72 replies to this topic

[William Schryver]

Christopher Smith:

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.

To which I replied:

Quote

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."

To which Smith replied:

Quote

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.

At least part of the conclusion implied by Metcalfe’s original post, as well as your post which affirmed his, is that the text at Abr. 1:13 points to a “god [made in the image] of Pharaoh,” which, of course, describes the Imsety figure.

And yet, as I have noted above, the text does not read as you and Metcalfe would have us believe:

Metcalfe: “… a god [like unto] Pharaoh …”

Smith: “… a god [made in the image] of Pharaoh …”

No, the text reads: “… a god like unto that of Pharaoh …” or (taking the same liberty you have to “reword” the text) “… a god like unto [the god] of Pharaoh …”.

This, of course, is very different, for it does not suggest the figure of Imsety, but is non-descript in its application.

That is the conclusion you have based on a misreading of the text, and it makes all the difference, for the addition of “Koash” (Korash) does not, in any way, supplant any perceived association between “… a god like unto that of Pharaoh …” and the figure of Imsety.  The later addition of Korash (associated with the Imsety figure) does not “transform the meaning of the phrase” in any way at all; it in no way conflicts with the original meaning of the text (which text was retained, with no loss of meaning), but merely moves the referent of that text to the crocodile figure, where it belongs.




Edit: corrected minor grammatical error

Edited by William Schryver, 13 April 2010 - 08:29 PM.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Brian,

That is more or less my thesis, yes.  I can't speak for Brent, but I take it from his comments in this thread that he agrees.

I wouldn't venture so far as to say that the reason "god of Pharaoh" was redirected to the crocodile was definitely that Joseph learned about Sobek from some written sources.  That may be the case, but it could also be that the awkward wording of the "like unto" passage necessitated some harmonization, and this is how Joseph chose to carry it out.  Or it could be that someone asked, "what's a crocodile doing in Chaldea?" and Joseph felt the need to explain this as an "idol", as well.  Or it could have been some combination of these things.  I don't fully know the motivation for the change, but it does seem pretty clear to me that this was the sequence of events that produced the current text.

Peace,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

Hi William,

I suppose our differing presuppositions are likely to be decisive in this case.  If you are committed to the idea that the crocodile is "where [the referent of the text] belongs," I have no illusion that I will be able to dissuade you.  And you of course can find support for your reading in the curious grammar of a verse later in the text.  Because I see a great deal of evidence that Joseph was interpreting these figures based on their visual shape and appearance, I am more inclined to think the referent "belongs" on the Imsety canopic jar.  I can find support for my reading in the fact that the jar is the most natural referent in the earliest manuscripts, where Korash is multiply omitted.  It will take more than an ambiguous and awkwardly-worded statement later in the book to dissuade me from this conclusion.  So, I suppose we are at a presuppositional impasse.  Agree to disagree.

Peace,

-Chris

[Mortal Man]

e=mc2, on 13 April 2010 - 04:37 PM, said:

I have found numerous Egyptologists who exactly range all over the Egyptian materials in order to understand them.

What we have here are two stories:

In story A, Osiris is trying to get resurrected with the aid of his wife, sons and grandsons.

In story B, Abraham is getting sacrificed by an evil priest as an offering to his idol-gods.

Each story is internally consistent. They each have a protagonist and a plot. You can pick either A or B and not get into trouble.

The problem arises when you try to merge the two stories into some sort of grand unified meta-chronicle with ultra-deep meaning. The parts don't fit. The characters don't match. The plot gets way too twisted. Although it's sometimes possible to produce a liger from a lion and a tiger; you are trying to produce a whant from a whale and an ant. It's just not going to happen, and even if it could somehow be forced into existence, it wouldn't live very long. This type of approach just doesn't work.

Your attention to Nibley is laudable but I think you'd be better off with Barney's J-red theory.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Please note that I've never quoted the BoAbr in the way you suggest—i.e., "god like unto Pharaoh." I intentionally placed quotation marks around "like unto" only—and for good reason (see below).

Scholars across the interpretive spectrum (e.g., Nibley, Thompson, and Barney) have noted some grammatical complexities in the triplicate rosters of idolatrous gods. That said, the text simply doesn't say what you claim.

In the phrase "a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt," the adjective "like" modifies the noun "god," comparing this "god" to "that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (Abr. 1:13). Put simply, this "god" isn't Pharaoh's deity but rather a god "like" Pharaoh's deity. Although grammatically correct, this reading is complicated by the genitive "god of Pharaoh" in the other two lists in reference to the same deity (Abr. 1:6, 17).

So, why modify the genitive form, and then only for Pharaoh's god, in the second of the three rosters?

Consider the words that immediately follow the phrase in question:

Quote

That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning...

[Abr. 1:14.]

Readers are supplied with a visual depiction of the gods.

In this context, the notion that that the BoAbr author's (grammatically problematic) phrase in v. 13 was directly influenced by the appearance of the Imsety canopic jar in the vignette (Fac. 1:8 ) strikes me as exegetically sound.



Hi Brian,

Great to hear from you, my friend. On your query, see my comments above.

A few quick requests while you're online:

• The publication date for your book.
  
  
• Your new abbreviations for the manuscripts in the BoAbr collection.
  
  
• Your text-critical analysis of Abraham 1:6, 13, 17.

Hi Kerry,

Given your responses thus far, I can only assume that you're unfamiliar with the textual history of Abraham 1:6, 13, 17—correct?

Only two 19thC sources?

Really?

Perhaps you missed my "among the myriad of early-19thC sources" comment (I've collected literally dozens of antebellum references to the crocodile as an Egyptian god and a symbol for Pharaoh).



Time permitting, more to come...

My best to all,

</brent>

Edit: Deleted a comma.

Edit: *sigh!* Corrected the Facsimile figure number (it's way too late).  


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, 13 April 2010 - 11:28 PM.

[William Schryver]

Question for All:

Bearing in mind that the first quoted passage below has been described as false by the author of the second quoted passage, I would like to throw out a challenge to all willing to participate (even those who have not been previously involved in this discussion) to identify the substantive differences (if any) between the first quote and the second, with particular attention given to the summary sentences (bolded and underlined) from each.

Quote

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."

Quote

In the phrase "a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt," the adjective "like" modifies the noun "god," comparing this "god" to "that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (Abr. 1:13). Put simply, this "god" isn't Pharaoh's deity but rather a god "like" Pharaoh's deity.

.
.
.
Brent,

Am I correct in assuming that you concur with the conclusion that the Abr. 1:4 – 2:6 portion of Ab4(KEPA 1[Abr. 1:4 – 2:18]) was copied from an earlier manuscript?

Thanks,

Will
.
.
.
Bonus Question:

(Again, for everyone, even those not directly involved in the discussion.  Consider this one of those "How many monkeys can you find in this picture?" kind of puzzles.)

How many "gods" does the bedstead "stand before" in the illustration below? (Try to provide a brief explanation of the rationale behind your answer.)

Edited by William Schryver, 14 April 2010 - 11:38 AM.

[e=mc2]

Brent:
Hi Kerry,

Given your responses thus far, I can only assume that you're unfamiliar with the textual history of Abraham 1:6, 13, 17—correct?

Kerry:
The textual history of Abrhaam is interesting, but irrelevant to the finished product. That alone is the scripture we are beholden to. All the preliminary information, dabblings, noodlings, changes, expansions, deletions are fun to know about, but in the final end, it is, after all, the actual Book of Abraham in printed form which is the scripture, and which I am discussing. It is to the final form of essays which get printed, published, and valid, not preliminary manuscripts and re-writes. So, yes, the manuscript evidence has nothing to do with the final scripture which says the croc is "the idolatrous God of Pharaoh." It is fundamentally irrelevant that this designation is not in the manuscripts earlier. It *IS* in the Book of Abraham, and therefore the scripture we work with. This is honestly not that hard to grasp is it? Why do you keep trying to go to the manuscripts when we ALL have the finished product? The history of the text is fascinating, but the end product is what counts, yes?

Edited by e=mc2, 14 April 2010 - 10:51 AM.

[Mortal Man]

e=mc2, on 14 April 2010 - 10:49 AM, said:

The textual history of Abrhaam is interesting, but irrelevant to the finished product. That alone is the scripture we are beholden to. All the preliminary information, dabblings, noodlings, changes, expansions, deletions are fun to know about, but in the final end, it is, after all, the actual Book of Abraham in printed form which is the scripture, and which I am discussing. It is to the final form of essays which get printed, published, and valid, not preliminary manuscripts and re-writes. So, yes, the manuscript evidence has nothing to do with the final scripture which says the croc is "the idolatrous God of Pharaoh." It is fundamentally irrelevant that this designation is not in the manuscripts earlier. It *IS* in the Book of Abraham, and therefore the scripture we work with. This is honestly not that hard to grasp is it? Why do you keep trying to go to the manuscripts when we ALL have the finished product? The history of the text is fascinating, but the end product is what counts, yes?

The textual critics *have* to range over the earlier manuscripts that leave us appalled, because so much changed through the mind of Joseph Smith. Just because the Translation Texts are way before 1880 A.D. does not mean they, along with the Grammar - post 1835 A.D. times, that their teachings are irrelevant whatsoever. I have found numerous historians who exactly range all over the extant materials in order to understand them. Someone is simply wrong. Who gets to make the dividing line? Who gets to set what a so-called "proper" text is for our time? Is it only acceptable for 1880? 1851? etc. What is the criteria? Which manuscripts are allowed and why some but not others? I mean, who gets to set the rules, when in point of very fact, the historians themselves, mind you, used ALL their manuscripts through the church archives to continue their teachings?! This is simply modern bias. It actually is astounding to read (yes, it is time we READ the KEP stuff already!) the GAEL (ca 1835 A.D.) teachings, and realize that these same teachings, along with further developments are to be had in the Book of Abraham (ca 1835 A.D. - 1842 A.D.), are STILL BEING USED. But is the range of almost 7 years uncomfortable? What do we do then, *ignore* the Translation 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 1880 BoA are ONLY valid to research back to when they date? what is it, in some cases, a few fragments to 1851 A.D.? That obviously is not when the IDEAS originated, or were explained. To find parallels in the facsimiles, even if they go back to 1835 A.D. is entirely valid in tracing origins. Why would that bother us?

Edited by Mortal Man, 14 April 2010 - 09:37 PM.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Do you see a difference between the "god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (Abr. 1:13) and the "god of Pharaoh" (Abr. 1:6, 17)?

(That is the point I think you're missing.)

William Schryver, on 14 April 2010 - 10:35 AM, said:

Am I correct in assuming that you concur with the conclusion that the Abr. 1:4 – 2:6 portion of Ab4(KEPA 1[Abr. 1:4 – 2:18]) was copied from an earlier manuscript?

Yes. But as I've noted on multiple occasions, evidence suggests that JS was involved in the copying process—much like the copying of the EA into the GAEL, or patriarchal blessings from JS's diaries into the blessings book.



Hi Brian,

I look forward to your response to my requests.



Hi Kerry,

You're merely bearing your idiosyncratic testimony of what constitutes a scriptural text, not enunciating a rigorous method for analyzing such a text.



All the 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

[Chris Smith]

Brent Metcalfe, on 14 April 2010 - 11:14 PM, said:

Do you see a difference between the "god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (Abr. 1:13) and the "god of Pharaoh" (Abr. 1:6, 17)?

(That is the point I think you're missing.)

To clarify this point, if "god of Pharaoh" is taken to mean god made in the image of Pharaoh, then the phrase in question may be taken to mean, "god like unto that [made in the image] of Pharaoh, king of Egypt."  

This is awkward phrasing, I agree, but it is comprehensible in at least two ways:  1) It might mean that the idol in front of the bedstead was an imitation of some other Pharaoh-shaped idol, perhaps back in Egypt.  2) It may be that "god" refers to the figure given at the beginning, such that the passage is basically saying, "the god-figure given at the beginning is like unto the god made in the image of Pharaoh."

Peace,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

Brent Metcalfe:

Quote

Do you see a difference between the "god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (Abr. 1:13) and the "god of Pharaoh" (Abr. 1:6, 17)?

The “difference” that exists cannot, in my judgment, be construed to mean what you and Chris seem to believe it means: that either reference alludes to a figure that is patterned after the “image” of Pharaoh.  The text does not convey that meaning, and therefore I would argue that your conclusion is not exegetically sound, but is eisegetically motivated.

Quote

… evidence suggests that JS was involved in the copying process—much like the copying of the EA into the GAEL, or patriarchal blessings from JS's diaries into the blessings book.

I don’t believe there is much, if anything, in the way of text-critical evidence to support a conclusion that Joseph Smith was involved in the production of the Abr. 1:4 – 2:6 portion of Ab4*.  No doubt you can and will assert his involvement, but the text-critical evidence does not suggest that conclusion in this particular case, nor (even more so!) in the case of the GAEL.

That said, I will look forward to whatever evidence you believe you can adduce to support your conclusion.
.
.
.
Christopher Smith:

Quote

To clarify this point, if "god of Pharaoh" is taken to mean god made in the image of Pharaoh, then the phrase in question may be taken to mean, "god like unto that [made in the image] of Pharaoh, king of Egypt."

This is awkward phrasing, I agree, but it is comprehensible in at least two ways: 1) It might mean that the idol in front of the bedstead was an imitation of some other Pharaoh-shaped idol, perhaps back in Egypt. 2) It may be that "god" refers to the figure given at the beginning, such that the passage is basically saying, "the god-figure given at the beginning is like unto the god made in the image of Pharaoh."

Sorry, Chris, but this, also, is nothing more than eisegetical wishful thinking.

There is, in my estimation, no linguistic equivalence between “god of Pharaoh” and “god made in the image of Pharaoh.”  The two phrases convey entirely different meaning.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised to see both of you attempting to establish, on such weak grounds, a text-critical basis for associating the Imsety figure with Pharaoh or his “god,” especially since what the text-critical evidence does strongly suggest is that the putative Ms. Q, from which Ab4* was at least partially copied/informed, clearly listed five gods at Abr. 1:6, and in the order we see in the presently published version of the Book of Abraham.

Even so, this discussion has been revealing on many levels.  That said, I think we probably need to apologize to Kerry for hijacking his thread.  We’ve really gone far afield of what I perceive to have been his desires for the discussion.  



* Ab4 = KEPA1(Abr 1:4 – 2:18)

[e=mc2]

Brent:
You're merely bearing your idiosyncratic testimony of what constitutes a scriptural text, not enunciating a rigorous method for analyzing such a text.

Kerry:
Brent, you are merely bearing your own idiosyncratic non-testimony without refuting any of the actual Egyptological information. You have yet to begin discussing the evidence. Are you going to pretend that the finished product as we have in the Book of Abraham is not scripture, while the early musings, notes, and rough drafts *are* the scripture? Good luck with that. I know why you are saying this. You simply refuse to touch the actual text of the scripture of the Book of Abraham. And for good reason...... It is the Book of Abraham that is on trial, as Nibley noted so long ago, not Joseph Smith. To test the Book of Abraham we use it, not the mere notes and rough drafts of earlier compositions. Those are *never* voted on *as* scripture, while the Book of Abraham is. The earlier notes were *never* presented AS scripture, while the Book of Abraham is. If you have a case for proving the earlier notes are more scriptural and important than the final draft, please do, by all means, present your case. So far all I see here is mere assertion.

[e=mc2]

William Schryver, on 15 April 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Brent Metcalfe:

The “difference” that exists cannot, in my judgment, be construed to mean what you and Chris seem to believe it means: that either reference alludes to a figure that is patterned after the “image” of Pharaoh.  The text does not convey that meaning, and therefore I would argue that your conclusion is not exegetically sound, but is eisegetically motivated.


I don’t believe there is much, if anything, in the way of text-critical evidence to support a conclusion that Joseph Smith was involved in the production of the Abr. 1:4 – 2:6 portion of Ab4*.  No doubt you can and will assert his involvement, but the text-critical evidence does not suggest that conclusion in this particular case, nor (even more so!) in the case of the GAEL.

That said, I will look forward to whatever evidence you believe you can adduce to support your conclusion.
.
.
.
Christopher Smith:

Sorry, Chris, but this, also, is nothing more than eisegetical wishful thinking.

There is, in my estimation, no linguistic equivalence between “god of Pharaoh” and “god made in the image of Pharaoh.”  The two phrases convey entirely different meaning.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised to see both of you attempting to establish, on such weak grounds, a text-critical basis for associating the Imsety figure with Pharaoh or his “god,” especially since what the text-critical evidence does strongly suggest is that the putative Ms. Q, from which Ab4* was at least partially copied/informed, clearly listed five gods at Abr. 1:6, and in the order we see in the presently published version of the Book of Abraham.

Even so, this discussion has been revealing on many levels.  That said, I think we probably need to apologize to Kerry for hijacking his thread.  We’ve really gone far afield of what I perceive to have been his desires for the discussion.  



* Ab4 = KEPA1(Abr 1:4 – 2:18)

No apologies necessary at all. It is a most stimulating and interesting discussion. I am grateful to see the Egyptological evidence holding up so very well for the Book of Abraham. I am also extremely grateful to see Nibley's powerful research having such weight and power.

[Mortal Man]

e=mc2, on 15 April 2010 - 11:02 AM, said:

It is the Book of Abraham that is on trial, as Nibley noted so long ago

Why do you suppose Nibley kept mum for so long about the existence of the papyri? Could it have been to keep the case from coming to trial?

e=mc2, on 15 April 2010 - 11:02 AM, said:

Are you going to pretend that the finished product as we have in the Book of Abraham is not scripture, while the early musings, notes, and rough drafts *are* the scripture?

You've insisted that all sorts of evidence from all over the world, dating back to 3500 BC, be admitted to help answer the question as to whether the crocodile is pharaoh.
Brent is requesting that sources from the northeastern states, dating from 1820-1842 AD, be admitted to help answer the question as to whether the crocodile is pharaoh.
Why should your evidence be admitted and Brent's excluded?

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

Quote

Why do you suppose Nibley kept mum for so long about the existence of the papyri? Could it have been to keep the case from coming to trial?

What “case” might that be?

Quote

You've insisted that all sorts of evidence from all over the world, dating back to 3500 BC, be admitted to help answer the question as to whether the crocodile is pharaoh.

That’s not what I’ve gathered from Kerry’s comments.  His focus was much more general in terms of his believing one can profitably find historical parallels across a very wide temporal continuum.

Quote

Brent is requesting that sources from the northeastern states, dating from 1820-1842 AD, be admitted to help answer the question as to whether the crocodile is pharaoh.  Why should your evidence be admitted and Brent's excluded?  

Who has suggested that any evidence be excluded?  I think you’re just trying to be confrontational, and I have yet to see you add anything of discernible value to the thread.


You certainly haven’t chosen to address my arguments that associating the Imsety figure with Pharaoh is NOT compelled by the text, as Smith and Metcalfe suggest.  Perhaps you would like to address my most recent observation:

Quote

… the text-critical evidence does strongly suggest … that the putative Ms. Q, from which Ab4* was at least partially copied/informed, clearly listed five gods at Abr. 1:6, and in the order we see in the presently published version of the Book of Abraham.

Or would you prefer to stand aloof of the details of the discussion and toss an occasional bomb at whatever you perceive to be a fat target for your ridicule?

Edited by William Schryver, 15 April 2010 - 01:19 PM.

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 15 April 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Frankly, I’m a little surprised to see both of you attempting to establish, on such weak grounds, a text-critical basis for associating the Imsety figure with Pharaoh or his “god,” especially since what the text-critical evidence does strongly suggest is that the putative Ms. Q, from which Ab4* was at least partially copied/informed, clearly listed five gods at Abr. 1:6, and in the order we see in the presently published version of the Book of Abraham.

The reservation is back the other way, Will. ;-)

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 15 April 2010 - 01:19 PM, said:

You certainly haven’t chosen to address my arguments that associating the Imsety figure with Pharaoh is NOT compelled by the text, as Smith and Metcalfe suggest.

Actually, you've persuaded me of that.  I can see why someone who is committed to a historical, Egyptological reading of the Book of Abraham could in good conscience reject my reading.

Nevertheless, from my perspective it still does seem quite clear that the god of Pharaoh was originally an idol made in the image of Pharaoh.

So, like I said: agree to disagree.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited by Chris Smith, 15 April 2010 - 02:15 PM.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 15 April 2010 - 02:06 PM, said:

The reservation is back the other way, Will. ;-)

I guess you mean that you dispute my conclusion.  If so, why?

Let's review what we know:

• Ab4 (Parrish) is a copy of an earlier manuscript.
  `
  
• All five gods are listed in the first instance (and only the first instance) of the roster (Abr. 1:6).  
  `
  
• No other extant Kirtland-era manuscripts attest a listing of all five gods.

The two obvious possible conclusions are: 1) Ab4 was copied from/informed by a now-lost Ms Q; or 2) "Koash" was first introduced in Ab4.

Since we all know that you and Brent hold that option #2 is the correct choice, what text-critical evidence do you believe supports such a conclusion?

I look forward to your reply.

Edited by William Schryver, 15 April 2010 - 02:41 PM.

[Chris Smith]

William Schryver, on 15 April 2010 - 02:40 PM, said:

The two obvious possible conclusions are: 1) Ab4 was copied from/informed by a now-lost Ms Q; or 2) "Koash" was first introduced in Ab4.

Since we all know that you and Brent hold that option #2 is the correct choice, what text-critical evidence do you believe supports such a conclusion?

I have neither time nor inclination to debate the textual history of the translation manuscripts at the moment.  But you're well-aware that I don't find the Q hypothesis persuasive.  If there was no Q, then clearly "Koash" was first introduced in MS 1.

Occam's Razor recommends that we avoid hypothesizing "missing" entities unless we have genuinely persuasive reasons for doing so.  So, the onus is not on me to show that there could have been no Q, but rather on you to show that there are good reasons to believe there was one.

I'm curious as to why you think Koash was omitted from MSS 2 and 3 if they, too, are copies from this mysterious Q manuscript.

By the way, the Spalding-Rigdon crowd is going to love your Q theory.  I am credibly informed that Jockers has now "discovered" Rigdon's wordprint in the Book of Abraham.  

Peace,

-Chris

[Mortal Man]

William Schryver, on 15 April 2010 - 01:19 PM, said:

Mortal Man:

What “case” might that be?

Whichever one Kerry was referring to.

Quote

I have yet to see you add anything of discernible value to the thread.

How 'bout some pictures?



At any rate, this whole discussion ignores the subtle fact that there were no pharaohs during Abraham's probable lifetime. Nevertheless, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Abraham was being sacrificed upon a Chaldean bedstead to the idolatrous god of a future proper noun. How does that piece of the puzzle fit together with the other pieces to form an overall picture? If "the priest of Elkenah was also the priest of Pharaoh" and Pharaoh was a crocodile, then are we to understand that Chaldea was full of crocodiles or that it would be full of crocodiles later on? Also, what about the customary sacrifice of "men, women, and children", not to mention triple virgins, to the "dumb" idol "god of Pharaoh" by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill? Does this explain why Chaldeans were so scarce at the time?

Edited by Mortal Man, 05 September 2010 - 08:54 PM.