Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Book Of Abraham And The Book Of Breathings


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#1 Olavarria

Olavarria

    Got Mo'?

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,971 posts

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:20 PM

Posted Image
Line to the Right of Isis (Figure 2):
The great Isis,mother of the god.
The Three Lines to the Right of Osiris (Figure 1):
(1) Words spoken by Osiris, the Foremost of the Westerners: (2) May you, Osiris, Hôr, abide at (3) the side of the throne of his greatness.
Line in Front of Ma’at (Figure 4):
(1) Ma’at, Lady of the West.
The Two Lines in Front of the deceased (Figure 5):39
(1) Osiris, Hôr,the (2) justified forever.
The Three Lines in Front of Anubis (Figure 6):
(1) Words spoken by Anubis . . . (2) Lord of heaven, foremost of (3) the Westerners.

What is the Book of Breathings?

What does the Book of Abraham say about the Egyptian priesthood?
Abraham 1:27
Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Edited by Pedro A. Olavarria, 08 July 2011 - 09:22 PM.

  • 0

#2 Robert F. Smith

Robert F. Smith

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,497 posts

Posted 08 July 2011 - 10:31 PM

Pedro,
You left out the line along the bottom. Here it is as rendered by Mike Rhodes:

"The gods of the West, the gods of the cavern, the gods of the south, north, west, and
east say: May Osiris, Hôr, justified, born of Taykhebyt, prosper."

Moreover, since Egyptologist Jim Allen agrees with all others in his profession that the illustrations themselves should be read as large ideograms, we ought to interpret each figure and the whole scene. In this case, in my opinion, we should interpret it the way a group of Jews then living in Egypt might interpret them based on their traditions, including an aggada in their possession, along with their knowledge of the surrounding Egyptian culture:

Thus, where Joseph describes Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne by the politeness of the king, we may note that J. G. Griffiths, Origins of Osiris, 1st ed., Münchner ägypt. Studien 9 (Berlin, 1966), 82-85, insisted that the king is the ultimate source of the right to wear the crown, and that it is also worn by those identified with Osiris (citing Farina), e.g., the deceased, Sokar, etc.

Attached File  Doc2.pdf   192.67KB   22 downloads

Likewise, where Joseph identifies the obviously female figure behind the throne as king Pharaoh, Hugh Nibley points to a case recognized by Dietrich Wildung where "we can identify Anat [the Canaanites' version of Hathor] as ‘Anat of Ramses [the king] himself in the shape of a goddess."

LIkewise, prince of Pharaoh brings to Nibley's mind repeated instances in which male gods, royalty, and commoners adopted the mask and dress of goddesses such as Hathor or Ma’at (or Wrt-kЗw) -- the queen can even dress as the high priest.

Joseph's final line has Abraham reasoning upon the principles of astronomy (as he does elsewhere in the Book of Abraham), which is what Josephus says in Antiquities of the Jews, I, 7, 2 (§158), quoting 3rd cent. B.C. Berossus that "there was among the Chaldeans a man righteous and great, and skilful in celestial science" (Abram); I, 8, 2 (§167), Abram "delivered to them [the Egyptians] the science of astronomy"; Pseudo-Eupolemus (OTP, I:881-882), quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX, 17, 8; IX, 18, 1-2; Testament of Abraham 9 - 10 (OTP, I:886-888); Jubilees 12:16-19 (OTP, II:81); Qur'an 6:76-80; Apocalypse of Abraham 12, 15 - 24 (OTP, I:694-701); Ma‘ase Abraham Abinu (Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I:26-27), all cited by D. Peterson in Ensign, 24/1 (Jan 1994), 19-20.

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 08 July 2011 - 10:34 PM.

  • 4

#3 Olavarria

Olavarria

    Got Mo'?

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,971 posts

Posted 09 July 2011 - 08:27 PM

Great insights Roberto;)

I'm just drawn to Abraham's description of Egyptian priesthood, as a clever imitation of the true priesthood. Have you read any of the translations of the BoB?
  • 0

#4 Xander

Xander

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,229 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 12:21 AM

Figure 1, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Egyptian God Osris.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand."

Figure 2, according to Egyptologists, refers to Isis, the wife of Osris.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

FIgure 3, according to Egyptologists, is simply a libation platform.
But according to Joseph Smith it: "Signifies Abraham in Egypt"

Figure 4, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Goddess Maat.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

FIgure 5, according to Egyptologists, refers to Hor.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

FIgure 6, according to Egyptologists, refers to the God Anubis.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince."

Don't tell me. Scholars get things wrong all the time?
  • 0

#5 Robert F. Smith

Robert F. Smith

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,497 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 12:42 AM

Figure 1, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Egyptian God Osris.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand."

Figure 2, according to Egyptologists, refers to Isis, the wife of Osris.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

FIgure 3, according to Egyptologists, is simply a libation platform.
But according to Joseph Smith it: "Signifies Abraham in Egypt"

Figure 4, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Goddess Maat.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

FIgure 5, according to Egyptologists, refers to Hor.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

FIgure 6, according to Egyptologists, refers to the God Anubis.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince."

Don't tell me. Scholars get things wrong all the time?

Xander, or Kevin,
Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say. Your comments here show no effort to do any of that. Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions. You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due. Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.


  • 1

#6 Xander

Xander

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,229 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 01:06 AM

Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say.


Is this supposed to be news?

Your comments here show no effort to do any of that.


Which scholars do you think deserve my respect? My post made it clear that you can either believe scholars, or Joseph Smith. Scholars aren't divided on the meanings of these images/symbols.

Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions.


Yes, my "preconceived notion" is that if Joseph Smith had the ability to properly translate ancient documents, then he wouldn't have made so many mistakes in the numerous falsifiable examples. He didn't even come close. A female is a male and Anubis is a slave, simply because he is pictured in black. This tells us more about his imagination than his ability as a Prophet.

You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due.


I have. But I'm not going to focus on the cherries picked by apologists. I'm going to take in everything, including what Joseph Smith got wrong. Why is this off the table?

Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.


My quest for truth has always been sincere, which is why I'm willing to accept all the data and form my conclusions accordingly. All Pedro did was provide 5 of the 6 scholarly explanations, but neglected to show how Joseph Smith explained them. He also seeks to find meaning in a text that most LDS scholars consider irrelevant to the Book of Abraham since it is necessarily from the "wrong scroll."
  • 0

#7 bjw

bjw

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,487 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 03:16 AM

Xander, or Kevin,
Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say. Your comments here show no effort to do any of that. Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions. You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due. Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.

Pedro and Robert,
I don't understand this issue as well as some on this board. Is the general LDS consensus to explain the discrepency between the fac 3 interpretation Joseph Smith gave and what Egyptologists believe it says is that the roles of the various gods are being portrayed by those in the explanation. For example, the black slave is playing the role of Anubis by wearing a mask? Also, what does the part "characters above the hand" actually mean and does this involve a different interpretation in Abraham's time versus the time of the papyrus?
  • 0

#8 Olavarria

Olavarria

    Got Mo'?

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,971 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 06:05 AM

Figure 1, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Egyptian God Osris.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand."

Figure 2, according to Egyptologists, refers to Isis, the wife of Osris.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

FIgure 3, according to Egyptologists, is simply a libation platform.
But according to Joseph Smith it: "Signifies Abraham in Egypt"

Figure 4, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Goddess Maat.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

FIgure 5, according to Egyptologists, refers to Hor.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

FIgure 6, according to Egyptologists, refers to the God Anubis.
But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince."

Don't tell me. Scholars get things wrong all the time?


Hey Xander,

I personally don't have an opinion on Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles. There are various theories about how Joseph's explanations relate to the Egyptian. Was it a modern redaction by Joseph? Was it an ancient Egyptian redaction? Were the vignettes of the Hor BoB redacted for use in the BoA? I don't know.


What we can all agree on, Mormons or not, is the original Egyptian context. Have you read Rhodes or Ritner's translations?

I'm just impressed with Abraham's claim the true priesthood order he belonged to and the Egyptian priesthood came from the same source. If that is true, then Egyptian priesthood and true priesthood should be similiar. Using Mormon terms, the Hor Book of Breathings can be described as an Ancient Egyptian Endowment.

Edited by Pedro A. Olavarria, 10 July 2011 - 06:06 AM.

  • 0

#9 Olavarria

Olavarria

    Got Mo'?

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,971 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 07:00 AM

Pedro and Robert,
I don't understand this issue as well as some on this board. Is the general LDS consensus to explain the discrepency between the fac 3 interpretation Joseph Smith gave and what Egyptologists believe it says is that the roles of the various gods are being portrayed by those in the explanation. For example, the black slave is playing the role of Anubis by wearing a mask? Also, what does the part "characters above the hand" actually mean and does this involve a different interpretation in Abraham's time versus the time of the papyrus?

I just spend 30 minutes writing a response and then accidently closed the MADB window on google chrome aghagahagah!!

I was basically fleshing out what I wrote here.

http://www.mormondia...scension-drama/

Basically, when you look at Jacob's shulam in Genesis and BoJared's shelem in the Book of Ether and Joseph's Shulem in Facsimile 3, what you have are 3 cases were Shulem/shulam/shelem is being used in the context of men being brought into the presence of God.

Edited by Pedro A. Olavarria, 10 July 2011 - 07:31 AM.

  • 0

#10 bjw

bjw

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,487 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:47 PM

I just spend 30 minutes writing a response and then accidently closed the MADB window on google chrome aghagahagah!!

I was basically fleshing out what I wrote here.

http://www.mormondia...scension-drama/

Basically, when you look at Jacob's shulam in Genesis and BoJared's shelem in the Book of Ether and Joseph's Shulem in Facsimile 3, what you have are 3 cases were Shulem/shulam/shelem is being used in the context of men being brought into the presence of God.

Thanks for the link. I was unaware that Shulem had a connection with the ascension motif. Is there anything about Olimlah?
  • 0

#11 LeSellers

LeSellers

    Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,845 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 06:48 AM

I just spend 30 minutes writing a response and then accidently closed the MADB window on google chrome aghagahagah!!

Firefox has a marvelous add-in called Lazarus. I (unfortunately) use it regulaly.

Lehi
  • 0
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp

#12 Loran Blood

Loran Blood

    Hello All You Happy People

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 09:14 AM

Xander, or Kevin,
Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say. Your comments here show no effort to do any of that. Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions. You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due. Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.



In vain, I've made numerous such attempts at getting Kevin to actually think through his criticisms and approach them in an intellectually substantive manner, rather than as a snide, angry polemicist. Neither I nor anyone else I am aware of has, as of yet, succeeded in any such endeavor. I certainly wish Robert well in his own sincere point of order here.
  • 2
"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas." - Lord Acton
"The smarter authoritarians have also read Foucault—and they understand very well that when it comes to discrediting liberty, license works better than repression - Martha Bayles

#13 Loran Blood

Loran Blood

    Hello All You Happy People

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 09:28 AM

Scholars aren't divided on the meanings of these images/symbols.




Except that the "meanings" of the symbols and motifs took on multiple layers of meaning and interpretation over time as Egyptian religion developed and matured. I think the idea that Egyptian religious iconography can be approached, as to interpretation, in such a simplistic, black and white manner is indicative of the author's desire to use it as a polemical tool, and not a sincere "search for truth," as Kevin claims is his real aim.
  • 3
"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas." - Lord Acton
"The smarter authoritarians have also read Foucault—and they understand very well that when it comes to discrediting liberty, license works better than repression - Martha Bayles

#14 Xander

Xander

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,229 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 10:35 AM

In vain, I've made numerous such attempts at getting Kevin to actually think through his criticisms and approach them in an intellectually substantive manner, rather than as a snide, angry polemicist.




Then perhaps you could provide a quick reference to one of these "numerous attempts." We all know that all you have ever done is attack me in ways similar to what you have just done above. But it is rather funny how some folks decide to go the apologetic route of claiming Egyptology is essentially worthless. As if it will keep changing to the point that all of Joseph Smith's erroneous explanations will one day become correct. Male gods will become females and female gods will eventually become males! I mean that is what you really need to happen, and to think it will is not "thinking through" your own argument.


Calling everything I say "angry" is not offering "intellectually substantive" commentary. Anyone who knows me knows "angry" doesn't even begin to describe me. You're just another armchair psychologist with a particular hatred and paranoia for apostates. In your mind we're all angry, because that just complete's the picture for you.
  • 0

#15 Nemesis

Nemesis

    You...Obey The Fist

  • Senior Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 112,494 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 11:06 AM

I think the idea that Egyptian religious iconography can be approached, as to interpretation, in such a simplistic, black and white manner is indicative of the author's desire to use it as a polemical tool, and not a sincere "search for truth," as Kevin claims is his real aim.


Or you could let him speak for himself about his sincerity instead of using old baggage to pigeon hole him. We may not agree on a lot of issues but I think if both sides tried a lot harder to discuss things instead of entrenching ourselves good things could come out of all this.

Nemesis

#16 Loran Blood

Loran Blood

    Hello All You Happy People

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 05:43 PM

Or you could let him speak for himself about his sincerity instead of using old baggage to pigeon hole him. We may not agree on a lot of issues but I think if both sides tried a lot harder to discuss things instead of entrenching ourselves good things could come out of all this.

Nemesis



What was the point of this response? No, I don't know either. If Nibley and other LDS scholars have shown anything over the years, it is that Kevin's standard argument from authority, which he routinely deploys in lieu of the adducing of actual evidence on other issues as well as the question of BofA origins, in this case of the form "Scholars aren't divided on the meanings of these images/symbols." is a brash oversimplification of the actual nature of the "images/symbols" and the meanings they have accreted and supported over time.

I think Robert's reply was apropos:

Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say. Your comments here show no effort to do any of that. Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions. You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due. Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.


As someone with years of experience debating Mr. Graham, I'll just second that response here again.
  • 1
"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas." - Lord Acton
"The smarter authoritarians have also read Foucault—and they understand very well that when it comes to discrediting liberty, license works better than repression - Martha Bayles

#17 Loran Blood

Loran Blood

    Hello All You Happy People

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 551 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 06:03 PM


Then perhaps you could provide a quick reference to one of these "numerous attempts."



Years worth? No thanks. In any case, you're perfectly aware of them without my reminding you of their nature.


We all know that all you have ever done is attack me in ways similar to what you have just done above.


Given your long and distinguished history as a civil, respectful, intellectually mature interlocutor across a range of apologetic issues and with numerous LDS apologists here and at Shade's board, please forgive my savage, unfair, beastly attacks upon your profound intellectual integrity.

But it is rather funny how some folks decide to go the apologetic route of claiming Egyptology is essentially worthless. As if it will keep changing to the point that all of Joseph Smith's erroneous explanations will one day become correct. Male gods will become females and female gods will eventually become males! I mean that is what you really need to happen, and to think it will is not "thinking through" your own argument.


But the "images/symbols" you mention are a body of religious iconography far more nuanced and textured than critics like yourself allow, and when faced with interlocutors who actually understand this aspect of ancient Egyptian religious symbolism and have the substantive knowledge of Egyptology that you do not possess, you tend towards an immediate retreat to the bluster of "all scholars agree..." Its a long and well worn pattern.

Calling everything I say "angry" is not offering "intellectually substantive" commentary. Anyone who knows me knows "angry" doesn't even begin to describe me. You're just another armchair psychologist with a particular hatred and paranoia for apostates. In your mind we're all angry, because that just complete's the picture for you.


Anyone who "knows" you as an online critic of the Church, over at least the last four or five years or so, knows that "angry," indeed, does not begin to describe the level of fervency, intensity, psychological obsessiveness, and emotional focus you bring to your historic criticisms of the Church in this and other forums.

Please don't return bad behavior for bad behavior. Kevin is suspended for a feud with another poster for a couple more days. Don't pile on in his absence. - Ares
  • 0
"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas." - Lord Acton
"The smarter authoritarians have also read Foucault—and they understand very well that when it comes to discrediting liberty, license works better than repression - Martha Bayles

#18 J Green

J Green

    a step behind the dog

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 966 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 06:52 PM

Pedro,

Bien, buen siervo y fiel . . .

I loved the ascension connection when I read your previous post the first time. It's such a great insight.


Cheers
  • 0
Literary Themes in the Book of Mormon: ordinary thoughts on an extraordinary volume of scripture

"FRANCESCA prided herself on being able to see things from other people's points of view, which meant, as it usually does, that she could see her own point of view from various aspects." Saki, in The Unbearable Bassington

#19 altersteve

altersteve

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,794 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 07:05 PM

Xander just seems to be another critic who enjoys telling us what we believe, and painting "you have to believe this or that" picture. His criticisms are nothing new and they have all been addressed several times. Criticisms like his are getting tiring. Please, Xander, be civil at the very least.
  • 0

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
—Mahatma Ghandi


#20 Skylla

Skylla

    Six Headed Man Eating Beast

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,337 posts

Posted 12 July 2011 - 11:59 AM

Xander is not the subject of this thread. Get back on topic.

Skylla
Banning people since 2006.


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users