RFM and the Crème de la Crème

The reason I focus so heavily on Book of Abraham issues is because a lot of people have concerns on that topic and aren't satisfied with some of the answers available. Real answers require detective work, and pretending we have answers where we don't actually stifles progress because people don't see a need for answers until it's too late and they are confronted with information showing issues exist where they had been led to believe problems were already resolved. That sets people up for bitterness and feeling betrayed by apologetics. Real answers require that we are in the process of discovering bits and pieces and that that's okay. 

So I wanted to start slowly but at the top - with the biggest challenge. This is sort of the David vs. Goliath approach, you might say - i.e. if one were to address a random facet of the Book of Abraham issues, then people say it doesn't matter because it's only one small piece of a larger puzzle. BUT if you take on the Goliath of the bunch, that can show people that every challenge can be addressed - and people are hopefully then willing to give you an opportunity to do so (although in the case of the Philistines, they fled after Goliath fell - and who can blame them).

Now, I'm just here to give it my best shot - or slingshot - and I'm sure my answer won't satisfy every single person. And that's okay. 

The first thing to do was to identify Goliath. So I enlisted the help of our friendly neighborhood RFM, a particularly bright former apologist who currently sees things through a more critical lens. RFM has always been very courteous towards me, in our limited interactions, and I want to publicly thank him for that, because he's just a good person with whom I happen to disagree.

So I asked RFM  if he could elucidate what exactly the smoking gun looks like to him, with regards to the Book of Abraham, and told him that the reason I was asking is because I would like to dissect it on my blog and attempt to show reasonable doubt.

RFM kindly replied, as follows (he said I could quote him when I make this post):

I feel that Egyptology has advanced to the point where it is clear that Joseph Smith was unable to translate Egyptian.  This is pretty indisputable from Facsimile Three alone where Joseph translates the hieroglyphs above   the figures incorrectly.  This has been known for a long time because we have had the facsimiles with us since their initial publication in 1842.  The 64-dollar question is, "What is the king's name?"  This is so devastating to apologists that they have had to come up with an argument that Joseph Smith wasn't responsible for the translations of the figures in Facsimile 3.  I think this is the main point.  It gets rid of all arguments about missing scrolls, etc.  I would call the interpretations in Facsimile 3 the smoking gun on the Book of Abraham.

Okay. So this is the crème de la crème of anti-Mormon criticism. If we take all the issues, Book of Abraham is at the top, and the Facsimile 3 translations are at the top of that, and the very top king of the hill is the 64-dollar question, "What is the king's name?" 

I thought about this off and on through the holidays, but didn't get a chance to really focus. Fortunately, I ended up in the hospital in early January and had a lot of time to stare at Facsimile 3 while sitting in my hospital bed. Finally, a chance to think. And read the scriptures and seek inspiration.

One nurse in the ICU wasn't too happy about me taking off the oxygen monitor from my finger (which I did because it impeded my use of the laptop). But, first world problems, as they say. 

Now, a lot of people don't realize that the Egyptologist translations of Facsimile 3 characters are largely translations of other papyri. In other words, they aren't really translating what is there. I didn't realize this until I read Quinten Barney's thesis, and then I confess that I saw a certain irony in people making fun of Joseph Smith for the way he used the word "translation," when they rely on Robert Ritner having translated things that weren't even on the item that he was translating. Ritner was a great Egyptologist, but it's funny that the tools of Egyptology treat the word "translation" so loosely even as some people mercilessly mock Joseph for the same thing, while saying that the Egyptological translations of the characters are an example of what real translation looks like. I wrote a response to Ritner, but I just want to say that he seemed like a really good person and I am glad he got involved in the Abraham discussion. Criticism I offer of his methods is not intended to be personal but just reflects the fact that Joseph Smith-related issues are more involved than he in some cases treated them. 

Okay, now that we have identified Goliath, let's size him up. Joseph Smith said that the name of the king is given in the characters. No matter how you dice it, that sounds very straight-forward. Unlike the figures themselves, which could be adapted (like how Christians adapted images of Isis to depict Mary, or how Egyptians adapted images of Semitic deities), we would expect that the characters are going to be pretty explicit. And that makes it a true test. Whereas most arguments against Joseph Smith are based on testimony of people who could be mistaken or lying, or on incomplete context, we seem to have a clear test with the 64-dollar question. That's what makes it Goliath. 

So, what do the characters say? Well, the first character has been a bit of a mystery but I think it looks like one in particular and that's what I would like to talk about first. 

My theory posits the seemingly reasonable idea that Reuben Hedlock, the printer, was drawing something that was on the papyrus. And since the papyrus is damaged, which I don't think anyone disputes, it seems like the most obvious explanation for why the character looks the way it does is that the character is damaged - because the papyrus is damaged. We have plenty of examples of that with characters on this papyrus. The illustration itself is missing, but there are plenty of "extant missing parts" of the roll (as opposed to the "missing" missing parts, you might say). 

Okay, so we are left with a Cinderella slipper, or a fingerprint, and if we try to see if it fits any hieroglyph, it looks to me like it fits exactly one: falcon on the standard. 

The foremost Egyptologist on the falcon (Horus) on the standard, Racheli Shalomi-Hen, explains the consistent association between falcon on standard and the king: 

click to enlarge 

The Evidence 

I am presenting the evidence through the use of slides, since most of the evidence takes the form of visually similar features. 

The downside to presenting the evidence this way is that the reader has to pay close attention to what the slides are showing. But the upside is that the evidence should be easy to follow if the reader does pay attention. 

I think you should be able to click to enlarge each of these. 

The first slide shows two classic examples of what falcon on the standard should look like, and visually compares them with the extant character. I hope that makes sense. To put it another way, we’re seeing if the Cinderella slipper at least looks like a fit. The other slides which follow will show more definitively how the slipper is a custom-made match. 

Hopefully you can see what I did there, and will take some time to look over that image and determine whether or not you think falcon on the standard can at least potentially wear that slipper. 

Next, let’s have a look at a falcon, to see what the parts of the body “in context” are, which you will see depicted soon thereafter. 

Okay, so next let’s look at a piece of evidence which should be very clear. The first picture on the slide shows,  on the left, the tip of the character from the papyrus, juxtaposed right up against  the corresponding tip of an actual falcon on standard. You’ll notice they are almost exactly the same shape and that they uniquely curve. 

After that, the slide shows an interesting feature on the falcon on standard, which can be seen right next to the tip - and the slide shows how, yet again, the character on the papyrus has a corresponding match. So, the finer points of evidence are starting to build up. Below that, larger pictures of the images are provided so that the reader can have greater context. 

The key is that the line on the far side not only slants at about the same angle, but the very far tip comes out and turns sharply, all with the same approximate proportions. 

Importantly, you will notice that the little torn off section in the upper left (which looks like it is supposed to fit inside the basket directly below it) has the line protruding vertically from the top of it. But it also has a second line, which veers off to the right. What could that second line be? Well, in many falcon on the standard glyphs, the front claw of the falcon extends all the way to that point. So, it seems to be the front claw, which is just one more convergence. 

Next, I make the case that the extra piece discussed in the above slide does in fact belong as part of the larger character. And I discuss some of the implications of that. 

The claw comes next, which is found on the papyri character exactly as it is found on the falcon on standard examples. This is just a fine point and such a delicate little mark found in just the right spot, precisely. To me it is very powerful evidence and I’d be interested to know how anyone would be able to see it as anything other than a precise convergence.

For more on the claw, see the appendix.

Again we have another interesting convergence showing that what we would expect to be in a precise spot actually shows evidence of being there. 

The next slide shows that confusion can be cleared up over the appearance of wing feathers. A break in the line causes ink to push forward and get in the way of seeing leg feathers. But the leg feathers are there, and that is one more solid piece of evidence showing that the character is falcon on standard.  

When I first posted this, I left out the tail feathers slide. It's one more convergence on top of everything else:

Facsimile 3 has a falcon drawn in the text underneath the main scene. Although this falcon would naturally have a variety of different features than a falcon on standard, the scribe should have some idiosyncrasies we would expect to find in both falcons. This one turns a weakness into a strong convergence:

To bring everything together now, consider the size, shapes and proportions:

Now, that’s the evidence. It adds up, and together seems very strong to me. If I am right about it being falcon on standard, then I think there are some strong implications. It seems to prove that the scribe was in fact adapting the illustration for a unique purpose. 

See how this post fits in with my new "Restoration Theory."

Appendix: Additional Notes On The Claw

Click Images To Enlarge