72 replies to this topic

[e=mc2]

What About the Crocodile in Facsimile Number One of the Book of Abraham?

Every now and then, we see or hear a critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints say that Joseph Smith got nothing right in his explanations for the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. They do not realize that the explanations of Joseph Smith are not translations, literally rendered, but explain what the function of the figures are for. He described what the story is with the various figures. True he did not translate the crocodile in Facsimile #1 as “Sobek,” but does that mean he was wrong to identify it as “The idolatrous god of Pharaoh?”


When we look at what the Egyptologists and ancient Egyptians taught about Sobek, we are in for a real surprise. It just so happens that Sobek literally is “the idolatrous god of Pharaoh!” Lets consider the Egyptian evidence.


James P. Allen, Curator of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of art in New York and Research Associate and Lecturer in Egyptology at Yale University since 1986, shows the crocodile in the “sign list” when it is the determinative, signifies “aggression.” As a doubled sign, the ideologram is “jty” which, interestingly enough, means “sovereign.”[1] Sovereign, according to the “Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology,” comes from the 14th century Old French “so(u)vereinete” meaning “(supreme) ruler.” The old Roman word related to this was “superamus,” from “super,” which means what is above, “on top of,” “force,” “a very high degree,” “highest,” “in excess,” etc.[2]
Alan Gardner also demonstrated that the crocodile as determinative, can mean “greedy,” “angry,” “to lust after,” “ voracious spirit,” “aggression,” and shows the doubling of the crocodile determinative to mean “sovereign,” as does Allen.[3] Sebek/Sobek is a god, not just some tame animal pet, or a mere impliment to make clothes out of.[4] Raymond O. Faulkner showed examples where the crocodile in Egyptian words also acts like an intransitive verb, meaning “be savage,” and “to be oppressive to.” As a transitive verb, it means “attack,” “aggressive,” and “anger.”[5]
Interestingly, E. A. W. Budge noted that Sobek is also a sacred crocodile, and in fact, also “the Sun-god,” though he puts a question mark after it.[6] This hint is fascinatingly discussed in the Egyptological literature which I will now get to.
Budge taught “that the crocodile, Ibis, dog-headed ape, and fish of various kinds were venerated in Egypt… they were not, however, venerated in dynastic times as animals, but as the abodes of gods… many nations have regarded animals as symbols of gods and divine powers…”[7] They were “worshipped devoutly as a result of abject fear…”[8] Herodotus noted some in Egypt reverence the crocodile, while others do not. Thebes was one place that felt the strongest sanctity toward the crocodile.[9] Herodotus also tells us that it was from Thebes that the two oracles by the women were established in the lands of Greece and Libya. Two black doves flew from Thebes, one of which landed at Dodona in Greece talking in a human voice and told them where it landed was to be an oracle of Zeus, which was interpreted as a command from heaven. The other one was established in Libyan where the oracle of Ammon was established.[10]

John A. Wilson, one of the Egyptologists who translated the Joseph Smith Papyri in 1968, after it was given back to the church in 1967, by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, declared that the sun god Re was not simply a solar disc, but “had a personality as a god.” He enlarged himself when he “loaned himself to other gods… thus he was both Re and Amun-Re, the creator god at Heliopolis. He was Re-Harahte, that is, Re-Horus-of-the-horizon, as the youthful god on the eastern horizon. At various localities he became Montu-Re, a falcon god, Sobek-Re, a crocodile god, and Khnum-Re, a ram god. He became Amun-Re, King of the gods, as the imperial god of Thebes.”[11] The Egyptologist Erik Hornung indicates that Neith was mother to both Sobek and Re, hence her title “Mother of the gods.”[12] So we have established very clearly that the crocodile is one of the Egyptian gods. But can he actually have been “the idolatrous god of Pharaoh” as Joseph Smith said? Absolutely!

It is important to keep in mind that contradictions from our point of view were simply not understood as such in the ancient Egyptian mind. The crocodile “could symbolize not only death and destruction but also solar-oriented life and regeneration, as both appear to be true aspects of the creature’s existence – for despite its fearsome nature, this animal faces the morning sun as though in adoration and hunts the fish which were the mythological enemies of the sun god.”[13] It is interesting too, that “hostile creatures such as the crocodile and hippopotamus are also sometimes represented at very small scale in order to diminish their magical influence.”[14] This is precisely what we find in the Book of Abraham facsimile #1.
Adolf Erman discussed the combining of the gods of the ancient Egyptians, as when Re or Amun or Horus combined with other gods, such as the crocodile.[15] Sobek, we learn further, was also regarded as a creator.[16] And this brings us to one of the most important aspect for Sobek in this study.
The deceased, in some ceremonies, are also identified with Sobek, becoming Sobek![17] As with Sobek, so with Re, the deceased proclaims in the Coffin Texts, “I have become the essence of Re.”[18] Interestingly, Sobek also becomes Re. Hans Bonnet informs us that “Schon in den Pyramidtexten (507-510) klingt die Gleichung mit dem aufsteigenden Sonnengott an. Trotzdem geht es nicht etwa auf sie zuruck, wenn man seit dem Mittel Reich den Suchos als Suchos-Re mit dem Sonnengotte verschmilzt.”[19] That is, Suchos (the Greek name for Sobek) merges with Re very early on in the Pyramid Texts.
So how does this, though, make Sobek “the idolatrous god of Pharoah”? Because not only did the Ptolemies reverence the crocodile as their ancestor, (als ihren Vorfahren verehren), but “Suchos nimmt also den Konigsgott in sich auf.” “Sobek absorbs the god of the king into himself.”[20] The king, of course, in Egypt, is Pharaoh. On a particular crocodile statue it states that Sobek is a unique friend of Sobek.[21] The Egyptologist Alan Gardner demonstrated that the kings and queens of the XVII dynasty bore the name “Sebekemsat (Sobk is his protection), and this proves that “the crocodile-god was still thought of as somehow connected with the monarchy.”[22] In the earlier XIII dynasty, Gardner noted several kings bore the name “Sbk-htp – Sebkhotep.”[23] The Amherst Papyri “from the Fayyum depicts the crocodile not as Pharaoh but as the god of Pharaoh. According to Bonnet, the submission of Pharaoh to the crocodile down to the latest times is attested by the association of the crocodile with the royal image on the monuments and in annals.”[24] With Sobek absorbing the god of the king into himself, Bonnet says this is why “hymns of praise to the king and his crown can be addressed directly to Sobek – that is, the croc is the god of Pharaoh.”[25] And Suchos is often referred to as a “living image” of Re, in other words, the Ka of Re, the spirit of the sun god Himself! And this agreement (Einigung) with Re for the understanding of Sobek has always remained fundamental (grundlegend).[26]

Sobek has strong ties with Horus the Behdetite, who was Re’s son, which title actually means “He of Crocodilopolis, an epithet of Horus as a crocodile.”[27] In the myth of Horus of Edfu, the dramatic ritual of the play has the king designated as “son of the Victorious Horus,” a ritual re-enactment of when Horus defeated his enemies, the king taking the earthly counterpart of “his divine prototype.” Blackman and Fairman describe the entire process at the end with “the king is stated to be triumphant over his enemies along with Horus the Behdet, Hathor, and Thoth…the King is thus, so to speak, the Alpha and Omega of the whole performance.”[28] Gardner showed how the winged sun disc “represented the king’s actual person… proclaiming its identity with the falcon Horus…the epithet ‘great god’ applied to the Winged Disk at all periods, but it is noteworthy that these words are employed of the living king from the fourth dynasty onwards.” He described that Winged Sun Disk as “a depiction, admittedly highly figurative and syncretistic, of the king himself…Winged Disk and name of the king are so inextricably interconnected and blended that we cannot but regard the symbol as an image of the king himself, though simultaneously also of Re’ and of Horus, all three united into a trinity of solar and kingly dominion.”[29] It is precisely this fusion of Sobek with the Sun Disk which makes the croc the “idolatrous god of Pharaoh”! Bonnet demonstrated that in antiquity this identity with the rising sun-god explains why the Egyptians popularly called Sobek the “living image” of Re’, and in fact, Sobek, along with Pharoah, finally ends up as nothing less than the Universal God. “So wachst Suchos mehr und mehr zum Allgott auf.”[30] Joachim Spiegel showed that not only was the king combined (identifiziert) himself with Horus and Seth, but also with the falcon of heaven (Himmelsfalken), but during the resurrection rites the king was also united with Sobek, who was his “idolatrous god,” “Daneben bevorzugt das Ritual die Gleichsetzung [equated with] des Konigs mit Sobek.” [31]

Alexander Piankoff summed up the entire purpose of the Her-Ouben Papyrus ritual scenes to teach that death is not the final reality of our existence, but the mysteries and rituals prove that though the sun is swallowed every night by a gigantic snake or crocodile, the dead are reborn as the sun is itself – “pouvait etre sur de renaitre apres la mort comme le soleil lui-meme.”[32] This was one reason that the Egyptians “adored the sacred crocodile,” - “adorant le crocodile sacre.”[33] Sobek, being the “idolatrous god of Pharaoh” was the crocodile, united with the sun-god Re’ and with Re’s son Horus the Behdetite, symbolized by the winged sun disk, which united Lower and Upper Egypt, and encompassed all political and religious power.[34] He goes on his royal progress through the kingdom defeating the enemies of his father, and “embraces (snsn) the images at each of his shrines along the way, revealing his nature as ‘the idolatrous god of Pharaoh.’”[35] The Greeks, Bonnet informs us,  “stellen den Suchos schlechthin als Helios mit Strahlenkranz dar und geben ihm ein krokodil als attribute in die Hand,” they made Suchos as Helios with a halo, a crocodile in his hands as his attribute.”[36]

Bonnet indicated that from the 12th to 17th dynasties, the kings “bevorzugen Namen, die ein Bekenntnis zu Suchos enthalten,” That is “prefer names that contain a commitment to Suchos.” Nibley preferred the translation of the German word “Bekenntnis” as “homage,” hence “homage to the crocodile,” which is, after all, what commitment, a declaration of peace, a profession of one’s faith, etc., (reading “bekenntnis” in various contexts of German usage) is.[37] Bonnet showed the overall influence of Sobek “noch weiter spannt sich der Kreis der Gottheiten, die Suchos an sich zieht,” – “who further spans the range of deities which attracted Suchos himself.”[38] Sobek, as “idolatrous god of Pharaoh,” not only was given the image of a crocodile, but of the falcon, the ram with horns, the sun, and other attributes, which reflected the human kingly Pharaonic range of his kingdom as well. This makes perfectly good sense, because the deity who becomes a “universal deity,” is, of course, going to be the “god of Pharaoh,” for the simple reason that that is what Pharaoh wanted to rule, the entire world.

Egyptologically, Joseph Smith’s description of the crocodile in facsimile #1 is absolutely precise.

Endnotes
1. James P. Allen, “Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs,” Cambridge University Press, 2001: 433, #3 in the sign list under “Reptiles, Amphibians, and their Parts.”
2. “The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology,” edited by C. T. Onions, Oxford University, Clarendon Press, reprint, 1983:848, 886.
3. Sir Alan Gardner, “Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs,” 3rd edition, revised, Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1994:475, p. 550 in the Egyptian-English Vocabulary; 582, 585, 589, 592.
4. Mark Collier, Bill Manley, “How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs,” University of California Press, 1998: 27.
5. Raymond O. Faulkner, “A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian,” Oxford University Press, reprint, 1964:7.
6. E. A. W. Budge, “An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary,” 2 Vols., Dover, reprint, 1978: Vol. 1, p. cxviii, under “amphibia (reptiles), #7.
7. E. A. W. Budge, “The Gods of the Egyptians,” Dover, 2 Vols., 1969: Vol. 1:2.
8. Budge, “Ibid.,” Vol. 2:354.
9. Herodotus, “The Histories,” translated by Aubrey de Selincourt, Penguin Books, reprint, 1983: Book 2:68, (p.156).
10. Herodotus, “Histories,” Book 2:55, (p. 151).
11. John A. Wilson, “Egypt: The Nature of the Universe,” in “Before Philosophy: The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man,” Penguin Books, reprint, 1964: 58.
12. Erik Hornung, “Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many,” translated from the German by John Baines, Cornell University Press, first paperback, 1996: 147.
13. Richard H. Wilkinson, “Symbol & Magic in Egyptian Art,” Thames & Hudson, 1994: 8.
14. Wilkinson, “Ibid.,” p. 44. Cf. the interesting discussion in Jeremy Naydler, “Temple of the Cosmos: The Ancient Egyptian Experience of the Sacred,” Inner Traditions, 1996: 244-247.
15. Adolf Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt,” Dover, 1971:45.
16. Rosemary Clark, “The Sacred Tradition in Ancient Egypt,” Llewellyn Publications, 2004:89.
17. E. A. W. Budge, “Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection,” Dover, 1973, 2 Vols., Vol. 1:127, where we read “…the deceased is made out to be the lord of the great celestial stream… but he only becomes so by being identified with Sebek, the Crocodile god, the son of Neith.”
18. Raymond O. Faulkner, “The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts,” Aris & Phillips, 3 vols., re-issued, 1994: Vol. 1:Spell 317, p. 242.
19. Hans Bonnet, “Reallexikon der Agyptischen Religionsgeschichte,” Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1952: 757.
20. Bonnet, “Ibid.,” p. 756.
21. Hugh Nibley, “An Approach to the Book of Abraham,” Deseret Book/FARMS, Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2009: 248.
22. Alan Gardner, “Egypt of the Pharaohs,” Oxford University Press, paperback, 1964: 151.
23. Gardner, “Egyptian Grammar,” p. 74.
24. Nibley, “Approach to the Book of Abraham,” p. 248.
25. Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 248.
26. Bonnet, “Ibid.,” p. 757.
27. Hugh Nibley, “The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment,” Deseret/FARMS, 2nd edition, 2005:349.
28. A. M. Blackman, H. W. Fairman, “The Myth of Horus of Edfu – II,” in “Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,” 27-30 (1941-1944): 37.
29. Alan Gardner, “Horus the Behdetite,” in “Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,” 27-30 (1941-1944):49-51.
30. Bonnet, “Ibid.,” p. 759.
31. Joachim Spiegel, “Das Auferstehungritual der Unaspyramide,” in “Annales du Service des Antiquites de L’Egypte,” 53 (MCMLV): 434.
32. Alexander Piankoff, “Les Deux Papyrus Mythologiques de Her-Ouben au Musee du Caire,” in “Annales du Service des Antiquites de L’Egypte,” 49 (MCMXLIV): 144.
33. A. Piankoff, “Ibid.,” p. 130.
34. See Kurt Sethe, “Urgeschichte und Alteste Religion der Agypter,” Leipzig, 1930: 128-133.
35. Hugh Nibley, “The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” p. 349.
36. Bonnet, “Reallexikon,” p. 757.
37. Hugh Nibley, “Approach to the Book of Abraham,” p. 248.
38. Bonnet, “Reallexikon,” p. 758.

[Mortal Man]

e=mc2, on 11 April 2010 - 11:52 AM, said:

What About the Crocodile in Facsimile Number One of the Book of Abraham?

It's all about context.

After Set murdered Osiris for the second time, he chopped up his body into 14 pieces (representing the phases of the moon) and tossed them into the Nile. Osiris' son Horus then took the form of a crocodile to help his mother Isis retrieve the parts. After gathering 13 of them, Isis reconstructed the missing phallus, then grew wings and hovered over Osiris in order to breathe life into him and conceive Horus. Being simultaneously alive and dead, Osiris became the god and king of the afterlife.

Pharaoh was not involved.

Edited by Mortal Man, 05 September 2010 - 11:41 AM.

[Chris Smith]

In the earliest BoA manuscripts, the "god of pharaoh" was not the crocodile, but the pharaoh-shaped canopic jar.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Kerry,

There's much more to this story...

A few years back I began drafting a paper "My Four Sons: Horus' Sons in the Joseph Smith Papyri." Three salient points emerged from my study regarding JS's identification of the crocodile:

• Imsety, not the crocodile, was initially identified as the god "like unto" Pharaoh.
  
  
  
• In a subsequent stratum of the BoAbr's textual history, an awkward shift in the number of gods listed from four to five aligned Pharaoh with the crocodile.
  
  
  
• The symbol of the crocodile for Pharaoh, Egypt, or an Egyptian deity is pervasive in early-19thC biblical culture.

If the above three observations have strong evidentiary support (spoiler alert: they do), what affect, if any, would that have on your thesis?

Kind regards,

</brent>

Edit: Corrected a typo.


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

Edited by Brent Metcalfe, 11 April 2010 - 08:27 PM.

[e=mc2]

Brent Metcalfe, on 11 April 2010 - 03:47 PM, said:

Hi Kerry,

There's much more to this story...

A few years back I began drafting a paper "My Four Sons: Horus' Sons in the Joseph Smith Papyri." Three salient points emerged from my study regarding JS's identification of the crocodile:

• Imsety, not the crocodile, was initially identified as the god "like unto" Pharaoh.
  
  
  
• In a subsequent stratum of the BoAbr's textual history, an awkward shift in the number of gods listed from four to five aligned Pharaoh with the crocodile.
  
  
  
• The symbol of the crocodile for Pharaoh, Egypt, or an Egyptian deity is pervasive in early-19thC biblical culture.

If the above three observations have strong evidentiary support (spoiler alert: they do), what affect, if any, would that have on your thesis?

Kind regards,

</brent>

Edit: Corrected a typo.


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

It would have no effect on my thesis. The crocodile is described by Joseph Smith in the facsimile as "the idolatrous god of Pharaoh," and that is what the Egyptological research shows, as well as the thinking of the ancient Egyptians. Whether there is precedent for it in 19th century biblical literature is irrelevant to this being correct. It is Egyptian, and it is identified by the Prophet as such. That there may be different alignments does not refute this either. There may very well be more than one "idolatrous god of Pharaoh," but the crocodile is definitely so, without question.
Good to see you again, hope all is well with you.
Kerry

[e=mc2]

Chris Smith, on 11 April 2010 - 03:32 PM, said:

In the earliest BoA manuscripts, the "god of pharaoh" was not the crocodile, but the pharaoh-shaped canopic jar.

Which is entirely irrelevant. There may be more than one "idolatrous god of Pharaoh" in ancient Egypt. The crocodile is one such god identified by the Prophet, and identified fundamentally correct, as Egyptologists have shown the croc to be a god of Pharaoh.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for your amicable reply (and good to be chatting with you again too).

You suggest...

e=mc2, on 11 April 2010 - 10:09 PM, said:

It would have no effect on my thesis. The crocodile is described by Joseph Smith in the facsimile as "the idolatrous god of Pharaoh," and that is what the Egyptological research shows, as well as the thinking of the ancient Egyptians. Whether there is precedent for it in 19th century biblical literature is irrelevant to this being correct. It is Egyptian, and it is identified by the Prophet as such. That there may be different alignments does not refute this either. There may very well be more than one "idolatrous god of Pharaoh," but the crocodile is definitely so, without question.

How so?

You really only address—and not well in my opinion—my third point.

My first two points note the fact that the Pharaoh-god/crocodile motif is absent in the earliest BoAbr texts (your response to Chris is a tad nonsensical in this regard). Are you familiar with the text-critical evidence on this topic? If so, please post your analysis of the documentary nuances.

Frankly, Kerry, what I'm hearing is that you don't see anything that would invalidate your conclusion. If I'm mistaken, feel free to elaborate.

My best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Kerry,

Here are a couple of samples from among the myriad of early-19thC sources linking Pharaoh with the crocodile:

Quote

... it should be also noticed, that Pharaoh was no more than a name attached to those who held the office of king in Egypt, the true interpretation of which is a crocodile. The crocodile was worshipped by the Egyptians as a deity, therefore their kings assumed the title of Pharaoh, no doubt, that adoration might be paid to them.

[The Republican (2 Jun. 1820), 204.]

Quote

Bochart has remarked that the Arabians call the crocodile by the name of Pharaoh.*
...
* Scheüchzer on this passage [Ezek. 29:3–4] observes, that among the ancients the crocodile was the symbol of Egypt, and appears so on Roman coins. And to what could a king of Egypt be more properly compared than to a crocodile?

[George Bush, A Treatise on the Millennium (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1832), 102.]

Given the ubiquity of this notion in the early 19thC, the biggest surprise is that JS didn't associate Pharaoh with the crocodile in the first place.

Best regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[Olavarria]

Mortal Man, on 11 April 2010 - 02:03 PM, said:

It's all about context.

After Set murdered Osiris for the second time, he chopped up his body into 14 pieces (representing the phases of the moon) and tossed them into the Nile. Osiris' son Horus then took the form of a crocodile to help his mother Isis retrieve the parts. After gathering 13 of them, Isis reconstructed the missing phallus, then grew wings and hovered over Osiris in order to breathe life into him and conceive Horus. Being simultaneously alive and dead, Osiris became the god and king of the afterlife.

Pharoah was not involved.

The living king was a manifestation of Horus; thats why they all had a "horus name".

[Mortal Man]

Pedro A. Olavarria, on 12 April 2010 - 03:10 PM, said:

The living king was a manifestation of Horus; thats why they all had a "horus name".

Pharaohs associated themselves with many deities, but what does that have to do with the Myth of Osiris and Isis? If I see Yul Brynner play Rameses one day, and another day I see him play the King of Siam, does that mean that Rameses is the King of Siam?  Horus needs to be a crocodile to help his dad get resurrected. But why does Pharaoh have to be there? How does his presence add to the story? What is he doing down there in the muddy water?

Stephen Thompson said it best:
"It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations."

Edited by Mortal Man, 05 September 2010 - 11:41 AM.

[Chris Smith]

e=mc2, on 11 April 2010 - 10:11 PM, said:

Which is entirely irrelevant. There may be more than one "idolatrous god of Pharaoh" in ancient Egypt.

Perhaps.  But "god of Pharaoh" in the earliest Book of Abraham manuscripts seems to mean "god [made in the image] of Pharaoh".  Shifting this to the crocodile transforms the meaning of the phrase.

[William Schryver]

BM:

Quote

Imsety, not the crocodile, was initially identified as the god "like unto" Pharaoh.

Whether or not Imsety was indeed the object being identified is open to dispute, but your misleading transcription of the phrase above is not.  The text does not read "... god like unto Pharaoh."  It reads "... a god like unto that of Pharaoh."  "That" in the sentence is a referent not to Pharaoh (nor to his image, as it were), but to the "god of Pharaoh."  In other words, the phrase could be rendered equally as "a god like unto the god of Pharaoh."

Your conclusion is based on a misreading of the text.
.
.
.

CS:

Quote

... "god of Pharaoh" in the earliest Book of Abraham manuscripts seems to mean "god [made in the image] of Pharaoh". Shifting this to the crocodile transforms the meaning of the phrase.

Again, the sentence at Abr. 1:13 does not read "a god like unto Pharaoh."  See above.

Your conclusion is based on a misreading of the text.

Edited by William Schryver, 13 April 2010 - 03:03 AM.

[e=mc2]

Chris Smith, on 12 April 2010 - 10:37 PM, said:

Perhaps.  But "god of Pharaoh" in the earliest Book of Abraham manuscripts seems to mean "god [made in the image] of Pharaoh".  Shifting this to the crocodile transforms the meaning of the phrase.

The shifting to the crocodile, however, exactly matches the ancient Egyptian understanding, which is precisely my point. It certainly does not *refute* the truth that the crocodile is the idolatrous god of pharaoh.....does it? If so, how so? It is not the earliest manuscripts of the Book of Abraham that are the scripture, but the product we have in print right now, and it correctly identifies the crocodile as "the idolatrous god of Pharaoh."

[e=mc2]

Brent Metcalfe, on 12 April 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

Hi Kerry,

Here are a couple of samples from among the myriad of early-19thC sources linking Pharaoh with the crocodile:







Given the ubiquity of this notion in the early 19thC, the biggest surprise is that JS didn't associate Pharaoh with the crocodile in the first place.

Best regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2010 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

Hi Brent,
It is not about the KING himself which is identified as "the idolatrous god." It is to the crocodile itself. Again, this is exactly how the ancient Egyptians saw the figure. The crocodile is "the god of," not necessarily the Pharaoh himself. I shall double check. This little subtlety is entirely in favor of Joseph Smith. And 2 sources does not necessarily imply ubiquity either, honestly. And......do we *know* Joseph Smith or others working with him had those sources, and used them? This idea that if it's "in the air," then Joseph Smith got it from there just doesn't wash. Honestly.
Hope all is well with you!
Good to see you again also.
Best,
Kerry

Edited by e=mc2, 13 April 2010 - 10:48 AM.

[e=mc2]

Brent:
Frankly, Kerry, what I'm hearing is that you don't see anything that would invalidate your conclusion. If I'm mistaken, feel free to elaborate.

Kerry:
Your hearing willow-o-wisps in the wind. I haven't seen anyone yet show me how Egyptologically "the idolatrous god OF Pharaoh" is wrong. The earliest manuscript evidence is irrelevant to the final scripture of the Book of Abraham that is published which teaches the correct Egyptian thinking on this theme. It is not that I don't see "anything that would invalidate my conclusion," it is that nothing has been presented thus far showing that the Egyptians thought the crocodile was NOT a god of Pharaoh. I mean, if it was shown that the Egyptaians never associated the croc with Pharaoh, now THAT would destroy Smith's view, would it not? The earliest manuscript evidence is not scripture Brent. You know that. Since when is someone's "draft" of a paper held up as a refutation of the final product? In my draft of this paper, I didn't include everything in the final product, would it be valid for someone to say, "See? Kerry didn't have this in the earliest draft, therefore his paper is invalid"? That would be utterly insanely silly.
Show me how the ***ancient Egyptians*** understood the croc, and if THEY say it has nothing to do at all in any manner with Pharaoh, you have rightly, properly damned Joseph Smith. After all, it is THEIR thinking Smith is supposed to be presenting here, yes? Then it is to THEM we go to see if Smith had something, yes? What on earth the earliest manuscript evidence has to do with it is beyond me......Sorry I am such a simpleton at these things.....

Edited by e=mc2, 13 April 2010 - 11:06 AM.

[e=mc2]

John Tvedtnes just told me "To me, the importance of Sobek as the god of Pharaoh is that the Sobek-names start showing up in the royal family in the 12th-13th dynasties, which can help us date Abraham." And Nibley had mentioned this, I believe quoting one of the scholars. I shall have to double check.

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 13 April 2010 - 02:51 AM, said:

CS:

Again, the sentence at Abr. 1:13 does not read "a god like unto Pharaoh."  See above.

Your conclusion is based on a misreading of the text.

That's not what my conclusion is based on.  It's based on the number, order, and shapes of the gods.  See here for more detail.

[mfbukowski]

Mortal Man, on 12 April 2010 - 08:01 PM, said:

Stephen Thompson said it best:
"It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations."

Please show how any of this is pushing prodding or squeezing.  It's a totally reasonable interpretation!

[Brian Hauglid]

Chris Smith, on 13 April 2010 - 01:42 PM, said:

That's not what my conclusion is based on.  It's based on the number, order, and shapes of the gods.  See here for more detail.

Hi Chris (and Brent),

It appears that your (and Brent's?) thesis is that JS initially misapplied Imsety to Pharaoh, which can be strengthened in the earliest ms pericopes of Abr. 1:6, Abr. 1:17, and (especially) Abr. 1:13  (in connection to the bedstead). And then JS added Koash, Korash, thus redirecting the reference to Imsety and then correcting the Pharaoh to the crocodile as was the common knowledge of the time.

Does this sound about right?

Respectfully yours,
Brian

Edited: Added question mark for Brent's name and the word "initially" to better reflect Brent's post.

Edited by Brian Hauglid, 13 April 2010 - 04:24 PM.

[e=mc2]

Mortal Man:
It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations."

Kerry:
This is not accurate either. The Egyptologists *have* to range over the time spans that leave us appalled, because so little changed through the religion of the Egyptians. Just because the Pyramid Texts are way before 3,500 B.C. does not mean they, along with the Book of the Dead - post 600 B.C. times, that their teachings are irrelevant whatsoever. I have found numerous Egyptologists who exactly range all over the Egyptian materials in order to understand them. Thompson is simply wrong.
Who gets to make the dividing line? Who gets to set what a so-called "proper" range is for time? Is it only acceptable for a 100 year range? 500 year range? etc. What is the criteria? Which literatures are allowed and why some but not others? I mean, who gets to set the rules, when in point of very fact, the Egyptians themselves, mind you, used ALL their literatures through the millenia to continue their teachings?! This is simply modern bias.
It actually is astounding to read (yes, it is time we READ the Egyptian stuff already!) the Coffin Texts (ca. 2000-1400 B.C.) teachings, and realize that these same teachings, along with further developments are to be had in the Book of Breathings (ca 150 B.C. - 200 A.D.), are STILL BEING USED. But is the range of almost 2000 years uncomfortable? What do we do then, *ignore* the Coffin Texts? That's just bias silliness on our modern thinking. It would grind research to a halt. Do we really think the ideas found in, oh say, the Dead Sea Scrolls are ONLY valid to research back to when they date? what is it, in some cases, a few fragments to 400 B.C.? That obviously is not when the IDEAS originated, or were explained. To find parallels in the scrolls, even if they go back to 2000 B.C. is entirely valid in tracing origins. Why would that bother us?

Heh.... the teachings of Jesus......... would it be invalid to trace those ideas earlier than say oh 100 B.C. simply because we get queasy about supposedly ranging all over the place in time?! Who doesn't trace back some of his teachings way back into hoary antiquity for crying out loud? Yes, yes, the scholarship says the actually writing down of the OT was around the Babylonian captivity, oh for fun, lets say 500 B.C. But is that WHEN the ideas were propounded, understood, or changed and developed and added upon? That would be an absurd idea. Absurd is putting it rather mildly. No, Thompson is simply wrong in his bias assessment. I would advize learning from a *real* Egyptologist, not Thompson.

Edited by e=mc2, 13 April 2010 - 04:46 PM.