Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

A Simple Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Brent Metcalfe writes: Taghribardi, what you say is simply untrue. Gee makes a clear distinction between characters that "run over the margins (examples 1, 2, 5)" and those that "sometimes ["run over"] the English text (example 1)" Characters "run[ning] over the margins" would fit your description of characters overlapping the text "area," not characters that are said by Gee to "run over ... the English text" (Gee [200 , 22). Gee's claim is false, your apologetic of his apologetic notwithstanding.

**Taghribardi responds: With greatest respect and apologies to Mr. Metcalfe, what you say is simply untrue. Dr. Gee does not make a clear distinction as Mr. Metcalfe claims. According to Gees categorization, rather than being distinct, the overlapping/overrunning text (example 1) is a subset of overrunning the margins (examples 1,2, and 5). Overlapping the text is therefore a type of overlapping of the margin that extends far enough to overlap both the margins and the English text. Obviously, it would be impossible to overlap the text without first overlapping the margins. There is no distinction between them as Mr. Metcalfe claims; they are variations on a theme. This is a simple and clear explanation for what Mr. Metcalfe himself admits is otherwise mystif[ying] and bewildering. If my interpretation is correct, there is no mystery at all, only confusion on Mr. Metcalfes part.

**Brent Metcalfe writes: You are mistaken Taghibardi. The characters do not "crunch" at the end. The slight angle of the character is shared by all character elements, not just those that approach the English text. There is no justification for claiming that the character was trying to avoid collision with the English text.
**Taghribardi responds: I readily admit that my eyesight is fast growing dim as I age, but its not that bad yet. Here Mr. Metcalfe is simply asserting that he is right and I am wrong; he provides no analysis to support his assertion. All I can do is suggest that everyone examine the photographs and decide for themselves. Mr. Metcalfe agrees that there is an angle to the bottom line of the characters. He feels it is merely slight. If so, it is nonetheless sufficient to miss an English word which would otherwise have been overwritten. Furthermore, it is quite clear to me that the first three characters of Egyptian in Dr. Gees first example are on a straight line, and possibly the fourth as well. Thereafter they angle upward. Finally, even if Mr. Metcalfe is right that all characters are angled, it does not negate the fact that they are angled in such a way to miss overwriting the English text. Either way, it is a perfectly reasonable explanation to assume that the English text was there first.
As to the characters becoming crunched, it seems to me that there is more space between each of the first four characters than there is between the last ones. It also appears that the thickness of the stroke in Gees first example is, thinner than the average stroke in all the other examples presented by Gee, even allowing for the fact that the first photo covers a larger area, and therefore the characters are necessarily appear smaller than those in the other examples. Again, people will have to look at the photos and judge for themselves.

**Brent Metcalfe writes: Those who know me know that I enthusiastically embrace correction, change, and refinement. Some criticisms have helped me refine or even discard interpretive models. I respect the intelligence of my audience to discern the quality of critique leveled by my critics.

**Taghribardi responds: Mr. Metcalfes sentiments and claimed practices in this matter are laudable, and something to which we should all aspire. (I must admit, however, that I have not actually seen examples of these practices in Mr. Metcalfes published writings.) I therefore look forward to soon seeing them implemented in this debate. But, notice that none of what Mr. Metcalfe says here is, in fact, a substantive response to the many published criticisms of his work.

To conclude, there are three separate issues here:

1- What was Dr. Gee really saying?
Mr. Metcalfe insists on obscuring this issue by insisting that he knows Gees mind on these matters. This question could be answered quite simply by asking Gee himselfthe only person who actually knows what he intended. I believe there are people on the ZLMB who are acquainted with Dr. Gee. I suggest they ask him. I am willing to believe whatever he has to say on the matter regarding whether he was claiming the Egyptian characters overlap the English text or overwrite it. Will Mr. Metcalfe accept Dr. Gees clarification on this matter? Is Mr. Metcalfe willing to admit that it is possible that he is mistaken in his interpretation of Dr. Gee on this matter?

2- Is his claim correct?
If I have interpreted him correctly, I believe Dr. Gee has an excellent point.

3- If Dr. Gee is correct, what are the implications?
The simplest explanation is that the English text was written first and the Egyptian characters added later. It may not be the only explanation (although I havent heard another that accounts for the unusual angling of the Egyptian characters), but it is by no means so manifestly wrong as to merit accusations of intentional dishonesty or unfathomable incompetence.

On the other hand, I speculate that there might be a lost Ur-textlets call it Qof an original scribal manuscript of the Book of Abraham, from which the four examples in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers all ultimately derive. If so, then it makes absolutely no difference whether the Egyptian characters or the English characters were written first on the surviving manuscripts, since they are all merely transcriptions of this hypothetical Q.

---

Quote:

---

Re: A Simple Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember how Mr. Metcalf went to great lengths before in trying to create an error in Gee's work. Wasn't he the one who posted the blue and red fingers that he tried to say were really wings from a bird? He was dead certain that this "evidence" he presented would vindicate his accusations of deception againt Gee, but from what I remember, everyone here pretty much used his "evidence" against him. He went through all that trouble to overlap the red and blue and in the end, only he was convinced that there was intentional deception on Gee's part. They were clearly fingers and not feathers.

Now here we go again with the same ad hominem mantra as before. It's like clockwork. All of this seems to be another tune from the same song he was singing before. Doesn't this guy have something better to do than to try and create "errors" in Gee's work?

Edited by: Pumplehoober at: 9/11/01 9:48:08 pm

---

Quote:

---

Characters in Left-hand Margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to determine if the characters (Egyptian and invented) in the left-hand margins of the Book of Abraham manuscripts, were written before or after the English text was written. However, that is not the critical issue. The critical issue is who directed that they be written there. The evidence indicates that it was Joseph Smith for at least one of these characters, since that character also appears in Kirtland Egyptian Manuscript #4, and, according to the Church Historians Office (Note 1), that manuscript is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.

In The Meaning of The Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Dr. Nibley theorizes that Smith's scribes placed the characters from the Small Sensen papyrus next to the Book of Abraham text in all 3 manuscripts. The purpose of this, according to Nibley, was to learn Egyptian. That is a very strange way to learn a language. Furthermore, if the scribes were just practicing, why put the same guesses in all 3 manuscripts? Wouldn't one do? On page 49 in ...By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, by Charles Larson, he states "The same Egyptian characters in all three manuscripts correspond to identical passages of adjacent text, indicating a deliberate juxtaposition with the text of the translation manu-[scripts]" These characters, except for those invented for the gaps in the papyrus, were taken in order from the small Sensen Papyrus or the right side of Papyrus Joseph Smith XI.

Another point; if the scribes were practicing, why did they use Papyrus Joseph Smith XI as the source of the Egyptian characters? Why didn't they use the "Missing Black and Red Scroll" as a character source? That is the one that some Mormon apologists claim Joseph Smith translated. However scholars, who are not apologists, have good reason to believe that papyrus never existed and the 'missing' scroll containing red is likely the recovered Papyrus Joseph Smith VI or another one of the recovered scrolls containing red.

In "The Book of Abraham Papyrus Found" by H. Michael Marquardt, second edition 1981 (Utah Lighthouse Ministry), Marquardt points out that the first two hieratic characters, on Translation Manuscript No. 1, are referenced in Egyptian Manuscripts 3, 4 and 5. Page V of Manuscript 4, in Smiths handwriting, contains the second hieratic character and its English translation (see Note 2). This is one more proof of the link between the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (also known as the Alphabet and Grammar) and "The Book of Abraham". Has any Mormon apologist attempted to refute this connection? In this case, they cant state that "The Scribes Did It", because it was written by Joseph Smith.

Note 1 Page 351 of The Meaning of The Kirtland Egyptian Papers by Hugh Nibley (Brigham Young University Studies 11/4 (Summer 1971): 350-99.), has a description of the Book of Abraham and Egyptian Manuscripts in the Church Historians Office. In this description, Egyptian Manuscript #4 is identified as being in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.

Note 2- On page V, next to this character, there is a translation, in Smiths writing, which has a line drawn through it. The translation, without the line would be Ah bra oam. Signifies father of the faithful The f
Page F of Egyptian Manuscript #3, in the handwriting of W.W. Phelps, has a similar translation for this character. The last page of Egyptian Manuscript #5, in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdrey, also has this character. However, there is no translation to the right.

---

Quote:

---

Re: Characters in Left-hand Margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take it by this that you are now admitting that Gee has not been dishonest in the matter (as you originally claimed), but instead has a different interpretation than you do of ambiguities in the manuscripts. If so, perhaps an apology to Dr. Gee would be in order.

---

Quote:

---

No Apology Needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I stated that Dr. Gee was mistaken. I did not say he was dishonest.
2. Dr. Gee stated that, in example 1, the Egyptian characters run over the English text. I interpret this use of "run over" as meaning that the Egyptian characters are written on top of the English text. That is clearly not the case. He is mistaken.

---

Quote:

---

Re: No Apology Needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are quite right on one point. It was Mr. Metcalfe, not you, who claimed the Gee was dishonest. I apologize for the misrepresentation.

On the other hand, if by "overrun" Gee means "overlap" rather than "overwrite" then Gee is not mistaken, as I have argued. So, will you admit that the difference here is not about a "mistake," but about differing interpretations of the evidence? Or is a disagreement over interpreting ambiguous evidence always because of a mistake?

---

Quote:

---

Gee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I look forward to Dr. Gee's clarification via Dr. Peterson.
As I see it, the character does not "run over" the English text (as Gee has it on page 22).

My village is calling me home for lunch.

Village Idiot

---

Quote:

---

Tag, Tag, Tag, Tag, Tag . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you know? In the hands of the opposition, there is no ambiguous evidence. There is only damning evidence.
And we are blindly obedient dunderheads for not agreeing with their assertions.

---

Quote:

---

Re: Tag, Tag, Tag, Tag, Tag . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you know? In the hands of the opposition, there is no ambiguous evidence. There is only damning evidence.
And we are blindly obedient dunderheads for not agreeing with their assertions . . . for not agreeing with their assertions . . . for not agreeing with their assertions.

---

Quote:

---

Re: No Apology Needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bloom did, however, endorse the stunning discovery -- first publicly revealed here by eboy -- of Professor Gee's suppression of the first four words of a quotation from Professor Zondhoven. eboy regards those four unquoted words as powerful evidence not only of vastly deceptive dishonesty on Professor Gee's part but as persuasive evidence that I too, with FARMS in general, lack intellectual integrity when writing on Latter-day Saint topics. Another sleuth (whose name I forget) pretty well clinched the case with his announcement of the intentional (or inadvertent) suppression of a perfectly harmless paragraph in the electronic version of an old Louis Midgley review.

The debate in some quarters is whether FARMS is incredibly incompetent or unspeakably unethical. Mr. Bloom appears to lean toward the former. I have to admit, given the extraordinarily dramatic character of the evidence presented so far, that I myself just can't make my mind up between the two.

---

Quote:

---

He's Guilty! GUILTY! I Tell You!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dan,

It has been brought to my attention that certain individuals are accusing me of using the term "overrun" to mean "overwrite" and therefore of being dishonest in A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri. I have been asked to provide some clarification.

The argument claims that I am (1) stupid because I used the term "overrun" to mean "overwrite," and (2) dishonest because the text is not overwritten. I never intended the term "overrun" to mean "overwrite" since they are not synonyms. The term "overwrite" means "to write (something) over other writing." "Overrun," on the other hand, means "to run farther than or beyond (a certain point, a limit, etc.); to exceed." I used the term correctly to argue that Egyptian characters ran farther than or beyond the margin line and into the space used for the English text -- in fact, in one instance, into the indentation left by the English text. The Egyptian may overrun the English without necessarily overwriting the English.

I suppose that those who insist I am both stupid and dishonest will not change their opinion, but if clarification is needed, this should provide it.

John Gee

---

Quote:

---

Re: He's Guilty! GUILTY! I Tell You!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds to me he just signed his own death warrant with that confession. Poor misguided soul. To actually believe that a word means what it says. How naive.

CR

---

Quote:

---

Re: A Simpl[istic] Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taghribardi, I'm not sure what to make of your response:

[Taghribardi:] **Taghribardi responds: With greatest respect and apologies to Mr. Metcalfe, "what you say is simply untrue." Dr. Gee does not make a "clear distinction" as Mr. Metcalfe claims. According to Gee's categorization, rather than being distinct, the overlapping/overrunning text (example 1) is a subset of overrunning the margins (examples 1,2, and 5). Overlapping the text is therefore a type of overlapping of the margin that extends far enough to overlap both the margins and the English text. Obviously, it would be impossible to overlap the text without first overlapping the margins. There is no distinction between them as Mr. Metcalfe claims; they are variations on a theme. This is a simple and clear explanation for what Mr. Metcalfe himself admits is otherwise "mystif[ying]" and "bewildering." If my interpretation is correct, there is no mystery at all, only confusion on Mr. Metcalfe's part.
?!?

So you believe that the characters do "overlap" the English text? If memory serves you were contesting that they overlap the text "area" not the text itself (text "area" being your invention, not Gee's).

By running over the margin lines, the characters already breach your so-call text "area" (see Gee's examples 1, 2, and 5 [A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 22]), but Gee conspicuously excludes examples 2 and 5 as illustrations of characters "run[ning] over ... the English text." Further, Gee's examples 1, 2, and 5 clearly show the characters sitting atop the margin lines, not simply breaching some imaginary margin "area." Given this, what is Gee's point in saying that some characters "run over ... the English text" (Gee [2000], 22)? As with the characters that "run over" (in plain English: collide with) the margin lines, it is clear that Gee is saying that some characters also "run over ... the English text" (Gee [2000], 22). Again, Gee's claim is false.

You also missed a fundamental point from one of my previous posts: if the character does not touch the English text, then Gee has no evidence for his hypothesis. Do you understand why?

[Taghribardi:] **Taghribardi responds: I readily admit that my eyesight is fast growing dim as I age, but it's not that bad yet. Here Mr. Metcalfe is simply asserting that he is right and I am wrong; he provides no analysis to support his assertion. [BIG sinp!]
And, by contrast, your assertion about "crunched" characters is an analysis?! hmmmmm ... I'll post an analysis in a separate message.

[Taghribardi:] **Taghribardi responds: Mr. Metcalfe's sentiments and claimed practices in this matter are laudable, and something to which we should all aspire. (I must admit, however, that I have not actually seen examples of these practices in Mr. Metcalfe's published writings.) I therefore look forward to soon seeing them implemented in this debate. But, notice that none of what Mr. Metcalfe says here is, in fact, a substantive response to the many published criticisms of his work.
You may want to double-check the title of this thread. I've tried to engage those who have critiqued my publications (Bill Hamblin on SAMU-L; Dan Peterson on ZLMB), they've uniformly declined. I don't see any value in wantonly responding to criticisms when my critics have no interest in dialogue.

Lastly, your idiosyncratic reading of Gee's apologetic can stand on its own merits.

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

Of Truth and Spoof
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gee via Dan Peterson explains:

[John Gee:] The argument claims that I am (1) stupid because I used the term "overrun" to mean "overwrite," and (2) dishonest because the text is not overwritten. I never intended the term "overrun" to mean "overwrite" since they are not synonyms. The term "overwrite" means "to write (something) over other writing." "Overrun," on the other hand, means "to run farther than or beyond (a certain point, a limit, etc.); to exceed." I used the term correctly to argue that Egyptian characters ran farther than or beyond the margin line and into the space used for the English text -- in fact, in one instance, into the indentation left by the English text. The Egyptian may overrun the English without necessarily overwriting the English.
So why did Gee distinguish between characters that "run over" margin lines and those that also "run over" English text if by his definition he meant the same thing in both?! Note Gee's distinction: "The examples show [among other things] that the characters ... run over the margins (examples 1, 2, 5) and sometimes the English text (example 1)" (John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 22). Moreover, why were examples 2 and 5 conspicuously excluded from the latter category?

Let's reconstruct what Gee meant. He says that he was simply stating that some characters "run over [or "run farther than" or "run beyond" or "exceed"] ... the English text"?! (See John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 22.) What on earth is Gee talking about?! ... Some characters run farther than "the English text"? ... or, Some characters run beyond "the English text"? ... or, Some characters exceed "the English text"? Pure sophistry. I didn't think I could be disappointed by Gee's antics, but I am.

If Gee's retrospective excuse were taken seriously, it would mean that he has no evidence for his hypothesisnone.

Cheers,

bReNt
Edited by: exegete at: 9/17/01 7:16:00 pm

---

Quote:

---

Re: Of Truth and Spoof
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First order of business: got rid of that self-important emoticon.

You argued:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why did Gee distinguish between characters that "run over" margin lines and those that also "run over" English text if by his definition he meant the same thing in both?! Note Gee's distinction: "The examples show [among other things] that the characters ... run over the margins (examples 1, 2, 5) and sometimes the English text (example 1)" (John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000], 22). Moreover, why were examples 2 and 5 conspicuously excluded from those characters that "run over ... English text" if they along with example 1 do likewise?

Let's reconstruct what Gee meant. He says that he was simply stating that some characters "run over [or "run farther than" or "run beyond" or "exceed"] ... the English text"?! ... What on earth is Gee talking about?! ... Some characters run farther than "the English text"? ... or, Some characters run beyond "the English text"? ... or, Some characters exceed "the English text"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know Brent, I don't have the least difficulty understanding his meaning. It is clear to me that Gee is saying that the characters in question "overrun" their proper bounds to the extent that they encroach upon the area that belongs to, and is normally occupied by, the English text. I find it incredible that you didn't get it.

Here is the relevant portion again, which you quoted:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used the term correctly to argue that Egyptian characters ran farther than or beyond the margin line and into the space used for the English text -- in fact, in one instance, into the indentation left by the English text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you get it that time?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure sophistry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the "dumb act" is indeed pure sophistry.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't think I could be disappointed by Gee's antics, but I am.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While you never disappoint anyone, because nobody expects any better of you than what you deliver.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Gee's retrospective excuse were taken seriously, it would mean that he has no evidence for his hypothesisnone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course. That is the purpose of straw man misrepresentations--to distort the real argument such that if your distortion "were taken seriously," your opponent's true position would suffer thereby.

Sorry, Brent. It didn't work.

Your ad hominem has failed. Now do you have an actual argument about the actual documents? Or not?

Regards,
Pahoran

---

Quote:

---

Lost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The argument claims that I am (1) stupid because I used the term "overrun" to mean "overwrite," and (2) dishonest because the text is not overwritten. I never intended the term "overrun" to mean "overwrite" since they are not synonyms. The term "overwrite" means "to write (something) over other writing." "Overrun," on the other hand, means "to run farther than or beyond (a certain point, a limit, etc.); to exceed." I used the term correctly to argue that Egyptian characters ran farther than or beyond the margin line and into the space used for the English text -- in fact, in one instance, into the indentation left by the English text. The Egyptian may overrun the English without necessarily overwriting the English."

I'm sorry, I don't understand this clarification at all. What is the distinction you draw between a character that "run[s] over" the margin (examples 1, 2, and 5) and a character that "run[s] over" the English text (example 1)? (a distinction you appear to make on page 22). Or is there any meaningful distinction? In other words, what differentiates examples 2 and 5 from number 1?

Village Idiot

---

Quote:

---

Who was that masked man?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent asks who I am.

I'm your worst nightmare!

It is not clear that it matters much who I am. What is important, it seems to me, is analysis, evidence and argument.

Why do you want to know?

(And you can call me Taghri.)

---

Quote:

---

Stranger and stranger
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All language is ambiguous and all words have a semantic range of meaning.

Mr. Bloom seems to think that, if he can show that his interpretation of "run over" is within the possible range of meaning for that phrase, that his interpretation is, therefore, the only correct one. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Gee may be guilty of an infelicitous choice of words (if that), but he gets to pick the meaning he intended, not Mr. Bloom or Mr. Metcalfe. So, although there may have been a legitimate reason for misunderstanding Gee in the first place, that matter has been clarified.

---

Quote:

---

Re: Give it a rest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan wrote:

"Unimpressive stuff, altogether. Even with the impressive amounts of compensatory huffing and puffing."

...and with that & Dan's ignoring of Brent's entire point, we see why the Mormon-specific works of many Mormon apologists will never be taken seriously as good or honest scholarship and why FARMS Review of Books, with an editor who cares little for details and even less for forthrightness, will never be revered by the world of academia as anything more than a specious publication. Dan's "couldn't care less" attitude about intellectual honesty and scholarly integrity is appalling, if not unexpected given the origin of his salary.

---

Quote:

---

Re: Give it a rest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh brother.

CR

---

Quote:

---

Information on Taghribardi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fhss.byu.edu/history/facu...s/u10a.htm

---

Quote:

---

Twirling His Mustache
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheesh. It just goes on. We're all villains. FARMS is eeeevil. It'll make yer flesh creep, I tells ya!

CORD: "the Mormon-specific works of many Mormon apologists will never be taken seriously as good or honest scholarship"

Never? Wow. Who SAYS there are no living prophets?

But some clarification would be useful. Will the works of these FARMS cretins never be taken seriously in CERTAIN circles? Or is this a blanket prophecy that the fiendish minions of FARMS will never be taken seriously in any circles at all? Inquiring minds want to know.

CORD: "FARMS Review of Books, with an editor who cares little for details and even less for forthrightness"

Zing! Right through my black heart! Dat's me, alright. This person must be on the publications staff at FARMS to know my editorial method in such insightful and precise detail. A traitor in our midst!

Oh, for a muse of fire . . . or, at least, for a little melodramatic organ music in the background. It would fit the narrative so nicely.

CORD: "FARMS Review of Books . . . will never be revered by the world of academia as anything more than a specious publication."

"Never," again. (Same questions apply.) But this is most upsetting. I had thought we were right on course to receive the "reverence" of "the world of academia." We even had the official reverence-bestowing ceremony scheduled for early November. Is this a hint that something has gone awry in our crafty and cunning plan?

CORD: "Dan's 'couldn't care less' attitude about intellectual honesty and scholarly integrity"

Ouch. Now THAT hurts. I take it back: Cord must be my WIFE, to know me so well and so accurately. But the secret's out. No use carrying the charade on any further. Intellectual honesty? I spit upon it! Scholarly integrity? Bah!

CORD: "appalling, if not unexpected given the origin of his salary"

Oh. Too bad.

Cord was on a real roll, but she seems to have suffered a palpable loss of focus and creativity with this invocation of the ever-popular (but, in truth, rather tired) charge that I'm nothing but a mercenary hack. I only wish it were true. I wish that my manifold villainies and my gross lack of integrity paid, but, darn it, they don't. I have to earn my living churning out dual-language editions of Islamicate philosophical and theological works, as well as dual-language editions of eastern Christian (e.g., Syriac and Arabic) texts, and directing manuscript digitizing projects in such places as Lebanon and the Vatican. My lies and other conspiracies against sound scholarship and fundamental ethical values are done purely on a volunteer basis, and I receive no salary for them. (Can I really be blamed for my soul-cankering bitterness?) Now, of course, Cord may actually be suggesting that even the projects of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative are fraudulent . . . in which case I'll cheerfully rescind the charge that I've leveled against him of a lack of originality.

Ooops. Gotta go. I have only a few minutes left in which to tie a helpless maiden onto the railroad tracks, and then I've still got to kick this evening's quota of fluffy kittens.

---

Quote:

---

Re: Information on Taghribardi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snow, let me recommend another link since yours is evidently no longer availablethough I can't guarantee how long my recommended link will be operational:

fhss.byu.edu/history/facu...mluks1.htm

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

Re: Twirling That Handsome Mustache of Yours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honey Dan, now that I've exposed your villainous ways, will you please get off the computer and pay some attention to me and the kids? Please.

Oh, and I'm sorry about that salary comment, its just that I always thought your paychecks, regardless of for what research, were coming from some church organization. I guess you still would be able to pick up those checks even if you did start assisting in the publication of objective Mormon history...just like Brother Quinn.

---

Quote:

---

Re: Twirling That Handsome Mustache of Yours
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"objective Mormon history... [from] Brother Quinn."

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Quinn writes objective history. That's very funny!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
A right excellent jest!

---

Quote:

---

That Noble Dream
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, the comforting myth of wholly objective history. (Peter Novick, call your office!) Coupled, no less, with the seductively powerful appeal of the Mike Quinn cult.

Irresistible. For some.

---

Quote:

---

Failing the test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I engaged in this discussion about Gees alleged errors not so much because the issue itself was interesting or important to meit is a classic manifestation of why endless debates on obscure trivialities are called academicbut as a test of my theory of the psychology of anti-Mormons.

In a quarter of a century of following anti-Mormon attacks on the Church to a greater or lesser degree, I have repeated observed the following pattern.
1- Anti-Mormons search desperately for an error in pro-Mormon writings.
2- Such errors are then attributed not to natural human frailty (all scholars make errors), but to either: A- faulty methodology or B- lack of objectivity C- intentional deception or D- incompetence.
3- This one alleged error is then taken as proof, not that an individual scholar is at fault, but that the entire Church (or FARMS, depending on who the latest boogey-man is) is responsible.
4- Any demonstration that the Anti-Mormons have either misunderstood the issue or are themselves in error in their criticisms is met with increasingly frenzied cries of lying and incompetence.
5- If the evidence is too overwhelming to be ignored, the subject is promptly changed, and another alleged error is produced and the cycle repeats itself.

So, when I saw someone claim Gee was in error, I checked it out. Upon reading the passage in question I immediately understood what Gee was really saying (it seems absolutely crystal clear to me) and began a defense of Gee to see what the anti-Mormon response would be. And sure enough, many elements of this basic pattern were again manifest. I dont know how to explain it, but it is really quite remarkable.

---

Quote:

---

?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegete articulated his position clearly and concisely.

I'm still waiting for those who disagree with him to demonstrate how he is wrong.

Can it be done?

---

Quote:

---

Re: ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstrate it to whom?

Demonstrating it to some people, I think, IS probably impossible. I think it was Taghribardi who invoked the venerable Jesuit notion of "invincible ignorance."

---

Quote:

---

Inconceivable!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brents explanation for Dr. Gees interpretation of some characters on an early Book of Abraham manuscript is that Gee is a stupid liar. When shown that there is another perfectly reasonable interpretation of what Gee was saying -- which Gee says was indeed what he was trying to say, and which, if true, would support Gees case better than Brents interpretation -- Brents response is to claim that Gee is again lying. (You see, Gee is a pathological liar. He compulsively lies even if telling the truth would better serve his case.) Gee, despite his protestations to the contrary, really meant exactly what Brent thinks he meant. It is inconceivable that Brent might have misunderstood Gee. Gee is changing his mind only because Brent has brilliantly demonstrated that Gee was a stupid liar in the first place; an claim which is true if, and only if, Brents interpretation of Gee is correct. In Clintonesque fashion, Gee is covering his original lie with another lie.

When pressed on the matter, Brents justification for thinking Gee is lying now is that Brent believes he has found another case of Gee lying eight years ago. (You see, Gee is a pathological liar.) Here Brent claims that Gee accused Brent of misunderstanding an author named Sternberg, whom Brent cites in an article. Brent wrote a message to a defunct e-list, protesting that he had included Sternberg, not because Sternberg agrees with Brents position, but because Sternberg disagrees with Brents position. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that this makes any sense. And let us grant that Brent is unfamiliar with academic code language. (Academics generally use phrases like for an opposing view or an alternative interpretation is provided by or the two contrasting views are expounded by X and Y to indicate that a cited reference is in disagreement with the author.) And let us grant that Brent is telling the truth here -- a possibility Brent refuses to grant to Gee. Is there a possible alternative explanation for what happened other than that Gee is lying again? I can think of a few.
--Gee never got the message because there was some type of glitch in the server
--Gee never got the message because he unsubed from the e-list before receiving it
--Gee got the message but inadvertently deleted it
--Gee got the message but had gotten sick of the debate and decided not to read it
--Gee got the message, read it, but forgot about it when writing his review
--Gee got the message, read it, but decided he didnt believe Brents explanation
--Gee got the message, read it, but decided the issue was too trivial to waste time on
--Gee got the message, but had already written and submitted his review and it was too late to make any changes

Now, any of these explanations can account for the fact that Gee did not include a mention of Brents disclaimer in his footnote. Typically, however, Brent can think of no other possibility for Gees failure to include Brents disclaimer than flagrant dishonesty. And I have absolutely no doubt that, if Gee were to provide the real reason for his failure to include Brents disclaimer, Brent would insist that Gee is lying again. With the well of discourse poisoned to this degree, one seriously wonders if there is any purpose whatsoever in pursuing further dialogue. (Notice the rich irony, that Brent insists that his explanation of Gees misunderstanding of Brents use of Sternberg must be taken as the absolute truth, while at the same time Brent insists that Gees explanation of Brents misunderstanding of the Egyptian characters can only be see as a lie. Am I alone in seeing flagrant special pleading here? What would happen, I wonder, if we were to treat Brents explanations with the same contempt that he heaps upon Gees?)

Of course, Gee is not alone in believing that Brent has seriously misunderstood (or misrepresented) the sources he cites about literary theory and history. The reference in question is: Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity" (Dialogue 26/3 (Fall 1993), p. 168, note 48, where Brent cites fifteen sources on literary theory. Alan Goff, who has a Ph.D. in literary theory -- and presumably therefore knows at least something on this matter -- has extensively critiqued Brent on precisely this issue in his Uncritical Theory and Thin Description: the Resistance to History RBBM 7/1 (1995): 170-207. Here are some of Goffs conclusions.

--Metcalfe refers his readers to fifteen sources in literary and narrative theory (p. 168 n. 4 . If Metcalfe had read and understood them, he would have sensed that these sources undermine his own epistemological and historiographical claims. (p. 175)
--If I were to put fifteen sources together that refute Metcalfes claim that he has no ideology, I would be hard pressed to come up with a better list than Metcalfe cites. (p. 180)
--In fact, Metcalfes fifteen sources deal relentlessly with this distinction between literature and history. I refer the reader to the two books by Alter and Sternberg. The latter two sources deal specifically with the positivist distinction between fiction and history in biblical narrative, but in a way that undermines Metcalfes claims. (p. 187)
--One could hardly choose more unfriendly sources [for Metcalfe] to refer the reader to [than Alter and Sternberg]; there is a real danger that someone will actually take up the offer to read them. (p. 191)

So there is at least some basis for concluding that Brent has not understood the sources he cites, which means that Gees criticism may have some merit.

---

Quote:

---

Incontheivable!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. There is no other honest, objective historical explanation:

John Gee is a liar and I'm a liar and everybody at FARMS is a liar and Dwight Eisenhower is a conscious card-carrying agent of the Communist conspiracy and the Jews are taking over the world no it's the Illuminati and Martians have landed in my basement and there are little men running up and down the veins in my arm and I have to obey the voices in my head and . . .

I just LOVE this stuff!

---

Quote:

---

Testing the Test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taghri, what you may view as an "absolutely crystal clear" reading of Gee, may be seen by othersMormon and non-Mormonas an inept though well-meaning effort to salvage a friend's credibility.

[Taghribardi:] Brent asks who I am.
Good, we're on a first name basis. Can I assume that bardi is your surname? Or is Ibn your given name. ;^)

[Taghribardi:] I'm your worst nightmare!
I only wish my other nightmares had your sense of humor. :^)

[Taghribardi:] It is not clear that it matters much who I am. What is important, it seems to me, is analysis, evidence and argument.

Why do you want to know?
In terms of validity or soundness of arguments, I concur that it doesn't matterto a point. (Perhaps we can discuss this later.)

I think it most likely that Gee would parrot the remedial interpretation of a friend than a stranger. If you were a specific friend of John's, I would question the propriety of several of your remarks in this thread.

[Taghribardi:] Mr. Bloom seems to think that, if he can show that his interpretation of "run over" is within the possible range of meaning for that phrase, that his interpretation is, therefore, the only correct one. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Gee may be guilty of an infelicitous choice of words (if that), but he gets to pick the meaning he intended, not Mr. Bloom or Mr. Metcalfe. So, although there may have been a legitimate reason for misunderstanding Gee in the first place, that matter has been clarified.
Yes, John can now explain what he meant; but that hardly forfeits our right to evaluate his explanation. I have, and I have serious reservations about its credibility.

[Taghribardi:] [BIG snip!] So, when I saw someone claim Gee was in error, I checked it out. Upon reading the passage in question I immediately understood what Gee was really saying (it seems absolutely crystal clear to me) and began a defense of Gee to see what the anti-Mormon response would be. And sure enough, many elements of this basic pattern were again manifest. I don't know how to explain it, but it is really quite remarkable.
Do you understand that both Mormons and non-Mormons have not found so obvious what to you is "absolutely crystal clear"?

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

Re: Testing the Test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone just might find his work hard to understand (I haven't read the particular piece beyond what's quoted here). Much academic writing is a bit convoluted. So he could use improvement in his writing skills. Man, I've had some professors you would think couldn't sign their own name.

But just who has accused JG of incompetence in research or worse, lying?

CR

---

Quote:

---

Thank You for Using an Exclamation Point!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taghri, now you invoke Alan "I'm going to expose those positivist hobgoblins" Goff to somehow redeem John Gee. Astounding. Next you'll be invoking the authority of Bill Hamblin. (For what it's worth, my essay was edited by a Ph.D. candidate in literary theory who thought my essay was spot on.)

In case you've missed the point, I'm not interested in what pitiable excuse you can concoct for why Gee inadvertently missed my response. John made a public accusation; it was his responsibility as someone intent on publishing the accusation to follow through.

Your double-speak is too clear: John can give the final word on what he meant, but I can't give the final word on what I meant.

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

One last spin on the Merry-go-round
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Brent: Do you understand that both Mormons and non-Mormons have not found so obvious what to you is "absolutely crystal clear"?
Tabhribardi: Of course. I simply said it was clear to me. I have admitted several times that language is ambiguous and Gees passage can be read either as over run = over write (your reading) or over run = overlap (my reading). However, that ambiguity has now been clarified. Why are you unable to accept this simple clarification?

**Brent: Taghri, now you invoke Alan "I'm going to expose those positivist hobgoblins" Goff to somehow redeem John Gee.
Tabhribardi: Now heres a well considered substantive response which wondrously removes all responsibility to actually defend your position. Congratulations, youve won the debate!

** Brent: Astounding. Next you'll be invoking the authority of Bill Hamblin.
Tabhribardi: Who is this Hamblin fellow? I prefer to quote real scholars, not apologetic hacks!

** Brent: In case you've missed the point, I'm not interested in what pitiable excuse you can concoct for why Gee inadvertently missed my response.
Tabhribardi: How could I possibly have missed your point: Your mind is closed. I shall cease to bother you with alternative possibilities.

**Brent: Your double-speak is too clear: John can give the final word on what he meant, but I can't give the final word on what I meant.
Tabhribardi: On the contrary, I think you should each give the final word on what you mean. But, if you insist upon that privilege for yourself, you should grant the same privilege to John Gee. And if you do, then you must admit that you have misunderstood Gee; Gee was not in error in his interpretation of the over run on the Abraham manuscript. If you try really hard, Ill bet you can admit that you misunderstood Gee. Or, if thats too difficult, just try to admit that it is not incontheivable -- however infinitesimally small the possibility -- that you might have misunderstood Gee on this point.

---

Quote:

---

!!!!! They're All Liars !!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
!!!!!!!

Alan Goff and Bill Hamblin are both liars. Everybody connected with FARMS is a liar. (Refrain: John Gee is a liar, I'm a liar . . . etc., etc. Add exclamation points according to [possibly depraved] taste.)

!!!!!!!

---

Quote:

---

Overran
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To add my 1 1/2 centavos, in divining the REASON why Gee mentioned the Egyptian character overrunning the text, it is clear that his intention was to show the order in which the lines, characters, and text (not 'text area,' but actual English characters) were drawn.

His argument which "clearly shows" his conclusion is much weaker without the original claim.

An example:

"While drawing, the marker accidently overran the text."

You see? When reading this, a perfectly rational human being could visualize that the marker actually 'ran over' the actual text characters. If the Egyptian symbol had run over the actual characters, his argument would have been bolstered. Yet they don't, so it's weak.

Here's a likely scenario going through the mind of a scribe: [I'm looking into my seer stone to divine the past]

"I had to avoid the large Egyptian character and thus indented the paragraph.

Now, we can visulize that that the scribe avoided the likely pre-existing Egyptian character by indenting the English textual characters a bit. Thus, in all likelihood now, the opposite of Gee's conclusion on this matter seems more credible.

That's why I doubt FARMS nor Gee will add a clarifying comment to the article.

Will future online and paper publications of the article provide a footnoted clarification so that seemingly incorrect interpretations of his original argument will not be propogated? (What! Another skewed faith-promoting rumor! Call Dunn for permission first) I'm guessing that Gee is not currently making the same "mistake" during his lectures and that he is clarifying his statements so that no unsupportable ideas are planted in the minds of his audience. I'm quite hopeful he would have the integrity of a good scholar to edit and modify his language if it has been shown to create widespread misunderstandings.

It's really easy. Just revise the sentence or add a footnote/endnote.

Even the Book of Mormon, D&C, and conference talks have been 'updated,' so I'm sure Gee would have no objection to more appropriate terminology.

PS. How does one distinguish between a Ph.D. Egyptology scholar and an Ph.D apologist with a Egyptian hobby?
Could the answer hinge on how Gee chooses to spread the information once edited for clarity?

---

Quote:

---

A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee, p. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to post this to the Roundtable, thinking that it will be seen by more people that way. I suggest that the moderators might move it to "Resources, References, and Reviews" after it gets a bit of discussion going... If this is an evil approach please let me know

I've been studying GJSP, and looking at the Big Chart on p. 13 there's something I don't understand. I'm seeking clarification.

I've scanned in all the photos of the papyri (very clever to put JSP I as a frontispiece for chapter I, II for II, etc.) and have been playing around with them using various image manipulation software that I have available to me.

Just as a parenthesis here, I'm an electrical engineer (BSEE BYU 1982 approx.) and have spent most of my career designing equipment to do image exploitation. For instance, right now I expect that in certain labs, certain people are intently analyzing overhead photos of Afganistan, looking for cave entrances. They might or might not be using hardward that I helped design and build.

Just as another paren, I've hand-numbered some of the pages in GJSP, that weren't numbered. Page 9 is numbered so flip two leaves forward to 13.

Putting together a large version of the scroll of Hor, top scroll on p. 13, using scans from p. 60 and p. ? (must be x?) I don't get the same thing that Gee got.

I have JSP I at the far right, and next to it, JSP XI. The cut edge does indeed match if I play with the scale a bit. (Not a size does Gee give; most photos I've seen of artifacts include a ruler, or at least a penny, or something.)

Moving further right, next comes JSP X. But the edges don't fit. Gee shows them flowing right together in that tiny layout but the only way I can figure that happening is if he used the old Improvement Era photos, which I believe cropped both papyri to a straight line, which could be put together with some minor fudging, but... The photos Gee shows on p. 60 reveals there is actually more papyrus at the right end of X than the old photos showed.

Also, in Hugh Nibley's Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, p. 25, where he analyzed the symbols on JSP XI, column II, he states that the (left) end of line 4 is found pasted upside down as a patch on JSP IV. He shows the patch restored to its rightful position on lines 4 thru 8. Looking at Gee's photo of JSP IV, it's not too hard to identify the patch. (And I believe I see an additional piece of line 3 also in this patch, which Nibley didn't place in his book.)

With the patch in place, Column II was at least as wide or probably wider than Column I. I believe the vertical lines dividing the columns are visible on the patch, but I can't make out any corresponding line on Pap. X. So, it would seem that X is moving even farther away...

All this makes me wonder what /was/ the correct position of JSP X. If I understand correctly, the text of column III logically follows II, altho they are not joined now. But column II is the beginning, and column I, which /is/ joined to it, is the conclusion (if I understand the translation correctly) -- thus, there is departure from a strict sequential order among the columns already.

The model of a papyrus rolled up suggests that the decay may have been most severe on the outer wraps, decreasing inward. I believe Gee mentions this at one point in his book. Well, careful study of the lacunae "shoreline" shows that this degradation is the worst on JSP X. Do we know that this piece was not outside (to the right) of XI and I?

There is some mathematical data contained in the papyri, which I would like to explore, but which I can't get at because I'm at the mercy of book reproduction processes.

Were there even a ruler in the picture, there are always warpings and other geometry inaccuracies of the camera, printing, etc. and I would like to make some really close measurements of the lacunae.

What would really be helpful, if someone could point me to a set of high quality photos of the three fragments against an accurately-ruled grid. Then any lens/camera/press inaccuracies could be gotten around because the grid which would go thru the same lenses and other geometric warpings.

Wood
wwbrison@lds.net

---

Quote:

---

GJSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Woody,

I graduated from BYU in 1982 also. My condolences on your advanced age; I know the feeling. <g>

My book is at home and I cannot comment intelligently in detail on your observations, but I did have two quick thoughts:

1. Brent Metcalfe, who posts here (but more often frequents Critical Canon, I believe), has high quality color photos of this material. If he doesn't see this and respond, you might try reposting in Critical Canon, or just contact him directly (I think there is a way to do this at his Mormon Scripture Studies website). He might be able to help with this aspect of your request.

2. I think your suggestion is unlikely based on parallel copies of the Book of Breathings. I think the way Gee presented the fragments would be the normal order; that is, from far right edge working in, I, XI and X. That may not be conclusive, but it is a factor to take into account.

---

Quote:

---

GJSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I'm home and can see what you are talking about, I have a few more comments.

1. I never noticed the thing about the frontspiece to each chapter of GJSP being that number in the JS Pap. That was clever, and I totally missed it. Thanks for pointing it out.

2. The order is clearly as I stated in my last message, moving from right to left, I, XI and X. As I guessed in my last message, this can be determined based on a comparison with other copies of the Book of Breathings. For bibliographic details, see the footnote on p. 119 of Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hor" from Dialogue (Autumn 196 .

3. There is not just one patch, but actually four patches that now appear on JS Pap IV. Baer's article has a diagram showing the location of these and where they originally existed on XI and X.

4. I think the source for your confusion is that Gee places XI and X next to each other as though they adjoined. As you note, this is correct for I and XI, which were at some point cut apart. The fibers match, and we can tell from markings on the back that they were originally adjacent to one another. In the case of XI and X, however, there is a missing portion of text that originally stood between them. It was not very big, but sufficient that one cannot expect to line them up together as is done with I and XI. In this respect Gee's picture is a little misleading. I suspect the reason for this is that here he was just trying to illustrate the relative extent of the various papyri.

If my comments here (or Baer's article, which you should reread on this point) do not suffice for your purpose, why not go straight to the horse's mouth and contact John Gee and see what he has to say on the subject?

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarkable.

With all the crowing, preening and strutting, we might have had reason to suppose that something interesting might be forthcoming.

Instead, what do we get? Drum roll, fanfare, the curtain is drawn back to reveal--Ed Ashment's reconstruction, which has been thoroughly dealt with.

The word "anticlimax" comes to mind.

You wrote:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases of the heads of the left standing figure (Fac. 1:3) and right hovering bird (Fac. 1:1), I'm persuaded by the papyrological evidence that Smith did not restore these elements correctly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, you're convinced; well, that should certainly settle it for the rest of us, shouldn't it? What with you being so impartial, and everything. And by the "papyrological evidence," no less! My, but that sounds so erudite.

Well, pardon this barely-reformed poker player for calling your bluff, but would you care to produce some of this alleged "papyrological evidence," so that we can be convinced, too?

You also asserted, on your own authority:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one who has carefully examined pJS 1 disputes that lower sketch is that of a hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. I don't dispute it either, and I shall have cause to refer to it again.

You quoted Ashment thus:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This indicates that the upper "hand" may have been something other than a hand--such as the tip of one of the wings of Isis hovering over Osiris, just as she does in other scenes depicting the same event.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that the real question at issue is just what "event" is here depicted; Ed has begged that question by assuming that the picture is "depicting the same event" as some other scenes. The event he thinks it is depicting is the begetting of Horus by Osiris with Isis, who is in the form of a bird. There are a number of insuperable problems with this assumption, which I shall address below.

You go on to assert:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of strokes on the top sketch do not correspond to the number of fingers on a hand. No less than eight stokes (and two blotchessee Fig. 3:1-2 above) are evident in the upper sketch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: did you write that for an audience that would be too lazy to look at the pictures? You can claim "eight strokes" if you want to look like someone desperate to stretch a point as far as it will go, but several of those "eight strokes" are directly in line with each other; which is just another way of saying that there are breaks in some of the lines. These "eight strokes" make up four fingers and one thumb.

Look at the hand again; note how the breaks themselves also line up, as if the papyrus was wrinkled when the fingers were being drawn.

In making this to-do, you have also failed to remember what you said about the lower hand, to wit:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one who has carefully examined pJS 1 disputes that lower sketch is that of a hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that sketch does not contain only five strokes either. There is a completely extraneous stroke between and parallel to the middle and ring fingers, while the forefinger appears to be forked! There is also a break in the thumb stroke. Can I count that as two? If so, then there are now eight strokes in the lower hand as well. The fact is that both hands show imperfections in the drawing; but despite these imperfections,

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one who has carefully examined pJS 1 disputes that lower sketch is that of a hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why are the imperfections suddenly so important for the upper hand?

You go on to say:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The so-called "thumb" in the upper sketch consists of two strokes, not one as in the hand below it. Its curvature is twice the thickness and length of the thumb in the lower sketch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, just like that mythical fellow who can only see the vase and not the two human faces that form its outline, you entirely miss the significance of the very detail you emphasize. The artist was drawing (a) freehand, (b) in small scale, (c) without an eraser. He wasn't happy with the thumb the first time, so he did what anyone in his situation would do: he went over it again. The upper thumb is even more emphatically a thumb than the lower one.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lower sketch, the fingers are virtually the same length; in the corresponding area in the upper sketch the strokes differ in length.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even Ashment admits that this might not be all that significant, since the darker strokes are close to the same length, while the lighter bits, which may well be preliminary sketch-work, are what give the fingers their different lengths.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alignment of the "fingers" to the "thumbs" differ substantially between the two (see Fig. 3:a-b,A-B above).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is only because you have (perhaps intentionally) chosen to treat the extensions as if they were proven to belong there. Had you drawn your angle <ab with its apex at the natural fingertip instead of the extension of the little finger, and had you drawn your point A at the natural fingertip instead of the extension of the forefinger, the two angles would not be all that different any more, would they?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the lower hand the fingers are set at an angle independent of the thumb. In the upper sketch the strokes are extended to make the slant toward the bottom curved stroke more apparent, as one would expect in the drawing of a wing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which means what, exactly? That you "expect" the feathers on a wing to "slant" towards its thumb? Perhaps you haven't heard; wings don't have thumbs.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thumb of the lower hand is proportional to its accompanying fingers. This is not the case of the two curved strokes in the upper sketch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's your opinion. The single solid thumb, drawn with a second stroke for emphasis in the upper hand, is arguably in better "proportion[] to its accompanying fingers" than is the upper thumb. Do you know anyone with a thumb that long?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The upper sketch has two blotches (see Fig. 3:1-2 above) that are commensurate with those used by the Egyptian artist as feathers for the right hovering bird (see Fig. 4 below).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, they could be the dots that are left when an imperfectly drawn line has faded. Given the small size of these dots, it seems a little odd to call them "blotches."

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does John Gee handle a hand with feathers? Simple, he connects the dotsliterally (see Fig. 5 below).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of begging the question, an indispensable item in the anti-Mormon toolkit. You assume the upper hand has "feathers" because you want it to be a wing. It is the very height of arrogance to assume that Gee shares your assumption.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even if it were a hand, what are apologists of Gee's ilk implying? Surely not that Smith via revelation correctly restored the two hands!? Why would god help Smith get this one right but let him get the restorations of Facsimile 1:1, 3 wrong? One wonders what apologetic would make sense of such nonsense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
People--even the most rabid atheists--attempting to have any sort of dialogue with believers, recognize that such dialogue always requires a modicum of respect. They can usually bring themselves to press the <shift> key when they type the "G" in "God."

Your utter contempt for us is noted and does not need to be labored.

Now: since neither you nor Ashment have demonstrated that Joseph (or Reuben Hedlock, for that matter) got either figure 1 or figure 3 wrong, the above specious argument is yet another example of the fallacy of begging the question.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite Gee's fanfare to the contrary, Ed Ashment's reconstruction of the source for Facsimile 1 (see Fig. 7 below) remains the most viable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to burst your bubble, but--no, it doesn't.

As I mentioned, there are a number of problems with Ashment's restoration. I will mention only two:

(1) In all of the lion-couch scenes which are supposed to resemble PJS I, the recumbent figure always has both hands visible. One is before the face; the other is either underneath the torso or else is grasping the erect phallus. Ashment has managed to lose the other hand entirely.

(2) The "event" which Ashment thinks the vignette depicts is Osiris begetting Horus. Isis, the mother, is hovering over him in the form of a bird. There are a number of such scenes--although no known exemplars on papyrus--and in all of them, every one, the recumbent figure is nude. (Sex scenes always seem to work better that way.) However, the recumbent figure in our picture is quite clearly fully dressed. He's even wearing shoes.

Therefore, PJS I is not an "Osiris begetting" scene, and all reasoning based upon that assumption must be rejected.

Regards,
Pahoran

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Brent_
You're missing the effect that the multiple strokes produce: in the upper sketch, a more pronounced slant toward the bottom curvature; in the lower, better alignment of the finger tips, moving at an angle further away from the thumb.

_Mike_
I guess I don't see it. I see the better alignment in the bottom hand, but it looks as if the artist was attempting to correct this in the upper hand.

_Brent_
I don't know anything about Kerry's FAIR lecturewhere can I get a copy?

_Mike_
Hopefully FAIR will have it published some time this year.

_Mike- previous_
Are there are instances of two birds in the same Egyptian art with differing wing tips-- one open & one closed?

_Brent_
Yessee pJS 4-6 (conveniently reproduced in Gee, Guide, 32, 42).

_Mike_
I couldn't find two birds on pg. 32 (maybe it's because I'm not good at "Where's Waldo" either.) I found three birds on pg. 42 but all three had closed, or outlined wings.

_Brent_
Multiple blotches appear toward the top and bottom of the right wing, forming a line of sorts through the wing center.

_Mike_
But as you note, these form a "line of sorts" which is apparently, how Ashment saw it in reconstructing the wing. My point is that regardless of whether it is a hand or wing, the "blotches" most likely represent a "line." The blotches as molting theory isn't really supported by the artist's drawings.

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How utterly fascinating this all is! THanks for sharing the pics Brent! This makes it oh so much easier to see what we are all saying. Now then, and again I know, I am biased in this direction, but I do believe that Pahoran has an astonishingly powerful point. If the many strokes on the upper hand/wing demonstrate it is a wing, what are we to do with the lower hand (by your own admission, everyone says this one, is at least a hand), which also has splits and more strokes? Perhaps Ashments comments that the artist was in a hurry and drew sloppily, is just precisely THE answer. There is nothing saying the ancient Egyptians ALWAYS drew anatomically correct in all places. However, there was a canon of art, and the physical way Abraham is on the lion couch (and John Tvedtnes has just told me that his book on so very, VERY many non-Biblical traditions of Abraham is coming out very soon, and Abraham being sacrificed is one of them) shows he is in prayer, as the text of the BofAbr. says he did. The Egyptian hieroglyph, I am absolutely concvinced you all are aware of, for prayer, is precisely this way Abraham is drawn, hands drawn up to the face, and one foot forward.

Anyway, a most interesting discussion. I do believe you ought to address Pahoran's idea, because it is one lulu of an issue.

Kerry

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Mike - previous_
I couldn't find two birds on pg. 32 (maybe it's because I'm not good at "Where's Waldo" either.) I found three birds on pg. 42 but all three had closed, or outlined wings.

_Mike_
It just occured to me, driving to work, that Brent was suggesting I compare the bird on pg. 32 with the birds on pg. 42-- duh! (I don't have Gee's book with me at work, but if I recall, the bird on p.32 had open feathers).

This brings up another (perhaps simplistic) question:

Are we sure that the same Egyptian artist did all the art on all the portions which we have (or have copies of)?

(I know I could do my own home work here and perhaps find something written about this, but I'm at work and have access to almost nothing.)

Mike

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell, I've tried to dig through your inflammatory rhetoric and subterfuge to find arguments of substance. Frankly there isn't much.

[Russell/Pahoran:] Oh, you're convinced; well, that should certainly settle it for the rest of us, shouldn't it? What with you being so impartial, and everything. And by the "papyrological evidence," no less! My, but that sounds so erudite.

Well, pardon this barely-reformed poker player for calling your bluff, but would you care to produce some of this alleged "papyrological evidence," so that we can be convinced, too?
(Do you realize how puerile you sound?) While you don't argue this point, this exercise could be instructive for other ZLMBers.

I contend that the papyrological evidencespecifically the lines that border the tear in the manuscriptis consistent with the remnants of Anubis's headdress (Fac. 1:3) not Smith's restored human head (which was duplicated from the recumbent figure), and also the remnants of the Ba bird's human head (Fac. 1:1) not Smith's restored bird head.

To proceed, please articulate your position on this accompanied by supporting photos.

[Russell/Pahoran:] Question: did you write that for an audience that would be too lazy to look at the pictures? You can claim "eight strokes" if you want to look like someone desperate to stretch a point as far as it will go, but several of those "eight strokes" are directly in line with each other; which is just another way of saying that there are breaks in some of the lines. These "eight strokes" make up four fingers and one thumb.
My point is much more modest than you assume. Some in this forumincluding youhave claimed unequivocally that the number of strokes is precisely the same as the number of digits on a human hand. Such claims are false; I wasn't suggesting any more than this. And on this, your comments on the lower sketch are moot.

[Russell/Pahoran:] Look at the hand again; note how the breaks themselves also line up, as if the papyrus was wrinkled when the fingers were being drawn.
You're mistakenI didn't count any of the breaks caused by papyrus texture.

[Russell/Pahoran:] So why are the imperfections suddenly so important for the upper hand?
I've already addressed this in my response to Mike above.

Much of what follows in your post is little more than idle speculation sans supporting evidenceI simply don't have time to address the myriad of rationales for why the artwork appears the way it does. I'm interested in discussing what the Egyptian artist left, not trying to create a fictive account of the artist's experience in drawing the vignette. For instance, you write:

[Russell/Pahoran:] Alternatively, they could be the dots that are left when an imperfectly drawn line has faded.
This is sheer fiction. There is no evidence that what I call blotches were the result of faded inknone. You further write:

[Russell/Pahoran:] Another example of begging the question, an indispensable item in the anti-Mormon toolkit. You assume the upper hand has "feathers" because you want it to be a wing. It is the very height of arrogance to assume that Gee shares your assumption.
No, I observe that the upper sketch has blotchesblotches that require explaining; I observe that the blotches are commensurate with the blotches on the hovering bird (Fac. 1:1); I observe that John Gee connected the two blotches with another stroke to invent a single "stroke." Perhaps it is the very height of ignorance for you to assume that Gee had any justification for creating his imaginary "stroke"if he (or you) has evidence for a fading ink hypothesis, let's see it. All I sense is a fading apologetic. We have to deal with evidence that exists, not the desiderative musings of apologists or antagonists.

[Russell/Pahoran:] People--even the most rabid atheists--attempting to have any sort of dialogue with believers, recognize that such dialogue always requires a modicum of respect. They can usually bring themselves to press the key when they type the "G" in "God."

Your utter contempt for us is noted and does not need to be labored.
And to exhibit respect for my unbelief will you init lower case "god"? Your god is as real to me as Osiris and Zeus. I avoid init upper-casing "god" in casual correspondence because I don't want to imply otherwise; it truly is not intended to offend. I have "utter contempt" for few things in life; apologists are not among them. I do disdain uncritical thinking, I'm sure that seeps through in my posts.

[Russell/Pahoran:] (1) In all of the lion-couch scenes which are supposed to resemble PJS I, the recumbent figure always has both hands visible. One is before the face; the other is either underneath the torso or else is grasping the erect phallus. Ashment has managed to lose the other hand entirely.

(2) The "event" which Ashment thinks the vignette depicts is Osiris begetting Horus. Isis, the mother, is hovering over him in the form of a bird. There are a number of such scenes--although no known exemplars on papyrus--and in all of them, every one, the recumbent figure is nude. (Sex scenes always seem to work better that way.) However, the recumbent figure in our picture is quite clearly fully dressed. He's even wearing shoes.
Interesting assertions. Now it's your turn Russell. Please provide references to "all of the lion-couch scenes which are supposed to resemble PJS I" and to "all of" the scenes that "[depict] Osiris begetting Horus [with] Isis, the mother, ... hovering over him in the form of a bird." Without all such references, I have no way to test your claim.

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

        Pahoran's Rodomontade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... double-wow ...

[Russell/Pahoran:] So when a bona fide Egyptologist from Yale reconstructs portions of a decayed drawing--and that reconstruction supports Joseph's interpretation--you freely label that "manipulation of the evidence," despite the fact that you have no grounds to make such an accusation. Unless maybe you're projecting. You really can't bear the thought that maybe Joseph got something right, can you?
Russell, you've concocted a fanciful theory of fading ink that has no evidentiary basis. If this is what it takes to salvage Smith and his god, you'll understand if I pass. I couldn't care less if Gee had a veritable cornucopia of credentials, his reconstruction is a fabrication pure and simple. But it doesn't end there with Gee; he uses similar slight-of-hand to support his position on the composition of the BoAbr mss. (which I hope to start a thread on this weekend).

As I said:

Until you can provide evidence for your assertions, we have nothing to discuss.
Cheers,

bReNt

Edited by: exegete at: 4/27/01 7:02:46 pm

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D Charles, interesting reply.

[D Charles:] Ah, but not in every case is this so, as anyone conversant with this subject knows.
Did anyone suggest otherwise?

[D Charles:] There are many differences between this papyrus and those associated with the Book of Breathings and other funerary vignettes. The trajectory of the lower hand differs from that commonly seen in vignettes where one or more birds hover over the body. The trajectory of the upper hand is nearly identical with that of the lower hand.
Without references I have no way of assessing your assertion.

[D Charles:] The "blotches" appear to have the same direction of flow as the remaining lines in the upper hand (although electron micrograph or other microphotography might show this better than my photos), unlike those which are on the bird and which appear to be downward short-strokes apparently differing in direction from those "blotches" found on the upper hand. The "blotches" also appear to have the same coloration and fading as the line that both Gee and Ashment connect with the dots in their differing interpretations. There does appear, at least from the photos I have looked at, to be a missing or broken papyrus fiber breaking the connecting trace of ink between the topmost "blotch" and the line above and to the right of it.
You may want to consult the photos I've provided in this thread, the fiber had no impact on the upper-most blotch. I agree that the stroke and blotches run linearly, similar to the right wing of the bird (Fac. 1:1).

[D Charles:] Strokes used to draw fingers on the lower hand have the same style as those used to draw the upper hand, right down to the secondary strokes forming "forked" lines. Both appear to have curved strokes that, at least in the lower hand, have the appearance of thumbs.
I disagreeI don't see a single blotch on the hand, which unlike the upper sketch has been preserved almost in its entirety.

[D Charles:] In copulation scenes, during the rising of Osiris from the bier, a hand is shown grasping the phallus. Not so with Papyrus JS-I. It has enough of an important section left on the glued backing to show that there never was an arm with hand grasping a phallus. Ashment was wise to leave that out in his earlier reconstruction, which is more than I can say for Charles Larson, who insists upon drawing in the arm where none is allowed by what remains of the papyrus.
?!?

I don't really care whether Fac. 1:2 was originally ithyphallic, but you overstate the evidence in claiming that the remaining papyrus fragment shows that it was not.

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Brent_
Fair enough. Blotches, lines, and so on appear all over the vignette for a variety of artistic effects.

_Mike_
Except that I don't think that some of these are for "artistic effects." Quite frankly it really does look like that in at least a few places these "blotches" are the result of too little pressure or ink on whatever type of tip was used during the drawing, or as Russell has mentioned, fading. Look at picture-- I can't believe that all these gaps/blotches are intentional. In fact, the lower hand itself, as well as the upper hand (?) do not meet the edge of the rent (I say with some not too subtle {and perhaps not too funny} humor, drawing upon 1830 BoM terminology). Why? Perhaps the fibers lifted at the edges and pulled the ink which originally connected the lines, or perhaps the ink faded or never touched forcefully enough to complete the lines (personally I prefer the first option, and granted these are long, unconnectd lines rather than blotches). In the case of the legs on the lion couch (which have dots or nearly idential-sized blotches), and the artwork lines below the crocodile (ditto), it appears that the latter option is more plausible. And if plausible for these lines, then plausible for the upper hand (?).

_Brent_
Perhaps our communication gap results from us missing the forest for the treesour attention to blotches and strokes has obscured a critical point: what should we expect to find over the recumbent figure in such Egyptian vignettes? Birds are prominent in such scenes. (This fact is undoubtedly what led Egyptologist Richard Parker to conclude that the upper sketch is the remnant of a bird wing.)

_Mike_
This, of course, strikes an area with which I have no familiarity. And it is a good question. But if I'm not mistaken (and perhaps I am) I believe Kerry (and maybe Gee) have claimed that this is simply *one* of the figures (i.e., a second bird) which we might expect to find in such a vignette. I thought that they (or maybe just Kerry) has suggested that at least in some instances of Egyptian vignettes, this is not the case.

_Brent_
It's in this context that the blotches on the upper sketch and the bird (Fac. 1:1) are relevant and significant.

_Mike_
Agreed... if the context is that two birds were present. However if the context is a single bird, then then the upper sketch as a hand makes easy sense, and the blotches can easily be dismissed as one of the artists *numerous* uncompleted lines.

Mike

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike, you conclude.

[Mike/Oxymormon:] Agreed... if the context is that two birds were present. However if the context is a single bird, then then the upper sketch as a hand makes easy sense, and the blotches can easily be dismissed as one of the artists *numerous* uncompleted lines.
I think you know which "if" I consider most likely based on my reading of the evidence. Thanks for the exchange.

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

        !!!!!!!!!!!!!IMPORTANT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
brent:

It's "sleight of hand," not "slight of hand."

---

Quote:

---

        Re: !!!!!!!!!!!!!IMPORTANT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really think it was slight of hand, Dr. Peterson. To me, Brent's faux pas was nothing but a Freudian slip wherein he tacitly admitted that the lines in the upper drawing were slight, thus causing imperfect smudges.

Hence, slight of hand.

Pacumeni

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[D Charles:] Ah, but not in every case is this so, as anyone conversant with this subject knows.

Did anyone suggest otherwise?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my experiance, various people have indeed attempted to suggest this, beginning in 1912. I just wanted to make sure that you were not doing so.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[D Charles:] There are many differences between this papyrus and those associated with the Book of Breathings and other funerary vignettes. The trajectory of the lower hand differs from that commonly seen in vignettes where one or more birds hover over the body. The trajectory of the upper hand is nearly identical with that of the lower hand.

Without references I have no way of assessing your assertion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on, Brent. Perhaps, I have assumed too much at this point but I am quite sure that you have seen a rather large collection of funerary vignettes on papyrus and stone in both photos and in print. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer in my writing, however. The comments about upper and lower hands indicated papyrus JS-I, rather than these other vignettes I am sure that you have seen.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[D Charles:] The "blotches" appear to have the same direction of flow as the remaining lines in the upper hand (although electron micrograph or other microphotography might show this better than my photos), unlike those which are on the bird and which appear to be downward short-strokes apparently differing in direction from those "blotches" found on the upper hand. The "blotches" also appear to have the same coloration and fading as the line that both Gee and Ashment connect with the dots in their differing interpretations. There does appear, at least from the photos I have looked at, to be a missing or broken papyrus fiber breaking the connecting trace of ink between the topmost "blotch" and the line above and to the right of it.

You may want to consult the photos I've provided in this thread, the fiber had no impact on the upper-most blotch. I agree that the stroke and blotches run linearly, similar to the right wing of the bird (Fac. 1:1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, in the photos I have in my possession I note that the space between the first "blotch" and the line next to it is just slightly wider and is aligned right on a line with the neighboring papyrus fiber. It really looks to me like a piece of ink flaked off there with a now missing papyrus fiber. Do you have clear high-resolution, high-magnification images of the area around what you advocate as a wing? If so, I should like to see them in leiu of the original papyrus.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[D Charles:] Strokes used to draw fingers on the lower hand have the same style as those used to draw the upper hand, right down to the secondary strokes forming "forked" lines. Both appear to have curved strokes that, at least in the lower hand, have the appearance of thumbs.

I disagreeI don't see a single blotch on the hand, which unlike the upper sketch has been preserved almost in its entirety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't talking about blotches here. I was referring to the style of the strokes in both the upper and lower figures being near perfect matches for style, including the "forked" appearance of some of the finger-strokes in both figures. Also, please indicate where you have seen the lower pinion of bird's wing drawn with such a curvature as that found in the upper figure of Papyrus JS-I. Can you also explain why there is s substantial gap between the curved line and the first line above it? How about the fact that the darker line just above the curved line in the upper figure is straight, just as the first line above the thumb is straight in the lower hand?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[D Charles:] In copulation scenes, during the rising of Osiris from the bier, a hand is shown grasping the phallus. Not so with Papyrus JS-I. It has enough of an important section left on the glued backing to show that there never was an arm with hand grasping a phallus. Ashment was wise to leave that out in his earlier reconstruction, which is more than I can say for Charles Larson, who insists upon drawing in the arm where none is allowed by what remains of the papyrus.

?!?

I don't really care whether Fac. 1:2 was originally ithyphallic, but you overstate the evidence in claiming that the remaining papyrus fragment shows that it was not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor do I. However, I do not believe that I have overstated anything. If the vignette were originally ithyphallic, why did the critics of Joseph Smith's day never draw attention to such a thing? Why did at least two non-LDS observers in Nauvoo state that they saw the papyrus framed on a wall and that there was a knife in the hand of one of the figures. Since this was before the publication of the vignettes in the Times and Seasons, how do you account for this? If the one figure with arm outstretched did indeed have an object in its hand, there is no room for a bird like that drawn by either Ashment or Larson.

Ashment's restoration is problematic in that there is still a trace of the lower shoulder on the figure on the papyrus. Ashment has restored the wrong arm and should either have attached the hand to the "left" arm (as in the Woodlock woodcut) rather than to Ashment's postulated "right" arm, or have made a left arm positioned somewhere else (not allowed by what remains but one must do something ).

Larsons's is problematic in that there are faint traces of the diagonal lines that are interpreted as "wrappings" in the broken portion, at least so far as I can determine from my photo, that show no indication of an arm crossing them as would be required for Larson's restoration to be correct.

At any rate, the remains of the imprint of the papyrus in the glue on the backing paper shows that there was papyrus there at the time that Smith glued it to the backing, which has subsequently flaked and broken off. Non-LDS eyewitnesses in Nauvoo state that a knife was held by the standing figure. How does that leave room for another bird as Ashment, Parker and Larson intimate in their hypothetical reconstructions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Charles Pyle
-------------------
Ordo Ab Chao
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by: D Charles Pyle at: 4/28/01 8:09:09 am

---

Quote:

---

        !!Yes, We're on the Elementary School Playground!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side issue: A Signature Books advertisement for a forthcoming volume about the Book of Mormon co-edited by brent describes it as, among other things, ""respectful." I wonder if that means that Signature will respect the standard convention of capitalizing the word "God" when referring to the deity of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I rather suspect so. It would be counter-productive and rather juvenile to insult the book's hoped-for audience by ostentatiously violating that convention.

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also have to remember that Nibley demonstrated that Facsimile 1 is utterly unique in many ways, some of which have direct relevance to what Brent is saying. To mention just a few items:

No other facsimile has the figure on the lion couch with both hands raised to his face.

No other facsimile has the figure on the couch clothed

No other facsimile has the figure wearing slippers

No other facsimile has crocodiles underneath the lion couch

No other facsimile hs the expanse or firmament depicted

No other facsimile has the pillars of heaven depicted

No other facsimiles have the lotus

No other facsimiles have a bird flying in the middle with Anubis depicted as he is in our facsimile 1

No other facsimiles have the bird wings drawn as our facsimile 1

There is not one lion couch scene that I have ever looked at that shows birds in them depicted in the manner which Brent says they would be with our facsimile 1. So I think, sincerely, that Nibley has a good point to make. There is something unique going on, and this scene is depicting a unique event, in this case, Abraham's sacrifice. Was the the original intent of the ancient Egyptian artist? No one here thinks so. Perhaps this was adapted by an ancient Hebrew to show Abraham in Egypt and the trouble he got into. (further info., see Nibley's article "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price" in "Improvement Era," Oct. 196 H. Donl Peterson's book on the BOfAbr. which was published pothsumousthly (sp?) is also relevant here.

I would also add that FARMS reprint of Nibley's "Abraham in Egypt," has apparently come just in the knick of time also. Therein, on page 80-81 is the discussion and picture of the tomb of Ramses IV, which shows Osiris actually MOVING on the lion couch, because he is resurrecting. This is no mummy, anymore than in facsimile 1 in the BofAbr. The person is ALIVE, as our facsimile depicts Abraham. I think FARMS has done an outstanding job with Michael Lyon, the artist, in depicting many ancient Egyptian scenes which are relevant to Nibley's thesis. His (Lyon's) art is a fantastic addition to an already fantastic book and look at Abraham in our BofAbr. Nibley's work is just going to have to be dealt with one of these days that's all. The sooner, the better. After all, we can wrangle forever and a day concerning what SHOULD be on the papyri, but what about the actual Book of Abraham itself? We are ignoring it. Does the story add up? THAT is, after all, the question, not whether Joseph Smith misdrew this or that. We have never claimed inspiration for the Prophet's depictions of the facsimiles anyway. It is the STORY of the BOOK itself that is scripture.

Kerry

---

Quote:

---

        A Note on the Knife in Fac 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Charles brought up an interesting point on the knife also. Nibley found that anciently there was human sacrifice in Egypt.

I just read this morning an interesting arricle by G.A. Wainwright, "The Attempted Sacrifice of Sesostris," in the "Journal of Egyptian Archaeology," 27(1941): 138ff, which noted that Sesostris was attempted to be sacrificed by fire, and this was a fertility rite. Interestingly, the same idea was found by Nibley in the BOfAbr. with the 3 virgins who were sacrificed because they would not give up their virginity! I'll have to look for the reference, this is off the top of my head at the moment. If I remember correctly, Wainwright in his utterly fascinating book "The Ancient Eygptian Sky Religion," discusses such sacrifices of virgins on a hill. Nibley tied it well into the BofAbr. including the idea that Sirius was involved, which is the BofAbr., Shagreel, (Abr. 1: 9-13).

The idea that Abraham was sacrificed rings bells all over! John Tvedtnes has told me in his new and forthcoming book on the BofAbr. there are legends and ideas dealing with Abraham's sacrifice via FIRE. All this rings true according to ancient accounts AND our BofAbr. I helped him proof read it when it was in the early stages, and I can state uncategorically I have read MANY of those accounts of Abraham being sacrificed. His updated version which includes much more, is the reason it is out a year later than expected. It is simply going to be one terrific read!

Oh granted, Abraham on the lion couch, and the priest with a knife is another version, but the point is, Abraham was sacrificed. Nibley dealt with that a long time ago in the 1968-1970 Improvement Era articles, "A New Look at the PofGP," and in the FARMS reprint of his work just last year, "Abraham in Egypt," which is a truly wonderful read.

NEW information is coming out on our BofAbr. which places it in a context with which it belongs. The stories are the same, the events depicted are the same, the situations, persons and places are the same, for one very simple reason. The BofAbr. is one such account of what could have happened, and is recorded in the ancient records.

Whether there is a detail here or there in the actual fragments of papyri we have left is almost irrelevant when considered to what the Book of Abraham actually says. THAT is what we consider scripture, after all. If we are going to get anywhere, it is in discussing this magnificent book of scripture.

Kerry

---

Quote:

---

        Re: A Note on the Knife in Fac 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just found a MOST INTERESTING thing...... In Abd El Hamid Ahmed Zayed's article "The Staircase of the Gods in Abydos," in "Annals du Service," Tome LXII (1977), I found a picture of Anubis holding a knife exactly depicted as the priest holding a knife in our fac. 1! Here is what Zayed says "The eleventh Iat is in the form of a staircase and beside it stands jackal-headed God, armed with a knife and a mace." (p. 169 (15). So this demonstrates that Anubis did use knives. What for is a matter of interpretation. Russell is also correct in making the claim as Gee has that the important thing about the figure in our fac. is that he IS a priest. In Richard H. Wilkinson's truly interesting book "Symbol & Magic in Egyptian Art," Thames & Hudson, 1st paperback, 1999: 184, he notes that priests wore the costumes of the Gods in depicting their ritual events. In fact, in Hassan-El-Saddy's article "Two Heliopolitan Stelae of the New Kingdom," in "Zeitschrift fur Aegyptishe Sprache," 122 (1995): 101, he says concerning one such ritual scene, "The upper register is occupied by a standing priest with bald head..." This is amply confirmed in Sigrief Morenz's "Gott und Mensch im Alten Agypten," Leipzig, 1984, p. 181 where it actually shows a man in an Anubis mask! Morenz says the masked priest depicted the God Anubis in the ritual.

Nibley demonstrated in his articles "A New Look at the PofGP that some Egyptologists say the lion couch scenes are "sacrificial scenes," (IE, Oct. 196 .

And, in fact, in the Horus Myth of Edfu, the dramatic play which was presented was done by actors who donned costumes, maskes, stage periphenalia, etc. The king had a substitute used for him in his place (as Nibley noted long ago, Abraham being the chosen substitute for the king in Fac. 1) in the temple drama. (see Blackman and Fairman, "The Myth of Horus at Edfu, II," in "Journal of Egyptain Archaeology," 27-30 (1941-44), p. 34, 35.) This drama, in part, had to do with not only the kings renewed reign, but with the dead living again so as to participate in the next life. Ann Macy Roth's huge, brawling article on the Opening of the Mouth is wonderful in this regard! (Ann Macy Roth, "The Pss-KF and the Opening of the Mouth Ceremony: A Ritual of Birth and Rebirth," in "Journal of Egyptain Archaeology," 78 (1992): especially, p. 121, "The dead person had to be reborn to participate in the afterlife..."

So, there are many, many things that are of interest to us in this BofAbr. as we now have it, incomplete though it may be for now.

Kerry

---

Quote:

---

John Gee -- a "Bad Egyptologist" -- so Says El
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw this over on UTLM, and thought some here would like to comment.

Pacumeni

---

Quote:

---

        Case in point
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other day I was a little bored, so I thought I'd check out the FARMS web site. Under the FARMS Review of Books I found a review of Charles M. Larson's ...by his own hand upon papyrus by John Gee. (I keep wondering why he doesn't use "Dr."--he has a Ph.D. in Egyptology!) Since I have this book, I thought I'd read the review.

He focuses almost entirely on Larson's research and presentation. In fact, I don't believe he ever even addressed his arguments--I'll have to read it again. But, one set of claims of Gee's in particular jumped out at me:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Larson has noted that there are some characters above the figures, he has misunderstood the implications. The characters are in vertical columns marked by vertical lines to either side of the text, a practice reserved for cases where there is more than one column of text. Given at least two columns of text, there is no room for the bird hovering over the figure. A hand is the only reasonable restoration. Besides, the artist has already demonstrated how he draws the end of a bird's wing, and it is not in separate strokes.25 Thus the restoration Larson mocks (pp. 155-56) is possible, whereas his own is not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my meager collection of books related to Egypt, the ancient Egyptian religion, or Egyptology I have found at least 32 examples that prove Gee wrong on both his assertion about text within parallel lines being reserved for multiple columns of text, and that details of illustrations are consistent throughout the illustration. Here goes:

An Illustrated Dictionary of The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: The illustration presented to explain the menat on page 79 show a single column of Egyptian character surrounded by parallel lines. The photograph of the Kom Ombo temple carving of Suchos on page 117 show at least one and arguably two examples of single column text with parallel lines.

Ancient Egyptian Religion: The photograph of the central colonnade in the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak on the cover of the book (for hell sakes) shows a single column of text surrounded by parallel lines. A photograph of a papyrus illustrating Ra-Horakhty enthroned and Thoth, circa 950 BCE, appearing on page 20 shows two examples of single column text and parallel lines. A photograph of a limestone carving from Akhmim of Hapy at the offering-table of Imhotep, Ptolemaic Period, i.e., third century BCE or later, that appears on page 50 is most likely an example of single column with parallel lines, though with the way the photograph is cropped, it's difficult to be sure. An illustration of a water flask with a rendering of Mehytweret (the great flood) as a cow on it's side, Late Period, after 600 BCE, on page 91 has inscriptions on both its edges that are surrounded by parallel lines. A photograph on page 99 of a limestone stela of Pasebakha(en)nuit, circa 950 BCE, shows an example of a single column of text surrounded by parallel lines. A photograph of a limestone stela of Keh from Abydos, circa 1250 BCE, on page 102 shows at least two and possibly more examples of single column text with parallel lines. A photograph of a limestone stela of Sarenenutet from Abydos, circa 1950 BCE, on page 104 also shows a breaking of the two or more columns of text rule. A photograph (page 108 ) of the limestone headrest of the royal scribe Qenherkhepshef from Thebes, circa 1225 BCE, would probably not sit well with Gee either--you guessed it, single column of text with parallel lines. Another photograph of a limestone stela; this time of Khabekhenet from Thebes, circa 1200 BCE, appearing on page 129--single column text w/parallel lines. Page 132, photograph, limestone stela of royal scribe Hori, circa 1150 BCE--single/parallel. Page 146, rectangular coffin of Amenhotep from Thebes, circa 1600 BCE, four single/parallels on one side. Page 148, coffin of Hor from Thebes, circa 650 BCE--three single/parallels on the short side. Page 178, sandstone stela of the Roman Emperor Tiberius from Thebes, circa 25 CE--single/parallel.

The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead: A photograph of a papyrus illustrating Osiris, Isis, Nephthys and an unnamed newly risen sun-god on page 6 shows 4 examples of single/parallel--this is probably the best of the examples I found! The photograph of a papyrus illustrating the judgement of the dead that spans pages 34 and 35 shows 12 single/parallels on one papyrus! Page 43 the photograph at the top of the page that is another example of the scene from page 6 shows two single/parallels. Page 90 photograph shows the Ba (human headed bird that represents the soul) with the edges of it's wings illustrated two different way-- on the same bird!

Atlas of Ancient Egypt (apparently renovated as Cultural Atlas of Ancient Egypt): Page 24 small stone statue with single/parallel. Page 83 black granite statue of Sebekemsauf shows two single/parallels. Page 105-6 photograph in middle of relief in Theban Tomb 106 of Paser, Vizier of Sethos I and Ramesses II show two single/parallels. Page 123 photograph of granite carving of Wekh-hotpe and his two wives Khnemhotpe and Nebkau and a daughter--each figure has a single/parallel. Page 128 photograph of Greco-Egyptian painting in mortuary "house" 21 at Tuna el-Gebel, circa 2nd century CE, at least three and probably four single/parallels. Page 173 photograph of granite statuette of the Manager of the Estate Tetu, son of Nekhti--single/parallel that is identified as the hotep-di-nesu formula for invoking Atum "Lord of Heliopolis". Page 205 photograph of illustration in tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara probably shows a single/parallel, but the top of the scene is missing and thus it is impossible to tell for sure. Page 206-7 photograph of an absolutely immaculate papyrus that not only contains a single/parallel but has 8 different types of bird ALL of which have the ends of their wings illustrated differently. Page 210 illustration of a temple relief that shows a single/parallel. Also on page 210, a photograph of a Tubular gold papyrus case with a single parallel identified as a decree by Khons for the protection of the owner which reads, "Speech by Khons in Thebes, Neferhotep. He made good protection [of] Shaq, deceased." Page 216 photograph of the papyrus of Anhai (same photograph as page 43 from The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead) showing two single/parallels. Pages 218-9 photograph of same papyrus as page 34-5 from The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead but about twice the size showing 12 single/parallels.

Gee also, amazingly, gives the single best argument against the BoA in this review. He does this in an attempt to support the Mormon contention that the papyrus that was the source of the BoA has not been found. He must not have realized just what he was saying as his quote supports exactly the opposite and bolsters the argument that critics have been forwarding since 1968:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egyptian papyrus documents almost universally pertain to only one individual. [footnote 42: Exceptions may be found in Alan H. Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies (Bruxelles: Fondation gyptologique Reine lisabeth, 1937). It must be noted, however, that these are a completely different type of document than those attested in the present collection of the Joseph Smith Papyri.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXACTLY! Thanks you Dr. Gee. Papyrus Joseph Smith I which is the source of facsimile #1 from the BoA has been conclusively proven to have been attached to Papyrus Joseph Smith XI which is the breathing permit of Hor(us).

So, what have we learned from this exercise? Is John Gee just a bad Egyptologist? (Who doesn't even bother to refer to himself as Dr.) Or does John Gee have a hidden agenda to suppress or misrepresent those things that are damaging to Mormon claims, and make patently false statements to support those claims? From what I've seen, I'd say he is just a bad Egyptologist.

Edited by: Pacumeni9 at: 4/3/01 12:10:33 pm

---

Quote:

---

Dr. Gee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've pondered the question of why John Gee didn't refer to himself as Dr. Gee in his review and I've come up with the following (non-exclusive) possibility: he didn't have his PhD when he wrote the review.

Ned

---

Quote:

---

As an Aside...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I find interesting is how that lovely Webguy allows links to LDS sites remain, but generally only if they are being included in a post that attempts to show where those websites are wrong. If a Latter-day Saint were to post those links in an argument supportive of their position, experience affirms that Webguy would probably censor the entire post.

Pacumeni

-- The Tanners' mantra for 30 years has been that the Church censors its own teachings and history. Yet, as soon as they put up a message board and Latter-day Saints show up to show where they are wrong, the Tanners engage in suppression themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Dr. Gee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've thought some more about the question of John Gee not using the "Dr." title. I don't know his current practice, i.e., whether he uses the title often now that he has earned a PhD, but forbearance from using the title "Dr." excessively is always refreshing, in my opinion. I only wish Walter Martin, James White, et al. were willing to exercise the same type of forbearance. Indeed, ideally they should abstain completely from using the title.

---

Quote:

---

Re: Dr. Gee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My wife and I caught Trax (the light rail system in Salt Lake) after the Saturday morning session of General Conference. We struck up a conversation with the couple sitting opposite us. It turns out that they met while she was getting a master's in New York and he was "in school in Connecticut." A few minutes later he mentioned that he had studied Coptic, and that he had studied under Daniel Peterson at BYU.

All in all I was impressed with this couple's unassuming disposition. They were polite, friendly, and very nice.

As we were getting off Trax, we asked their names: Brother and Sister Gee.

"In school in Connecticut" was getting a doctorate in Egyptology from Yale.

Thanks,

-Smac

---

Quote:

---

Re: Dr. Gee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Smac,

Awesome experience!!! I would like to thank you for sharing it on our little board.

Grace and peace,

David

---

Quote:

---

Re: John Gee -- a "Bad Egyptologist" -- so Says El
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pac,

I just spent 20 minutes trying to find the actual thread from which you got El's post so I could read the full context. The fruit of my labor found that it was in the "Are deceitful people Christians?" thread, located in the "Discussion Forum".

El and Webguy are having way too much fun at Gee's expense--I sincerely hope that someone with expertise in the BoA will address this current diatribe from our two "friends".

David

---

Quote:

---

Re: John Gee -- a "Bad Egyptologist" -- so Says El
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my paper at the FAIR Symposium last year, I demonstrated that the restoration of the hands instead of wings in Facsimile #1 is the way the ancient Egyptians would have drawn them. I have a huge article on my website (which is still down for the time being) showing conclusively that the restoration of WINGS is not the way the ancient Egyptians drew wings. I have many illustrations. While the hands restored are drawn exactly as HUNDREDS of examples of hands are drawn in ancient Egyptian texts, from the Egyptian Book of the Dead to literally gajillions of Egyptological reproductions of Egyptian art. Those thumbs are precisely drawn AS thumbs. References available if needed. The wrangling over columns of text and all that don't bother me at all. It is to the restoration of the HANDS that is crucial. I can demonstrate EASILY they are hands and not the wings of a second bird. The papyri itself clearly shows THUMBS on hands, not separate feathers of a birds wings, which as Larson drew it, is INCORRECT using ancient Egyptian parlance. El claims 32 sources? I have HUNDREDS showing that hands are the correct restoration. Literally, HUNDREDS. I have never found an exception to how hands verses wings are drawn.

Kerry A. Shirts

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Dr. Gee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With some trepidation about intruding on their privacy, I'll tell you something else about Brother and Sister Gee.

Some of you may perhaps have caught the talk by Sister Sydney Reynolds during the Saturday afternoon session of general conference, in which she gave a moving account of her twin grandchildren, who were born 3.5 months prematurely and at a combined weight of 4 pounds. The televised version of conference even showed several pictures of the little boy and little girl, whose story Sister Reynolds told to illustrate the occurrence of modern miracles.

Those are John and Kathleen Gee's children. And, as if that stress weren't enough, John is now serving his ward as a bishop.

Meanwhile, Webguy and his cohorts are, we're told, having fun mocking Professor Gee over on UTLM. Isn't "Christianity" a beautiful thing?

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Dr. Gee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for this wonderful update and info. Wow, Gee a bishop eh? Darn! I sustain and support him, but he better not slack on his magnificent Book of Abraham research and publications which will come out in the course of the next ten years, or so help me, I'm gonna move to Provo, and live off the streets (hopefully osmeone will buy me lunch every now and again), so I can stay in that BYU library and research for him - GRIN!

Kerry A. Shirts

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Dr. Gee
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are John and Kathleen Gee's children. And, as if that stress weren't enough, John is now serving his ward as a bishop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
==Whoa. He mentioned that he may stop by here to take a look at S. Kent Brown's posts about Nahom, but it sounds like he has a pretty full plate.

Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me if there is a specific "Egyptology" PhD? Or is Egyptology a generic term that covers a number of relevant fields (i.e. archealogy, linguistics, etc.)?

Thanks,

-Smac

---

Quote:

---

Who's an Egyptologist?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the safety of the UTLM board, El wrote:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee also, amazingly, gives the single best argument against the BoA in this review. He does this in an attempt to support the Mormon contention that the papyrus that was the source of the BoA has not been found. He must not have realized just what he was saying as his quote supports exactly the opposite and bolsters the argument that critics have been forwarding since 1968:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then quotes Gee thus:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egyptian papyrus documents almost universally pertain to only one individual. [footnote 42: Exceptions may be found in Alan H. Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Miscellanies (Bruxelles: Fondation gyptologique Reine lisabeth, 1937). It must be noted, however, that these are a completely different type of document than those attested in the present collection of the Joseph Smith Papyri.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then crowed:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXACTLY! Thanks you Dr. Gee. Papyrus Joseph Smith I which is the source of facsimile #1 from the BoA has been conclusively proven to have been attached to Papyrus Joseph Smith XI which is the breathing permit of Hor(us).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now the smug coup-de-grace:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what have we learned from this exercise? Is John Gee just a bad Egyptologist? (Who doesn't even bother to refer to himself as Dr.) Or does John Gee have a hidden agenda to suppress or misrepresent those things that are damaging to Mormon claims, and make patently false statements to support those claims? From what I've seen, I'd say he is just a bad Egyptologist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More importantly, he is an Egyptologist. Which means that he probably knows a thing or two that escapes the notice of our caustic and triumphalistic critic.

For instance, while he knows that, "Egyptian papyrus documents almost universally pertain to only one individual," he also knows that those documents frequently refer to illustrations that are not attached, or that are part of other documents.

But nobody had better point this out on UTLM, had they?

Regards,
Pahoran

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Who's an Egyptologist?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's something rather piquant, isn't there?, about El pronouncing judgment on the quality of Dr. Gee's Egyptological scholarship.

John Gee faked out those pseudoscholarly hacks at Yale University -- a two-bit degree mill if ever there was one -- but he can't escape the searching gaze of El, the amateur critic. (Of course, in fairness to El, he does allow for an alternative option: If Dr. Gee isn't incompetent, he's dishonest. Come to think of it, aren't those the exhaustive choices that are GENERALLY allowed by our critics? I wonder if there's a pattern here.)

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Who's an Egyptologist?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My teenage son, like most teenagers, has a little problem with authority figures. He deems them to be stuipid since they don't think like him. But as he matures and gains wisdom, he is slowly starting to see that his superiors do know a few things, things that he could never imagine.

Maybe as El matures and gains wisdom, he just might come to that realization also. But then again, he could be just like my 21 y/o son that hasn't learnt anything since he was 16 and tends to be a horse's patootie.

---

Quote:

---

        A Ph.D. from Yale vs. ???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Daniel,

I sincerely want to thank you for your recent post--a good laugh is always appreciated--you said:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gee faked out those pseudoscholarly hacks at Yale University -- a two-bit degree mill if ever there was one...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if "Dr." James White would be willing to exchange his degree from Columbia Theological Seminary (no campus, no library, etc.) for one from Yale's Divinity School? Now there is a tough choice!

Thanks again for the laugh,

David

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Who's an Egyptologist?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This all reminds me of Olsen's attempt to show some people here well versed in Greek that his interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29 is correct using concordances and dictionaries to prove his point.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone un-schooled in a discipline can claim authority by visiting a few websites.

Rick A sheepdog in wolf's clothing

---

Quote:

---

        Sources, please?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Shirts wrote:

"El claims 32 sources? I have HUNDREDS showing that hands are the correct restoration. Literally, HUNDREDS."
Do you have any of these scanned or otherwise online somewhere? I would like to take a look at some of them for myself. Out of curiousity, do any of them show a "correct" restoration of a man's head, and/or a knife in the hand?

---

Quote:

---

        Glad to see you are all having fun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, and let me make this perfectly clear--I AM NOT AN EGYPTOLOGIST. And, I never claimed to be. Gee is a vastly superior Egyptologist. Similarly, I never made any assertions about the personal character of John Gee. I don't know the man, I couldn't possibly make such an evaluation.

I addressed two assertions made by Gee, and nobody here has yet to address either of those. Notice: I am evaluating the work of an Egyptologist that is objectively verifiable--I am not claiming to know more about Egyptology than Gee.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The characters are in vertical columns marked by vertical lines to either side of the text, a practice reserved for cases where there is more than one column of text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at my references--this is absolutely WRONG. Better yet, pull out the Egyptian books that you have lying around and look for examples yourself. BTW, I said that I had found at least 32 EXAMPLES not that I had 32 references (unless you view those as the same thing).

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, the artist has already demonstrated how he draws the end of a bird's wing, and it is not in separate strokes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an implied assertion that the details of an illustration are always consistent on papyri. While I found far fewer examples demonstrating this assertion incorrect, I did find some. Again, check my references. (And, I might also note that the artist of JS papyri 1 isn't a particularly good artist as he has Anubis standing between the legs "Abraham" and the lion couch.)

BTW, Kerry, I'd be interesting in reading your FAIR paper if you can provide a link to it. I wasn't impressed with Gee's attempt at proving it should be a hand instead of a wing.

As to Pahorans comment:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For instance, while he knows that, "Egyptian papyrus documents almost universally pertain to only one individual," he also knows that those documents frequently refer to illustrations that are not attached, or that are part of other documents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is the opposite situation to the one we are addressing. The papyri don't make reference to an illustration that is not attached, rather the LDS claim that an unrelated illustration is attached to the breathing permit of Hor. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, show me. Provide me with a reference. I asked Shirts for this once before and he failed to deliver. He provided:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I have a few examples at a minimum I found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This is from Raymond Faulkner's translation and edited by Carol Andrews, and commentary by Ogden Goelet. Published by Chronicle Books, 1994. It is a huge sprawling and WONDERFULLY illustrated book!!! Truly worth the dough you have to shell out for it. One of the finest in print on my take of it. Anyway, on p. 157 he says "The text of chapter 1 introduces us to one of the central problems of interpreting Egyptian religious material - the often puzzling relationship between text and illustration. The entire scene is an abridged representation of Ani's funeral, leading us to believe that the text would describe his burial ritual. The accompanying text, however, alludes to the mythical events surrounding the death, dismemberment, and burial of Osiris, followed by his eventual vindication chiefly through the aid of Horus and Thoth..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That sounds pretty good until you actually look into it. Faulkner may be puzzled, but I wasn't. The story of Osiris is roughly the Egyptian equivalent to the story of Jesus. How many funerals have you ever been to where the story of Jesus was mentioned? Most I suspect. Please provide me with additional examples that I may consider.

One last thought, while I have come to the conclusion that Gee must be a "bad" Egyptologist based on his work that I have reviewed, I have by no means reviewed all his work and that opinion is subject to change. Also, you are in no way obligated to come to the same conclusion.

P.S. If you really want a good laugh, I can provide a thread from another message board where someone who claims to be a Christian (though pretty much everyone was convinced he was an atheist troll) asserted than the penis and vagina proved there was a God.

---

Quote:

---

        Good perception
------------------------------------------------------------------------
El,

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faulkner may be puzzled, but I wasn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, again, the amateur excells the professional. I just wanted to point this out because you denied doing this in the case of Bro. Gee but, not too far after doing so, did it again with Faulkner. Simple observation.

Budding Scholar,
Kevin Winters

---

Quote:

---

        Re: Glad to see you are all having fun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I can imagine a fairly respectable argument based on the contention of the allegedly atheistic troll. But I don't intend to make it.

---

Quote:

---

HANDS OR WINGS? For El
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, this article is from my now defunct website. I can't include the pictures for you, but here is my analysis with plenty of sources showing the evidence in favor of Joseph Smith restoring the facsimile 1 with the two HANDS of the man on the lion couch, not the wings of a second bird: (KAS)

The Egyptologist Richard Parker, on examining the original Facsimile #1 in the Book of Abraham, the Lion Couch, said, among other things, "The apparent upper hand is part of the wing of a second bird which is hovering over the erect phallus of Osiris (now broken away)."1 Hugh Nibley very effectively refuted this assertion in his articles in the Improvement Era.2 It is indeed ironic, that though the second bird theory was annihilated, that the most current anti-Mormon discussion, Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Written Upon Papyrus, reconstructs the lion couch scene and that with a second bird hovering over the middle!3

Above left is the original Facsimile 1. It was not a complete copy with the rather obvious lacuna (gap) in the center. The middle picture is a closer look. The right is a closer look still at the critical area we are discussing. Below I circle the areas that Parker, Nibley, and Larson have discussed and redrawn (in Larson's case).
The upper part circled is what Parker felt was the wing of a second bird, and which Larson redrew to be a second bird. Nibley contended that these were the remains of two drawn hands, also acknowledging that the pencilled part was not the Mormons doing so. The issue is simple. Is the reconstruction of Larson, or Joseph Smith more accurate in light of ancient Egyptological artistic workings.

So, the way to resolve the difficulty is honestly quite simple. Oh it takes some serious researching through Egyptian literature and other works, but the question is, are those two areas thumbs or wings? In order to see which they are, we of course, look up the way the Egyptians drew thumbs and wings. Hugh Nibley already did this in his Improvement Era articles, though he did not present pictures. What I will do is present a pictorial essay, so to speak, in order to see which fits better thumbs, or wings. This is something that critics simply will not do, nor have done, yet it is the logically correct approach. The interesting thing here is that Larson claims his reconstruction is "based on the modern study of Egyptology, and similar scenes in numerous existing papyri."4 He also claims that "A professional reconstruction" is what this is.5 Now this is interesting! Professional? Who drew it? Larson does not say. We, quite frankly, find this impossible to believe based on the literally thousands and thousands of Egyptological pictures we have perused, and present here below, though but a small fraction of the availability, which we will present in the Endnotes. Larson is pulling our legs. I know of absolutely no Egyptologist who would agree with Larson. Perhaps, since Stephen Thompson endorses Larson's woefully inadequate book, he was the one who redrew this? If so, why not say so? No, it is time to look at the available evidence and show why Larson is not kidding anyone.
The one glaring gap in Larson's research is the lack of utilizing Erik Iversen's landmark study, and the keynote study to any and all discussion concerning Egyptian art and how they drew human figures.6 As we demonstrate, it is no wonder Larson let this one slip. Iversen notes that according to canonical proportions, the Egyptians frequently drew an unusually prominant thumb. See below.

These thumbs are very clearly and obviously thumbs. Their curve is unmistakable as is their relation to the hands, with the Egyptian artistic styles in mind, of course. When we compare these to the original Facsimile #1, it screams THUMBS!
The curve of the thumbs is indeed, very obvious. And in fact, the upper one has been drawn in extra heavily emphasizing this is a human thumb. The lower one is unquestionably a thumb, and it has the exact same back-curve which thumbs have, and which is exhibited in the top hand also. Now when we look at other Egyptological materials we see this exact same phenomenon in Egyptian art lending strength to our proposition of thumbs, not wings, prominantly drawn, many with that very distinctive backward curve, as thumbs do have.
(in Kurt Sethe, Urgeschichte und Alteste Religion der Agypter, Leipzig, 1930, p. 27)
(in C.J. Bleeker, Die Geburt eines Gottes: Eine Studie Uber den Agyptischen Gott Min ind sein Fest, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1956, Fig. 1)
(in Hans Bonnet, Reallexikon der Agyptischen Religionsgeschichte, de Gruyter, 1952, pp. 28, 732, 207 respectively)

1st above, - Julia Sampson, "Nefertiti's Regality," in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1977, p. 93. 2nd from left, Kate Bosse-Griffiths, "The Great Enchantress in the Little Golden Shrine of Tutankhamun," in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1973, p. 106. Also see pp. 104, and plates XXXV, XXXVI. 3rd from left, Kate Bosse-Griffiths, "A Beset Amulet From the Amarna Period," in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1977, p. 103. Notice the extra large and long thumbs, exactly like in the Joseph Smith Facsimile #1! 4th from left, Nine M. Davies, "Some Representations of Tombs From the Theban Necropolis," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 24(193 , p. 30. NOTICE THE WINGS! They are one single unit, as opposed to the obvious thumbs on Anubis, as well as that Ba bird.

Left, Robert Hari, "Le Grande-en-Magie et la Stele du Temple de Ptah a Karnak," in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1976, plate XIV a. To the right, Sh. Yeivin, "Canaanite Ritual Vessels in Egyptian Cultic Practices," in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1976, plate XV.

left top, Adolf Erman, Die Religion der Agypter, de Gruyter, 1934, p. 26. See also pp. 15, 17, 32, 37, 45. middle panel, S. Schott, "Falke, Geier, und Ibis als Kronungsboten," in Zeitschrift fur Agyptischen Sprache, hereafter ZAS, 1968, Tafel IX. far right, Wilhelm Spiegelberg, "Die Falkenbezeichnung des Verstorbenen in der Spatzeit," in ZAS, 1927, p. 28. See also p. 29.

left above, M.I. Bakr, "Amon, der Herdenstier," in ZAS, 1970, p. 1. See p. 3 also. Middle panel, Elizabeth Staehelin, "Zur Hathorsymbolik in der agyptischen Kleinkunst," in ZAS, 1978, behind p. 80. Far right, W. Wreszinski, "Das Buch vom Durchwandeln der Ewigkeit nach einer Stele im Vatikan," in ZAS, 1908, Tafel V, upper right hand corner.
These few instance determine once and for all how thumbs are drawn. The thumbs I circled above in the JS Fac. #1 are like these thumbs from Egyptian documents, thus determining these are thumbs in the JS Fac. #1. But another angle we can take is to look at wings, specifically wings in other lion couch scenes.

The left above from Ph. Derchain, in Chronique D' Egypte, 34(1959), p. 74. The middle panel, from "Notes et Remarques", in Recueil de Travaux Relatifs, 1955, p. 125. The far right panel from Lanzone's Dizionario Mitalogia Egizia, (hereafter cited as DME) 1885, Tav. CCLXXX. Note the wings on birds over the lion couch and mummy are a single unit, not separate feathers as Larson incorrectly restored.

Left above, DME, Tav. CCLXXXI. Middle panel, DME, Tav. CCLXXVI. Right panel, E.A.W. Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, Dover, 1969, p. 137. Notice again, sometimes there is only one bird, sometimes three birds, sometimes two birds, but in every single instance that we are aware of their feathers are ***never*** separated as Larson incorrectly restored his version of JS Fac. #1. In fact, in all the other lion couch scenes we are aware of, there is never a bird drawn with wings like Larson draws.7

Both from Lanzone's DME, plates CCLXXII, and CCLXX. Again note the wings are not separated feathers at all, but all together, not separate fingers as in the JS Fac #1. And no bird in the middle above the figure is ***ever*** in the position that Larson draws. It is nowhere even near like that at all in ***any*** lion couches we have seen in the reference #7 below.
So Larson misses on both counts. His bird is incorrectly placed as evidenced by other lion couch scenes here which show how the birds are placed, and his wings are grossly incorrect by Egyptian standards of drawing wings. And the second part that Larson muffed it on was ignoring both thumbs on the hands in the JS Fac #1, which we have clearly seen. In fact, the Egyptian literature is so chock full of drawings of hands and thumbs, as to be an almost embarrassing amount of riches to pursue were one more serious than Larson and other critics are on this papyri issue. They have never really done the real homework that it takes in order to determine much on anything. All they want to do is arrive at quick negative conclusions without eliciting much evidence to back their claims. The more we look into the Egyptians themselves, the more confirmed Joseph Smith is. For instance, you won't see many of the sources in the following footnote that critics use. They have to keep their research to a minimum in order to arrive at the negative conclusions they do, yet the sources listed in footnote eight also establish that Joseph Smith was correct in putting two hands with bold thumbs in Fac. 1 as opposed to another bird.8 The critics, such as Charles Larson in his latest attempt in the 1990's, are still doing irresponsible research. The overwhelming consensus of Egyptian art clearly demonstrates Joseph Smith was correct in drawing thumbs on two hands in the air in his Facsimile #1 in the Book of Abraham. In fact, it is staggering there is so much to see, and yet critics maintain the wings concept. I, for one, would like to see just how they justify this restoration in light of all the abundant evidence from the Ancient Egyptians themselves.

Endnotes
1. Richard Parker, "The Joseph Smith Papyri: A Preliminary Report," in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Aug. 1968, p. 86.
2. Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," in Improvement Era, Oct-Dec. 1968.
3. Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Written Upon Papyrus, Institute for Religious Research, Revised edition, 1992, p. 65.
4. Larson, Ibid., p. 65.
5. Larson, Ibid., p. 62.
6. Erik Iversen, "A Canonical Master-Drawing in the British Museum," in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 46(1960), pp. 71-79.
7. Budge, Gods, pp. 137, 136, 134f, 132f, 131; Budge, Osiris, 2 vols., Dover, 1973, 2nd vol., pp. 22-35, 38-43, 45-54, 56. Lanzone's DME, plates, 30, 63f, 261 (3 scenes), 262, 265, 268-271, 272 (2 scenes), 273f, 276f, 277-291. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1918, p. 143, 1931, plates 56f, 1938, p. 30, fig.9. Chronique D' Egypte, 1943, pp. 195-97, figs. 27fff, 1959, p. 74, fig. 5, etc., etc.
8. Wolfhart Westendorf, "Die geteilte Himmelsgottin," in Gegengabe Festschrift fur Emma Brunner-Traut, Verlag Tubingen, 1992, p. 342f, 347, 351 (another lion couch!); Gunther Holbl, "Agyptische Kunstelemente im phonikischen Kulturkreis des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr.: Zur Methodik ihrer Verwendung," in Orientalia, 58(1989), p. 319, 323, showing thumbs and wings together with the thumbs clearly separated.Noel Aime-Giron, "Adversaria Semitica," in Annales du Service Des Antiquities de L' Egypte, Vol. 42, p. 293, 305, 309, 310; Alan Gardiner, "The Baptism of Pharaoh," in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1950, plates 1 and 2; W.M. Flinders Petrie, "Egyptian Beliefs in a Future Life", in Ancient Egypt, 1914-15, pp. 19, 21, (another lion couch scene), 24, 27, 28 (thumbs even on stick figures); Adolf Rusch, Die Entwicklung der Himmelsgottin Nut zu einer Totengottheit, J.C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, Leipaig, 1922, p. 37; Klaus Koch, Geschichte der agyptischen Religion, Stuttgart Berlin Koln, 1993, pp. 68, 575f, 581, 583, 585; Hans Bonnet, Reallexikon der Agyptischen Religionsgeschichte, de Gruyter, 1952, pp. 12, 14, 28, 96, 141, 151 (thumbs on stick figures!), 205, 207, 303, 317, 358, 361, 383 (another lion couch scene), 387, 397ff, 428, 458, 505, 638, 732, 739, 741, 755; Erik Hornung, Der Agyptische Mythos von der Himmelkuh, Universitatsverlag Freiberg Schweiz, 1982, pp. 82, 86, 99f; Lanzone's DME, Tavs, CCXXIX, CLXXIX, CLXXX, CCLXXXIX, CCXCI, CCLXXXVII, CCLXXXVIII, LXII; Sigfried Morenz, Gott und Mensch im alten Agypten, Leipzig, 1984, p. 181 (Anubis mask); Heike Sternberg El Hotabi, "Die Mensa Isiaca und die Isis-Aretologian," in Chronique D' Egypte, 1994, pp. 56, 69f, 84; Receuil de Travaux Relatifs, 1867, p. 146; Chronique D' Egypte, July 1943, figs. 28-30; Reinhold Merkelbach, "Diodor uber das Totengericht der Agypter," in ZAS, 1993, pp. 72, 75-77, 80; G.A. Wainwright, The Sky Religion in Egypt, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1938, p. 46f; Adolf Erman, Die Religion der Agypter, de Gruyter, 1934, pp. 15, 17, 26f, 32, 34, 37, 45; Gertie Englund, "God as a Frame of Reference," in The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, Uppsala Symposium, 1989, pp. 16f; Jorgen Podemann Sorenson, "Divine Access," in Ibid., pp. 112, 119f; Erik Iversen, "A Canonical Drawing in the British Museum," in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1960, plate XVI, p. 72, 73; Erik Hornung, Valley of the Kings, Timken Publishers, 1982, pp. 57 (a lion couch scene), 58, 66, 135, 137, 143, 146 (many lion couch scenes); Christine Hobson, The World of the Pharaohs, Thames & Hudson, 1987, p. 119; Lionel Casson, "Ancient Egypt," in Time Life Books, 1965, lion couch scene showing bird with single wing feathers, not individual as Larson portrays; Georges Posener, A Dictionary of Egyptian Civilization, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1962, p. 60, (lion couch scene), 175, 192f; Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, Tutankhamun, N.Y. Graphic Society, 1977, p. 258 wooden statue of King Tut, excellent thumbs, also note the one bird with a hawks' head, and the other with a human head; I.E. S. Edwards, Tutankhamun: His Tomb and its Treasures, Knopf Inc., 1976, pp. 104f ***EXCELLENT THUMBS***; John Baines, Atlas of Ancient Egypt, Facts on File, 1980, p. 118 (lion couch scene on mummy); The Mastaba of Mereruka, pt. 1, Univ. of Chicago, Sakkarah Expedition, 1938, plate 94; Richard Parker, Jean Laclant, Jean-Claude Goyon, The Tomb of Nefer-Hotep, Brown Univ. Press, 1979, plate 23; Norman DeGaris Davies, The Tomb of Nefer-Hotep at Thebes, Arno Press, N.Y., 1973, plates XXXIV; Epigraphic Society, Medinet Habu VI, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1963, plate 426B; Medinet Habu, Vol. VII, 1964, plate 494; Medinet Habu: Astronomical Ceiling of the Sanctuary of Osiris, 1963, plate 476, 478; Robert Lawlor, Sacred Geometry, Thames & Hudson, reprint, 1994, pp. 60, 89, 94; Ralph Burns, World Civilizations, W.W. Norton Co., 6th printing, 1982, pp. 31f, 40f, 43f; Monica Sjoo & Barbara Mor, The Great Cosmic Mother, Harper & Row, 1987, p. 255; Ann Baring & Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 229, 233, 236f, 243f, 250f, 258, 261ff, 267; Sabatino Moscati, The Face of the Ancient Orient, Doubleday, 1962, plate XXI; Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, 3rd ed., Wayne State Univ. Press, 1990, plate 25, 29; Georgio Santillana & Hertha von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill, Nonpareil Books, reprint, 1992, plate between pp. 162-63; Carl Jung, Psychology and Alchemy, Princeton Univ. Press, 8th ed., 1993, pp. 135, 139; Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford Univ. Press, 1964, pp. 82, 86, 118, 215, 219f, 229f, 267, 402f; Alan Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, Griffith Institute Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 3rd ed., 1994, pp. 7, the hieroglyph shows the thumb, also p. 27, sign-list, p. 453, #'s 28-30, 32, p. 454, #'2 35f, p. 455, #'s 41f, 46f, p. 456, # 49, p. 449. #11, p. 448, #'s 2f; Robert Bauval, The Orion Mystery, Crwon Publishers, 1994, pp. 93, 76, plates 15b, 13b; Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, The Message of the Sphinx, Crown Publishers, 1996, pp. 159, 177, 181, 213, 275, 277, 279; I.E.S. Edwards, The Pyramids of Egypt, Penguin Books, Revised, 1993, plates 5, 9, 22, 48; John Anthony West, Serpent in the Sky, First Quest Books, 1993, pp. 3, 8, 39, 81ff, 85ff, 89, 101, 134, 159f, 163, 171, 173, 176fff; C.W. Ceram, Gods, Graves, and Scholars, Bantam Books, 1972, plates VIII; Jack Lindsay, A Short History of CUlture, Fawcett Premier, 1966, p. 197, 202, 210, 219f; Cheikh Anta Diop, Civilization or Barbarism, Lawrence Hill, 1991, pp. 299fff; Michael A. Hoffman, Egypt Before the Pharaohs, Barnes & Noble, 1993, p.314; Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth, With Bill Moyers, Doubleday, 1988, pp. 38, 164, 176, 178; Joseph Campbell, The Hero With a Thousand Faces, Princeton Univ. Press, 3rd printing, 1973, pp. 111, 209, 283, 291, 298, 341, 369, 372; Joseph Campbell, The Mythic Image, Princeton Univ. Press, 1st paperback, 1981, pp. 16, 20f, 22, 24, 25-29, 31; Joseph Campbell, Transformations of Myth Through Time, Harper & Row, 1990, pp. 78f, 83, 85, 89; George Steindorff, Keith C, Seele, When Egypt Ruled the East, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2nd printing, 1957, pp. 27, 49, 61, 68, 73, 76, 81, 99, 103, 133, 136, 138, 145, 153f, 172fff, 180f, 183-186, 202, 208, 229, 238, 249f, 263, 266; Karl Theodor Zauzich, Hieroglyphs Without Mystery, 2nd printing, Univ. of Texas Press, 1994, pp. 54, 68, 71, 77, 84; Geoffrey Parrinder, World Religions: From Ancient History to the Present, Facts on File, 1971, 132, 133, 134; Paul A Laviolette, Beyond the Big Bang, Park Street Press, 1995, pp. 328, 209, 188, 141, 127, 122, 114, 107, 23; Lewis Spence, Egypt, Studio Editions, Senate Press, 1994, pp. 54, 80f, 88, 118, 153;Leonard Cottrell, Egypt, Oxford Univ. Press, 1966, pp. 16, plates 31-34, plate 53, 57f, 62, 66, 72, 87-89, 102, plate next to pg. 174, plate 109f, 112, 114-117, 119, plate next to page 204, plate 123, 126, 128f, 138 Note the thumbs compared to the wings on the same pillar, 149, 151, plate across from p. 269; Hilary Wilson, Understanding Hieroglyphs, Passport Books, 1995, pp. 20, 25, 45 see the wings compared to the thumbs here also, 57, 76f, (wings), 91, 93, 97, 100, 103, 107, 116, 135, 140, 148, 151f, 155, 161, 167; W.V. Davies, Reading the Past: Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Univ. of California Press, 5th impression, 1993, pp. 15f, 18, 39 (Narmer Palette); Torgny Save-Soderbergh, Pharaohs and Mortals, Barnes and Noble, 1996, pp. 229, 123, 91, 85, 22; E.C. Krupp, Echoes of the Ancient Skies, Harper & Row, 1983, pp. 212, 106; Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods, Crown Publishers, 1995, plates 61 and 61 in front of page 487, also plate 55; David Fideler, Jesus Christ: Sun of God, Quest Books, 1993, pp. 255, 263; Margaret Bunson, Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Facts on File, 1991, pp. 12f, 20f, 24-27, 39, 68f, 80, 85f, 90, 96f, 105, 108, 111, 116, 118ff, 123f, 126, 129, 137, 140, 150, 153, 162, 165, 173, 179, 185, 197, 215, 222, 226f, 238, 240f, 244, 250, 264; Peter Tompkins, Secrets of the Great Pyramid, Harper & Row, 1971, pp. 171, 178, 194; Francis Huxley, The Way of the Sacred, Bloomsbury Books, 1989, pp. 33, 140; R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, Univ. of Texas Press, 2nd printing, 1993, absolutely every plate with a human figure shows the prominant and sometimes oversized thumbs! There are easily 45 vignettes here to look at; Adolf Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, Dover, 1971, pp. 398f, 233, Cf. bird's wings 446, 478, back to thumbs on p. 237, 305, 30, 33, 46f, 49, 51, 59, 61ff, 65, 68, 75ff, 86, 93, 95, 99ff, 103f, 108f, 112, 120, 139, 176, 181, 183, 187, 191, 199, 201-217, cf. more wings, p. 28, 53, 235, back to thumbs, p. 247-258, 268-271, 264, 276, 282f, 296, 321, 347ff, 410-406, 408, 410, 414f, 421, 425, 431, 442, 464, 501, 518, 532; Veronica Ions, Egyptian Mythology, Hamlyn Publishing, 2nd impression 1973, pp. 10, 18 (SUPERB thumbs, exactly like in the JS Fac. #1), pp. 26-30, 33f, 43, 51ffffff, 59, 73 (Perfect thumbs); T.G.H. James, The Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, Henry Z Walck, 1972, pp. 15, 18, 48f, 90; The Book of the Dead: Famous Egyptian Papyri, Papyri of Ani, Hunefer, Anhai, British Museum, no date, pp. 8, 13, 15, 19, 25-41, 50ff, 58fff, 65, 68, 70, 74f, 80-88, 99-113, 117.

---

Quote:

---

Kerry Is All Thumbs!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry, there is one little thing militating against your (and Gee's) argument that the sketch above the deceased person's hand (Fac. 1) is another hand: the papyrus itself. I've closely examined my photos and what you say isn't true. Please scan your photos and post them here. I'll do the same with my photos, and then make my case.

And on Gee's scholarship, he may well be a brilliant Egyptologist (though I know two Egyptologists who would not describe him as such), but his BoAbr analyses are less than adequate.

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

Deftly Done
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metcalfe: "On Gee's scholarship, he may well be a brilliant Egyptologist (though I know two Egyptologists who would not describe him as such)."

Ashment and Thompson, I suspect. Oh well. The Yale program in Egyptology awarded Gee a doctorate in the subject, which constitutes relatively recent certification of his competence by people who know his work quite well. If I'm guessing right on your two Egyptologists, on the other hand, one of them never, himself, received such certification and is currently employed (far) outside the field, and I have personal doubts about the reasoning ability of the other. Just for the record.

But your dig at John Gee was elegantly done, Brent. First a generous concession that he might be brilliant (although, implicitly, you suggest that you're aware of no real evidence of that brilliance) and then, coming down to earth, the concession is at least partially taken back on the basis of what seems, albeit rather vaguely and untestably, to be real-world, hard-headed evidence of a kind obviously far more reliable than the baseless fantasy that John Gee is competent. Bravo. The stiletto is an elegant instrument. So very clean, and virtually indetectible.

---

Quote:

---

Yes :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent,

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Dan, I'll bet you say that about all us "critics." ;^)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, much in the same way you seem to imply all of Mormonism is devoid of logic

Kevin

---

Quote:

---

A possible lead...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks, I just had an epiphany of sorts. (El, I'll get back to you on your question as soon as I find that source I referred to earlier). I was sitting in my office before I was about to retire to bed for the evening.

As I sat staring at my framed Egyptian papyrus on the wall, I started looking around at the manner in which parallel lines were used for places where more than one line of text appears or in single lines when placed in tight spaces between figures. This might indicate a tight space on Papyrus JS-I which might not have had enough room for a bird.

As I was doing so, I noted a line of text with symbols that looked very familiar outside this papyrus. I decided to look again at Papyrus JS-I and noted that certain of the characters in the original follow the same order. If so, this would seem to indicate the past existence of at least two, perhaps three, lines of text to complete the arrangement and include the name of the person to whom the papyrus belonged. If correct, this would immediately kill any notion that there was room for a bird as the critics hope is the correct restoration.

However, if not correct, and the name of the person in the parallel lines is complete as it stands, this papyrus fragment identifies either the person holding an object over the body or the person on his back. This does not bode well for the critics' position that the scene refers to Osiris Hor or to Anubis. This, of course, throws a major wrench in the critics' hypotheses. If this line was complete in the original, the name of the person ended in a gutteral, which is represented by Budge and others with an 'a' sound in their methods of transcription.

Now, think of a phrase that says priest of 'elken a'. I am not saying that this is what the text says, as it is broken and missing substantial text above where the papyrus layers have separated from each other and from the paper backing, making sure identification impossible at this juncture. However, if the order of the characters indicates that there were indeed two or three columns of text here, as Gee states, the bird-instead-of-hand hypothesis dies due to lack of space for a bird.

On the other hand, if the line is complete and singular, the identification of the person can be neither Osiris Hor nor Anubis (which kills the critics' hypothesis of identification of the owner in the vignette on Papyrus JS-I as being Osiris Hor). Just a musing or two. I'll do some more checking and looking around as I have the time. Kerry, you might wish to do the same and see what you come up with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Charles Pyle
-------------------
Spes Mea In Deo Est
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Quote:

---

Re: two ways to display images on the ezboard....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a couple ways to display images on the board. In both cases your image must already exist on a webserver somewhere. Once you have that set up, just enter either of the following codes. The EZ Code method is generally the easiest.

1. EZ Codes (to use this you have to have the HTML checkbox in your posting options unchecked):

">yourservername.com/yourimagename.jpg">

2. HTML:

<img src="yourservername.com/yourim...">

Edited by: groove at: 4/12/01 6:03:11 am

---

Quote:

---

For my new friend El
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey man.....I've been so dern busy with my scrollsaw art work that I haven't had time much for researching things, so please be patient. On the other hand, I can honestly see that you remain unimpressed with the evidence that those are hands in the JS Papyri, and you know what? That's O.K. You know, the more I work on the Internet, the more I see that evidence can be read in so many ways..... I am enjoying the looking into these things with you, and I can see I have some revising of some of my ideas as well. So far as I can tell, the bottom lines have back curves to them as the ancient Egyptians drew them on thumbs. Now granted they are not dramatic, but both those strokes are drawn as strokes of thumbs. If you can't see it that way, no biggie for me my friend. I'll continue on here in another day or so.

Kerry A. Shirts

---

Quote:

---

For my new friend Kerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No big rush. Next week in particular I'm going to be tied up with other things and will have very little time to devote to extracurriculars.

---

Quote:

---

Re: For my new friend El
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry, I want to talk with you for a second. Could you send an email to urroner@hotmail.com. It's no biggie, just my eternal salvation and the fate of the universe.

---

Quote:

---

Seven days only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have a lot of time, but this is my version of the John Gee hands overlay test. (Apparently these links are only good for 7 days. Maybe someone could download these to a web server and repost them.)

Original scan at 600dpi from cover of A Guide to the Joseph Smith Pap
Converted to three colors
Overlayed

---

Quote:

---

Re: Seven days only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
El and Brent,

FYI, I saw Kerry's article while his website was still up. It included a very clear close-up photograph of the relevant portion of P.JS.I.

Guess what?

It showed two unmistakable hands.

Charles Larson, who evidently does rather a lot of the thinking for most of you on this subject, claimed that the top hand has "the wrong number of strokes" to be a hand.

The top hand has five strokes. Exactly five. What do you suppose the right number of strokes might be?

The bottom stroke is clearly a thumb. Not maybe, not possibly, not could be, but clearly a thumb and nothing else.

Last time I looked, birds don't have thumbs on their wings.

Thus, this discussion is a waste of bandwidth: the reclining figure has two hands before his face, and there is nothing to argue about.

Incidentally, depictions of gods in Egyptian documents are always a conceptualization. The operations shown as being performed by gods were actually performed in real life by mortals wearings masks depicting the gods.

Those mortals were priests.

Thus, it doesn't matter whether the standing figure wears an Anubis mask or not--he's not really Anubis at all; he's a priest, with the mask or without it.

Which means three things: (1) Joseph Smith correctly identified him as such, (2) John Gee is right again, and (3) his amateur critics are wrong again.

So go ahead, Brent. Produce your photographs that prove John Gee wrong.

I can hardly wait.

Regards,
Pahoran

---

Quote:

---

Pahoran's Flames Generate More Heat than Light!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like I'm communicating with someone who sees the vase in the picture, but cannotwill notsee the two human profiles that the artist originally intended. Russell, your lack of critical insight is only surpassed by your hubris.

I will try to post my photos sometime tonight or tomorrow. I hope you have a hankering for crow and consider tootsies a delicacy Pahoran.

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

No Kudos for Brent!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Ed still working on his dissertation most of the time? Wow. It must really be something by this point. Estimating a page a day -- not a very torrid pace -- I'm guessing that it's minimally about 7,000 pages. How long has he been working on it now? Twenty years or so? Is he still planning on getting his degree from Chicago? How long will Chicago continue to recognize him as a doctoral student? (Or, indeed, do they?) At most schools, there's a time limit. (Eight years is the figure that springs to mind.) Are any of his dissertation committee still alive? If so, can retired faculty still grant doctorates on behalf of the university? (I genuinely don't know.)

As for "indetectable," Brent, you might want to consult a good dictionary. "Undetectable" is a fine word, and I'm very happy that you like it too, but so is "indetectable." (Minus the second "i," which was a typo.)

---

Quote:

---

For Pahoran
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm happy that you are comfortable with your conclusions. After examining the evidence that has been presented so far, however, I am not comfortable with that conclusion.

FYI, I don't think my version "proves" that it isn't a hand any more than John Gee's version "proves" that it is. But I do find my version much more satisfying when evaluating such a claim. In any case, I'm happy to see that you are open minded when evaluating the evidence I present.

---

Quote:

---

Re: Pahoran's Flames Generate More Heat than Light!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent,

you wrote:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like I'm communicating with someone who sees the vase in the picture, but cannotwill notsee the two human profiles that the artist originally intended. Russell, your lack of critical insight is only surpassed by your hubris.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no doubt, Brent, that when it comes to hubris, you would be the resident expert.

Incidentally, I'm familiar with the picture to which you allude. The artist evidently "intended" that both the vase and the two human profiles would be visible.

However, to come back to the topic, the Egyptian artist in question drew (inter alia) two objects. The lower one is, it is unanimously agreed, a hand. It is drawn with four strokes close together, and below them, slightly separated from the others, a thumb stroke with the conventional backward curve (as if all Egyptians had hitchhiker's thumb.)

The upper object seems to be a subject of some controversy, yet it is also drawn with four strokes close together, and below them, slightly separated from the others, a thumb stroke with the conventional backward curve (as if all Egyptians had hitchhiker's thumb.)

Now if it is absolutely essential for you to sustain your unfaith by looking at this hand and calling it a bird's wing, I won't disabuse you.

Only please don't preach about "critical insight," of all things. Stones and glass houses, etc.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will try to post my photos sometime tonight or tomorrow. I hope you have a hankering for crow and consider tootsies a delicacy Pahoran.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question, Brent: is this kind of premature, triumphalistic crowing supposed to demonstrate your level of "critical insight?"

Or is it more consistent with a certain Jan Shipps comment to which you take such exception?

If you feel you have something to contribute, then please contribute it.

Smarmy, smug remarks about "a hankering for crow" from the man who gave the world the notorious "Oliver Cowdery history" would seem to suggest that someone has not yet learned from his own mistakes.

Please check the link El provided. The two hands are there in all their manual glory.

Regards,
Pahoran

---

Quote:

---

Not an Egyptologist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I'm not an Egyptologist, but I took a look at the picture everyone is talkijng about.

My casual unprofessional observances are:

1. That if the two objects are hands, the artist has drawn all the fingers the same length in the lower diagram. The upper diagram appears to slight variations in length for the 'fingers/feathers'. Thus the lower diagram does not look like a wing or a hand.

2. The upper diagram looks more like a wing because the 'fingers' or 'feathers' are close together and curved inward, as they would be in a wing

3. The distinguished 'thumb' does not look at all like an 'arm' of a wing or a shorter feather because it is curved outward, which makes it resemble a thumb more than anything else.

4. Wings have multple layers of feathers. There are 4 lines in each diagram plus another line for what appears to be a thumb. The brush strokes are consistant with the correct number of digits and a thumb in each diagram.

In my casual observance, it is more consistant with the evidence to claim that the diagram is of hands than of wings.

IMHO (which is uneducated in this field), anyone who is making a claim that the diagram is of wings has less evidence than one who claims they are hands.

I think they are hands, and it is quite plain to me.

---

Quote:

---

Re: No Cooties for Brent!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan, thanks for your replyeven if sans kudos. ;^)

I'm not really sure on the details of Ed's dissertation. If memory serves, when Ed entered his PhD program it was essentially a program without time constraints. As I said, Ed could certainly be accused of being a professional studentbut not an insurance salesman as claimed by some FARMS authors.

To be more direct, Dan, what in the world would being an insurance salesman have to do with the validity or invalidity of Ed's BoAbr arguments?!

Your apologetic for your typo was ... ummmm ... instructive.

Cheers,

bReNt,

---

Quote:

---

Re: Pahoran's Flames Generate More Heat than Light!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell, the comment about the vase/profiles picture was an analogynot intended so literally.

[RM/Pahoran:] I have no doubt, Brent, that when it comes to hubris, you would be the resident expert. ... [blip! bop! pop! scratch!] Or is it more consistent with a certain Jan Shipps comment to which you take such exception? ... [blip! bop! pop! scratch!] Smarmy, smug remarks about "a hankering for crow" from the man who gave the world the notorious "Oliver Cowdery history" would seem to suggest that someone has not yet learned from his own mistakes. ... [blip! bop! pop! scratch!]
Your pathetic broken record speaks volumes Russell. With defenders like you, the LDS church needs no enemies.

[rick7475:] 2. The upper diagram looks more like a wing because the 'fingers' or 'feathers' are close together and curved inward, as they would be in a wing ... In my casual observance, it is more consistant with the evidence to claim that the diagram is of hands than of wings.
Rick, you may be a little confused. No one is suggesting that both sketches are wings; rather, that the upper sketch is the remnant of a bird's wing, the lower that of a hand. Your observation 2 is actually quite astutebut there's more, as we shall see in the photos.

I may not be able to post the photos until Friday (though I'll try to post them before then). I'll provide several photos relating to John Gee's arguments and also repost from my server the images supplied by El.

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZLMBers following this thread will want to note that I'm starting a new thread called "Gee on BoAbr Fac. 1" that will open discussion on

*        John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000)
I'll begin by posting El's photos, and then try to post mine later tonight.

Cheers,

bReNt

---

Quote:

---

Some informative stuff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't caught up on my research yet, but thought I'd post this to let people ponder it.

From The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife by Erik Hornung:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Books of Breathing

Sources

Nearly all the preserved copies of the Books of Breathing date to the Greco-Roman Period; the earliest, P. Louvre N 3154, stems from the end of Dynasty 30 (c. 350 B.C.E.). The Egyptians distinguished between a First and a Second Book of Breathing, with the second preserved only from the Roman Period. Both books make reference to divine origin--the first was supposed to have been written by Isis for Osiris, and the second to have been copied by Thoth, who was believed to have authored other works as well. In all instances, the earthly origin of these texts was in Thebes, where they were composed and handed down by the priesthood of Amun. Jean-Claude Goyon has pointed to certain parallels to passages from the Books of Breathing in the texts of the Buchis bull stelae from Armant, near Thebes.

Research

Vivant Denon published a manuscript in 1804; it served as the basis for Heinrich Brugsch's 1851 treatment, which was written in Latin. Philippe Jacques de Horrack, relying on several papyri in the Louvre, published an edition of the first book in 1877. The litany of names from the fourth text of the second book (see "Content" section of this chapter) was published as a separate composition by Jens D. C. Lieblein in 1895. In more recent times, Goyon in particular has promoted the study of this text.

Structure and Language

The original title is better translated as Document of Breathing, though the designation "book" has become accepted on the analogy of the title Book of the Dead. Goyon divided the first book into fifteen (perhaps originally twelve) sections. These yield a relatively unified composition, whereas the second book consists of texts with highly varied content. Additionally, there exist various abbreviated versions of the second and fourth parts of the second book. All copies of both books known to date are written in hieratic; only a few abbreviated versions are in the Demotic script. P. Louvre N 3284 has vignettes as well.

Content

Both books stress the importance of breath for the deceased. They serve to prolong the existence of the name of the deceased and to prevent the "second death" of damnation. In contrast to the Book of the Dead, Amun plays an important role here, especially, in one group of abbreviated versions, as Amenemope, that is, Amun of Luxor. But it is Osiris who assures the survival of the ba, and the texts are supposed to serve the deceased as a sort of identity card in the realm of the dead, with the result that they belong to the genre of divine decrees.

Purification, intactness of the body, and the vindication of the deceased are the focus of the first book, whose goal is the deceased's continued existence. They breathe and see, the doors of the hereafter are open to them, offerings are made to them, and so forth; every place stands open to their bas. In section thirteen, we find a variant of the Negative Confession, and the merits of the deceased are emphasized in a positive manner in section fourteen.

According to Goyon, the second book consists of six very different texts. The first has to do with the deceased's coffin and the materials of which it is made; in the second, the doorkeepers and guardians of the netherworld are addressed, so that the deceased might pass by them; to that end, the deceased assumes the role of various deities. A rather long address to Thoth is a variant on Book of the Dead spells 18-20 regarding the "wreath of vindication"; a "deification of the limbs" has to do with the desired corporal integrity and the power to make use of all the parts of the body. The third text contains addresses to the deities of the hereafter and a request for the issuing of a "document of breathing," and the fourth is a litany for the protection of the deceased's name. The fifth text is based on Book of the Dead spell 162, the spell regarding the plaque placed under the head, as well as spell 72, here much altered. The sixth ends with an address to Nut as mother of the deceased, the latter appearing in the role of Osiris.

Among texts with related content, a papyrus in Parma (number 107; see pp. 314-317 of the work by Goyon cited in the bibliography) represents itself as a Book of Admission into the Realm of the Dead and Arrival at the Hall of Maat, where the Judgement of the Dead takes place. (pp. 23-25)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---