More on the Book of Abraham by Kerry Muhlestein.

[_consiglieri]

This reminds me of the hullabaloo in Mormon circles back in the 1980s when Mesoamerican scholars changed their minds about Mayans being pacifistic and concluded they, like pretty much all other peoples, were in fact war-like.

[_I have a question]

Kerry is an embarrassment:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/archaeologists- ... 1674466896

A team of archaeologists from Brigham Young University in Utah have had their excavation license revoked by the Egyptian Antiquities Ministry after claiming to have discovered "one million mummies."

Youssef Khalifa from the Egyptian Antiquities Ministry refutes these claims saying there are thousands and not millions of bodies, and that they're not really mummies. The Luxor Times recently spoke to Khalifa:

"What was published in the newspaper is not true. There are no million mummies, a mummy definition to begin with means a complete mummified body and there is only one mummy found at the site of Fag El Gamous in 1980 which is at the Egyptian museum since then." Dr. Youssef added "In the past few seasons of the mission's work at the site, only poor skeletons were found and some thousands of bone's remains. The mission violated the rules and regulations of the agreement with the Ministry of Antiquities concerning making press statements and that's why the committee of the ancient Egypt department took the decision to stop their permission to work at the site after 28 years of working at the site and the last season finished last March."

Well done Kerry, 28 years worth of work down the drain and the name of BYU tarnished all because you're a blithering idiot.

[_Symmachus]

No one could confuse me for a defender of the flim-flam arguments surrounding the Book of Abraham that Kerry Muehlestein peddles. They are on their own enough to discredit him.

However, I'm going to go out on a sturdy limb to suggest that none of you have ever read the Luxor Times before this. I haven't either, but it's a tourist magazine. Nor should anyone take the Supreme Council of Egyptian Antiquities as anything other than what it is: an organ of the Egyptian state that serves the government's interests. It is not a scholarly organization. What Muehlestein says is not unreasonable:

In a square that is 5 x 5 meters across and usually just over 2 meters deep, we will typically find about 40 burials. 'The cemetery is very large, and so far seems to maintain that kind of burial density throughout. Thus the maths suggests that there are over a million mummies in the cemetery, though we cannot be certain of this without further exploration and a thorough academic review process

Forgiving the Briton for mishearing Muehlestein as saying "maths"—no American would say that!—I don't see what's so objectionable here. As it turns out, Muehlestein made this as an offhand comment that became click-bait fodder. What pissed off the Egyptians was that they claim the right to announce any such discoveries. It is an absurd rule they impose on all archaeologists who want to work in Egypt. This rule has been invoked on other occasions and other archaeologists have had their excavation permits revoked until the requisite bribes are paid.

It is not, I'm afraid, a devastating comment on Muehlestein's scholarship but perhaps on his lack of decorum in dealing with a regime that runs on vaguely structured transactions and arbitrary personal connections. Of course, being a devoted member of the LDS Church, you'd think he'd have had more practice with that sort of thing.

I have to wonder what those "colleagues" think of statements like this. On the one hand, it has that familiar ring to it that you find in a self-promoting GA talk, like when Nelson reveals that it came from nowhere (or heaven above?) -- the insight that there might be governing principles to the human heart. Or Uchdorf being uniquely qualified to return a hijacked plane. Like nobody else in the world is doing anything comparable. On the other hand, there is that Sic et Non style anti-science ring to it: The academy was steeped in a false teaching, I myself was fooled, but I grew skeptical and soon I overturned ages of conventional wisdom -- just like Jesus confounding the Pharisees. Isn't it the job of researchers to be skeptical and discover things that the academic world didn't believe prior or didn't know about?

The story as he tells it actually shows the ethics of science and the dishonesty of apologetics. Despite his huge vested interest in the possibility of human sacrifice being true, a matter in line with his unique religious teachings, the scholarly world didn't stonewall him out of fear that the Pearl of Great price would be given credibility. Presumably, he did his research, showed the evidence, and his colleagues were amiable to changing their views. It's not like the hopeless situation sites like SeN describe, where there's a conspiracy against any idea that could be faith promoting for someone and certain ideas just aren't allowed to even be considered. In contrast, however, would Muhlestein ever change his views on the Book of Abraham if the right evidence were shown?

The apologists themselves are the ones most like their own portrayal or insinuation that science is dogmatic and prejudiced. They've in fact, made sacred vows never to change their mind on any scientific fact that runs contrary to their church teachings. What if the other Egyptologists had made religious covenants to never accept the idea of human sacrifice in ancient egypt and because of this, blackballed Muhlestein for daring to challenge a matter sacred to them? In that case, he'd get an idea of how the rest of the world feels having to put up with Mormon apologists.

Practically speaking, Muehlestein's arguments are basically semantic, because, after all, what exactly is human sacrifice? People kill each in other ritualized contexts even in this country: the death penalty to many supporters is a kind of redemptive act for the victims of the one put to death. Through his blood, they can have a savor and a scent of justice. Is that human sacrifice? If not, how is it different from killing a person because you want to satisfy some other abstract entity—a god say, rather than justice? When you start move the terms of your argument that way, it's not such a controversial position that he's advocating. From what I have read, that is what Muehlestein has done. So, rather than showing that people were sacrificed to various gods in the way that animals were sacrificed, the definitions have been moved so that "human sacrifice" just means ritualized killing. Well, of course, then we have to admit that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton participated in human sacrifice when they sanctioned the highly ritualized killing of hundreds of convicts on death row.

But your larger theoretical point is stated with your usual admirable immediacy: this isn't really about seeking understanding but about faith. Muehlestein, like Gee, seeks to understand not in order to believe, but rather they believe in order to understand. Unlike St. Anselm, neither of them have the excuse that they live in the 11th century.

[_Shulem]

Well done Kerry, 28 years worth of work down the drain and the name of BYU tarnished all because you're a blithering idiot.

The dumb ass doesn't even know what the definition of a mummy is. He's the worst Egyptologist to represent the USA.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Since the LDS apologists like to lurk on this site I thought I might provide this handy dandy primer on Egyptian gods:



The eagle eyed observer might notice Eloheim, Jehovah, and Satan seem to be absent from their pantheon. Nothing in the Book of Abraham approximates anything in the Egyptian religious record.

Whatever the case may be, I just wanted an excuse to post this neat cartoon.

- Doc

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Since the LDS apologists like to lurk on this site I thought I might provide this handy dandy primer on Egyptian gods:



The eagle eyed observer might notice Eloheim, Jehovah, and Satan seem to be absent from their pantheon. Nothing in the Book of Abraham approximates anything in the Egyptian religious record.

Whatever the case may be, I just wanted an excuse to post this neat cartoon.

- Doc

Love the chart!

[_slskipper]

Maybe Abraham did write it. But he didn't do a very good job.

The sun does not borrow its light. The stars are not of a different "order" from the sun. We are not eternal "intelligences".