In this episode, our hosts are Martin Tanner, Terry Hutchinson, and John Gee, discussing controversies around the Book of Abraham. You can listen to or download the January 29th broadcast of the Interpreter Radio Show below. These audio tracks are also included in our podcast feed (https://interpreterfoundation.org/feeds/podcast).
The “New Testament in Context” portion of this show, for Come, Follow Me New Testament lesson 9, covering Matthew 6–7, will be posted on Tuesday, February 14.
The Interpreter Radio Show can be heard Sunday evenings from 7 to 9 PM (MDT), on K-TALK, AM 1640, or you can listen live on the Internet at ktalkmedia.com. Call in to 801-254-1640 with your questions and comments during the live show.
Original air date: January 29, 2023. This recording has been edited to remove commercial breaks.
|Restoration Advocacy: Controversies around the Book of Abraham|
Podcast: Download (Duration: 56:45 — 22.7MB)
The Interpreter Radio Show is a weekly discussion of matters of interest to the hosts, guests, and callers of the show. The views expressed on the Interpreter Radio Show are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Interpreter Foundation, nor should statements made on the show be construed as official doctrinal statements of the Church.
The internet is certainly a source of information on Egyptology. While the discussion has been on the original length of the Book of Abraham there are certain admissions that Smith’s interpretations of the facsimiles was wrong. One source was the book on the Egyptian hypocehalus by Tamas Mekis. I have two reviews of his book one by John Gee. It seem Royal Skousen has issue with the facsimiles and is of the view they should be dropped and the contents of the Book of Abraham be considered as given by revelation. See page 39 in this https://humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/royal-skousen-J2019.pdf
I once asked an Egyptologist at York University his opinion of facsimile one and he responded with https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P1llnhvfouDJwhhGFoVBzXpf3-Feor1WHO-xWnHNVYg/edit
What would have been Smith’s interpretation if Fac 1 was in tact. Baer said in 1967 there were no fibers in the glue above the bodies.
Another issue is Smith’s interpretation of the black figure in facsimile 3. Tamas Mekis was kind enough to respond why he considers the black figure was Anubis not a slave.
It seems Skousen and Givens take the safer position that the Book of Abraham was given by revelation