Abraham And The Lion Couch

[Olavarria]

... AIDIO ORICH THAMBITO, Abraham who at... PLANOIEGCHIBIOTH bind them and the whole soul for her, NN [whom NN bore]... the female body of her, NN [whom NN bore], I conjure by the... [and] to inflame her, NN whom [NN bore] [Write these] words together with this picture [the lion couch vignette] on a new papyrus.

Lieden I 384 shows us:

1)At east 1 ancient egyptian priest from the greco roman period knew about the biblical Abraham

2) At least 1 ancient egyptian priest from the greco roman period connected the biblical* Abraham with a lion couch scene.

3) Joseph Smith Jr. was the first modern to connect Abraham and an egyptian lion couch.

Resistance is futile

OK, I confess, Im lazy.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/167911.ctl

*The same guy who made Leiden 384 made leiden 384

Leiden papyrus 383

" ....O god hohos, cause to be sealed, be satisfied, be satisfied, Jehovah. I never appear appear without causing awe, soul of souls., Jehovah Ariaha, Ariaha, act for her, while they turn the face of the rebel, four sided one, Ianian; we act while I initiate the four-sided one. Send me the god in whose hand is the command so that he may tell me the answer to everything about which I inquire here today. Come in this multitude, O fury of Re! O creator who caused creation to come into being, Abraham, the pupil of the wedjat-eye, four fold creator, the great creator, who caused creation to be created, great verdant creation."

[Dale]

I have gotten to the point that I don't care if Joseph Smith redacted the text according to his modern sensibilities. Though like Kevin Barney suggested an ancient Jewish/Egyptian redactor could have reinterpreted the facimilies according to his sensibilities.

Abuse of Osirus to be interpreted as Abraham may not have been unique to Joseph Smith. So that radical re-interpretation of the facimilie No. 1 is within the realm of possibility.

[William Schryver]

See comment below ...

[Chris Smith]

You might add one more item:

At least one priest in the Greco-Roman period shows an Anubis-masked figure holding a knife over a figure representing Abraham.

No he doesn't. We've had this conversation with Her Amun before. Read Ashment.

[Dale]

A response to Ed Ashment is online at: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=171

[Olavarria]

No he doesn't. We've had this conversation with Her Amun before. Read Ashment.

Hey Schriv

I really dont see a knife in Leiden 384. I see an Anubis(masked priest or the actual diety) cupping what might be a lamp in one hand.

Also, I see a mummy on the couch. Whether it is Abraham or some babe, I dont know. No one knows because the papyrus has not survived intact. Abraham "who at/who upon" are two different translations for Epsolon, Pi, Iota, pronouced "epi" as in epidermis. Or according to Gee, could be taked as old coptic "who to this". Who at what? Who upon what? WHo to this what? We'll never know. One thing is certain though, the egyptian prest believed the text and the image went together hence the "....words together with this picture on a new papyrus". We morms are the first moderns to connect a lion couch with Abraham, what that means to a non-believer is a whole nother matter.

[William Schryver]

Hey Schriv

I really dont see a knife in Leiden 384. I see an Anubis(masked priest or the actual diety) cupping what might be a lamp in one hand.

Also, I see a mummy on the couch. Whether it is Abraham or some babe, I dont know. No one knows because the papyrus has not survived intact. Abraham "who at/who upon" are two different translations for Epsolon, Pi, Iota, pronouced "epi" as in epidermis. Or according to Gee, could be taked as old coptic "who to this". Who at what? Who upon what? WHo to this what? We'll never know. One thing is certain though, the egyptian prest believed the text and the image went together hence the "....words together with this picture on a new papyrus". We morms are the first moderns to connect a lion couch with Abraham, what that means to a non-believer is a whole nother matter.

Armed with my new glasses ............. I can see you are absolutely correct. I retract my comment on that point.

As to Ashment somehow casting doubt on whether or not these papyri mention Abraham, I will simply do as Dale did and refer the reader to John Gee's evisceration of Ashment's arguments as linked above.

Ashment is desperate to dismiss the notion, but his desperation only serves to humiliate him in the end. There are indisputable examples of Greco-Roman period Egyptian priestly texts that reference Abraham, and we can see above that one associates him with a lion-couch scene.

[Olavarria]

Armed with my new glasses ............. I can see you are absolutely correct. I retract my comment on that point.

As to Ashment somehow casting doubt on whether or not these papyri mention Abraham, I will simply do as Dale did and refer the reader to John Gee's evisceration of Ashment's arguments as linked above.

Ashment is desperate to dismiss the notion, but his desperation only serves to humiliate him in the end. There are indisputable examples of Greco-Roman period Egyptian priestly texts that reference Abraham, and we can see above that one associates him with a lion-couch scene.

No prob bob

The problem with Ashment's analysis was that he was overstating Gee's position(I know what thats like). Gee never said that the Theban Cache "proves" the BoA true. He simply said that Abraham was known by some egyptian priests from the GR period and that he 1)was assocated with a lion couch scene and that 2)He was associated with the Wedjat Eye, a possible link to the hypocephalus which itself represented the Wedjat eye of Horus or Re. Nothing more, nothing less.

But Ashment cant refute those facts so he says "they say this is proof for the BoA". Oi vei. No one said it was.

[Chris Smith]

As to Ashment somehow casting doubt on whether or not these papyri mention Abraham, I will simply do as Dale did and refer the reader to John Gee's evisceration of Ashment's arguments as linked above.

Ashment is desperate to dismiss the notion, but his desperation only serves to humiliate him in the end. There are indisputable examples of Greco-Roman period Egyptian priestly texts that reference Abraham, and we can see above that one associates him with a lion-couch scene.

I never suggested that Ashment casts doubt on whether these papyri mention Abraham. His essay doesn't decide that question one way or another, and when I read his essay I concluded based solely on the evidence he provided that it does in fact mention Abraham. However, he does think it very unlikely that Abraham is the one lying on the couch, and I very much agree with him. I also think Her Amun's "connection with the lion couch" is vastly overstated. Abraham is used as a magic word in a papyrus that uses a bunch of them, and that also includes a lion couch scene as a sort of magic talisman. In my less-than-humble opinion, the connection between Abraham and the lion couch is tenuous and coincidental.

-CK

[William Schryver]

I never suggested that Ashment casts doubt on whether these papyri mention Abraham. His essay doesn't decide that question one way or another, and when I read his essay I concluded based solely on the evidence he provided that it does in fact mention Abraham. However, he does think it very unlikely that Abraham is the one lying on the couch, and I very much agree with him. I also think Her Amun's "connection with the lion couch" is vastly overstated. Abraham is used as a magic word in a papyrus that uses a bunch of them, and that also includes a lion couch scene as a sort of magic talisman. In my less-than-humble opinion, the connection between Abraham and the lion couch is tenuous and coincidental.

-CK

Have you bothered to read Dr. Gee's rebuttal of Ashment's paper? I understand that it is quite popular to dismiss John Gee as some bumbling nincompoop these days -- a stance popularized by Kevin Graham and others whose qualifications to pass such judgment are, to say the least, questionable. This particular essay of Gee's ought to dispel that myth. And, should you deign to read it (it is quite long -- be forewarned) you will discover that there are many references to Abraham in these kinds of papyri dating to the period in question. The argument that the word Abraham is simply used as some kind of mindless enchantment is, quite simply, not supported by the evidence. It is an assertion made by Ashment that has no foundation, other than his anxiety to, as quickly as possible, dismiss the relationship between Abraham and anything related to Greco-Roman Egypt.

[Olavarria]

I never suggested that Ashment casts doubt on whether these papyri mention Abraham. His essay doesn't decide that question one way or another, and when I read his essay I concluded based solely on the evidence he provided that it does in fact mention Abraham.

No, for sure The comments I made about Ashment's assesment are independant of your comments. I never said "you say XYZ." Im only saying that Ashemnt said XYZ.

However, he does think it very unlikely that Abraham is the one lying on the couch, and I very much agree with him.

I honestly dont know either way. The papyrus is incomplete.

I also think Her Amun's "connection with the lion couch" is vastly overstated.

How so? All I said was:

1)At east 1 ancient egyptian priest from the greco roman period knew about the biblical Abraham

FACT

2) At least 1 ancient egyptian priest from the greco roman period connected the biblical* Abraham with a lion couch scene.

FACT

3) Joseph Smith Jr. was the first modern to connect Abraham and an egyptian lion couch.

FACT

Now, what that means in terms of theology is a completly different matter.

Abraham is used as a magic word in a papyrus that uses a bunch of them, and that also includes a lion couch scene as a sort of magic talisman

and...

In my less-than-humble opinion, the connection between Abraham and the lion couch is tenuous and coincidental.

a respectable position, but it doesnt discount my OP. Again, what that means in terms of theology is a completly different matter.