Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Bokovoy

Kevin Barney

Recommended Posts

== I assume you're a new father -- again. Congrats. I trust everything went well.

I hope it will. We thought he would be born already but my wife is being stubborn (grin). We've scheduled for a C-Section on sunday. Expect me to be gone for awhile afterward.

== I agree with your observations as to the Egyptian identities of the figures in Facsimile #3. Are you aware of the frequency with which Abraham was identified as Osiris in other ancient sources? It is a very common motif.

The problem is Smith claimed to know these characters according to the text written above their heads, which, of course, when read by modern Egyptologists, offers no support for his claims.

I would be interested in seeing any example of a similar Egyptian papyrus that associates Abraham with Osris.

== In addition, Kerry Shirts circulated at the FAIR conference a very interesting article which discusses the very problems you cite. It is NOT unusual, and he give examples, to have individuals of either sex associated with the various figures in this classic judgment scene.

Unfortunately, recognized experts in the field don't share in Kerry's confidence on this matter. I look forward to any examples Kerry might provide for a male queen or a female prince.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Kevin,

This argument is somewhat incoherent, since the illustrations you provided were Facsimile 3 from the JS papyri, and a Mesopotamian cylinder seal.

I

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Bentleye,

==I don't think that this theory adds to the understanding of B of A or the JS papyrus. I can't imagine why a Jew of the period of JS Papyrus would have any use for the contents of the papyrus. He would have been forbidden from using "graven images" of people.

Actually, the Bible itself is full of this type of adoption and adaptation. Perhaps you should review the posts featured in this thread.

==This is a common semitic prohibition. Observant Muslims and Orthodox jews follow it still.

A common Semitic prohibition? Even for the Babylonians, Assyrians, Moabites, Canaanites, and Phoenicians?

==And I also don't know why this person would bother to adapt glyphs or anything else to tell a different story. Jews had their own written language. Why go to the trouble of adapting other imagery?

Why did the Jewish author of Genesis 1 adopt the imagery from the Babylonian tale Enuma Elish?

Why did the Jewish author of Genesis 1:1 adopt the word tehom from tiamat?

Why did the Jewish author of the Covenant Collection in Exodus adopt the Code of Hammurabi?

Why did the Jewish author of Proverbs adopt the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope?

Etc.

Etc.

==Then we have the question of how this redaction ended up looking like a stereotypic Book of Breathings with regular text and standard scenarios of the deceased and various deities. Or put another way, if these images were arranged to tell an abrahamic story, why do they look like the standard egyptian story.

You should really did a bit more research. You

Share this post


Link to post

Kevin Graham:

Unfortunately, recognized experts in the field don't share in Kerry's confidence on this matter. I look forward to any examples Kerry might provide for a male queen or a female prince.

Kerry

I have yet to share my research on Fac 3 with the experts, so you are a bit premature to write it off as of yet. And on the Osiris Abraham connection I use nothing BUT experts who declare the exact same situation, only using the Lazarus/Dives story in Luke 9.

Perhaps it is time I post the entire paper here or in the Pundits forum, so we can examine it critically, eh?

Best,

Kerry

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry, please do post the article. I am looking forward to reading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Hello Bentleye,

  ==I don't think that this theory adds to the understanding of B of A or the JS papyrus. I can't imagine why a Jew of the period of JS Papyrus would have any use for the contents of the papyrus. He would have been forbidden from using "graven images" of people.

1.  Actually, the Bible itself is full of this type of adoption and adaptation.  Perhaps you should review the posts featured in this thread. 

  ==This is a common semitic prohibition. Observant Muslims and Orthodox jews follow it still.

2.  A common Semitic prohibition?  Even for the Babylonians, Assyrians, Moabites, Canaanites, and Phoenicians?

==And I also don't know why this person would bother to adapt glyphs or anything else to tell a different story. Jews had their own written language. Why go to the trouble of adapting other imagery?

3. Why did the Jewish author of Genesis 1 adopt the imagery from the Babylonian tale Enuma Elish? 

Why did the Jewish author of Genesis 1:1 adopt the word tehom from tiamat? 

Why did the Jewish author of the Covenant Collection in Exodus adopt the Code of Hammurabi? 

Why did the Jewish author of Proverbs adopt the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope?

Etc.

Etc.

==Then we have the question of how this redaction ended up looking like a stereotypic Book of Breathings with regular text and standard scenarios of the deceased and various deities. Or put another way, if these images were arranged to tell an abrahamic story, why do they look like the standard egyptian story.

4. You should really did a bit more research.  You

Share this post


Link to post

bentleye, I don't pretend to have any expertise in the topic under discussion, but I can see a fatal flaw in your argument. You said, "I will confess a certain prejudice against the BofA based on what a clean miss it is from an Egyptology standpoint."

If the Book of Abraham is something different than a translation of Egyptian material, then it cannot be judged as having 'hit or missed" anything Egyptologists can say about it. Then what happens to your bias?

Share this post


Link to post
I admit that I have not fully articulated my views regarding the connection between Facsimile 3 and Mesopotamian cylinder seals. What I did state is that I believe that the presentation scene depicted in Facsimile 3 has important ties with the Semitic world.

The Ur III seals depict the Sumerian king as a deified monarch reigning upon the throne. Through a sacred handclasp, another deity leads the worshipper into the presence of the god/king.

The scene clearly reflects imagery featured in the Psalms wherein God clasps the hand of the temple worshipper.

Share this post


Link to post

bentleye:

Then we have the question of how this redaction ended up looking like a stereotypic Book of Breathings with regular text and standard scenarios of the deceased and various deities.

By making this statement, I'm afraid you're exposing your apparent unfamiliarity with the relevant facts. The vignettes we know as Facsimiles #1 and #3 are not stereotypic (sic)-al at all. In fact, these illustrations are nowhere else associated with a Book of Breathings text. Rather, they are typically associated with the Book of the Dead, which book was present on one of the other scrolls Joseph Smith purchased from Michael Chandler in July of 1835. However, even at that, these particular illustrations deviate in very unique ways from other Book of the Dead lion couch and "judgment" scenes. As Nibley has noted in his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Facsimile #3 is more representative of an "endowment" rather than a "judgment" scenario, which is extremely interesting when one considers the message of the Book of Abraham alongside other ancient Abrahamic lore, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham.

So, in short, your haste in dismissing these examples of Semitically-adapted Egyptian iconography is simply indicative of your apparent ignorance of the significance of these things. I must encourage you, as has David, to familiarize yourself more with the various apologetic arguments that establish strong links between these Egyptian icons and the story of Abraham.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think that this theory adds to the understanding of B of A or the JS papyrus. I can't imagine why a Jew of the period of JS Papyrus would have any use for the contents of the papyrus. He would have been forbidden from using "graven images" of people. This is a common semitic prohibition. Observant Muslims and Orthodox jews follow it still.

It may have been so in post-exilic Israel, but it was far from the norm in pre-exilic Israel and was more probably the rule to use idols, etc. in their worship.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to rain on any parade, but just because Jewish tradition often adapted and incoorporated foreign ideas and texts and reinterpreted them into a Semetic context, doesn't mean that the Book of Abraham is such a text. Unless you can provide such a link? I may be missing it if such evidence has been shown in this thread. Forgive me if I do not see it.

There are several translation by modern day scholars trained in the interpretation of Egyptian who would concur in the following conclusion: I find stronger evidence that the Book of Abraham is a modern concoction and that the papyri, fragments and like are common funeray texts and their tranlsation as given by Joseph Smith has no relation whatsoever to them. Such arguments tend to distract from the troubling issues surrounding it's true nature and character.

I am,

Zeitgeist

Ubi dubium ibi libertas

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Zeitgeist,

Not to rain on any parade, but just because Jewish tradition often adapted and incorporated foreign ideas and texts and reinterpreted them into a Semitic context, doesn't mean that the Book of Abraham is such a text.

That

Share this post


Link to post

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA?

You don't like Egyptologists David? FOR SHAME! :P

Share this post


Link to post
If the Book of Abraham is something different than a translation of Egyptian material, then it cannot be judged as having 'hit or missed" anything Egyptologists can say about it.  Then what happens to your bias?

Thanks for your input charity, expert or not. If it were something different, I would not say that it was a clean miss. That statement would become irrelevant. I have often wondered why apologists don't just admit that the papyrus fragments don't have anything to do with the Book of Abraham, except that they served as a sort of catalyst for JS to recieve this portion of the scriptures. If by translate, he meant that the story was transmitted to him through the papyri, all this arguing about the papyri would be irrelevant. YOu would have a simpler matter based on faith. It would be far more defensible and not a lightning rod for critics.

Take care.

David

Share this post


Link to post
bentleye:
Then we have the question of how this redaction ended up looking like a stereotypic Book of Breathings with regular text and standard scenarios of the deceased and various deities.

By making this statement, I'm afraid you're exposing your apparent unfamiliarity with the relevant facts. The vignettes we know as Facsimiles #1 and #3 are not stereotypic (sic)-al at all. In fact, these illustrations are nowhere else associated with a Book of Breathings text. Rather, they are typically associated with the Book of the Dead, which book was present on one of the other scrolls Joseph Smith purchased from Michael Chandler in July of 1835. However, even at that, these particular illustrations deviate in very unique ways from other Book of the Dead lion couch and "judgment" scenes. As Nibley has noted in his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Facsimile #3 is more representative of an "endowment" rather than a "judgment" scenario, which is extremely interesting when one considers the message of the Book of Abraham alongside other ancient Abrahamic lore, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham.

So, in short, your haste in dismissing these examples of Semitically-adapted Egyptian iconography is simply indicative of your apparent ignorance of the significance of these things. I must encourage you, as has David, to familiarize yourself more with the various apologetic arguments that establish strong links between these Egyptian icons and the story of Abraham.

William. I'm not an egyptologist and I'm not an expert in LDS apologetic literature. But I know something about each. I have read what different egyptologists have said over time about the facsimiles and their context. Perhaps the scenarios are not typical of Book of Breathings. Over the thousands of years of pharaonic hisory, the burial literature and customs changed. But the fact remains. The scenarios and deities are typical and easily understandable Egyptain funerary scenarios. They make sense in that context.

Those facsimiles appear in the published version of the Book of Abraham, with english text to indicate that they are relevant to the story told in the Book of Abraham and that they illustrate it. But the English text does not match the egyptian text and the figures in the scenarios are completely mislabeled. Mind you, everything in the scenarios makes sense in pure Egyptian terms. What an unlikely coincidence it would be if that text and those scenarios also tell a different, a Jewish story about Abraham.

I've read lots of apologetic arguments as well, so there is no real point to rehashing them all here.

As to Professor Nibley, I have read some of what he had to say about the matter as well. Nibley made an interpretation of what HE saw. But Nibley was no egyptologist. No non lds egyptologist made that conclusion. And again, the papyri contained pretty ordinary egyptian funerary/afterlife stuff. And although Nibley's Abrahamic tradition material may have had some value in legitimizing the B of A, it did nothing to validate it as connected to the papyrus. And I'm giving Professor Nibley the benefit of the doubt. I've seen him lambasted for sloppy and misleading scholarship. I'm not pushing that though, because I've not looked into it myself.

Thanks for your reply.

David

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps it is time I post the entire paper here or in the Pundits forum, so we can examine it critically, eh?

Best,

Kerry

Might want to hold off a bit Kerry. Dan Wootherspoon (Sunstone) said (in a session I attended) that he hopes to print it soon in Sunstone.

Mike Ash

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the heads up Mike. Wutherspoon hasn't said boo to me for months so I assumed he was in political trouble with someone in the upper eschelons or something. I shall have to get hold of him.......

Heh..... he musta liked it a lot then to mention it in a session. He told me on the phone a while back he was really excited about it, then I heard nothing else from him.

Best,

Kerry

Share this post


Link to post

David,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I apoligize.

===Ps. I posted this on another one of your threads about El and received no response. I think it applies better here about the BOA. This seems like it might be evidence to me.

I

Share this post


Link to post

The J-red theory is the best explanation for the Prophet's translation of the facsimilies. Given that such adaptation was done in the past, if the Prophet translated them correctly, then J-red is the only possible explanation.

I also find the egyptian magikal papyri that associate Abraham with a lion couch scene to be most interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

David,

I was hoping to get your opinion about my last post so I thought I'd send it to the top in case you missed it.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Warship,

This doesnt seem like it would be common knowledge in Smith's day. I was wondering how uncommon it would be for someone like JS to know that these three names(yeshua,jesus,jehova) are actually referring to the same person. The less likely he knew it from his environment, the stronger the evidence.

Thank you for the post. Somehow, in reading the Book of Abraham--which I have done many times-- I have overlooked this interesting example. I'm quite grateful that you drew my attention towards it.

As vocalized in the Hebrew Bible, the name Jehovah, i.e. Yahweh means "He Causes to Exist." I maintain that the title Jehovah is appropriately applied to both the Father and the Son throughout scripture (the same is true for early Latter-day Saint writings).

Though off the top of my head, I'm not sure, I suspect that it was somewhat common to link Jesus with Jehovah in the 19th century. This does not mean, however, that the verses do not feature important theological and/historical insights for us to glean.

Sincere thanks,

--David

Share this post


Link to post

David,

Thank you for the post. Somehow, in reading the Book of Abraham--which I have done many times-- I have overlooked this interesting example. I'm quite grateful that you drew my attention towards it.

As vocalized in the Hebrew Bible, the name Jehovah, i.e. Yahweh means "He Causes to Exist." I maintain that the title Jehovah is appropriately applied to both the Father and the Son throughout scripture (the same is true for early Latter-day Saint writings).

Though off the top of my head, I'm not sure, I suspect that it was somewhat common to link Jesus with Jehovah in the 19th century. This does not mean, however, that the verses do not feature important theological and/historical insights for us to glean.

Sincere thanks,

--David

No problem, we all let things slip past us once in awhile :P

I'm glad I could draw your attention to it, and that it was worth doing so.

As far as I know, the name Yeshua doesn't appear in the KJV bible at all, though Jehova does. So I'm guessing for info about Yeshua, JS would have to look outside the KJV bible.

Anyhow, I thought that might interest you.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...