl of great price?" Question...

Reuben wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:12 am

Ritner, who does know Egyptian, calls out "King Pharaoh" in the "translation" of Facsimile 3 as meaning that Joseph Smith thought "Pharaoh" was a proper name, because "King Pharaoh" really means "King King." If I had found "King Pharaoh" earlier, just going by what I had read, I would have said "King Pharaoh" means "King His Majesty," which is just as stupid.

(But maybe it's repetition for emphasis! Like "Wo, wo, wo unto you" and such. That pharaoh was like, WAY king. Extremely king.)

It's weird that lds.org searches don't turn up hits in the facsimile translations.

It's even worse than this, because the word "Pharaoh" (meaning "great house") wasn't even used as a title for pharaohs until the nineteenth dynasty, long after Abraham (!?!). Yes, we have another anachronism.

slavereeno wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:27 am

Any notion of where the content came from? JS seems to have ripped off most of his material from somewhere else, has there been any analysis of the content of the BoA to see if some of the source material relates closely to 19th century writings or teachings?

It seems like there was some Abraham content in Josephus... (Antiquities of the Jews, Chs. 7-9). Not 19th C, but JS would definitely have had access to Josephus.

BTW...The Book of Abraham is really dodgy. It was the first major crack in my testimony of JS's teachings...

Brent wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:46 pm

The "whatever happened to the lectures on faith?" Question may become the "whatever happened to the pearl of great price?" Question...

I kind of think this has already happened. Is there even one example of the Correlated lesson manuals for this year referencing Book of Abraham in any context?

BTW...The Book of Abraham is really dodgy. It was the first major crack in my testimony of JS's teachings...

Same here.

But at least we still have chiasmus in the book of Mormon!

Good reads. I like this statement

"... a valuable witness to early American religious history and to the recourse to ancient texts as sources of modern religious faith and speculation."

Because as we also know now there were many at that time (and even our modern times, e.g. L. Ron) that claim to have mysterious ancient writings or knowledge of ancient things that gives them a reason to start a religion an have their believers pay them lots of money. It's a pretty common pattern and not at all unique to the Smith family and their cronies. Looks like BS, smells like BS, rhymes with LDS.

I read some of the Ritner rebuttal. I'll be reading it later.

I'm out--the church and JS are liars, but I have to confess I still feel sadness. I use to believe this stuff. I spend SIGNIFICANT time and effort reading, studying, memorizing, etc these books.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:34 am

I read some of the Ritner rebuttal. I'll be reading it later.

I'm out--the church and JS are liars, but I have to confess I still feel sadness. I use to believe this stuff. I spend SIGNIFICANT time and effort reading, studying, memorizing, etc these books.

I'm going to take a page from Neil A. Maxwell.

"Drink of a bitter cup without becoming bitter."

Living a good and happy life without the Mormon church is the best revenge. And yes...I said "Mormon" on purpose. It makes me feel a little naughty.

Archimedes wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:16 pm

But at least we still have chiasmus in the book of Mormon!

Howls of laughter. Great hat-tip to Consiglieri!

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:38 am

Archimedes wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:16 pm

But at least we still have chiasmus in the book of Mormon!

Howls of laughter. Great hat-tip to Consiglieri!

That's awesome you caught that.

Archimedes wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:43 am

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:38 am

Archimedes wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:16 pm

But at least we still have chiasmus in the book of Mormon!

Howls of laughter. Great hat-tip to Consiglieri!

That's awesome you caught that.

Chiasmus is such a really cool thing
.....to think about it makes me sing
..........I wish that a cool prophet was I
...............Then all day long I'd eat cherry pie
...............But the cherries were bitter in that pie
..........They made me sad so I had to cry
.....but the cure for that was to have a fling
Because LDS church chiasmus is a stupid thing

----------------------------------
OH CRAP...I'm a prophet AFTER ALL!!!!

Anyone want to help me sell the copyright?