A few questions for Shulem

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Fence Sitter
God
Posts: 8784
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Fence Sitter »

Nibley wasn't an Egyptologist. He was a historian with some training in Egyptology. If you want to see what a highly trained Egyptologist thinks of Hugh Nibley's translations and transliterations, as well as those from Gee, Muhlestein & Rhodes, see The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Editon by Robert Ritner. If one is really interested in seeing a scholarly work on the Joseph Smith papyri this is well worth the $25.00. Of special interest in Ritner's work is the fact that he has taken the time to provide his own translations as well as all other translations of the Joseph Smith papyri for comparison purposes, so after each of his translations would see how the same passage was translated by people like Baer, Parker, Rhodes, Nibley and Gee.

For those who do not have Ritner's book, here are a few quotes regarding Ritner's opinion of Nibley's ability to translate/transliterate Egyptian. Bracket comments are mine.

Robert Ritner in the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri pg 82 wrote:In 1975 Nibley attempted... a translation of the unrestored portions of Fragments XI and X .[The Hor scroll on which we know the Book of Abraham was supposed to be according to Joseph Smith's translation itself and the KEP]Nibleys volume was expressly composed to provide a Mormon rebuttal to the interpretive analysis of Egyptologist, including Baer, with whom he had studied briefly and informally. These word for word, incomplete translations produced such results as "(avenger of) father his Horus (of) Edfu has enfolded body being about to deify spirit thine as do gods all," and were recognized by Nibley as "nonsense". Moreover, his transliterations defy both conventional and internal systems, with inconsistency and conflation of alphabetic signs, punctuation, etc. While intended to highlight his quibbles over the nature of translations (to defend Joseph Smith's use of the term), Nibley's interlinear method of literal translation would necessarily produce gibberish from any language.

Tacitly acknowledging this source of embarrasment, Jon Gee and Michael Rhodes have attempted to justify Nibley's methods---while promptly dropping them---in their heavily reworked "re-edition" of the 1975 volume. Noted Gee,
"we need to explain the numerous changes we have made in this new edition of Nibley's 1975 Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri/ First, we have returned the Egyptian transliterations to the standard transliteration system..."


Robert Ritner in the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri pg 84 wrote:The retention of many of Nibley's errors show clearly that the work of Nibley. rather than that of Baer, was the immediate source from which Rhodes began his work


On page 125 alone Ritner has 12 footnotes that all start "Misread by Nibley".

Ritner is also pretty direct when it come to what he thinks of Jon Gee's apologetic work. Thought the translation portions of the book are footnotes that start out "Misread by Nibley and followed by Gee and/or Rhodes."

Robert Ritner in the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri pg 97 wrote:Since Gee has publicly claimed that his Yale degree justifies his apologetic interpretations, I was constrained to deny that I (as his former advisor) had any involvement in these writings, See the sarcastic claim by Gee [in The Hagiography of Doubting Thomas] 1998, p. 176:

"Since I have a Ph.D in Egyptology, I am an expert. All anti=Mormon should therefore unquestioningly accept my opinion."

Gee's apologetic assertions, I stress again, would not have been acceptable in his coursework. I gain no personal pleasure--and remain deeply saddened--by the need to disavow my former student.
Last edited by Fence Sitter on Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make priests its say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

The Book of Abraham consists of both the story and the Facsimiles. The text of the story is inseparably "connected" with the Explanations of the Facsimiles. Joseph Smith and the early Latter-day Saints believed this absolutely. Even the saints in England believed this as printed in the Millennial Star, 15 July 1851, 217:

Elder Franklin D. Richards, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote:The Book of Abraham -- a translation of some ancient records that fell into the hands of the church a few years since from the catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon Papyrus; translated from the Papyrus by Joseph Smith. Connected with this translation are three fac-similes from the papyrus.


http://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/MStar/id/2335/rec/13

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Philo Sofee »

[quote]John Gee wrote:
But how is one to know what Joseph Smith knew of Egyptian? Well let's start with the Facsimiles, everyone assumes that Joseph Smith wrote the Explanations to the Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham; we cannot however prove that he did.


Incredible. John Gee tells us that everyone just assumes it. I guess the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo just assumed it too, including Joseph Smith who published his revelations as "The Book of Abraham" and took all the glory for own vanity sake.

Simply incredible that John Gee speaks with such a forked tongue. He's a liar and a disgrace to Egyptology.

John Gee wrote:
One cannot with certainty use the Explanations of the Facsimiles as a source of Joseph Smith's knowledge of Egyptian or lack thereof


Oh yes we can and we do!
[/quote]

It is just staggering how silly this apologetic is. Does Gee think anything through anymore?!
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
It is just staggering how silly this apologetic is. Does Gee think anything through anymore?!


Oh, I think he has thought it through very carefully to the calculated conclusion which Themis has already pointed out: It's all about his ties to employment with the LDS church and in order to keep that secure he must toe the line and put on a show. Gee knows he hasn't a prayer getting a job in the real world. He's stuck with BYU and he depends on the paychecks that LDS Inc. gives him to speak flattering things about the Book of Abraham.

Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Themis »

Shulem wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:
It is just staggering how silly this apologetic is. Does Gee think anything through anymore?!


Oh, I think he has thought it through very carefully to the calculated conclusion which Themis has already pointed out: It's all about his ties to employment with the LDS church and in order to keep that secure he must toe the line and put on a show. Gee knows he hasn't a prayer getting a job in the real world. He's stuck with BYU and he depends on the paychecks that LDS Inc. gives him to speak flattering things about the Book of Abraham.


I may be wrong, but it's my understanding the church wanted an LDS Egyptologist and that Gee had promises of employment before he started his schooling in Egyptology.
42

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee,

The imagery of Anubis on the wood cut used to print Facsimile No. 3 can be appreciated in great detail at The Joseph Smith Papers:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/facsimile-printing-plates-circa-23-february-16-may-1842/3

You'll note that Anubis only has a single ear and the head is less canine and somewhat human although if you look close at the front of the face it almost seems like Anubis' nose was broken or deformed within the woodwork.

But, nonetheless, look what I just found at the Louvre museum! It's our Late Period Anubis right out of Facsimile No. 3! A single ear!

Egyptian Antiquities
Roman Egypt (30 BC - AD 392)


Image

http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/funerary-hanging

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Philo Sofee »

Nice find Shulem!
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:Nice find Shulem!


Philo,

I'm looking at the woodcut on my computer at home now on high definition and it appears that the snout was originally carved into the wood but was afterward chiseled out to make the face look more human, no doubt. I'm wondering if Joseph Smith disapproved of the original carving of Anubis thinking it looked too doglike and ordered it chiseled to make it look more human.

This may be a major discovery on my part. What do you think? Can you see how the snout has been chiseled out?

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32670
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Jersey Girl »

I don't really see it.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

Jersey Girl wrote:I don't really see it.


Are you sure, look again. Are you increasing the size of the figure?

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32670
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Jersey Girl »

Shulem wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:I don't really see it.


Are you sure, look again. Are you increasing the size of the figure?


Wait. Am I supposed to be viewing the funerary hanging from the Louvre or something else? If the Louvre example, how can it be carved?

I'm not following where you're going.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32670
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Jersey Girl »

Wait! I've got it. YES it's damaged. It's made to look like a human.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

Jersey Girl wrote:Wait! I've got it. YES it's damaged. It's made to look like a human.


Nailed it, baby. This is a big find. Can you clearly see the chisel marks? I can!

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32670
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Jersey Girl »

Shulem wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Wait! I've got it. YES it's damaged. It's made to look like a human.


Nailed it, baby. This is a big find. Can you clearly see the chisel marks? I can!


Yes, I can see it. The problem is that JSJr. got his hands on something unique and unknown in the region, and used it to wow the folks in town.

And it worked.

He thought he could do the same thing with the Kinderhook plates and totally screwed up. This represents a pattern of behavior that you can trace back to his glass looking days.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Yes, I can see it. The problem is that JSJr. got his hands on something unique and unknown in the region, and used it to wow the folks in town.

And it worked.

He thought he could do the same thing with the Kinderhook plates and totally screwed up. This represents a pattern of behavior that you can trace back to his glass looking days.


This particular finding deserves some serious attention. It raises more questions about the Joseph Smith papyrus and the handling thereof according to Smith's own liking. This is not good news for the apologists!

I'm sitting here flabbergasted.

User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 32670
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Jersey Girl »

Shulem wrote:
This particular finding deserves some serious attention. It raises more questions about the Joseph Smith papyrus and the handling thereof according to Smith's own liking. This is not good news for the apologists!

I'm sitting here flabbergasted.


Either it was already damaged when he acquired it (and didn't know the difference) or JSJr and CO. intentionally damaged it themselves.

Either way, it's damaged.

I'm sure I can come up with an apologetic defense for it.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Shulem wrote:
This particular finding deserves some serious attention. It raises more questions about the Joseph Smith papyrus and the handling thereof according to Smith's own liking. This is not good news for the apologists!

I'm sitting here flabbergasted.


Either it was already damaged when he acquired it (and didn't know the difference) or JSJr and CO. intentionally damaged it themselves.

Either way, it's damaged.

I'm sure I can come up with an apologetic defense for it.


I've always suspected that Joseph Smith purposely damaged the original papyrus for Facsimile No. 1 to do away with the jackal head and make it human. I think Smith ripped a piece of the papyrus out and penciled in his own head. The papyrus we have today doesn't include the actual head. I think Smith tore it off. (Guilty as charged)

I also think Smith made Reuben Hedlock re-engrave the woodcut on Facsimile No. 3 to get rid of the snout. It all seems so clear to me now!

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Either it was already damaged when he acquired it (and didn't know the difference) or JSJr and CO. intentionally damaged it themselves.

Either way, it's damaged.

I'm sure I can come up with an apologetic defense for it.


Joseph Smith confessed in having a personal hand with corrections made to the Facsimile woodcuts hewn by the engraver Reuben Hedlock:

Joseph Smith HC 4:519 wrote:During the afternoon I was at my office and the printing office, correcting the first plate or cut of the records of Father Abraham, prepared by Reuben Hedlock, for the Times and Seasons, and in council in my office, in the afternoon; and in the evening with the Twelve and their wives at Elder Woodruff's, at which time I explained many important principles in relation to progressive improvement in the scale of intelligent existence.


If Reuben Hedlock faithfully chiseled an imaged of the jackal headed Anubis for Facsimile No. 3 as portrayed on the original papyrus drawn by Abraham, why would Joseph Smith order Hedlock to get rid of the snout and make it look human? Why should Smith correct Abraham's original handiwork?

Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Themis »

Shulem wrote:I've always suspected that Joseph Smith purposely damaged the original papyrus for Facsimile No. 1 to do away with the jackal head and make it human. I think Smith ripped a piece of the papyrus out and penciled in his own head. The papyrus we have today doesn't include the actual head. I think Smith tore it off. (Guilty as charged)

I also think Smith made Reuben Hedlock re-engrave the woodcut on Facsimile No. 3 to get rid of the snout. It all seems so clear to me now!


Great find on fac 3, but I will disagree with you about fac 1. If you look at other parts of the papyri you will see a similar missing section that matches fairly well the one with fac 1. I suspect the papyri was ripped by those who first removed it from it's original casing well before the papyri was brought to Joseph Smith. This also explains why other parts of the missing section were not recreated correctly. Such as the bird.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri#/media/File:Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_I_and_XI.jpg
42

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 10954
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Shulem »

Themis wrote:Great find on fac 3


Indeed, the evidence needs further review.

Themis wrote:but I will disagree with you about fac 1. If you look at other parts of the papyri you will see a similar missing section that matches fairly well the one with fac 1. I suspect the papyri was ripped by those who first removed it from it's original casing well before the papyri was brought to Joseph Smith. This also explains why other parts of the missing section were not recreated correctly. Such as the bird.


I know what you're saying and have churned this in my mind time and time again. But I just don't trust Smith. There may have been more evidence on the original to lead one to reason there was a jackal head rather than human. We'll never really know exactly what Joseph Smith saw when the rolls were rolled about and cut for his exhibit. At this point, I don't give Smith the benefit of the doubt because he can't be trusted. He was a crooked liar, for sure.

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6122
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem Pertinently asked
Why should Smith correct Abraham's original handiwork?


Because Abraham carved it as a man and not as a prophet.... :wink:
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 22 guests