From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: Book of Abraham (was Re: Nibley, etc)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:27:12 GMT

> Subject: Re: LDS: Nibley, genius or fool
> From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:46:30 GMT
> 
> In Article: <1992Aug13.215539.16645@newsgate.sps.mot.com> Mark Fuller writes:
> 
> |already been translated many years previously.  Nibley failed to discuss
> |the meaning of the hyroglyphics of 'Facsimile No. 1', the reason being
> |that a true translation shows that the picture in the fragment is *not*
> |Abraham fastened on an altar, but an Egyptian man being prepared for
> |burial.
> 
> I don't know Mark Fuller, nor am I aware of the sources that he is using, but
> I am fairly up to date on the current statues of the BoA controversy (past
> and present) and I can only say that either Mr Fuller does not have all the
> facts in hand, or he is simply deceptive. I would prefer to believe the
> former. The Edward Ashment article in _Sunstone_ was a reprint of a
> presentation which he presented at one of the early Sunstone Symposiums.
> Ashment is both a Mormon and an accredited Egyptologist.
> 
> The gist of Ashment's presentation was that significant portions of Joseph
> Smith's interpretation of Facsimile No. 1 are very accurate. 

I see. Does he address the resemblance of the items labeled 5-8 to canopic
jars? If he acknowledges the identification of those items as canopic jars,
then how does he justify Smith's identification of (from left to right)
Imseti, Hapy, Duamutef, and Kebehsenuf as the idolatrous gods of Korash,
Mahmackrah, Libnah, and Elkenah?

> Ashment's biggest
> complaint is that portions of Facsimile No. 1 appear to have been damaged
> before Joseph Smith had received the material, and it appears that the
> reconstruction of the damaged parts left out some significant material.

How does that impact your attempt to eliminate papyrus XI as part of the BOA
mss. based on Smith's description (quoting an early version of your BoA FAQ:)

> 4- Descriptions of Papyrus do not match up
> 
> The last stumbling block to the Tanners' model is that JS supplied a
> description of the portion of papyrus that contained the BoA and it
> doesn't match the papyrus fragment (a portion of the Book of Breathings)
> which the Tanners' claim JS used.
> 
> JS stated: "The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies,
> is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red,
> ink or paint, in perfect preservation." HC 2:348

Was Smith telling the truth, and the papyrus was "in perfect preservation",
or is Ashment correct, and "portions of Facsimile No. 1 appear to have been
damaged before Joseph Smith had received the material, and it appears that
the reconstruction of the damaged parts **left out some significant
material.**"

> Even where Nibley and Baer come in conflict, there is none of the "ignorant,"
> "stupid," or "novice" type labels that are being knocked about by the
> professional mormon critics. It essentially comes down to a difference in
> professional opinions, not in the errors of someone who simply doesn't know
> what they are talking about. 

JOSEPH SMITH AND THE BOOK OF MORMON quotes Baer's interpretation of
facsimile 3 as "'Facsimile No. 3' shows a man (5), his hand raised in
adoration and a cone of perfumed grease and a lotus flower on his head
(ancient Egyptian festive attire), being introduced by Maat (4), the goddess
of justice, and Anubis (6), the guide of the dead, into the presence of
Osiris (1), enthroned as King of the Netherworld. Behind Osiris stands Isis
(2), and in front of him is an offering-stand (3) with a jug and some
flowers on it. Over the whole scene is a canopy with stars painted on it to
represent the sky." If Nibley agrees with the interpretation in the BoA I
would hardly call that a mere "difference of professional opinions." Why
*are* pharoah (2) and his son (4) in drag and given head attributes assigned
to female dieties? 

> The inherent problems of the Tanners' thesis dealing with the Kirtland
> Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar have been described on the Net before now
> (see the Mormon FAQ part 2 which was posted about four months ago and
> which can be obtained from the moderator of the s.r.c group). These
> problems were initially raised by Nibley, see "The Meaning of the
> Kirtland Egyptian Papers," _BYU Studies_ 11/4 (Summmer 1971): 350-99.
> 
> I have yet to see the Tanners or any of their supporter address the specific
> problems arising from their thesis. 

I have yet to see the defenders of the BoA address the real problem raised
by the "Grammar and Aphabet" (and the mss. at BYU titled "Translation of the
Book of Abraham..."), to whit that, whether or not it was intended as a
forward or backwards translation, it is in the hand of scribes who worked
with Smith on the BoA, and who would know (one would presume) which papyrus
Smith had used from having seen it. Not that there aren't independent
reasons for thinking that Papyrus XI was part of the BoA mss, but I'll come
to those later.

> Subject: Re: Nibley:" genius or fool?
> From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
> Date: Monday, 17 Aug 1992 14:53:51 MDT
> 
> description.  Nibley has never claimed that the JS papyri X and
> XI are the source for the Book of Abraham (BOA).  This claim is
> made only by anti-Mormons.  See his "Meaning of the Kirtland
> Egyptian Papers," BYU Studies, 11/4 (Sum. 1071), p. 350-399,
> and _Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri_, pp. 1-3.  The entire
> thrust of this latter work deals with the ritual and mythical
> background of papyri X and XI.

However, there is ample reason to suppose that (at least) papyrus XI was. In
addition to the evidence provided by the "Grammar and Aphabet", there are a
number of connections between papyrus I (the fragment with facsimile 1) and
papyrus XI:

1) Smith mounted the rolls and cut them into pieces for easier handling. The
paper backing for papyri I and XI contains matching pieces of a rough plan
for Zion.

2) The papyrus fibers in the two pieces match. JOSEPH SMITH AND THE BOOK OF
MORMON quotes an expert as saying that the fibers are "as distinctive as
fingerprints".

3) Papyrus XI is part of a Book of Breathings composed for one Hor, son of
Tikhebyt. The column of vertical characters on the side of papyrus I (fac.
1) mentions Hor, son of Tikhebyt. The characters under facsimile 3 in the
BoA are clear enough to read, "O gods of...gods of the caverns, gods of the
south, north, west, and east, grant well being to Osiris Hor, justified."
This provides further evidence that papyrus I (source of facsimile 1) and
the (not surviving) source of facsimile 3 are part of the same Book of
Breathings.

In short: the backings match, the papyrus fibers match, the papyri both
mention Hor, son of Tikhebyt, and the the scribes who helped Smith with the
"translation" believed that papyrus XI was part of the BoA mss. I have not
seen these issues addressed by the pro-BoA faction.

> Note 2: Nibley discusses this issue at length in _A New
> Look at the Pearl of Great Price_, in the Improvement Era,
> Sept. 1968 and the following.  

Note 2a, Pittsburgh is not hog-heaven for LDS publications, and not everyone
has ready access to back issues of IMPROVEMENT ERA. Could you give a
synopsis of his position?

> Note 3:  But more important is a recent papyrus discovery, discussed 
> by John Gee in his article, "Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign, 
> 22 (July 1992), pp. 60-62,
> 
> which includes a photograph of an Egyptian magical papyrus with a lion couch
> scene (the mirror image of fac. 1) with a fragmentary text containing the
> phrase "Abraham who upon" in Greek directly under the scene.   In other
> words, some Egyptians associated Abraham with a lion-couch scene, exactly as
> Joseph Smith claims about fac. 1.  Any comments, Mark?  Once again, JS was
> right on the mark.

There was a lot of syncretic junk floating around post-dynastic Egypt.
Interesting, but not persuasive in and of itself, particularly if the text
is too fragmentary to make real sense of. Again, I doubt I can get ready
access to the article to see for myself.

> Get it Mark?  We don't believe that Joseph Smith
> translated the Book of Abraham from JS papyri XI and X.  It's
> you anti-Mormons who think that.  We Mormons think it's silly
> and stupid to assert that the Book of Breathings is the source
> for the Book of Abraham; 

Yes, that's obvious. It doesn't explain why the backings match, it doesn't
explain why the papyrus fibers match, and it doesn't explain how the scribes
who helped with the translation could have been mistaken as to which papyrus
was involved. That isn't even getting into the iconographic arguments
relating to the facsimiles.

Karl Kluge (kck@cs.cmu.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14388 alt.atheism:15511