Book Of Abraham - Apoligetics From A Different Percpective (Issue 1)

[DBMormon]

This Thread and those that follow are directed more to the critic then the believer. My hope is to bring the apoligetic answers back to you and say, why doesn't this answer suffice. My hope is either you will admit there is no rebuttal whereby the apoligetic answer trumps the problem or better a discussion ensues where you explain why the apoligetic answer doesn't suffice or why it is a bad answer.

So I have been thinking. LDS Apoligetics offers solutions or new information to help those who are having a faith struggle. Often we are reactionary to the complaint. I understand the issues from the surface but do not personally have a great and deep understanding of the issue. This is what I want you to help me understand

1.) The main issue is that what we have today of the Book of Abraham Papyrus is definitely shown to be a egyptian funeral text unrelated to Abraham - (LDS apoligist agree) yet Critics still mock this - why, when this has nothing to do with the reasons below that apoligist use to defend the translation in spite of point #1

2.) LDS apoligists have found numerous coincidences between the Book of Abraham translation and ancient texts discovered after Joseph's death. As a Critic why are these coicidences so cast off. Why doesn't Occam Razor apply here? Why is the apoligetic statement of the coincidences problematic?

3.) Some reports explain that the original papyrus was multiple pieces with some of them being quite large. Critics laugh at this and seem to think this idea of missing papyrus is ridiculous and is bad apoligetics... Why? Why is this an unsatisfactory point ?

I am hopeful that someone smarter then me from a position of non-belief will help me see why the apoligists are wrong????? Also stay on these three points and not other details of the BOA

Please

I posted on exmormon.org as well. We'll see what happens

Edited September 1, 2012 by DBMormon

[zerinus]

This Thread and those that follow are directed more to the critic then the believer. My hope is to bring the apoligetic answers back to you and say, why doesn't this answer suffice. My hope is either you will admit there is no rebuttal whereby the apoligetic answer trumps the problem or better a discussion ensues where you explain why the apoligetic answer doesn't suffice or why it is a bad answer.

So I have been thinking. LDS Apoligetics offers solutions or new information to help those who are having a faith struggle. Often we are reactionary to the complaint. I understand the issues from the surface but do not personally have a great and deep understanding of the issue. This is what I want you to help me understand

1.) The main issue is that what we have today of the Book of Abraham Papyrus is definitely shown to be a egyptian funeral text unrelated to Abraham - (LDS apoligist agree) yet Critics still mock this - why, when this has nothing to do with the reasons below that apoligist use to defend the translation in spite of point #1

2.) LDS apoligists have found numerous coincidences between the Book of Abraham translation and ancient texts discovered after Joseph's death. As a Critic why are these coicidences so cast off. Why doesn't Occam Razor apply here? Why is the apoligetic statement of the coincidences problematic?

3.) Some reports explain that the original papyrus was multiple pieces with some of them being quite large. Critics laugh at this and seem to think this idea of missing papyrus is ridiculous and is bad apoligetics... Why? Why is this an unsatisfactory point ?

I am hopeful that someone smarter then me from a position of non-belief will help me see why the apoligists are wrong????? Also stay on these three points and not other details of the BOA

Please

I posted on exmormon.org as well. We'll see what happens

I find your agenda driven posts quite wearisome and nauseating.

We will remove you from the thread so you can get some rest.

[Tacenda]

Through the years I've read a few of the several articles on the BoA. It's never ending. I think intellectuals can make a case for anything. They have the brain for it. Me I just see it logically that JS didn't translate it, but received a revelation of the words he wrote. Where he got the revelation I'm not sure. Just as the BoM, I believe he didn't translate from plates, they weren't often around or were in another room. That logically says to me some of it was revealed to him and some he used other means for it or was inspired to write. This is how my pea brain works. My scope is very small I guess. But I'm open to being proved wrong, because of that pea brain in my head.

[ERayR]

Through the years I've read a few of the several articles on the BoA. It's never ending. I think intellectuals can make a case for anything. They have the brain for it. Me I just see it logically that JS didn't translate it, but received a revelation of the words he wrote. Where he got the revelation I'm not sure. Just as the BoM, I believe he didn't translate from plates, they weren't often around or were in another room. That logically says to me some of it was revealed to him and some he used other means for it or was inspired to write. This is how my pea brain works. My scope is very small I guess. But I'm open to being proved wrong, because of that pea brain in my head.

Logical is the way I see it and I am not sure you get there all the time.

[EVOLVING]

to your points -- I'll try to withhold a mocking tone..

1- from my perspective, admitting this fact is mock worthy -- Apologists are starting this line of defense by admitting that Joseph, and all other contemporaries, simply got it wrong about the papyri, then you are re-creating a platform for your arguments that seem plausible, but have no relationship to first hand, first person description of what the papyrus were claimed to be, by Joseph himself. -- Starting with a conclusion, and then building a framework of unrelated plausible reference points is simply bad logic....

2- These "hits" are simply not that impressive once you investigate them individually - There were old testament commentaries available, legends of Abraham, and Enoch were often themes in local papers & sermons - Professor Sexias could have been a great resource for ancient Jewish folklore, We know writings of Josephus and the apocrypha were available, -- Taken in it's context, claiming that Joseph pulled these stories out of "thin air" is too easy to disprove -- and claiming "how could Joseph possibly known these things" is too easy to prove.. -- try this exercise -- please list anything found in the Book of Abraham, that is absolutely unique to Abrahamic folklore..

3- There are many sources that describe the original Papyri - all of these descriptions(that I am aware of) have been shown to point to known/extant papyri documents -- anyone who described the details contained on the papyri, including the source of the Book of Abraham describe "KNOWN" papyri -- there are no first hand/second hand/third hand/any hand -- etc cetera...descriptions of papyrus details that are unknown to scholarship... which makes the argument for a "missing papyri" a necessary tactic to create plausibility to explain your #1 -- It is clear to me, If all of the known descriptions of the papyrus have a related source, there are no missing pieces period -- no room length papyrus containing the Book of Abraham source - no number of calculations make this relevant ..

~e

[robuchan]

I'm probably not smarter than you or most people on this board on this topic, but here's my take.

2.) LDS apoligists have found numerous coincidences between the Book of Abraham translation and ancient texts discovered after Joseph's death. As a Critic why are these coicidences so cast off. Why doesn't Occam Razor apply here? Why is the apoligetic statement of the coincidences problematic?

I don't find the coincidences compelling. The material correlates stronger to modern material like Antiquities of Freemasonry or other text available to Joseph.

3.) Some reports explain that the original papyrus was multiple pieces with some of them being quite large. Critics laugh at this and seem to think this idea of missing papyrus is ridiculous and is bad apoligetics... Why? Why is this an unsatisfactory point ?

This is something I personally need to understand better. I'm not knowledgeable enough to laugh at this point, but it does seem unlikely.

1) the scrolls date to 100 BC or whatever. it seems unlikely they would be stored with ancient scrolls written by Abraham and Joseph

2) the facsimiles are there and obviously not what Joseph said they were

3) we have the KEP that matches the Book of Abraham output with the papyri input. At worst (and most likely) we have proof of Egyptian to English and can see that it's wrong. At best Joseph didn't understand which part of the papyri he was translating. He thought he was translating the small piece that was found later but actually was translating the larger piece that went missing. Long odds.

[Calm]

please list anything found in the Book of Abraham, that is absolutely unique to Abrahamic folklore..

Am wondering if you have ever read Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham? Same to robuchan.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookstore/?id=118

Edited September 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

answers I recieved on the other board which seem silly and very weak

aka the Place where Testimonies go to Die.

If the sky is blue, and your entire world picture depends on the sky being pink, then you have no choice but to swiftboat the blue sky.

apologists swiftboat the BoA because it is single-handedly the weakest chain in their defense.

and you can't swiftboat a wooden submarine, cause it's still gonna float, even after being swiftboated.

And

as for question 3, see question 1,

1.) The main issue is that what we have today of the Book of Abraham Papyrus is definitely shown to be a egyptian funeral text unrelated to Abraham - (LDS apoligist agree) You can have a mountain of missing papyrus but the simple fact remains that smith could NOT translate correctly the existing papyrus, apply occam's razor to that

Not sure where the rebuttal is. I have not read the post here above this one will do so later.

[DBMormon]

1) the scrolls date to 100 BC or whatever. it seems unlikely they would be stored with ancient scrolls written by Abraham and Joseph

Can a s scroll be transcribed by others overs many years and still be stated "by the hand of said author"? Isn't my BOM in the hand of Mormon or even in the hand of Oliver Cowdery? even though the copy is reprinted in 2009?

[DBMormon]

Zeriinus - you missed my purpose becasue you already made an assumption about me... you may want to rewind.

[DBMormon]

the point is to see if the critics counter arguments make any sense or if their response can not adapt to the apoligetic answers.

I am banking on them stating the rhetoric as their original criticism which shows they are unprepared to deal with the issue.

AKA using OCCAM's RAZOR in the church's favor... there are several points by apoligists that are "coincidences". At what point do the "coincidences" mean something if there is no rebuttal?

[DBMormon]

could someone more familiar then me with this subject make a list here of five strong "coincidences" that joseph got right? so we can see if they are striking or not. Or can be explained away easily or not. If not I will do so later tonight.

The Sons of Horus

Facsimile 2 (shown between Chapters 3 and 4 of the Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price), is known as a hypocephalus ("under the head") and was a small disk-shaped object that was placed under the head of the deceased. The Egyptians "believed it would magically cause the head and body to be enveloped in flames or radiance, thus making the deceased divine."^[1] In this drawing (or vignette), stand four mummy-like figures known—to Egyptologists—as the Sons of Horus. Their images were also on the canopic jars (the jars that stored the internal organs of the deceased) that we see under the lion couch in Joseph Smith's Facsimile 1. Joseph revealed that these four figures represented "this earth in its four quarters." According to modern Egyptologists, Joseph Smith is correct. The Sons of Horus "were the gods of the four quarters of the earth and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points."^[2]

Abrahamic traditions

Years ago, Dr. Nibley pointed out that the critics neglect the ancient Near Eastern Abrahamic traditions that support the story found in the Book of Abraham.^[3] Ancient Abrahamic lore and Jewish traditions preserved in ancient texts, show some surprising parallels to what we find in the text of the Book of Abraham. Some of these parallels imply that Joseph (who likely could not have had access to many of these traditions) actually restored authentic ancient Abrahamic traditions. Some of these parallels include early Jewish traditions about Abraham's life—details not found in the Bible.^[4] Two such ancient documents that show some surprising parallels to our Book of Abraham are the Apocalypse of Abraham^[5] and the Testament of Abraham^[6] (the Apocalypse of Abraham dates to about the same time as the Book of Abraham papyri).

Other interesting parallels include ancient names and astronomy. Ancient Egyptian names, for example, that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith, are accurately represented in the Book of Abraham both phonetically as well as in meaning.^[7] With regard to astronomy, we find that in Joseph Smith's day "heliocentricity" (as proposed by Copernicus and Newton) was the accepted astronomical view. Nineteenth-century people (including the most brilliant minds of the day) believed that everything revolved around the Sun—therefore the term "heliocentric" (Greek helios=sun + centered). (In the twentieth-first century we generally accept an Einsteinian view of the cosmos.) The Book of Abraham, however, clearly delineates a geocentric view of the universe—or a belief that the Earth (Greek geo) stood at the center of the universe, and all things moved around our planet.

According to ancient geocentric cosmologies and what we read in the Book of Abraham, the heavens (which is defined as the expanse above the earth—no celestial object is mentioned to exist below the earth) was composed of multiple layers or tiers—each tier higher than the previous. Therefore the Sun is in a higher tier than the moon, and the stars are in higher tiers still (compare Abraham 3:5, 9, 17).^[8] According to geocentric astronomy, celestial objects have longer time spans (or lengths of "reckoning") based upon their relative distance from the earth. "Thus, the length of reckoning of a planet is based on its revolution [time to orbit around the center, in this case the earth](and not rotation [time to spin on its axis, as the earth does every 24 hours])."^[9] The higher the celestial object, the greater its length of reckoning (compare Abraham 3:5). Likewise, in Abraham 3:8–9, we read that "there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob."

Ancient geocentric astronomers believed that the stars were "the outer-most celestial sphere, furthest from the earth and nearest to God."^[10] We find in the Book of Abraham that the star Kolob was the star nearest "the throne of God" (Abraham 3:9). In the ancient, yet recently discovered, Apocalypse of Abraham (which dates from about the same time period as the JSP), we find that God's throne is said to reside in the eighth firmament (the firmaments, being another term for the varying tiers in the heavens above the Earth).^[11]

The Book of Abraham also reveals that those celestial objects that are highest above the earth, "govern" the objects below them (see Abraham 3:3, 9 and Facsimile 2, fig. 5). This sounds similar to the beliefs of those who accepted an ancient geocentric cosmology: Throughout the ancient world the governing role of celestial bodies was conceived in similar terms. God sits on his throne in the highest heaven giving commands, which are passed down by angels through the various regions of heaven, with each region governing or commanding the regions beneath it.^[12]

We find this governing order described in the Apocalypse of Abraham and other ancient sources. All of this makes sense only from an ancient geocentric perspective (such as that believed in Abraham's day) and makes no sense from a heliocentric perspective (which is what Joseph would have known in his day).

A different interesting parallel comes from Facsimile 1 (Abraham on the lion couch). According to Egyptologists, this is a typical Egyptian embalming scene and has nothing to do with Abraham or sacrifice. In fact, the critics assure us, Abraham is not a topic of discussion in Egyptian papyri, and there is no connection with Abraham and the embalming lion couch.

Recent discoveries, however, suggests that the Biblical Abraham does appear in some Egyptian papyri that date to the same period as the JSP. In one instance (thus far discovered) Abraham's name appears to have a connection to an Egyptian lion couch scene.^[13]

Plain of Olishem

The Book of Abraham mentions "the plain of Olishem" (Abraham 1:10). No such place name occurs in the Bible, but it does occur, appropriately timed and located, in an inscription of the Akkadian ruler Naram Sin, dating to about 2250 BC.^[14]

The god "Elkenah"

The Caananite [god] El....compares favorably with the information set forth in the Book of Abraham text regarding Elkenah. In particular, the type of sacrifice described in Abraham 1 fits a cultic setting in Syro-Palestinian or Canaanite territory much more readily than it fits a Mesopotamian or Assyro-Babylonian scenario. More to the point, the scene on Facsimile 1, with its representation of a human sacrifice on an Egyptian lion couch, fits extremely well with Egyptian Middle Kingdom evidence for the cultic ritual of human sacrifice.... [The source of the name Canaan] takes the derived form Kinaʿu as signifying the "Occident," the "Land of Sunset," or "Westland." This is the West Semitic equivalent of Akkadian Amurru "West." In Amarna-era texts and in the Bible, the terms Canaan and Amurru are largely synonymous. It is interesting in this connection that the sons of Horus stood for the four cardinal directions  and that Qebehsenuf, which represents "the idolatrous god of Elkenah" on Facsimile 1, was indeed the god of the West. –Kevin L. Barney, "On Elkenah as Canaanite El," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 19/1 (2010): 22–35. off-site [No PDF link] wiki

figure 9 of the crocodile and Joseph declaring it to be "The idolatrous god of Pharaoh"

He’s not calling the Pharaoh a crocodile but that the crocodile was the god the different Pharaohs worshiped or represented the Pharaoh's power. Sobek as the Egyptians called him was the crocodile god and Abraham traveling through Egypt would have been familiar with him.

There is no way Joseph could have known this at all but there is more; In verse 9 of chapter 1 it says’

"And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh (the crocodile), and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.

Again he's not saying Shagreel is the sun god put that Shagreel worshiped the god of the sun. The god known as Ra was the Sun god and a round disc was his symbol but there was a time when these two gods actually merged into one

"Sobek-Ra was an entity who combined the essence of two deities: the crocodile god and the sun god. This dual god is depicted as part animal to convey his strange and awesome divine powers. In particular, he has the strength, cunning, and longevity of the crocodile and power over the life-giving waters of the Nile. The solar disc in the headdress conveys that Ra, god of life-giving light, is manifesting himself in his form of Sobek…."

Edited September 2, 2012 by DBMormon

[wenglund]

the point is to see if the critics counter arguments make any sense or if their response can not adapt to the apoligetic answers.

Their arguments make a lot of sense from their perspective. In fact, in some ways, their arguments make better sense from their perspective than do the apologetic responses.

The issue, to me, isn't so much whether they make sense or not, but rather their perspective.

I am banking on them stating the rhetoric as their original criticism which shows they are unprepared to deal with the issue.

You would be mistaken.

AKA using OCCAM's RAZOR in the church's favor... there are several points by apoligists that are "coincidences". At what point do the "coincidences" mean something if there is no rebuttal?

Be careful with the straw men. There have been some rather keen minds critically analyzing things for decades. It would be presumptuous at best for you to waltz newly into the long-term discussion and think you are in a position to judge, even if your intentions here may, for once, be in defense of the faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 1, 2012 by wenglund

[The Grimace]

1.) The main issue is that what we have today of the Book of Abraham Papyrus is definitely shown to be a egyptian funeral text unrelated to Abraham - (LDS apoligist agree) yet Critics still mock this - why, when this has nothing to do with the reasons below that apoligist use to defend the translation in spite of point #1

"Critics mock this"...I don't think critics mock the notion that the Book of Abraham is based on a document that is something other than it purports to be. I think they use this as a starting point, the same way apologetic work uses it as a starting point.

2.) LDS apoligists have found numerous coincidences between the Book of Abraham translation and ancient texts discovered after Joseph's death. As a Critic why are these coicidences so cast off. Why doesn't Occam Razor apply here? Why is the apoligetic statement of the coincidences problematic?

Define "numerous". And, I'm pretty sure that there are papers that show this information was available to Joseph.

3.) Some reports explain that the original papyrus was multiple pieces with some of them being quite large. Critics laugh at this and seem to think this idea of missing papyrus is ridiculous and is bad apoligetics... Why? Why is this an unsatisfactory point ?

Critics don't "laugh" at this. They take a different position and have equally compelling arguments that show that the size and content of any missing papyrus could not account for the Book of Abraham.

DBMormon, it sounds like you ought to become familiar with some of the research and literature on both sides of this debate.

[EVOLVING]

Am wondering if you have ever read Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham? Same to robuchan.

http://maxwellinstit...okstore/?id=118

No, I have not read this book ---- I simply refuse to spend any more money for apologetic material. I already have a bookcase full....

but from the online description:

----------

Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham represents the first in a series of books in the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) collection at Brigham Young University. Here the authors have assembled and translated more than 100 ancient and medieval stories from their original Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Persian, Coptic, and Egyptian sources, all in an effort to piece together the early life of Abraham. This unprecedented compilation sheds new light on the Book of Abraham as an authentic ancient text and will be a welcome resource for biblical and religious studies scholars.

----------

does this not just prove my point? -- the gritty details we find in the Book of Abraham, are published in many other "medieval sources" -- Yet another apologetic tactic I find questionable, is to base arguments where Joseph Smith and his cohorts were simply not aware of all of these biblical traditions.. Just because some random piece of Abrahamic folklore was only published in German, or Greek, or Latin, does not mean it was unknown ??? --- It strains credulity to make this argument.

[CA Steve]

13- There are many sources that describe the original Papyri - all of these descriptions(that I am aware of) have been shown to point to known/extant papyri documents -- anyone who described the details contained on the papyri, including the source of the Book of Abraham describe "KNOWN" papyri -- there are no first hand/second hand/third hand/any hand -- etc cetera...descriptions of papyrus details that are unknown to scholarship... which makes the argument for a "missing papyri" a necessary tactic to create plausibility to explain your #1 -- It is clear to me, If all of the known descriptions of the papyrus have a related source, there are no missing pieces period -- no room length papyrus containing the Book of Abraham source - no number of calculations make this relevant ..

~e

Bold mine.

While I think all contemporary descriptions are of extant pieces or of pieces that are missing but for which we still have copies, like Facsimile#2 & #3. I do not think there is any question but that some of the papyri that Joseph Smith had is missing. For example we know that part of the Hor scroll is missing. The Hor scroll being the one described in the Book of Abraham as beginning with Facsimile #1 and ending with Facsimile#3. The Church currently hold three pieces of this scroll. They are Facsimile#1, PSJ X & PJS X, It is clear there is a small section missing between PJS X and PSJ XI (the two hieratic texts pieces from the Hor Scroll) perhaps as little as one winding. I also think there is a general consensus that a larger piece is missing between PJS X and Facsimile #3. I think there is also general agreement that the two hieratic texts pieces are just ordinary funerary texts unrelated to the Book of Abraham. One of the main points of dispute between critics and apologist is the length of the missing section between PJS X and Facsimile #3.

[Calm]

Just because some random piece of Abrahamic folklore was only published in German, or Greek, or Latin, does not mean it was unknown ??? --- It strains credulity to make this argument.

Would you accept not published at all in modern times until after JS had written the BoA text? IIRC....and it's been awhile since I've read the book, I will check it depending on your answer, there were texts that had been lost and rediscovered after JS. Are you suggesting simply because they were once available that means they have always been available?

[robuchan]

Would you accept not published at all in modern times until after JS had written the BoA text? IIRC....and it's been awhile since I've read the book, I will check it depending on your answer, there were texts that had been lost and rediscovered after JS. Are you suggesting simply because they were once available that means they have always been available?

Which Abrahamic folklore did BoA get right that wasn't available until BoA was published?

[EVOLVING]

[1]Would you accept not published at all in modern times until after JS had written the BoA text? IIRC....and it's been awhile since I've read the book, I will check it depending on your answer, there were texts that had been lost and rediscovered after JS. [2]Are you suggesting simply because they were once available that means they have always been available?

[1] - Would I be interested in seeing the data - Yes... But my conclusion of an inauthentic Book of Abraham is not only based on the papyri and related KEP material, but an analysis of the JST and other biblical texts.. not failing to take into consideration repeated attempts to pound square pegs in round holes. I have had my a-ha moments -- unfortunately, they have all come with the conclusion that apologetic attempts to re-contextualize the original authors stated purpose, is just plain dis-honest..

[2] - No... clearly, discoveries have been made that validate this -- But, there are a plethora of available narratives related to the Abrahamic tradition -- With three major religions claiming Abraham as a father - thousands of published variations of the stories.. I simply don't believe the actual text of the Book of Abraham adds anything new to this picture. If "by the hand of Abraham" means what Joseph Smith claimed, then all attempts to argue for an authentic ancient / then translated text -- need to start there..The very moment you depart from the authors repeatedly stated purpose.. you're off the track.. (in my opinion)

~e

[TAO]

Through the years I've read a few of the several articles on the BoA. It's never ending. I think intellectuals can make a case for anything. They have the brain for it. Me I just see it logically that JS didn't translate it, but received a revelation of the words he wrote. Where he got the revelation I'm not sure. Just as the BoM, I believe he didn't translate from plates, they weren't often around or were in another room. That logically says to me some of it was revealed to him and some he used other means for it or was inspired to write. This is how my pea brain works. My scope is very small I guess. But I'm open to being proved wrong, because of that pea brain in my head.

Hey, I got the same idea! We'll both be pea brains together (if you don't mind that is) =D.

Edited September 2, 2012 by TAO

[volgadon]

No, I have not read this book ---- I simply refuse to spend any more money for apologetic material. I already have a bookcase full....

but from the online description:

----------

Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham represents the first in a series of books in the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) collection at Brigham Young University. Here the authors have assembled and translated more than 100 ancient and medieval stories from their original Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Persian, Coptic, and Egyptian sources, all in an effort to piece together the early life of Abraham. This unprecedented compilation sheds new light on the Book of Abraham as an authentic ancient text and will be a welcome resource for biblical and religious studies scholars.

----------

does this not just prove my point? -- the gritty details we find in the Book of Abraham, are published in many other "medieval sources" -- Yet another apologetic tactic I find questionable, is to base arguments where Joseph Smith and his cohorts were simply not aware of all of these biblical traditions.. Just because some random piece of Abrahamic folklore was only published in German, or Greek, or Latin, does not mean it was unknown ??? --- It strains credulity to make this argument.

There is more to the book than apologetics. I find it very helpful, as it presents a extensive collection of Abrahamic traditions which facilitates a comparison of the various traditions. Makes it much easier to sort out the various strands, developments, and relations between the traditions. It can be a daunting task, but necessary in order to reconstruct the religious world of the past. From an apologetic standpoint, this is priceless, too, enabling the BoA to be placed within the context of the larger Abrahamic patterns. That kind of correlation is far more impressive than stand-alone hits. It can answer the questions of why certain features of later texts, or traditions theoretically available to Joseph Smith, are not found in the BoA. For example, the tradition of a star foretelling Abraham's birth and Nimrod's attempt to murder. Shari L. Lowin argued that this was introduced into Jewish tradition via Muslim sources. By using the TAELA, I easily substantiated that argument for myself. It was a very early tradition about Moses, but not Abraham. No Jewish or Christian source predating Islam ever used it, as far as we know. Neither does the BoA. I'm not calling this a bull's-eye- I'm sure one could find a way somehow to discount it- but it is one more pointer to an origin predating the advent of Islam. Its absence is precisely what one should expect.

Medieval sources can be used seriously. Moshe Idel and Yehuda Liebes have pointed out many earlier traditions preserved even in late Jewish sources, and I've found a few, even recently, but one has to know how to look. There is even a Jewish folk tradition from Urfa, recorded in the mid-20th century, that preserves many earlier elements. This one isn't in the TAELA, but it does speak to the vitality of traditions from Late Antiquity.

If you worry about parallelomania, this is a serious resource to use.

Edited September 2, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

[2] - No... clearly, discoveries have been made that validate this -- But, there are a plethora of available narratives related to the Abrahamic tradition -- With three major religions claiming Abraham as a father - thousands of published variations of the stories.. I simply don't believe the actual text of the Book of Abraham adds anything new to this picture.

Even if you disagree that the BoA is ancient, it is not a pastiche, but forms a coherent and cohesive narrative. It has its own, unique voice which is worth studying.

Edited September 2, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

1) the scrolls date to 100 BC or whatever. it seems unlikely they would be stored with ancient scrolls written by Abraham and Joseph

I have a book written by the hand of Maimonides. Ok, it is a PDF copy of a book printed in the 19th century on the basis of later manuscript copies of copies of Maimonidean manuscripts. One can still say in Hebrew that it is a book written by the hands of Maimonides, and none will give you dirty looks.

[Jude2]

1.) The main issue is that what we have today of the Book of Abraham Papyrus is definitely shown to be a egyptian funeral text unrelated to Abraham - (LDS apoligist agree) yet Critics still mock this - why, when this has nothing to do with the reasons below that apoligist use to defend the translation in spite of point #1

I was confronted with this some time back on another website. The poster had a whole list of things wrong with Joseph’s description of Facsimile 1 so I decided to do a little looking around on the internet myself.

This poster said Figure 1 of the bird was a "ba" of the deceased. “The ba is basically a person's personality — all of his/her non-physical attributes”

So I looked this up and all of the “Ba”s I found had human heads placed on top of the bird. Look it up yourself here;

egyptian-gods.org/egyptian-symbols-ba/

Our little bird does not have a human head and I believe it is a dove.

I found that in Egyptian symbolism the dove represents innocence and sits in the branches of the Tree of Life and appears with the fruit of the tree and vases of the waters of life. Now how Book of Mormon is that ??

This guy went through 12 different figures trying to explain why Joseph was wrong. I was able to find answers using non Mormon sources that Joseph was right.

But what really set this in stone for me was figure 9 of the crocodile and Joseph declaring it to be "The idolatrous god of Pharaoh"

He’s not calling the Pharaoh a crocodile but that the crocodile was the god the different Pharaohs worshiped or represented the Pharaoh's power. Sobek as the Egyptians called him was the crocodile god and Abraham traveling through Egypt would have been familiar with him.

There is no way Joseph could have known this at all but there is more; In verse 9 of chapter 1 it says’

"And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh (the crocodile), and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.

Again he's not saying Shagreel is the sun god put that Shagreel worshiped the god of the sun. The god known as Ra was the Sun god and a round disc was his symbol but there was a time when these two gods actually merged into one

"Sobek-Ra was an entity who combined the essence of two deities: the crocodile god and the sun god. This dual god is depicted as part animal to convey his strange and awesome divine powers. In particular, he has the strength, cunning, and longevity of the crocodile and power over the life-giving waters of the Nile. The solar disc in the headdress conveys that Ra, god of life-giving light, is manifesting himself in his form of Sobek…."

If you’ll go here you’ll see a picture of Sobek-Ra.

http://symbolankh.de...05663-sobek-ra/

All I’m saying is your critics and I don’t care how many letters they have after their names, are wrong. They wanted so badly to prove Joseph Smith wrong they forgot to look at what he had right.

[Tacenda]

I was confronted with this some time back on another website. The poster had a whole list of things wrong with Joseph’s description of Facsimile 1 so I decided to do a little looking around on the internet myself.

This poster said Figure 1 of the bird was a "ba" of the deceased. “The ba is basically a person's personality — all of his/her non-physical attributes”

So I looked this up and all of the “Ba”s I found had human heads placed on top of the bird. Look it up yourself here;

egyptian-gods.org/egyptian-symbols-ba/

Our little bird does not have a human head and I believe it is a dove.

I found that in Egyptian symbolism the dove represents innocence and sits in the branches of the Tree of Life and appears with the fruit of the tree and vases of the waters of life. Now how Book of Mormon is that ??

This guy went through 12 different figures trying to explain why Joseph was wrong. I was able to find answers using non Mormon sources that Joseph was right.

But what really set this in stone for me was figure 9 of the crocodile and Joseph declaring it to be "The idolatrous god of Pharaoh"

He’s not calling the Pharaoh a crocodile but that the crocodile was the god the different Pharaohs worshiped or represented the Pharaoh's power. Sobek as the Egyptians called him was the crocodile god and Abraham traveling through Egypt would have been familiar with him.

There is no way Joseph could have known this at all but there is more; In verse 9 of chapter 1 it says’

"And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh (the crocodile), and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.

Again he's not saying Shagreel is the sun god put that Shagreel worshiped the god of the sun. The god known as Ra was the Sun god and a round disc was his symbol but there was a time when these two gods actually merged into one

"Sobek-Ra was an entity who combined the essence of two deities: the crocodile god and the sun god. This dual god is depicted as part animal to convey his strange and awesome divine powers. In particular, he has the strength, cunning, and longevity of the crocodile and power over the life-giving waters of the Nile. The solar disc in the headdress conveys that Ra, god of life-giving light, is manifesting himself in his form of Sobek…."

If you’ll go here you’ll see a picture of Sobek-Ra.

http://symbolankh.de...05663-sobek-ra/

All I’m saying is your critics and I don’t care how many letters they have after their names, are wrong. They wanted so badly to prove Joseph Smith wrong they forgot to look at what he had right.

Wow, really good points to think about of Joseph getting it right!