Unfortunately, neither I nor this narrator is an Egyptologist. So this might get a little crazy.
The narrator first talks about Kerry's claim in the first video that the recovered papari is not part of the source used to produce the Book of Abraham. The narrator calls him out on forgetting about Facsimile #1.
Except, even in the clip used, Dr. Muhlestein says, "Anyone who tells you that Joseph Smith is translating from the text around Facsimile #1 on the small fragment we have is just flying in the face of the historical accounts that tell us the source is the long scroll." So obviously he didn't forget. (The narrator admits this in the next scene.) Clearly, he is saying the long scroll is the source for the text of Abraham. I'm not sure why the narrator would assume anyone thought the lion couch scene isn't the source of Facsimile #1
Next, the video brings up the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. This was the entire topic of Dr. Muhlestein's 4th video, and he says that there "isn't a good theory that accounts for all the evidence." The narrator disagrees and says that using text around Facsimile #1 to make the Grammar is pretty good evidence that it was used for the source of the Book of Abraham.
Dr. Muhlestein's videos being just short clips doesn't say what "all the evidence" this theory and his theory don't account for. I'm not a historian either, so I don't know either. But I suppose any theory would have to answer, "Why did they give up on creating the Grammar?"
Going back to Facsimile #1, Dr. Muhlestein's second video talks about both hands raised being unexpected for a typical resurrection scene. The counter-video says that the arms were drawn in and that the upper hand should be a bird's wing, identifying the spots as similar to those on the bird.
Look at the papyrus. Zoom in on the hands and bird. The lines look more like the hand than they do the wing. The spots don't look like the bird's spots, but instead look like a line to draw the fingers became a dotted-line due to the texture of the papyrus.
Dr. Muhlstein then goes on to describe the legs are out in front of the priest and moving, and says that is unusual for a resurrection scene, but indicates to him more of a struggle. The counter-video then shows there are other examples of the legs moving, saying it seems like a typical resurrection scene to him.
What the counter-video failed to show was the legs in front of the priest. Dr. Muhlstein talked about how the legs of the priest were in front of the lion couch, but behind Abraham's legs. This is depicted incorrectly in the copy that is in the Book of Abraham, but is clear in the Papyrus. This was the point Dr. Muhlstein was making, but this was cut from the counter-video. Earlier, the narrator accused Dr. Muhlstein for not being honest by leaving out details of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. Do I detect a double standard?
"If he's trying to get on the alter, why would the priest be there?" "Are you really taking the position that that figure on the left is the idolatrous priest of Elkanah?" Uhm... I'm not sure where this came from. Take a look at that quote again.
Dr. Muhlstein comments in his third video that Facsimile #1 is not really the standard drawing for the Book of Breathings, saying that instead they often find a cow on an alter. The video cuts off the last part, and asks instead if that's the viewpoint of other Egyptologists. He says Kerry "admits" the text is from the Book of Breathings. Did you forget the beginning of your video? He wasn't just "admitting" this, that is his claim, and that the text of the Book of Abraham is on a different scroll.
Dr. Muhlstein comments about a papyrus that was found that associates Abraham with one of these types of scenes. I agree with the narrator that it is difficult to google anything about ancient Egypt. I eventually found an article by Michael Rhodes who cites a translation. The text is in Greek, "Αβρααμ ὁ ἐπὶ" or "Abraham who is upon..." But like the narrator said, that doesn't necessarily mean it is Abraham on the altar. But he does miss the significance that Abraham is mentioned in an Egyptian document found in the same region, dated to the same time frame. But I guess Kerry forgot to mention that, too.
In the next clip, Dr. Muhlstein talks about the strong association between the Crocodile and the King of Egypt that existed during Abraham's day, so Joseph Smith's association with Pharaoh is a head-on hit. The narrator isn't impressed. Even though there is an association, it is anachronistic to say "Pharaoh" when referring to the King of Egypt during this time.
Kerry Muhlstein addresses this in his 7th video, posted after this counter-video. There, he says that just like Genesis, these words were likely inserted by later writers who were influenced by their own time periods.
The narrator is unimpressed with associating the four sons of Horus with the four quarters of the Earth, when it should have been the four cardinal directions. He is also unimpressed with the Semetic root for Kolob meaning "center" since he expects Kolob to be an Egyptian word that should have meant, "the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." Presumably because an ancient Semite would have used an Egyptian word and the residence of God has nothing to do with the center of anything?
Summing up the first Facsimile, the narrator says Joseph Smith got the names wrong, the scene is wrong, the symbols are wrong, and gods unknown to the Egyptian belief system. Of these, Kerry only addressed the scene and symbols, but the narrator dismisses them. Possibly because they don't fit in with his preconceived assumptions.
The narrator similarly dismisses Facsimile #2, and #3. Again, not anything that Kerry Muhlstein says about it, however. Just Joseph Smith's translation itself.
He shows the clips of Kerry Muhlstein claiming that Egyptians associated the hypocephalus with Abraham, and that Egyptians would sometimes substitute Abraham for Osiris in the throne room scene. He again can't find sources. The same article from Michael Rhodes mentions the phrase "Abraham, the pupil of the eye of the Wedjat" comes from another papyrus, translated from the demotic. But I also can't find a non-Mormon source (outside of Wikipedia) that associates the eye of Wedjat to the hypocephalus. Abraham to the throne room.
He then did the smart thing and contacted some Egyptologists. Unfortunately none of the Egyptologists have anything meaningful to say about the Book of Abraham. That doesn't stop the narrator from getting excited that his preconceived notions are correct. Perhaps the author of this video should also submit his views for peer review? Attacking Joseph Smith and the church while claiming to be Mormon seems more dishonest to me than failing to cite sources. Do what is right and let the consequences follow.
Kerry Muhlstein addresses this in his 7th video, posted after this counter-video. There, he says that just like Genesis, these words were likely inserted by later writers who were influenced by their own time periods.
The narrator is unimpressed with associating the four sons of Horus with the four quarters of the Earth, when it should have been the four cardinal directions. He is also unimpressed with the Semetic root for Kolob meaning "center" since he expects Kolob to be an Egyptian word that should have meant, "the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." Presumably because an ancient Semite would have used an Egyptian word and the residence of God has nothing to do with the center of anything?
Summing up the first Facsimile, the narrator says Joseph Smith got the names wrong, the scene is wrong, the symbols are wrong, and gods unknown to the Egyptian belief system. Of these, Kerry only addressed the scene and symbols, but the narrator dismisses them. Possibly because they don't fit in with his preconceived assumptions.
The narrator similarly dismisses Facsimile #2, and #3. Again, not anything that Kerry Muhlstein says about it, however. Just Joseph Smith's translation itself.
He shows the clips of Kerry Muhlstein claiming that Egyptians associated the hypocephalus with Abraham, and that Egyptians would sometimes substitute Abraham for Osiris in the throne room scene. He again can't find sources. The same article from Michael Rhodes mentions the phrase "Abraham, the pupil of the eye of the Wedjat" comes from another papyrus, translated from the demotic. But I also can't find a non-Mormon source (outside of Wikipedia) that associates the eye of Wedjat to the hypocephalus. Abraham to the throne room.
He then did the smart thing and contacted some Egyptologists. Unfortunately none of the Egyptologists have anything meaningful to say about the Book of Abraham. That doesn't stop the narrator from getting excited that his preconceived notions are correct. Perhaps the author of this video should also submit his views for peer review? Attacking Joseph Smith and the church while claiming to be Mormon seems more dishonest to me than failing to cite sources. Do what is right and let the consequences follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment