The Book Of Abraham

[wenglund]

The third phrase in the Book of Abraham is: "I, Abraham, saw...".

This phrase also is not found in the EA's or the GAEL.

However, In the 1st degree of the EA's, the character with the sound "iota" is explained, in part, as meaning "see" or "me," whereas in the 1st degree of the GAEL it is explained to mean "I see." In the other degrees of the GAEL this character is explained as: "Seen or sight" (2nd degree), "Sight" (3rd degree), "me myself" (4th degree), and "see, saw, seeing, or having seen or having been seen."

So, for this character, the explanation in the 1st degree of the GAEL comes closest to the third phrase in the Book of Abraham. Yet, while it speaks in the same person ("I"), it speaks in the wrong tense ("see" rather than "saw").

Furthermore, the name, "Abraham," doesn't appear in any of the EA explanations (though several of the sounds are similar), It does show up in several of the degrees in the GAEL, Part 1, but indirectly as reference points or an example ("Zool" in the 2nd degree: "From Abraham back to his father and from Abraham's father," "Zool" in the 5th degree: "beginning at Abraham signifying the promises made to Abraham," "Zub Zool" in the 5th degree: "For instance: Abraham having been chosen before was sent by commandment into the Land of Canaan.")

To me, this is significant. If the EA's and GAEL were produced with the intent of translating the Book of Abraham, one would expect that at the very least they would be somewhat Abraham-specific or Abraham-oriented. As such, the fact that the EA's don't even mention Abraham, and the GAEL only mentions Abraham indirectly in 3 out of about 150 explanations of GAEL, Part 1, suggests that, like with the first two phrases, the EA and GAEL weren't used to translate the third phrase of the Book of Abraham. (More on this later)

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

-continued-

What about the Book of Genesis? Let's look again at Genesis 11:26 -28:

²⁶And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

²⁷Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

²⁸And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

Not only do the first three verses of the record of Abraham in the Book of Genesis NOT contain the phrase, "I, Abraham, saw...," but it speaks of "Abram" rather than "Abraham." In Genesis, we don't learn of the change of name from Abram to Abraham until the 17th chapter, whereas in the Book of Abraham we don't learn of the name change at all (only the name "Abraham" is used).

Also, you will note that in the Book of Genesis the record of Abraham is written in the 3rd person, whereas the Book of Abraham is written in the 1st person. The former is biographic (written about Abraham by someone other than Abraham), whereas the latter is autobiographic (written about Abraham by Abraham).

All of this tells me that, like with the first two phrases, the third phrase in the Book of Abraham was not derived from the Book of Genesis, though the two records of Abraham are consistent.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here is a critical argument: several of the points I have raised in the preceding posts appear to me to hold consistent while examining the remaining context of the Book of Abraham (or at least first three chapters).

First, while the Book of Abraham is obviously Abraham-specific and autobiographical, the EA's and GAEL are not (the Book of Genesis is also not autobiographical). In fact, as will be made apparent by my continued contextual explications, while the Book of Abraham and the EA's/GAEL contain a lot words and phrases in common, the former tends to be subject and tense-specific, but the later tends to be generic. In other words, the nouns and pronouns in the Book of Abraham tend to refer to specific persons, places, and things, and in relation to specific times; whereas the nouns and pronouns in the EA's/GAEL (most of the 69 characters are explained as nouns or pronouns) may refer to a variety of things at any time.

For example, the first three phrases of the Book of Abraham refer specifically to the land of the Chaldean and to Abraham. They identify the land of the Chaldean as the residence of Abraham's father, and presumably the first residence of Abraham. They speak in the 1st person, past tense ("I, Abraham, saw").

Whereas, the EA/GAEL speak generically of "man's first resident" (which could refer to any individual man or mankind in general), and are person or tense neutral: "see, saw, seeing, or having seen or having been seen."

Understanding this is critical to assessing the plausible intent and purpose of the GAEL, or more particularly what wasn't their intent and purpose.

As previously mentioned, it seems unlikely that the specific narrative of the Book of Abraham would have been derived piece-meal from the generic explanations of the EA's and GAEL, and thus one may reasonably conclude that the later was not intended for or used to translate the former, either in part or whole.

However, given how much of the language is shared in common, it seems reasonable to conclude that the later may have been derived from the former (i.e. the EA/GAEL were dependent upon a preexisting text of portions of the Book of Abraham), and that the later may have been intended to produce future texts in a newfound "Egyptian" language, with the generic nature of the various EA/GAEL explanations allowing future authors to, at their own discretion, make them subject-specific.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

With this having been said, it may prove interesting to step back a ways and look at the introduction to the Book of Abraham.

The title and/or introduction to Abr. Ms. #1, is in the handwriting of W.W. Phelps, and states: "Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt"

Readers of the Book of Abraham will notice that this is similar to what may be found in the current publication of the book: "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

Certain critics have argued that the word "translation" at the top of the first page of Abr. Ms. #1, is indication that all three 1835 Abraham manuscripts (in the handwriting respectively of Phelps/Parrish, Williams, and Parrish), with their Egyptian characters in the left-hand margins, are translation documents (two of which were allegedly dictated and the one copied), and that the Book of Abraham was believed to have been translated from those characters. Consequently, these critics presumptuously refer to the 1835 Abraham manuscripts as "translation manuscripts."

On the other hand, apologist have argued that word "translation" is in regards to the method by which the text of the Book of Abraham was received, and doesn't pertain specifically to the characters from which the text was alleged to have been translated. This is why, in part, the word "translation" only appears at the start of one of the three 1835 Abraham manuscripts (the other manuscripts start with "sign of the fifth degree of the second part"), and yet it also appears at the start of the 1842 Abraham manuscript as well as copies of the Book of Abraham today.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

-continued-

What the critics may not realize is that the title/introduction is actually evidence against not only the theory in question, but the conclusion stated above. Here is why:

If one argues that the EA/GAEL is the means by which even just the first three verses of Abraham was translated, and/or if one argues that the text of the Book of Abraham is presumably a dictated translation of the characters in the left margin of the 1835 Abraham manuscripts, and if one argues that the first three verses of Abr. Ms. #1 mark the beginning of the dictated translation (in other words, there was no translation or translation manuscript predating it), this would mean that the person or persons doing the translation would not, prior to translating, know who or what the translation was about and who authored the text being translated, and thus he couldn't title the work or give it an introduction until enough of the work had been translated to reasonably do so. In other words, prior to allegedly using the so-called key to initially translate the first three characters, how could the collaborators have figured that the translation would be about Abraham and was initially written in the first person and by Abraham's "own hand." At best all they would have known, based on the history of the papyri relayed to them by Chandler, is where the papyri may have been buried. The fact that there is an informed title/introduction, is against the theory that the EA/GAEL was intended and used to translate portions of the Book of Abraham.

The critics may respond by suggesting that Joseph had learned beforehand, in early July, while translating "some of the character," that the papyri contained the record of Abraham and Joseph of old, and as such, they may have known enough to draft the title/introduction.

However, this response is problematic in at least two respects. First, the notion of a translation of "some of the characters" prior to the existence of the EA/GAEL, raises the reasonable question of why, if Joseph could translate "some of the characters" without the EA/GAEL, would he need to go through the considerable effort to create the EA/GEAL in order to translate the other characters? Logically, he wouldn't. And, second, even if Joseph learned by way of that early translation, or even by revelation directly from God, simply that the papyri contained the record of Abraham and Joseph, this isn't sufficient to know that the scroll then about to be translated by dictation, and the characters from that scroll in particular, were the record of Abraham and not Joseph of old, and that record was written by Abraham rather than someone else (for all Smith may have known from the early translation, the record of Abraham may have been biographical rather than autobiographical).

Again, the existence of the title/introduction is against the theory, and may even provide evidence of a preexisting text of portions of the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Cold Steel]

They're free?!

Yes, they're downloadable. Just go to the website and go to "Pearl of Great Price Lectures by Hugh W. Nibley." You can download them as mp3 or mov files (the latter playable with Quicktime). The DVDs are much clearer and you can see what he writes on the board, but you can see it in the mov files, too.

The first lecture is entitled, Restoring That Which Was Lost. Go there and download the file you prefer. The more you know about the Pearl of Great Price, the more you'll get out of the lectures. They're fascinating. There are also a series of lectures on Nibley himself, and they're somewhat bland (the introductions are almost as long as the lectures themselves).

[Robert F. Smith]

A person's arguments can be judged by the number of minds he wins over.

Are you sure that this is a valid statement? Wouldn’t that merely be an example of sophistry in action? Is winning the debate a reason why we should vote for someone, for example? Just saying . . .

I have Church members come to my home every other week, and this has been regular for years. I've yet to meet a single person who can tell me anything about the Book of Abraham papyrus that is remotely accurate. Just last week an old couple in their late 70's tried telling me Joseph Smith's translations were proven correct, simply because Michael Rhodes asserted something like this in his Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. A few months ago the sister missionaries couldn't tell me anything about the source for the BoA. Nothing. They just looked at each other expecting the other to come up with an answer to a very basic question, but they both came up blank. Another telling social experiment is to go to the Church's website and speak to a live missionary. Ask some basic questions about this subject and then see how long it takes for the representative to come up with a cut and pasted response from some Church manual. Ultimately they tell me to pray about it and then leave it at that.

I have noted much the same over the years on nearly any specialized aspect of Scriptural analysis, although I never set out to cynically test the innocent (young or old). Toying with people who have not spent an adequate amount of time studying a subject (years no doubt) seems a nasty business, unworthy of a true scholar. Moreover, since Mormon theology centers on an epistemology not requiring a scholarly understanding, perhaps a little deference is called for. Finally, when hectoring the ignorant on the "truth," it is always a good idea to be nice. You can make so many more converts that way. Truly.

So I will put something together this weekend and post it in new thread dedicated to that specific subject.

Good to hear this. All of us ignoramuses (speaking only for myself, of course) will be forever grateful for that -- have you considered hostng a webinar?

[Robert F. Smith]

I’m looking for some quality background information about the Book of Abraham in Layman’s terms. I truly want to get more acquainted with this subject. I'd like to get a good balance from both the believing and unbelieving perspectives. I especially want to hear from the scholars, but I encourage participation from everybody.

Believers: what are your reasons for believing in the Book of Abraham? What is it about this scripture that holds value to you? What have you learned from it?

Non-believers: what are the reasons why you feel this book is a fraud? Has it been proven?

You have stated your special desire to hear scholarly views pro or con on the status of the Book of Abraham, i.e., what is it about that small document which engenders respect on the one hand or contempt on the other?

We have seen some very narrow aspects of that issue dealt with here, sometimes with great vehemence of opinion, but with not much clarity left in the wake of the Sturm & Drang.

There are in my opinion, several sound empirical reasons for believing that the Book of Abraham is indeed an ancient document transmitted down through time to us (as authentic Scripture) – despite the fact that Holy Scripture often requires temporary suspension of disbelief in order to ascertain just what sort of claims are being made therein: Are we, for example, dealing with real history combined with figurative and symbolic presentations of myth & ritual, or nothing more than the literal and inerrant word of God? A good dose of anthropological reality helps in any such analysis, and doing so requires scansion of disinterested scholarly opinion (from third parties not caught up in the heat of sectarian debate). With that approach considerable progress can be made.

1. Loran Blood noted above (post #44) that various sorts of non-biblical Abrahamic legends which comport with what we find in the BofA are to be found swirling around within the Jewish community (especially in Egypt) at about the same time as the date of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Thesometimesaint (post #2) cited a huge authoritative assemblage of this sort in John Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, and John Gee, eds., Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham (FARMS/ ISPART, 2001), and several of the late Hugh Nibley’s works deal with those remarkable legends at even greater length.

The response by the anti-Mormon crowd has typically included dismissal as “parallelomania,” or the suggestion that such parallels could have been discovered by Joseph Smith in books available to him (Xander post #27),¹ perhaps in his local public library – the difficulty being that most of that traditional, legendary corpus was not available in Joseph Smith’s time, not even to the greatest scholars of his day. This is much the same difficulty which Dan Vogel meets in his theory that the Book of Mormon is based soley on information available to Joseph. We end up by implication with the absurd demand that Joseph be the greatest scholar of his day, perhaps obtaining his doctorate from Harvard while living in Salem, Mass, with his uncle.

¹ See Wesley Walters, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 16:30 (n 2),39 (n 58).

[Bill Hamblin]

You have stated your special desire to hear scholarly views pro or con on the status of the Book of Abraham, i.e., what is it about that small document which engenders respect on the one hand or contempt on the other?

We have seen some very narrow aspects of that issue dealt with here, sometimes with great vehemence of opinion, but with not much clarity left in the wake of the Sturm & Drang.

There are in my opinion, several sound empirical reasons for believing that the Book of Abraham is indeed an ancient document transmitted down through time to us (as authentic Scripture) – despite the fact that Holy Scripture often requires temporary suspension of disbelief in order to ascertain just what sort of claims are being made therein: Are we, for example, dealing with real history combined with figurative and symbolic presentations of myth & ritual, or nothing more than the literal and inerrant word of God? A good dose of anthropological reality helps in any such analysis, and doing so requires scansion of disinterested scholarly opinion (from third parties not caught up in the heat of sectarian debate). With that approach considerable progress can be made.

1. Loran Blood noted above (post #44) that various sorts of non-biblical Abrahamic legends which comport with what we find in the BofA are to be found swirling around within the Jewish community (especially in Egypt) at about the same time as the date of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Thesometimesaint (post #2) cited a huge authoritative assemblage of this sort in John Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, and John Gee, eds., Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham (FARMS/ ISPART, 2001), and several of the late Hugh Nibley’s works deal with those remarkable legends at even greater length.

The response by the anti-Mormon crowd has typically included dismissal as “parallelomania,” or the suggestion that such parallels could have been discovered by Joseph Smith in books available to him (Xander post #27),¹ perhaps in his local public library – the difficulty being that most of that traditional, legendary corpus was not available in Joseph Smith’s time, not even to the greatest scholars of his day. This is much the same difficulty which Dan Vogel meets in his theory that the Book of Mormon is based soley on information available to Joseph. We end up by implication with the absurd demand that Joseph be the greatest scholar of his day, perhaps obtaining his doctorate from Harvard while living in Salem, Mass, with his uncle.

¹ See Wesley Walters, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 16:30 (n 2),39 (n 58).

I've often thought of writing a pseudo-biography of Joseph Smith, called Joseph Smith: the Cambridge Years, in which I simply go through and tally up all the books JS must have read while working on his dissertation at Cambridge in order for anti-Mormon claims about JS to be true. Alas, I'm too lazy, and Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel have already written pseudo-biographies of JS.

[Robert F. Smith]

2. Systematic chiastic form in the BofA is an argument in favor of the authenticity of the book. Raymond E. Brown felt that the argument from chiastic form “tips the scales in favor of the authenticity” of the text so arranged,¹ while Mitchell Dahood likewise argued from the evidence of basic parallelism in favor of unity of authorship.² Indeed, moreso than any other culture of the ancient world, Egypt emphasized bilateral symmetry (mirror imagery) in monumental art, architecture, and inscriptions³: chiasmus.

The BofA consists of 5 major chiasms up to 4:2, following which a catechetical and iterative creation narrative follows (with a different poetic structure), and a chiastic, "redactional bridge" at 5:4 takes us into a very different Eden narrative. A number of smaller chiasms are evident, including:

1:11 Now, this priest

had offered upon this altar

three virgins at one time;

who were the daughters of Onitah,

one of royal descent,

directly from the loins of Ham.

These virgins

were offered up

1:15-16 I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God,

and the Lord hearkened and heard,

and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty,

and the angel of his Presence stood by me,

and immediately (un)loosed my bands,

and his voice was unto me:

3:23 And God saw these souls that they were good,

and he stood in the midst of them,

and he said: These I will make my rulers;

for he stood among those that were spirits,

and he saw that they were good;

¹ Brown, Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible 29A, II:725.

² Dahood, with T. Penar, Psalms III, 276,336; L. R. Fisher, ed., Ras Shamra Parallels, I, II; cf. Y. T. Radday, Beth Mikra, 20-21:48-72 (in Hebrew), with the same argument from chiasmus.

³ E. Iversen in J. Harris, ed., The Legacy of Egypt, 71-72; A. R. David, Religious Ritual at Abydos (c. 1300 B.C.), 108,116-117, and passim; cf. Kielland, Geometry in Egyptian Art, 2,8-9, and passim.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

3. This chiastic or concentric tendency extends even to the document central to the BofA, the Hypocephalus of Sheshaq (facsimile 2). We have already heard how a round drawing with similar significance shows up in the Apocalypse of Abraham (Kevin Christensen post #24), along with a series of theological concepts and phrases also found in the BofA, e.g.,

a) as for fac 2:6, ApocAbr 18 includes four gods beneath the throne (cf. description in 12,

21 - 22).

4

b) words nearly identical to the Egyptian in fac 2:9-10 (ApocAbr 12:10),

5

which one

Egyptologist has told me privately also parallels the ritual Demotic words in Setne

Khamwas I:3:12-13.

The concentric / inverse parallels in the two hemispheres⁶ of fac 2 include 2 ∥5; 3 ∥7; 4 ∥6; 22 ∥23. In each instance, the caesurae (∥) indicate that the parallel is found both upon the hypocephalus⁷ itself (Egyptological), as well as in Joseph’s explanations – for each numbered register or representation. Statistically, such separate correspondence is quite unlikely via simple coincidence. Moreover, these parallels demonstrate the iconotropic unity of the hypocephalus. I will deal with some of these parallel features in greater detail later.

⁴ Nibley, “The Three Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham,” 10.

⁵ M. Rhodes, “The Book of Abraham: Divinely Inspired Scripture,” FARMS Review, 4/1 (1992), 123. See Rubinkiewicz’ translation in Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I:695,698-700.

⁶ T. Devéria in Rémy & Brenchley, Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City, II (1861), 542 n = Devéria, “Fragments de manuscrits funéraires égyptiens,” Bibliothèque Égyptologique, IV:197 n. 1.

⁷ Claudia Veteto, “On the Hypocephalus of the Book of Abraham,” SEHA Newsletter, 101.32 (May 1, 1967), 5, on “the lower half being an inversion of the upper half” – citing Varga; cf. Nibley, BYU Studies, 19:62 n. 100; Sextus Empiricus, Pros physikous, I, 37; Homer, Odyssey, 11, 298-304; the same phenomenon may be seen in Michelangelo’s Last Judgment (Sistine Chapel), with Christ at center, the saved on his right, the damned on the left, the whole bisected in halves (William E. Wallace, “The Genius of Michelangelo,” lecture 26, online at http://www.each12.com/ttc/ assets/excerpts/7130_26.asp ).

[wenglund]

Very interesting, Robert. Please keep it coming.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

4. It is not true that hypocephali are found only in late Egyptian times – although most do typically appear after Dynasty XXI. In fact, as early as the Middle Kingdom (contemporary with Abraham), hypocephali began as charms or amulets made of “a decorated resinous cake inscribed with spells” and placed under “the head” of the deceased.⁸ We need to focus instead on the standard translation and artistic interpretation of BofA facsimile 2 (and other hypocephali) available to us, since they were used as part of the transmission of the BofA by the Jewish community in Egypt.

The BofA facsimiles contain artistic and iconotropic material which (as with all Egyptian art and iconography) can be “read” all by themselves,⁹ or are to be “read” right along with the accompanying Egyptian words.¹⁰ As James P. Allen has said:

The Egyptians did not distinguish hieroglyphic writing from other representations of reality, such as statues or scenes in relief. Both were a

tjt

, “symbol,” rather than an accurate representation of reality. Hieroglyphic signs were often carved with the same detail as other pictorial elements of a scene. Conversely, statues or relief representations were themselves a kind of hieroglyph, a phenomenon most often illustrated in the animal-headed Egyptian gods–as, for instance, in the beetle-headed human form representing

ḫprj

, “the Developing One” (a form of the sun-god).

11

He has also stated that paintings, vignettes, and inscriptions depicting the gods “are nothing more than large-scale ideograms.”¹² All are to be “read,” which is what we will do:

⁸ S. Ikram & A. Dodson, The Mummy in Ancient Egypt (Thames & Hudson, 1998), 144-145, citing the Middle Kingdom Theban tomb of Wah.

⁹ R. H. Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture (N.Y.: Thames & Hudson, 1992); O. Goldwasser, From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the Semiotics of the Hieroglyphs, OBO 142 (Fribourg/Göttingen, 1995); cf. Arlene Wolinski, “Egyptian Ceremonial Masks: A Re-Examination of the Priest and His Role,” lecture delivered April 12, 1989, at the California Museum of Ancient Art (CMAA), Barnsdall Park, Los Angeles, California, arguing that ancient Egyptian sculpture and two-dimensional art (tomb paintings, temple reliefs, etc.) often depict priests & priestesses wearing ceremonial masks, as in the “Baptism of Pharaoh” scene with priests of falcon-headed Horus and ibis-headed Thot pouring ʿankh signs over the Pharaoh – probably representing an actual purification ritual (Alan Gardiner, “Baptism of Pharaoh,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 36 [Dec 1950]:3-12).

¹⁰ Klaus Baer, BYU Education Week lecture, 22 Aug 1974.

¹¹ Allen, “Egyptian Language and Writing,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, IV:190.

¹² Allen, Middle Egyptian (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000), 44.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

5. Fac 2:1, at center, represents the quadruple-headed, seated ram-god, Khnum-ʼAmun-Reʿ,¹³ whose four heads, though presented in dual profile for artistic reasons, are meant to face to the four cardinal points,¹⁴ also holding ʿnḫ, wЗś, and dd scepters to the four directions – the three scepters representing, according to E. Winter, (1) “life & immortality,” (2) “power & dominion,” and (3) “stability & endurance,” respectively,¹⁵ and the last also representing the four pillars of heaven.¹⁶

Khnum-ʼAmun-Reʿ is of course the god seated on the primeval hillock of the first creation rising from a watery chaos¹⁷; here, as on the huge 4th century B.C. Metternich Stele, this god is adored by baboon representatives of “the four primal pairs of gods of chaos”¹⁸ (fac 2:22-23). Right next to the center, at facsimile 2:10-11, we find in Egyptian a virtual ordinal number “first,” as part of an Egyptian phrase there: sp tpy “First occasion (Creation).” This partially comports with Joseph’s explanation for fac 2:11, but also with his identification of fac 2:1.

Joseph identified this register (fac 2:1) as “Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God.” But who or what is Kolob? According to BofA 3:2-3, Kolob is a “great one,” a “star” “nearest to the throne of God”; 3:9 says that Kolob governs all planets of the same order as Earth, while 3:16 says that “Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam [Hebrew “stars”] that” Abraham saw “because it is nearest unto” God.

Note that “near(est)” occurs with or defines Kolob five times, and “nigh” twice in the BofA. This is significant since Kolob is likely from the proto-Semitic root qlb/qrb “near; heart; center,” which is cognate with Egyptian qЗb,¹⁹ and which fits the status of what could as easily have spelled *Qolob, which appears in the common Hebrew qutl-form at Qumran (qwrb “midst”; 11QMelch 1:10 = Psalm 82:1), but is used elswhere in the Bible as a name of God – the theophoric Hebrew epithet, Qarob “The-Near-One” (Psalm 119:151 ∥152 Qedem “The-Primeval-One”; cf. Pss 69:19, 74:12, 145:18; Arabic Qarib is cognate).²⁰

Indeed, the name Ḫnmw/Khnemu appeared in use by the 5th & 6th century B.C. Jewish military colony at Elephantine in Egypt as Ḥnb,²¹ and in Greek forms elsewhere as Xnoumis, Xnoubis, Xnoubi, Knoufis, Knef – which are all phonemically similar to Kolob (-l- can interchange with -r- or -n- in both Egyptian and Coptic)! In ancient Egyptian, Khnum meant “The Joiner Together,”²² or “Molder, Modeler,”²³ and this makes sense in light of his creation of men from clay on a potter’s wheel.

¹³ S. A. B. Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:23, citing A. E. Weigall in Petrie, Abydos, I (1902); cf. de Horrack, PSBA, VI:128, cited in Harris, Legacy of Egypt, 267.

¹⁴ A. Gardiner, JEA, 36:4,7-9,11-12; Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst, 222-223,328-337; cf. Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:23.

¹⁵ Cf. J. G. Griffiths’ review of Winter in JEA, 56:228-230.

¹⁶ E. A. W. Budge, <em>The Book of the Dead</em> (1895/1967), cix,357 n. 2; cf. Bleeker, Egyptian Festivals, 116.

¹⁷ Cf. J. A. Wilson in J. Pritchard, ed., ANET, 3rd ed., 3-8; E. A. E. Reymond, Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple, 9 (n. 4),50,210.

¹⁸ Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:23; Budge, Book of the Dead (1895/1967), xcix.

¹⁹ A. Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian, 32, cites Afroasiatic “*ḳrb/ḳlb; Eg. qЗb ‘interior’ (see Akk. qerbum ‘inside’).”

²⁰ All cited in Dahood, Psalms, 3 vols., Anchor Bible 16,17,17A, ad loc.

²¹ R. J. Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” in J. R. Harris, ed., Legacy of Egypt, 2nd ed., 261 n. 1.

²² Kaster, Wings of the Falcon, 108, 206 n. 17.

²³ Budge, Book of the Dead (1895/1967), cix.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

6. BofA fac 2:2 represents ʼAmmon-Reʻ,²⁴ while fac 2:5 represents Hathor, both in parallel and opposite one another, each as the Sun. Joseph explains 5 as the Sun,²⁵ and both 2 & 5 apparently as fixed stars (not “wandering stars” = planets) which exercise governing power.

Joseph says in fac 2:5 that the Sun receives “its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-van-rash,” the “grand Key,” or “governing power, which governs fifteen other” stars. To judge by similar wording in fac 2:3, this seems to imply priesthood power. Whether it must also be understood in modern terms of string theory or other avant garde notions of astrophysics is unclear, but we can surmise that Kae-e-van-rash is most likely proto-Hebrew *kě-ʼeben-raʼ š “the very-keystone” (cf. Mark 12:10 = Psalm 118:22 ∥Acts 4:11; Zechariah 4:7),²⁶ which is the Lord, YHWH himself. What better source of power? Especially since a “rock” or “stone” also represents priesthood power elswhere (Matthew 16:17-19, 21:42, I Peter 2:4-9).²⁷

If all this talk of pagan gods seems somehow out of place, keep in mind that people in the ancient Near East regularly considered the gods of other nations to be different forms of their own gods.²⁸ Throughout the ancient Near East, for example, the winged sun-disk was the standard icon representing the head of pantheon, including El / YHWH, who is depicted in both Bible and Book of Mormon as “the Sun of Righteousness” who “arises with healing in his wings” (Malachi 4:2, 2 Nephi 25:13, 3 Nephi 25:2 – in the latter “Sun” is misspelled in printed editions).²⁹ Such winged disks or scarabs were also the royal symbol of the kingdom of Judah under King Hezekiah.³⁰

²⁴ T. Devéria, Bibliothèque Égyptologique, 4:198.

²⁵ R. E. Witt, Isis in the Graeco-Roman World, 147 n. 21; Kaster, Wings of the Falcon, 85 (n. 24), 94 (n. 22); Bleeker, Hathor and Thoth, 66,73,159.

²⁶ With emphatic prefix, kaph veritatis, as in Obadiah 11 ke’aḥad “one!”; Nehemiah 7:2 ke’iš ʼemet “a faithful man!” – Koehler & Baumgartner, eds., Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: Brill/ Grand Rapids: Eeerdmans, 1951/1953), 27 (5); cf. Geers, JNES, IV/2:65-67. The Canaanite shift from -a- to -o- doesn’t take place until centuries after Abraham (S. Moscati, Introduction, 62, *ra’š).

²⁷ Albright & Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible 26:265-266.

²⁸ C. H. Gordon in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macropaedia, 12:917-920.

²⁹ Y. Yadin in J. A. Sanders, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century (Doubleday, 1970), 202-203.

30 W. F. Albright, Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, III: The Iron Age, 31-32, 73-75, plate 29:8, 10.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

7. BofA fac 2:3 (as restored) and 2:7 each feature a seated falcon-god, the former being Ḫpry-Rʿ, and the latter falcon-wing-backed Min-Amun-Reʻ

The two wdЗt-eyes (Sun and Moon³¹) in fac 2:3 are inversely paralleled by two other wdЗt-eyes opposite: One being presented to Min by a bird-serpent Nḥb-kЗ, and the other in the head of the female standing behind the Cow-goddess, Hathor – the same female holds an ʿnḫ-sign in her right hand, and this may correspond with the ʿnḫ held in the right hand of Khopry-Reʿ in fac 2:3. The flagellum held above Min’s shoulder in fac 2:7, which is associated with “sovereignty and dominion” (though usually with the crook³²), is an “emblem of rule,”³³ and may parallel the wЗś-scepter (“power & dominion”) in the left hand of Khopry-Reʿ in fac 2:3. In any case, the WdЗt-eye, “the full, healed and intact eye”of Horus or of Reʿ, is “the symbol of divine life which can overcome death,”³⁴ i.e., certainly could be interpreted as a priesthood function.

Joseph’s explanations here each have God enthroned and “revealing” “grand Key-words of the Priesthood.” “Holy”appears in each explanation, though in separate contexts, and “Abraham” is also mentioned in each. Abraham is especially important in 2:7 where he is sitting on the throne of God receiving “the sign of the Holy Ghost . . . in the form of a dove.” This not only demonstrates Joseph’s understanding that such symbols have more than one meaning, but also that the Nḥb-kЗw bird-serpent (dove) is correctly understood as the Holy Ghost, i.e., Miriam Lichtheim saw Nehebkau (NḥbkЗw) as “a divinity in serpent form who is in the retinue of Re and serves as a guardian,” in her comments on Pyramid Utterance 263.³⁵ However, in translating the term Nḥb-kЗw.f, she rendered it as “(man) of standing; (lit.) one whose kas are harnessed” (from the First Interregnum Stela of Ity, 3)³⁶. Whatever the meaning of combined terms like Nḥbw-kЗw³⁷ (cf. Pyramid Utterance 517; Coffin Texts, II, 49 [84], II, 51-54 [85-88], and VI, 133k,392h), it is a nʿw-serpent – a taker away of power and a bestower of powers, with authority from the Great Ennead of Atum, i.e., the Divine Council, or is seen as seven uraei exalted and identified with the Bull of the Tribunal-Ennead (see Faulkner on Coffin Texts 85-88 [iI, 51-54]).³⁸ Is this not a good analogy with the Holy Ghost? To clinch it, note that the -kЗ element of Nḥb-kЗ in Fac. 2:7, has been translated variously as “ghost, phantom” (Edfu, IV, 266, 7; Shipwrecked Sailor, 114), “spirit, soul; essence; personality; fortune; fate; will (of king); kingship; goodwill; genius; guardian spirit; power; double”³⁹ (Pyramid Text 587), “hyper-physical vital force.”⁴⁰

Mercer defined the wЗś-scepter in the left hand of Amun-Reʿ in fac 2:3 as “the royal sceptre which gave dominion over heaven and earth,”⁴¹ “dominion” being synonymous with “authority.” Budge said that it meant “power.”⁴² Gardiner saw it as “divine power, dominion,”⁴³ both Faulkner and Scamuzzi as “dominion,”⁴⁴ Brunner as “power,”⁴⁵ while J. G. Griffiths defined the wЗś as meaning “power, might.”⁴⁶ All of which match Joseph’s identification of it as “clothed with power and authority.”

³¹ Naples Stela 4, in A. S. Yahuda, Language of the Pentateuch, 62 n. 3, and Appendix A, p. 4.

³² Budge, Book of the Dead, II:248,356; III:630.

³³ Budge, Book of the Dead (1895/1967), 332.

³⁴ Bleeker, Hathor and Thoth, 125, citing Kristensen, Het leven uit de dood (1949), 26-27; Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., §266:1; Urk., V, 37, 13.

³⁵ Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I:34-35 n. 2.

³⁶ Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I:89 n. 1.

³⁷ See Shorter, JEA, 21:41 on Nḥb-kЗw; and Revue d’égyptologie, 10:14 n. 3.

³⁸ Cf. Shorter, “The God Nehebkau,” JEA, 21 (1935), 46–47.

³⁹ Wilson, Culture of Ancient Egypt, 86,299 n. 27; Zandee, Death as an Enemy, 184; LES, 68, 19; Gardiner, JEA, 36:7 n. 2; Greven, Ka in Theologie und Königskult des alten Reiches, reviewed by Faulkner, JEA, 41:141; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (1940), 130; Albright, VESO, 26, 61, and XVII.C, citing ZÄS, 48:152-159; 54:56-64; JEA, 5:64.

⁴⁰ Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 170.

⁴¹ Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:23.

⁴² Budge, The Mummy, 2nd ed. (Collier), 221.

⁴³ Gardiner, JEA, 36:7,12 n. 1.

⁴⁴ Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, rev. ed. (Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1985), 178,184, for Book of the Dead illustration and text: “life and dominion”; Scamuzzi, Egyptian Art in the Egyptian Museum of Turin, plate XXXIII.

⁴⁵ Brunner, AfO, 23:119-120.

⁴⁶ Griffiths, JEA, 56:229-230, on E. Winter, Untersuchungen zu den aegyptischen Tempelreliefs der griechisch-roemischen Zeit (Vienna, 1968).

[Robert F. Smith]

8. In BofA fac 2:4 and 6 we have, respectively, Sokar in a celestial boat⁴⁷ and the four sons of Horus. The former is cross-identified with Horus and represents the sky, heavens, or firmament,⁴⁸ while the latter represent his four sons (who carry Sokar’s Hennu-boat⁴⁹).

Budge stated unequivocally that these four gods “were supposed to preside over the four quarters of the world, and subsequently were acknowledged to be the gods of the cardinal points,”⁵⁰ and he continued to say this: “Each god ruled over one quarter of the world,” “the gods of the four quarters of the earth,”⁵¹ “the four [quarters of the world],”⁵² or the gods of the four “quarters of heaven.”⁵³ Mercer only grudgingly admitted this,⁵⁴ although Gardiner minced no words in saying that they “presided over the four quarters of the globe.”⁵⁵

Joseph was clearly correct in his identification of fac 2:4 as Hebrew rāqiyaʿ (= Raukeeyang in Sephardic transliteration), “firmament, heaven” (Genesis 1:6-8 ), and of 2:6 as “this earth in its four quarters.”

Since we understand the hypocephalus structure to consist of upper and lower hemispheres, the heavenly and the terrestrial,⁵⁶ they thus represent here a personified merism meaning “the Universe,” or the “totality of the gods,”⁵⁷ which is found in different ancient Near Eastern genres: Creation narrative, hymnal, royal kingship, and treaty documents. This personified merism is really part of the basic god-list motif common to Akkadian, Hittite, Ugaritic, and Hebrew texts,⁵⁸ and which is substituted for in some texts by “1,000 gods.”⁵⁹ The motif is, of course, symbolic, i.e., the whole universe is pictured watching and bearing formal witness (a key item in the Rîb-pattern also⁶⁰). Moreover, the basic chiasm also appears in Hebrews 8:1-6 ∥9:24-28.⁶¹

⁴⁷ Mercer in Spalding, JSAT, 31; Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:23.

⁴⁸ R. Anthes, JNES, 18:171, cited by H. Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 174; Lesko, Ancient Egyptian Book of Two Ways, 6; cf. Pyramid Texts 138, 620bc.

⁴⁹ Bleeker, Egyptian Festivals, 81.

⁵⁰ Budge, Book of the Dead (1895/1967), ci; cf. Budge, The Mummy, 1st ed., 195.

⁵¹ Budge, Book of the Dead: Papyrus of Ani (1913/1916/1960), 192,130-131; cf. Haim B. Rosén, "Some Thoughts on the System of Designation of the Cardinal Points in Ancient Semitic Languages," in Alan S. Kaye, ed., Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau On the Occasion of His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, November 14th, 1991, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1991), II:1337-1344.

⁵² Budge, Book of the Dead (1895/1967), 339, on spell 83:4; cf. pp. 278-279.

⁵³ Budge, Gods of the Egyptians (1904), I:210; cf. Pyramid Text 1777; Wilson in Pritchard, ed., ANET, 3rd ed., 8 n. 6, citing Sethe, Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte, II, §§1456-1457.

⁵⁴ Mercer, Utah Survey, I/1:19,24; cf. Gardiner, JEA, 36:9, citing Otto, Kees, Sethe, and Pyramid Texts 27-29.

⁵⁵ Gardiner, JEA, 36:12 (cf. p. 11 n. 2).

⁵⁶ Devéria, Bibliothèque Égyptologique, 4:197 n. 1; cf. Veteto in SEHA Newsletter, 101.32, p. 5, citing Varga on the same phenomenon.

⁵⁷ Cf. C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, 491, Glossary #2427; L. R. Fisher, “Abraham and His Priest KIng,” JBL, 81:267, cited by F. Brent Knutson, “Literary Parallels Between the Texts of Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit IV and the Hebrew Bible,” doctoral dissertation (Claremont Grad. School, 1970), 8 (n. 3),11,13.

⁵⁸ Knutson, dissertation, 6-10,104,108,118-121,197-198, citing Pritchard, ed., ANET, 3rd ed., 205-206; J. W. Whedbee, “Wisdom in Isaiah,” doctoral dissertation (Yale Grad. School, 1968), 28; and E. Von Waldow, “Der Traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der prophetischen Gerichtsreden,” ZAW 85:15-16.

⁵⁹ Knutson, dissertation, 8.

⁶⁰ Knutson, dissertation, 13.

⁶¹ G. W. Buchanan, To the Hebrews, Anchor Bible 36, p. 146, citing J. T. Clemons.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

9. Bleeker has shown that the religious significance of light includes the Egyptian Зḫw as a glorious being as well as a word for “light.”⁶² Indeed, the very words for divinity and salvation are usually words for “light,”⁶³ and the same roots can be applied to words like ЗḫЗḫ “stars,” and Зḫt “eye of god.” These appear to be idle observations only until we note that Joseph’s identification of registers 22 and 23 as Hebrew kokabim “stars” (ko-kau-beam in Sephardic transliteration here and at 3:13,16), which receive and transmit light of some discrete sort, include the “Sun” itself as a “star” (not only in modern astronomy, but in ancient Mesopotamia, with Akkadian kakkabu “star” = “Sun”⁶⁴), each baboon wearing a sun-disk with crescent moon.

10. A “star” as a residence or “station” occupied by a god is also correctly employed by Joseph.⁶⁵ The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, 51:10, says that the elect of God “will be like angels, and made equal to the stars.”⁶⁶

According to Jaroslav Černý, the Egyptians saw the stars as divine beings. The Stars were divided into two main groups:⁶⁷ iḥmw-sk, “Indestructible-stars, Circumpolar-stars” ∥ʿЗw, “Great-ones, Circumpolar-stars” (Pyramid Texts 405a, 733, 782, 1123, 2051; Coffin Text I, 271),⁶⁸ both being identical with Hebrew kokabe-ʼEl, “Stars of God, Circumpolar-stars” (Isaiah 14:1;3 ∥2 Nephi 24:13), symbolizing “eternity,”⁶⁹ and identical with “the Mount of Council” or “Mt. Ṣaphon,” and referring to the Supreme Council of God and to his throne (Psalms 48:3, 148:3; cf. the “great one” in Enuma Elish V:1, and in Abraham 3:3). Some carp at Joseph’s transliteration of hakokabim, “the stars” (Hah-ko-kau-beam), but this simply stems from ignorance of Hebrew, or from ulterior motives.⁷⁰ In any case, the notion that stars and planets were gods was a very ancient one,⁷¹ even if a variety of ancient theological explanations might be given to that belief – leading to variant decisions on where to place a king’s mortuary temple, to face either the rising sun or the circumpolar stars.⁷²

⁶² Bleeker, JANES, 5:33.

⁶³JANES, 5:23-25.

⁶⁴Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, K, 47, citing CT, 23, 36:51-52.

⁶⁵ Pyramid Texts 251,531,882; CAD, K, 46, 1; Enuma Elish V:1; L’Exaltation d’Ishtar, III:57-60; Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 1st ed., 84-85.

⁶⁶ 2 Baruch in J. Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I:638.

⁶⁷ Černý, Ancient Egyptian Religion, 51.

⁶⁸JEA, 21:5 n. 2.

⁶⁹ Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 232 n. 69.

⁷⁰ Cf. Homans-“Webb,” Improvement Era, 16:1087; Mercer, Utah Survey, I/?:24, who indicates his contempt via quotation marks.

⁷¹ G. de Santillana & H. von Dechend, Hamlet’s Mill (Boston:Godine, 1977), 177.

⁷² I. E. S. Edwards, “Meydum,” K. Bard, ed., Encyclopedia of the Archeology of Ancient Egypt (London: Routledge, 1999), 527.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

11. Gnolaum: Margaret Barker puts the holy of holies of the temple outside of time, in “‘eternity’, ʻolam, a word implying continuous or indefinite existence.”⁷³ This the Book of Abraham correctly terms in Sephardic Hebrew gnolaum “eternal,” i.e., without beginning and without end (Abr 3:18), very much like the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:3).

Hebrew ʿÔlām; Aramaic ʿâl(a)mâ (*ʿawlăm, the augmentative original?)⁷⁴; Hebrew ‘Olam “The-Eternal” = Phoenician ‘Ulom [= Punic Saeculum, Senex, and Geron] = Oulomos of Mochus) "the name of a Phoenician old god, 'the ancient one' literally."⁷⁵ʼEl-‘olam is used, for example, in early Canaanite divine names.⁷⁶ Cf. gibʿot ʿolam “everlasting hills” (Hab 3:6); bet-‘olam “house of eternity” (Eccles 1:4,10, 2:16, 3:14, 12:3,5,7), which appears in Egyptian transliteration as bЗt-ʻrm in the conquest list of Pharaoh Shishak I (Bubastite Portal 3:36)⁷⁷; pitḥe-‘olam “gates of eternity” (Ps 24:7,9); “God has set eternity⁷⁸ in their heart” (Eccles 3:11 NJB note b). Note that Egyptian nb dt (or nb nḥḥ) “Lord of eternity” = Ptah (ANET 4-6) = Canaanite dū ʻôlami “lord of eternity”; Amarna Cuneiform -ilam, -olam.⁷⁹ Cf. Also Hebrew hălîkôt ʻôlām “ancient orbits,” or pathways taken by deities as they make their celestial circuit.⁸⁰

12. Shagreel (Shag-reel) BofA 1:9, god of, “the sun” – Sephardic transliteration of hypothetical Hebrew *Ša‘arey-’El "Gates-of-El" = Babylonian Bab-ili “Gate of God” as the name for Babylon⁸¹ (cf. Ps 118:20 "gate of the LORD" haša‘ar laYHWH; cf. Gen 28:17, Job 38:17, Isa 38:10, Pss 9:13, 100:4, 107:18, 118:19, Prov 14:19, Jer 7:2, Odes of Solomon 22:12, Wisdom of Solomon 16:13; Matt 16:18; II Nephi 4:32 gates of Hell/ Death/ Hades/ Še’ol; Moabite šʿryh = šaʿrê-ha “Her gates” (Mesha Stele 2); Egyptian syllabic ša-ʿa-ra “gate” as in Papyrus Amherst 4,3. The guttural -ġ- is reflected by earlier Ugaritic tǵr, and confirmed in Arabic tuǵra) ∥grn “threshing-floor,” and ∥bt “house.”⁸² Another possible reference here may be to the divine name Šgr, a minor god in some Ugaritic texts⁸³: Baal Cycle, tablet 5 (KTU 1.5), III:16-17, and CAT 1.148.31. Cf. the typical Egyptian temple as “the doors of heaven.”⁸⁴ The powerful solar symbolism of Canaanite ʼEl makes the connection with the Sun quite normal, as we have seen above.

⁷³ Margaret Barker, Temple Mysticism (SPCK, 2011), 45.

⁷⁴ The same as Mandaean/Gnostic ‘Alma; but ‘olam transliterated once as γελαμ in LXX (Hatch & Redpath, Concordance to the Septuagint [1897-1906], 235b).

⁷⁵ F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 24-35; Cross, From Epic to Canon, 77, 82; D. N. Freedman defines ‘Olam as “the Eternal” at Deut 33:27 (Freedman, “The Poetic Structure of the Framework of Deuteronomy 33,” in G. Rendsburg, et al., eds., The Bible World [KTAV, 1980], reprinted in Freedman, Divine Commitment, 95); cf. J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Westminster Press, 1981), 100.

⁷⁶ W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (London ed.), 104 and n. 21, citing F. M. Cross in Harvard Theological Review, 55 (1962), 236-244; cf. J. A. Thompson, “The Root ‘-l-m in Semitic Languages and Some Proposed New Translations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” in R. Fischer, ed., A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East (Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology, 1977), 159-166 ; E. Jenni, “Das Wort ‘ōlām im Alten Testament,” ZAW, 64 (1952), 197-248; 65 (1953), 1-35.

⁷⁷ John Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 192-193.

⁷⁸ In this instance Northrop Frye interprets ‘olam as “mystery, obscurity,” based on the context (Frye, The Great Code, 124).

⁷⁹ Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 16-20.

⁸⁰ Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk, Anchor Bible 25 (Doubleday, 2001), 292, citing Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” in H. H. Rowley, ed., Studies in Old Testament Prophecy: Presented to Prof. Theodore H. Robinson (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), 14 n. t.

⁸¹ S. Dalley, Myths of Mesopotamia, 263 n.38.

⁸² Fisher, RSP, I, p. 381 #605, and p. 158 #137.

⁸³ Simon Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (SBL/Scholars Press, 1997), 145, n. 164.

⁸⁴ E. F. Wente, “Egyptian Religion,” in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:409.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Brian 2.0]

This is an interesting discussion and one I have enjoyed reading, though most of the time it seems like two sides that will never see things the same way, and that's fine...

My question for believers of the BoA...

Is there any conceivable evidence that if produced would prompt you to change your belief that the BoA is a historical document? Most honest believers in the BoA that have looked at the evidence try not to discount it, but provide a alternate way of still believing that doesn't simply throw out the evidence. That "way" of thinking may seemed outlandish to some, but that's not really the point. My question to those believers, is what piece of evidence, if any, would make you cease trying to find a way to reconcile it and drop your belief in the authenticity of the BofA.

My question of non-believers in the BoA...

Is there any evidence that would change your belief and have you accept the BoA as an authetic historical document?

Personally, I was a believer in the BoA but as I researched more and more, it just became too much for me and I couldn't seem to find a way to reconcile it all in a reasonable way, but that's just me. BUT... I'm also willing to admit that if something like one of the other pieces of the missing papayri came forth and it was translated by Egyptologists and did indeed contain the story of the BoA as we have it, or even close to, then I would have to reconsider my opinion yet again.

I think at lot of the stalemate between "critics" and "apologists" end with "there's nothing I can say or give evidence for that could change his mind." My question is is that true? What can change your mind?

I like debate and discussion and all that, but what is pointless is doing it with someone who does literally say "there is nothing that could ever get me to change my mind." Because then debate and discussion is just a waste of time.

[wenglund]

My question for believers of the BoA...Is there any conceivable evidence that if produced would prompt you to change your belief that the BoA is a historical document?

Yes, my belief about the historicity of the Book of Abraham can be changed by the same kind of evidence that would negate, in my mind, the historicity of any personal journal. It is just that such evidence isn't easy to come by, if possible or available at all.

However, unlike with the Book of Mormon, I don't think the critics have much of an issue the historicity the BofA (for the most part, Abraham is widely accepted as an authentic historical figure, and there are many ancient documents that comport with the historical elements of the Book of Abraham).

Rather, as Kevin Graham frequently and rightly points out, the issue for the critics tends to be whether Joseph Smith, by whatever means, could translate ancient Egyptian, and if not, what that supposedly means in regards to the verity of Joseph Smith as a prophet and the gospel he restored.

In his last several posts, Robert Smith has provided evidence that portions of Joseph's revelatory translation of facsimile 2 were close enough to what various Egyptologists have surmized, to reasonably concluded that to an extent Joseph could, by whatever means, translate Egyptian.

The intent here, at least for apologists (speaking for myself), isn't to provide scholaraly evidence to definitively prove or compelling convince people that Joseph Smith actually did translate the Book of Abraham by way of revelation. This is something we leave between sincere investigators and God (as per Moroni 10) and for the investigators to determine by applying in their lives the precepts of the Book of Abraham (as per Alma 32). Rather, it is to provide room for faith in the divinity and uthenticity of that book of scripture.

Now, with that in mind, whether there is any concievable evidence that would destroy my faith in the Book of Abraham as divinely revealed and of God, I would say, yes, at that would be would need to consist of God revealing to me that it wasn't of him. and also were I to apply the precepts of the Book of Abraham in my life and it did not bring me to Christ and better enable me to become like him.

As for you and the critics, it seems to me, though, that you may have taken a different approach, and an approach that puts your faith in man rather than God, and so it isn't surprising that your spiritual belief in the Book of Abraham failed. I don't know that there is any man-made evidence or reasoning that may change your current belief since the approach you have taken is contrary to the way of God and doesn't lend itself to belief in the things of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

Is there any conceivable evidence that if produced would prompt you to change your belief that the BoA is a historical document?

My testimony of the BOA isn't based on historical evidence and never has been. It's based on what is in the text. No one is going to be able to prove one way or the other exactly how we got it and everything is speculation based on the very limited physical evidence available. Even if we can't say it's a "historical document", whatever that means, the fact is it has some deep doctrine that is hard to dismiss.

[Brian 2.0]

As for you and the critics, it seems to me, though, that you may have taken a different approach, and an approach that puts your faith in man rather than God, and so it isn't surprising that your spiritual belief in the Book of Abraham failed. I don't know that there is any man-made evidence or reasoning that may change your current belief since the approach you have taken is contrary to the way of God and doesn't lend itself to belief in the things of God.

You are correct that I am currently using a different approach to belief than I did when I was a full believer. Believing a personal witness from God of the truthfulness of something is a HUGE thing when balancing the scales to determine whether something is true or not. Personally, I have come to a point where I question the reliablity of the "personal witness" methodology of obtaining truth. It just seems that there are countless people in the world in countless religions using that methodology and coming up with completely different results. If I put that methodology aside and "take if off the scales" if you will that personal witness, the balances shifts, sometimes dramatically.

You say that "it isn't surpising that [my] spiritual belief in the Book of Abraham failed." Would you then agree that if you had to analyze the BoA WITHOUT considering your personal witness, that it would be a difficult thing to believe?

Do you agree that not believing the authenticity of the BofA is a reasonable conclusion when you don't have a personal witness of it's truthfulness as part of the evidence?

[Nomad]

You are correct that I am currently using a different approach to belief than I did when I was a full believer. Believing a personal witness from God of the truthfulness of something is a HUGE thing when balancing the scales to determine whether something is true or not. Personally, I have come to a point where I question the reliablity of the "personal witness" methodology of obtaining truth. It just seems that there are countless people in the world in countless religions using that methodology and coming up with completely different results.

Really? Give us some examples of "countless people" in "countless religions" who are using the "methodology" of personal revelation to determine the truth of things, and coming up with "different results" than what personal revelation from God gives to Latter-day Saints.

I could be wrong, or I could have a lack of knowledge concerning "other religions", but I'm not aware of other religions that believe in and recommend the methodology of personal revelation to get a knowledge of truth from God. In fact, the only time I ever hear things said like this is from people who have left Mormonism.

[Brian 2.0]

Taking the most extreme as an example....

Do you not agree radical Islamic terrorits experience feelings of confirmations from their God that they should fulfill Jihad in performing terrorist acts?

It may not be laid out exactly like Alma 32, but do you not agree that there are people feeling what we would term "the spirit" and feeling "God is telling them this is right" in believing things that are "untrue" according to Mormon belief?

Edited January 26, 2012 by Brian 2.0