Abraham in Greco-Roman period Egyptian Texts

[Olavarria]

Here's a translation in a non-mormon book

Any thoughts?

[mediator]

Old news that has been responded to rather effectively by Ed Ashment.

What are YOUR thoughts?

[Olavarria]

I think John Gee effectivly refuted Ashment.

Here is Ashment's paper.

Here is Gee's refutation.

What are my thoughts?

1)Joseph Smith connected Abraham to a lion couch scene.

2)An ancient Egyptian priest from the Greco-Roman era connected Abraham to a lion couch scene.

Whether one see's that as divine inspiration or dumb luck is another issue.

To quote Gee: "The idea of connecting a lion couch scene found in a Greco-Roman period Egyptian papyrus from Thebes with Abraham can no longer be dismissed as absurd."

[Avatar4321]

Let's face it Joseph Smith was the luckiest man who ever lived. He just happened to get a number of very obscure things dead on correct.

[Pahoran]

LOL!

What exactly did Gee "refute"? I doubt you even read either piece.

Then perhaps we should call on someone who has an unbiased view of the question to settle it for us. Perhaps such an unbiased person will be one who habitually describes an entire population group as "paranoid."

But somehow I doubt it.

Saying Abraham has been "connected with" a lion couch is misleading because all you have is the word Abraham, and Ashment explains why it is hardly surprising that Abraham would appear on such texts.

Yes, Ashment labours mightily to explain it away as a mere "abracadabra word." And Gee demonstrates that Ashment is simply wrong here; everyone who's actually read the papyrus -- except Ashment -- agrees that it is in fact the name of the biblical patriarch Abraham.

misleading because all you have is the word Abraham, and AshmentBut the huge distinction is that Joseph Smith gets virtually everything else wrong, even the way Abraham is "connected" to a lion couch scene. According to Smith, Abraham is actually pictured and is being sacrificed by knife, which is unsupported anywhere else.

Much to your relief.

And Gee couldn't refute anyone if he tried. This is the same guy who has a history of misrepresenting source documents to benefit his apologetic needs.

Permit me to fix that up for you:

This is the same PhD qualified Egyptologist who has been falsely accused by rabid Mormon-haters of misrepresenting source documents to benefit his apologetic needs.

There. Now it's accurate.

Tell us which part of this Gee "refuted"?

All of it.

Gee doesn't even address the response to to his silly seerstone theory, but decided to overwhelm his readers with 400 footnotes to make them think that somewhere in that pile of nonsense, there must exist a "refutation" to Ashment. It is the oldest trick in the book. NIbley did it a lot.

Yes, the remorseless campaign to poison the well against faithful LDS scholars goes on. I can understand why Nibley still excites the spite of malicious people.

Regards,

Pahoran

[urroner]

What exactly did Gee "refute"? I doubt you even read either piece.

Dang Pedro, you have just been called a poser. Please note that mediator never said that he had read both, but when it comes to seriously wanting to discuss things as opposed to lecturing us dumba$$ Mermans, mediator seems to be a 100% poser royale.

[Olavarria]

The following is what I think is the most compelling part of Gee's paper.

Out of the Mainstream

The fundamental issue is whether or not the name Abraham appears in Egyptian papyri. To this the answer is without question in the affirmative. The article in the Ensign listed six examples;32 many other references could have been given.33 From reading Ashment's booklet, on the other hand, one might receive the impression that the author of the Ensign article saw the name Abraham where it does not actually exist.34 This is clearly not the case, since no scholar who seriously works with these papyri doubts the existence in them of the name Abraham.35 So confident are scholars that the name does occur in these papyri, that they are willing to restore it into lacunae in the papyri.36 That the name refers to the biblical Abraham is both undisputed and indisputable when the papyrus mentions "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."37 Nor is Abraham the only biblical figure to appear in the papyri, since the names Isaac,38 Jacob,39 Solomon,40 Eve,41 Seth,42 and Moses43 also appear. The name Moses even appears in a demotic papyrus where, in a lamp divination text (an Egyptian technique for receiving revelation),44 the supplicant requests the god to "reveal thyself to me here today in the type of form of revealing thyself to Moses which thou didst on the mountain upon which thou createdest the darkness and the light."45

Further corroboration of the use of the name Abraham by ancient pagan Egyptians is provided by a decidedly unsympathetic ancient author. The Egyptian Christian Origen, writing in the early third century, reported that "many of those who call upon the divine powers use 'the God of Abraham' in their speeches, even feigning friendship with God's righteous one through the name because they mention the words 'the God of Abraham' although they have not learned who Abraham is. The same must be said about Isaac, and Jacob and Israel; which names, although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result by means of their knowledge."46 Thus ancient Egyptian documents contain the name Abraham,47 modern scholars who study these documents say that they mention the name Abraham, and other ancient sources say that the Egyptians used the name Abraham. Most people seem to be convinced that there has been sufficient "demonstration that a name exists, and is not unlikely in the given region and period."48 To my knowledge, the only person who doubts that the name Abraham exists in the papyri is Edward H. Ashment. Ashment, who finds himself outside the mainstream of scholarship on this point, must give some convincing evidence to support this denial.

Despite such clear and overwhelming evidence, Ashment argues that the name is not Abraham, and certainly not the biblical Abraham, because (1) the demotic name identified as Abraham is not spelled the same way in demotic as the name of the construction worker Abram;49 (2) the demotic name identified as Abraham is spelled similarly to the name Abrasax; Ashment thinks that the two names are etymologically related and that, therefore, the demotic name is not that of the biblical Abraham since he has constructed a different etymology. Unfortunately Ashment's argument from etymology will not bear scrutiny. His test case for etymology is the name Abrasax, which appears three times in the papyrus in question.50 In P. Lond. demot. 10070 + P. Lugd. Bat. J 383 (PDM xiv) at 23/24 (=698) the name appears as cbrc-ste-cks51 and is glossed in Old Coptic as Abrasax, but at both 13/27 (=392) and v 12/8 (=1033) the name is spelled 3brcscks. This is clearly the same name and has been taken so by all scholars who have edited the papyrus.52 The switch between an cayin © and an aleph (3) does not pose a problem in demotic since these two sounds have coalesced.53 Thus the spelling of a foreign name is not necessarily an indication of the etymology of the name. Ashment clings to the reading "ABRAHME" based on the transcription cbr-hme despite (1) the Old Coptic gloss abrakham, (2) the fact that the demotic word transcribed hme becomes the Coptic word "craftsman,"54 (3) the acknowledgment of the translation he was using that "the spelling of the magical names given here [Ashment's source] is based on the Demotic spelling supplemented by the Old Coptic spelling,"55 even though "many Demotic words are still spelled historically, with no evidence of the actual pronunciation,"56 and (4) the fact that "the alphabetic signs were added to the Demotic spellings for the same reason that they were used in the magical names

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL!

What exactly did Gee "refute"? I doubt you even read either piece.

Saying Abraham has been "connected with" a lion couch is misleading because all you have is the word Abraham, and Ashment explains why it is hardly surprising that Abraham would appear on such texts. But the huge distinction is that Joseph Smith gets virtually everything else wrong, even the way Abraham is "connected" to a lion couch scene. According to Smith, Abraham is actually pictured and is being sacrificed by knife, which is unsupported anywhere else.

This is the equivalent of having an expert come on TV and tell everyone that the missile they just saw off the cost of CA is really not a missile but an airplane.

The reality is that Ed Ashment raises no good points and we are all dumber for having read his matieral.

BTW eye witness testimony from anti-mormons of the time tell us that the priest had a knife in his hand.

So your assertion is flat out false.

[Mortal Man]

BTW eye witness testimony from anti-mormons of the time tell us that the priest had a knife in his hand.

They were looking at the reconstruction, not the papyrus itself.

If you take a look at the first image in this post, you'll see that all four edges of the successive lacunae match up across Anubis' wrist. These lacunae were formed as Chandler pulled the rolled-up scroll from its bitumen casing and the top edge tore off. For the hand/knife to have been present, the second layer would have somehow had to escape the tearing imposed on the adjacent layers, both above and below, and then the vignette would have later had to be torn to precisely coincide with the other lacunae, which extend throughout the extant papyrus.

[oremites]

This is the equivalent of having an expert come on TV and tell everyone that the missile they just saw off the cost of CA is really not a missile but an airplane.

Except no one saw a missile. What everyone saw is a video. The question isn't what people saw, but what the video shows. A subtle but important difference.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Except no one saw a missile. What everyone saw is a video. The question isn't what people saw, but what the video shows. A subtle but important difference.

Yes you are correct.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For the hand/knife to have been present, the second layer would have somehow had to escape the tearing imposed on the adjacent layers, both above and below, and then the vignette would have later had to be torn to precisely coincide with the other lacunae, which extend throughout the extant papyrus.

Perhaps.

I have some ideas as to what the papryi that we have left are. Of course I really don't have the patients to formulate a theory and try and test it out. Over the past little bit William has given me some food for thought over the issue. I think I agree with him.

I am certainly not arguing that JS translated in the tradional sense of the words of these paparyi fragments.

[Skylla]

Pahoran:

Please don't alter quotes from others here.

Skylla

[Joseph Antley]

John Gee: "the only person who doubts that the name Abraham exists in the papyri is Edward H. Ashment."

And now the facts...

Edward H. Ashment: "It is not surprising that the biblical name 'Abraham' would be popular in the spells

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And yes, Gee has misrepresented documents. Chris Smith illustrated this awhile back and it cost him his posting privileges. But that hardly scratches the surface of evidence against Gee... Arbitrarily calling the evidence "anti-Mormon lies" is just a discussion killing mechanism aimed to salvage tribal loyalties. So what's the point of even trying to shed light on that subject?

You have a really bad habbit of constantaly making things up out of whole cloth. Who in this thread has dismissed his stuff as "anti-Mormon lies".

Long on words short on substance you are.

BTW Chris Smith still posts here. You might want to edit your post to clarify that it temporarily was suspended, if that was even that case.

CFR

I have a feeling that if it is true then he did something against the board rules. It is not that he posted some information that was critical of the church. People do that all the time and never get so much as a nod from the mods about it let alone a suspention.

[Chris Smith]

Thanks to urroner for bringing this thread to my attention. I have not lost my posting privileges here, though I've been suspended a few times. I definitely have been involved in a few exchanges about Gee, and on one occasion several years ago accused him of willful deception. I soon regretted my remarks, and have apologized for them on multiple occasions. I also edited the post in question. While I am still of the opinion that most of Gee's conclusions about the Book of Abraham are deeply flawed, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to his motives and sincerity.

Feel free to use my research to critique Gee's, but please don't cite me as an authority on his character.

Thanks and peace,

-Chris

[Olavarria]

Thanks to urroner for bringing this thread to my attention. I have not lost my posting privileges here, though I've been suspended a few times. I definitely have been involved in a few exchanges about Gee, and on one occasion several years ago accused him of willful deception. I soon regretted my remarks, and have apologized for them on multiple occasions. I also edited the post in question. While I am still of the opinion that most of Gee's conclusions about the Book of Abraham are deeply flawed, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to his motives and sincerity.

Feel free to use my research to critique Gee's, but please don't cite me as an authority on his character.

Thanks and peace,

-Chris

Some things should just be allowed to die

[Joseph Antley]

The reality is no one here has actually read Ashment, so if you're really "dumb" as you say, well, you'll have to blame that on someone else.

This might count as one of the things that you've made up. I am here, and I have read both Ashment's and Gee's articles.

[Calm]

I am curious, mediator, did you read the actual sources referred to in order to see if Gee's footnotes were relevant yourself before declaring them worthless in refuting Ashment's claims?

[Olavarria]

This might count as one of the things that you've made up. I am here, and I have read both Ashment's and Gee's articles.

No you didn't. Mediator can read minds.

[urroner]

No you didn't. Mediator can read minds.

No Pedro, it's worse than that. mediator can not only read minds, but he has the ability to peer into both the past and the future, but also able to perceive the whole present. If he has said that not one of us Mermaners have read Ashment, then he speaks from a position of irrefutable authority. He has seen our past and he knows. I am humbled in his presence. I am not worthy.

[Olavarria]

No Pedro, it's worse than that. mediator can not only read minds, but he has the ability to peer into both the past and the future, but also able to perceive the whole present. If he has said that not one of us Mermaners have read Ashment, then he speaks from a position of irrefutable authority. He has seen our past and he knows. I am humbled in his presence. I am not worthy.

Mediator watched Steel Magnolias and shed tears, he said "Julia Roberts is so strong" and then stuffed more bonbons down his mouth.

I know this by the same power he uses to know what we read.

[Joseph Antley]

Who gives a flying flip about the word "magic"? Gee has used it in his own presentations in academic venues referring to the "Greek Magical papyri." So why is Ashment to be lambasted for using it?

If you had read Ashment's article, you would have seen the following statement where he implies that Gee is somehow at fault for not pointing out that it is a "magical" text:

The documentation that Gee offers as evidence of his extraordinary assertions comes from magical papyri

[volgadon]

He even included himself in the list!

Ashment cross-references himself 8 times in his article. Goose and gander.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ashment cross-references himself 8 times in his article. Goose and gander.

Let me preempt this, "Did you even read the artilce. Geeze!"