Jump to content

Why Are There Engravings Of Egyptian Funeral Documents In My Quad?


kamenraider

Recommended Posts

I'm sure this has been discussed on this board before, but I haven't found where. If Abraham 1:14 refers to facsimile #1, wouldn't that prove that the Book of Abraham was translated from the scroll that Joseph Smith Papyrus I was part of? I have a problem with accepting that Abraham 1:14 refers to facsimile #1 because the original Book of Breathings scroll in question dates only to the early Roman (or possibly late Ptolemaic) period, and doesn't seem to correlate with the Book of Abraham as far as its overall content. Should I understand the explanations of the facsimiles as being as speculative as the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, or should I regard them as inspired to the point of being correct and even scriptural? Were the facsimiles published in the Times & Seasons and Pearl of Great Price with the intention of them being regarded as part of the Book of Abraham, or did they just happen to be canonized later because they were already there and were assumed to be a part of the Book of Abraham? Would it be a bad idea to remove them from the Pearl of Great Price?

Link to comment

I've been reading a lot of Hugh Nibley lately, and it seems like the Book of Breathings describes the early Egyptian temple ceremony and the complete creation drama from beginning to end. It appears that Abraham is temple literature and it starts giving the creation story at the end of the book. Had JS have translated more it probably would have given the rest of the story. If you believe Nibley's explanation, it seems like some of the facsimiles could have had paralells with Abraham's teachings but were later degenerated into the Egyptian mythology, which explains the paralells between the Egyptian story and the Bible. (such as Atum/Adam, etc.)

Link to comment

I've been reading a lot of Hugh Nibley lately, and it seems like the Book of Breathings describes the early Egyptian temple ceremony and the complete creation drama from beginning to end. It appears that Abraham is temple literature and it starts giving the creation story at the end of the book. Had JS have translated more it probably would have given the rest of the story. If you believe Nibley's explanation, it seems like some of the facsimiles could have had paralells with Abraham's teachings but were later degenerated into the Egyptian mythology, which explains the paralells between the Egyptian story and the Bible. (such as Atum/Adam, etc.)

Presumably if Joseph Smith had translated more, it would've included the story behind facsimile 3, which the explanation in the Pearl of Great Price says is about Abraham reasoning upon the principles of astronomy in Pharaoh's court, rather than it being about the dead guy Hor or Horus being judged before Osiris. As this illustrates, and as I said in the original post, I don't see the correlation between the Book of Breathings and the story of Abraham in the Book of Abraham. I believe that the Book of Abraham is scripture, that it really happened, etc., but I just don't think the facsimiles have any connection to it beyond being part of the same collection of Egyptian materials that Joseph Smith obtained in 1835. Am I wrong?

Link to comment

Couldn't you simply regard those Egyptian facsimiles as the McGuffin in an allegorical tale? They aren't really critical to the story. If something were to be left out, I would suggest that curse of the black skin stuff. It will only prove to be an embarrassment to future Mormons.

Link to comment

No. Nibley points out that vignettes frequently refer to text on completely different rolls.

So do you mean to imply that Abraham was referring to "figures" of the gods Amset, Hapi, Duamutef, Qebehsenuef and Sobek, that would not be drawn on a separate scroll containing the Book of Breathings until thousands of years later, to illustrate his reference to the gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash and Pharaoh that the Chaldean priest offered virgins to in his story?

Link to comment

So do you mean to imply that Abraham was referring to "figures" of the gods Amset, Hapi, Duamutef, Qebehsenuef and Sobek, that would not be drawn on a separate scroll containing the Book of Breathings until thousands of years later, to illustrate his reference to the gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash and Pharaoh that the Chaldean priest offered virgins to in his story?

Just so I know where you are coming from, are you trying to pick a fight and attack the Book of Abraham, or are you a member looking for answers?

Personally, I'm a fan of the Jewish redactor theory. But there are many variables and unknowns involved that I feel forced to say "I don't know" to finer details.

Link to comment

I'm a member and believe in the Book of Abraham as scripture as far as the text goes, but I don't see what the connection with the facsimiles is, and am wondering if/why we regard the explanations of the facsimiles as scripture, and why they are even in our scriptures in the first place, and also perhaps why we cant leave them out in the next edition.

Edit: Severian, to answer your post, since I believe in the Book of Abraham as scripture, I couldn't just think of it as an

allegorical tale (if that's what you meant), though I suppose I could understand why someone might think of the facsimiles as a MacGuffin. I don't think they are really central to the story of the coming forth of the Book of Abraham though, at least not any more than the scroll that contained the Book of Abraham itself (since I am assuming it wasn't the same one that contained the Book of Breathings for Hor).

Link to comment

I'm sure this has been discussed on this board before, but I haven't found where. If Abraham 1:14 refers to facsimile #1, wouldn't that prove that the Book of Abraham was translated from the scroll that Joseph Smith Papyrus I was part of? I have a problem with accepting that Abraham 1:14 refers to facsimile #1 because the original Book of Breathings scroll in question dates only to the early Roman (or possibly late Ptolemaic) period, and doesn't seem to correlate with the Book of Abraham as far as its overall content. Should I understand the explanations of the facsimiles as being as speculative as the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, or should I regard them as inspired to the point of being correct and even scriptural? Were the facsimiles published in the Times & Seasons and Pearl of Great Price with the intention of them being regarded as part of the Book of Abraham, or did they just happen to be canonized later because they were already there and were assumed to be a part of the Book of Abraham? Would it be a bad idea to remove them from the Pearl of Great Price?

I think this was a question many of us had at the FAIR conference when John Gee spoke on this very subject. While I don't have his exact words to the subject I do remember him saying that he really didn't know why they were included in the PofGP. They had little in common with the text. Perhaps someone who took better notes can correct me.

Link to comment

I think this was a question many of us had at the FAIR conference when John Gee spoke on this very subject. While I don't have his exact words to the subject I do remember him saying that he really didn't know why they were included in the PofGP. They had little in common with the text. Perhaps someone who took better notes can correct me.

Thanks -- that makes sense. I have Gee's A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri and actually thought of starting this thread while looking through it last night.

Zakuska,

I'm aware that Abraham lived in Egypt, and that Egypt played a role or had an influence on many events in Biblical history. This doesn't, however, help me understand any exact connection or correlation between the facsimiles and the text of the Book of Abraham. If you're aware of any specific ideas or explanations or whatever that could, then please post them.

Link to comment

When I was a little kid I always thought it was cool that one book of scripture actually came with pictures, and I like the funny little carton guy who looks like he is waving goodbye as he leaves the lower right hand corner of facsimile #3. Having said that, I still feel that each facsimile is scriptural. I'm just not scholarly enough to explain why. They could certainly have meaning beyond and in addition to what Egyptologists tell us.

Link to comment

Just so I know where you are coming from, are you trying to pick a fight and attack the Book of Abraham, or are you a member looking for answers?

Personally, I'm a fan of the Jewish redactor theory. But there are many variables and unknowns involved that I feel forced to say "I don't know" to finer details.

helix--

You must have a life. I spend way too much time here, so I know that KR is definitely a member looking for answers. His past posts manifestly demonstrate this. Maybe I need to get out more.

But, KR, if you're thinking of apostatizing, gimme a call.

Best to you both.

CKS

Link to comment

Selek, who was at Gee's recent presentation at the FAIR conference, reported this in this thread:

I also believe he stated that the original collection was broken into two pieces- the fragments which were mounted/framed, went east, and survived.

If I recall correctly, the larger portion (which contained the longest sections and which he suggested might have contained the actual BoA)were retained for a time, passed through several sets of private hands, and were ultimately destroyed in the Chicago fire.

If I understood his argument correctly, Gee was of the opinion that the surviving texts flatly had nothing to do with the BoA, but one of the lost scrolls (destroyed in the fire) was attributed to a highly influential and well connected high priest (who was a contemporary of Ptolomey III and the Rosetta Stone, if memory serves) who would have had access to the library where a record such as the BoA would have been kept.

From Gee's presentation, I gather that this priest would have been at the right time and right place to have had access to the BoA scroll and would have duplicated it as part of his heritage and duties.

Sounds good to me -- I've thought for a long time that Joseph & company must've thought (incorrectly) that the scroll containing facsimile 1 was the beginning of Abraham's record. Maybe they assumed that it had been detached from the other scroll, I dunno.

I also wanted to clarify that I'm aware that there are some pretty remarkable things in the explanations for the facsimiles, as far as Joseph interpreting their meaning goes (which I see as additional evidence that he is a prophet). I just think the explanations were speculative attempts to understand the papyri sort of like the Alphabet and Grammar was, and I don't think that they were meant to be understood as part of The Book of Abraham or our canon of scripture but wound up there because they had theretofore been published together. I'm still open to ideas or evidence to the contrary though, of course.

Also, CKSalmon,

But, KR, if you're thinking of apostatizing, gimme a call.

:P That's not gonna happen.

Link to comment

The first thing that's needed is to be able to identify who the characters in the Bible are within the historical context of that time period. I think it will become quite obvious that the popular history many have been taught to believe is a veil. The following two works, beyond the obvious bias of the author against Christianity and Judaism which I completely disagree with, present some very detailed information that may help shed some light on the Egyptian nature of the Books of 'Moses' and 'Abraham' and where many of the names of the biblical characters come from - outside of also being able to identify WHO these people really were within the 'out of Egypt' context (not the only context, of course) of 'Judaism and Christianity'. One thing to keep in mind, given that what's presented might seriously call into question the accepted 'history' of Judaism and Christianity, is that it's not the names or even the geography that's really important once we come to see the historical development of these religions more clearly - but the Message itself. The Gods/Heavenly Parents are the same and so is the goal... :P

Akhenaten

Ireland, Celts, and Horus

Link to comment

I'm sure this has been discussed on this board before, but I haven't found where. If Abraham 1:14 refers to facsimile #1, wouldn't that prove that the Book of Abraham was translated from the scroll that Joseph Smith Papyrus I was part of? I have a problem with accepting that Abraham 1:14 refers to facsimile #1 because the original Book of Breathings scroll in question dates only to the early Roman (or possibly late Ptolemaic) period, and doesn't seem to correlate with the Book of Abraham as far as its overall content. Should I understand the explanations of the facsimiles as being as speculative as the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, or should I regard them as inspired to the point of being correct and even scriptural? Were the facsimiles published in the Times & Seasons and Pearl of Great Price with the intention of them being regarded as part of the Book of Abraham, or did they just happen to be canonized later because they were already there and were assumed to be a part of the Book of Abraham? Would it be a bad idea to remove them from the Pearl of Great Price?

I think it would definitely be a bad idea to remove them.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml

Link to comment

I think it would definitely be a bad idea to remove them.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml

What is there in the link you provided that supports this thought? Please be specific.

(I don't have the time or patience to read through an entire loooong page and try to guess what you may be thinking regarding various parts of it, and figure out what parts you might want me to pay particular attention to.)

I s'pose I could ask you what i asked helix above:

So was Abraham referring to "figures" of the gods Amset, Hapi, Duamutef, Qebehsenuef and Sobek, that would not be drawn on a separate scroll containing the Book of Breathings until thousands of years later, to illustrate his reference to the gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash and Pharaoh that the Chaldean priest offered virgins to in his story?

There must've been different figures on the actual record of Abraham that he was referring to (which may have not been retained if the scroll the Book of Abraham was translated from was only a copy) since the content of the Book of Breathings doesn't match the content of the Book of Abraham. Like I said, Joseph and friends may have assumed that facsimile 1 had been at the beginning of the scroll since it has something that resembles a "bedstead" and five gods nearby. There were other vignettes on the Semminis scroll that we know were misinterpreted by at least Oliver Cowdery, and quite possibly Joseph and others, as illustrating scenes from the Bible (i.e. the sepent with legs, the pillar of Enoch, the Savior sitting in judgement, and a supposed representation of the godhead), so why couldn't they have likewise misinterpreted facsimile 1 as illustrating a scene from the Book of Abraham?

Link to comment

So was Abraham referring to "figures" of the gods Amset, Hapi, Duamutef, Qebehsenuef and Sobek, that would not be drawn on a separate scroll containing the Book of Breathings until thousands of years later, to illustrate his reference to the gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash and Pharaoh that the Chaldean priest offered virgins to in his story?

There must've been different figures on the actual record of Abraham that he was referring to (which may have not been retained if the scroll the Book of Abraham was translated from was only a copy) since the content of the Book of Breathings doesn't match the content of the Book of Abraham.

I don't believe Abraham penned Abraham 1:14.

As I said, I'm a fan of the redactor theory. I believe a redactor penned Abraham 1:14 and made the accompanying vignettes.

Link to comment

Couldn't you simply regard those Egyptian facsimiles as the McGuffin in an allegorical tale? They aren't really critical to the story. If something were to be left out, I would suggest that curse of the black skin stuff. It will only prove to be an embarrassment to future Mormons.

First time I seriously read Abraham I was very confused. The argument about Premortal valiance and even using the Book of Abraham to consider skin color a mark of intelligence was a joke. I mean, read it. Abraham blessed them with the blessings of the earth (wealth) and the blessing of wisdom. The kind of people you want to be in charge and associate with. Good to see that many LDS didn't let a little thing like their own canon stop them from reading a smug superiority from it. But then again LDS people still like to liken themselves to the Nephites and think that is a good thing.....

Link to comment

First time I seriously read Abraham I was very confused. The argument about Premortal valiance and even using the Book of Abraham to consider skin color a mark of intelligence was a joke. I mean, read it. Abraham blessed them with the blessings of the earth (wealth) and the blessing of wisdom. The kind of people you want to be in charge and associate with. Good to see that many LDS didn't let a little thing like their own canon stop them from reading a smug superiority from it. But then again LDS people still like to liken themselves to the Nephites and think that is a good thing.....

Hey Nehor, here is a quotation from Mormon philosopher Bill from Beliefnet that I thought was germane:

And yet, if one were to let go of the mythological backstory and simply enjoy the Pearl of Great Price as a work of enlightened fiction, an idea encased in symbolism, it's a piece of writing with merit. For those who enjoy the product, regardless of where or how it was made, the Pearl of Great Price is still "the word of God."

Link to comment

I don't believe Abraham penned Abraham 1:14.

As I said, I'm a fan of the redactor theory. I believe a redactor penned Abraham 1:14 and made the accompanying vignettes.

So verse 14 is a complete interpolation? And verses 12 and 13 as well? Why do you believe a redactor would put words in Abraham's mouth to refer the reader to common vignettes on a separate scroll belonging the mummy of a dead guy named Hor?

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...