Time for another installment.
Next up, the Book of Abraham. By
the Kerry Muhlestein. He is an Egyptologist you know.
Ok, so he goes through the history, a section introducing the possibility of other scrolls, and a few sections detailing the mechanics of the translation.
The history was heavy on the divine providence, and definitely downplays the weird traveling salesman aspect. All he mentions is that some antiquities would "work their way" to Kirtland. As if they are the one ring to rule them all coming home to the master. The rest of the history seemed up front. Nothing to report.
Which papyri were translated? This is the section that introduces the possibility of more scrolls. This was heavy on the "anti-mormons are unfaithful" tone, and light on the details.
For them, it is simply a given that Joseph Smith translated the text adjacent to Facsimile 1 as the Book of Abraham.
Kerry suggests 3 ways to test this assumption
- 1. Examine the text to see if there are clues that indicate the relationship and position of the Facsimile to the text
- 2. Examine papyri from a similar time to determine if the texts and "vignettes"? were adjacent to each other
- 3. Examine accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the papyri and knew where Joseph was translating from
So, for point one he brings in verse 12 of the 1st chapter which refers the reader to the facsimile "at the commencement of the record." This suggests to Kerry that the Facsimile and the text Joseph was translating from were not next to each other. This does not explain why the "book of breathings" would be on the same scroll as the one Abraham used, and why those facsimiles which are in the "book of breathings" would be referring to the Book of Abraham, but maybe I have gotten some wires crossed.
For point two Kerry says "examining papyri from the same period reveals a similar pattern." Thats it. Take his word for it.
So at this point Kerry says that we cannot assume that the text giving rise to the book of Abraham is adjacent to the Facsimile.
Then for point three he brings in the eyewitnesses. He does say earlier that "Modern speculation about the role of the extant papyri in the translation of the Book of Abraham would be less important than evidence from eyewitnesses."
This is where the long roll comes in. Presumably, this will include all the third hand, 100 years later recollections of what the eyewitnesses told their grandkids. As citations he lists one Charlotte Haven, and a granddaughter of Hyrum Smith. Maybe I will track down these sources later. Maybe not. Probably not. This still does not explain why the book of breathings is present on Abraham's scroll, and why some of the book of breathings stuff is in the grammar and alphabet. Serious problems those are. Not dealt with in this essay are they.
Ok, now the mechanics of translation. He made me mad with this quote right off the bat:
For most people, the idea of translating is fairly straightforward.
But of course, nothing about what Joseph did is straightforward. It is all shrouded in secrecy, mystery, and convoluted. I dont want a God that plays mindgames. Anyway...
Kerry goes on to look at all the ways Joseph used the word "translate."
- Book of Mormon --- Seer stones called Urim and Thummim, as well as the rock. Basic point here is that Joseph translated an ancient language often without looking at the source material.
- Parchment written by John, shewed unto Joseph in a vision --- WTF, I never thought about this. Joseph was shown a vision of a record, that he "translated" i.e. God told him what was on it. D&C 7. The point is, he had no record, he just knew what to write. This is not inspiring confidence...
- The JST version of the Bible --- "He studied an English version of the Bible and provided us with another English version of the text that contained a translation (emphasis his) of things that enhanced the text. We know that Joseph ripped most of this off from Adam Clark's commentary widely available at the time. See http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296
- Next was the Book of Abraham --- The gist here is the catalyst theory. Joseph already demonstrated a willingness to translate in unorthodox ways,
and "some clues" point to this being the way he did it.
By the end of this section Kerry basically points to 4 ways in which Joseph "could have translated" and says it was probably a combination of all 4. To his credit, Kerry is probably right, Joseph did use all of his experiences and knowledge to bear to translate this record. The problem is that there are major issues with all of his experiences and past translations as well, and then this one provides the most damning of all problems, leaving us to doubt the whole shooting match altogether. Put all your eggs in Joseph's basket and bad things are going to happen.
Next comes the grammar part. I confess, I dont know a whole lot about the Grammar and Alphabet. But Kerry didnt make me feel very good about it.
Some have postulated that Joseph Smith used the Egyptian Alphabet to translate the characters on the Book of Abraham manuscript and that this is was both the source of the Book of Abraham and the method of it's translation. If this explanation were true, it would certainly simplify the questions we have been trying to answer. Unfortunately, this theory does not fit the evidence we have.
Kerry talks about Champollion and how they failed at deciphering Egyptian characters.
This is not surprising considering that none of the authors claimed to know or understand Egyptian and the translation of Egyptian characters had stumped scholars for centuries.
Except that one of them was a prophet claiming direct communication from God telling him how to translate, either way you slice it. Academic interest in the alphabet aside. Everyone knows that the grammar and alphabet were not used to translate the book. A question I have is whether Joseph led people to believe that his academic efforts were what translated it. There is no discussion of this in Kerry's essay. Makes me think that Joseph probably did. Why else would he do it? Is the grammar and alphabet a big deal to some of you, or more of an oddity?
Next Kerry compares the BOA to modern discoveries.
Many people ask how Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles compare to the interpretation an ancient Egyptian would have given that same drawing. This is a question worth asking but not simple to answer. (
) Part of the reason this question is dificult to answer is because it is not necessarily the right question to ask.
I am getting really tired of church people telling me that that is not the right question. Or instructing people to only answer question that people "should" have asked. Or first let me change the question. No, answer the question I have, not the one you want!!! Its a simple question!
Kerry goes on to pretty much say that maybe Joseph was just telling us how he viewed the facsimiles as a part of the spiritual interpretation needed in our time. Blech. What does all that mumbo jumbo on the facsimile have to do with spirituality? If members actively began to try and read into what those facsimiles really meant, church leaders would say it is unimportant to your salvation and you need to study more about tithing.
He then goes on to throw the entire Egyptology profession under the bus with a discussion about how what they know changes over time and maybe in the future what Joseph said will become true. It will if we move the goal posts enough. He goes on to relate all things about Egyptian culture that Egyptologists have changed their minds on. The problem with this discussion was that all of his citations were to either himself or Gee and most were publications in church journals. The professional ones were not top-tier. Now, I dont want to be an academic snob, but if you are going to try and upend the state of knowledge for Joseph Smith, it better be top-tier stuff. He talked a little about harmonizing Joseph Smith's view and an Egyptologists view of the texts. Based on my understanding of what Joseph said about the Book of Abraham, there just shouldnt be 2 different views.
He then talks about similarites between the BOA and non-biblical traditions regarding Abraham.
Yet each of the three Egyptian representations, or facsimiles, Joseph Smith said were associated with Abraham actually was associated with him by ancient Egyptians.
I dont really know what this means, and he does not explain it.
A few traditions that were not known in Josephs day but are found in the BOA:
- Disrupting worship of idols was punished by death
- Abraham prayed for deliverance when he was about to be killed for disrupting idol worship
- The priest trying to kill him was killed instead
- Abraham was heir to the priesthood because of his father
- Abraham had a Urim and Thummim
- Abraham possessed records
I dont know where some of this stuff comes from, do any of you know? Are there historical records of Abraham detailing some of this stuff?
The conclusion is basically to say that the Book of Abraham defies all explanation and is thus a miracle of revelation. I disagree with that assessment. I think it is easily explained once certain assumptions are discarded. Therein lied the rub though, Kerry specifically mentions that he thinks I have damaging assumptions that I must let go of. Mine are rooted in rationality though. His are rooted in dogma.