Talk:Book of Abraham

Why is it called book of breathings?

One of the things which made me question this Wikipedia article was the misnamed Document of Breathings Made by Isis. What makes it misnamed? It comes with the interpretation of the term snsn as "breathing," an interpretation that goes way back to Heinrich Brugsch's dictionary. But as recent studies show, snsn never means "to breathe." Instead, here it means something like "to fraternize, fellowship, associate, join." Quaegebeur has suggested that it be interpreted as a Letter of Recommendation Made by Isis; the translation of breathing permit is simply impossible.--Samuel Clayton (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source we can cite for this new interpretation of the title of the papyrus, then it's definitely worth noting. COGDEN 07:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Kerry Shirts referenced?

Kerry Shirts is a random guy with a website and a YouTube channel. Even on his own website he openly declares that he is not officially tied with the LDS church when he publishes his apologetics. Why is he therefore being referenced in the "other comments" section? I might as well include a reference to "my neighbor Dave." This material should be deleted and cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nageljr (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - done - but not only because of who he is, but because the content related to him was irrelevant to the discussion.--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Restructure criticism and response section

It occurs to me that there are rebuttals going both ways between critics and defenders of the Book of Abraham - and that some of these arguments need context and are therefore hard to follow in the existing two-section method of criticism and response. I propose folding the "defence" section into the "criticism and response" section - and bullet out the criticisms and their associated rebuttals. I think it would make more sense that way. For example, under criticism there is an item about tying the translation of the text to the papyri - but this doesn't make any sense unless you also read in the next section about how apologists believe that the text does not come from the papyri. You need these two bullets together for it to make sense.

Unless there are objections I will start restructuring in the next few days.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Consistent Translations?

"Other translations and analyses have been performed at various times since 1968 by Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, including Michael D. Rhodes (BYU),[72] John Gee (BYU),[73] and Robert K. Ritner (University of Chicago).[74] The translations among all of these scholars are consistent"

What is the word "consistent" supposed to entail?

Michael D. Rhodes translation of facsimile 2 suggests that Joseph Smith's interpretation might be correct. And it might. When it comes to Egyptian symbols multiple translations are entirely possible. The wedjat-eye found above and to the left of the seated hawk figure in section 3 can represent "healing, light, totality, protection, glory, and even riches." Also "kolob" is often connected to the common semitic root QLB--meaning, heart or center( in Egyptian m-q3b "in the midst of"). The Arabic version qalb is notably included in the names of many bright stars:Antares, Regulus, and Canopus.

"Joseph Smith says that the earth is called Jah-oh-eh by the Egyptians. In the Times and Seasons he defined Jah-oh-eh as "O the Earth."[49] This would be reasonable rendering of the Egyptian i 3h.t, "O Earth" (assuming that Joseph used the biblical convention of rendering a Semitic yod with an english J.[50]"- Michael D. Rhodes

If mormon and non-mormon translations of the facsimiles are "consistent", then how come they tend to disagree on everything?

I prefer Rhodes' apologist commentary to Gee's. His claims should be discussed.

Here is an article by him: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/jshypo.htm --Samuel Clayton (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Translation of Facsimile 2

As included in the wikipedia article: 6 Represents this earth in its four quarters. "The four funerary genii, the sons of [Horus], Amset, Hapy, Tioumautew, and Kebhsoniw."

The four sons of Horus are the gods of the four quarters of the earth and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points. How come that isn't mentioned in the article? After all, Joseph was actually right for once--even if it's just coincidence... The article makes it sound as though 1/31 is a low probability for simply guessing. It's not. Man, I wish I could guess like that in the lottery.--Samuel Clayton (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. Ritner wrote quite convincing that the apologist argument that he got this right is actually not correct. The four sons of Horus are never considered representative of the four quarters of the earth in the context of funerary papyri - if I am recalling the argument correctly. If you want to beleaguer the point I am sure I can find the Dialogue article where Ritner explains it. --Descartes1979 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Egyptologist affiliation

This might seem pedantic, but I placed "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologist" in the table that has the translation of the Egyptian next to the JS explanation. I did this because as it stands the formatting seems to imply that Mormon Egyptologists are all supporting a direct translation that mirrors JS's, when in fact their translations closely approximate Ritner's and others.I've also included some additional citations.Kant66 (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A conflict of interest on both sides

What nonmormon egyptianologist is going to admit Smith was right? And what Mormon egyptianologist is going to admit he was wrong? The critics and apologists views differ so greatly and this article doesn't show it. That is what makes articles dealing with religion so difficult. Any attack on Joseph Smith is going to be seen as a personal attack on faith. It is a never ending debate: neither side is going to admit theyre– wrong under any condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.19.217 (talk • contribs)

Nibley was not a linguist

Hugh Nibley was a famous LDS apologist, but just because he knew several languages did not make him a linguist. He did not publish in linguistics. He did not publish about language teaching or methodology or translation. He simply used his knowledge of languages to assist in his work on LDS apologetics. There is a fundamental difference between a linguist and an apologist who knows several languages. --Taivo (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You make a very good point. And if I hadn't found the following on the linguistics page, I'd agree with you and have no problem with your edit:

The term linguist, used for one who studies language, applies within the field to someone who either studies linguistics or uses linguistic methodologies to study groups of languages or particular languages. Outside the field, this term is commonly used to refer to people who speak many languages fluently.

The dictionary gives the same reading: 2. a person who is skilled in several languages; polyglot. ---Canstusdis (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. In the context of the sentence, I would interpret "linguist" as meaning someone whose primary field of academic studies is linguistics. Nibley was a professor of ancient scripture at BYU, not a linguist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Polemical statement

I thought I'd take it here before I deleted anything. The above material (including the lede) already clearly conveys the fact that the BoA was not literally translated from the JS papyrus. The statement recently added (“Except for those willfully blind, the case is closed")does not add anything new, is overly polemical, and is a reductio ad ridiculum. The statement of scholarly consensus in the lede already concisely and precisely conveys the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kant66 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; I only added this here because it had been added mistakenly on Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism), where it was out of place, so I moved the original users contrib from there to here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)