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

[DBMormon]

[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

Is the Book Of Mormon said to be written by the hand of Mormon? Did he actually write the copy I am reading? Lord of the Rings was written by the hand of J.R. Tolkein.... Does that mean he actually wrote the copy I read published in 1987?

Is it false to say that the Book of Revelation is written by the hand of John the Revelator yet he didn't write the english that version I have in my scriptures right? This seems to me a straw man.

It seems critics rest on these issues

1.) By the hand of Abraham has to mean Abraham wrote directly the very copy Joseph had in his possession and that it is impossible for Joseph to think it was an original when it wasn't. So there are actually two explanations for this "issues"

2.) That because the papyri we have is a egyptian funeral text, then automatically that means all of the papyri from this collection came from this same document and it is impossible that there were multiple documents in Joseph's possesion.

(even though it is fact that some of of witnesses saw and what we know were in there are not included in the standard egyptian funeral text we are familar with)

3.) The most difficult issue is the translation of the facsimale. The assumption here is that Joseph absolutely got this dead wrong and that automatically this facsimale is always used to tell a egyptian story and is never borrowed by another culture to tell another story. And even if that is conceded then it is impossible for Joseph egyptian copy to have been translated in the way those of the Abraham tradition used it.

I think issue 1 & 2 could be seen either way and is not proof of a problem. I think #3 is difficult but that there are good explanations that need to be better researched and understood in a different context.

Edited September 2, 2012 by DBMormon

[The Grimace]

DBMormon,

You have a very superficial understanding of the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham; this shows in your inability to dive further than an opinion. Perhaps a lit review would help you see that the debate is much richer than you are making it sound.

Basically, your argument centers on, "critics are really blind and dumb if they can't see or understand...."

[volgadon]

Professor Sexias could have been a great resource for ancient Jewish folklore

Perhaps, but a bit too speculative for my taste. We know neither Seixas' attitude to aggadah, nor the extent of his familiarity with it. Those questions do need to be answered before too much can be made of Seixas as a source.

[CA Steve]

Why would the Egyptians bury a copy of text written by Abraham, a member of a race enslaved by the Egyptians, with the body of a Pharaoh?

Why would the Egyptians preserve a copy of a text originally written by Abraham for nearly 2000 years?

[EVOLVING]

...,it is not a pastiche, but forms a coherent and cohesive narrative. It has its own, unique voice which is worth studying.

-- I disagree -- the Book of Abraham, as translated by Joseph Smith, it the purest definition of a pastiche -- It is based on, and borrows heavily from the Genesis narrative -- much of the text is an exact copy of the KJV Genesis. ------- as to the "coherent and cohesive" component - Yes, I agree is is consistent with the standard Abrahamic mythos -- It is the astronomical and theological components that (for me) have limited value. I no longer read ancient texts as historical accurate narratives. --- fool me once, shame on you......

[volgadon]

Why would the Egyptians bury a copy of text written by Abraham, a member of a race enslaved by the Egyptians, with the body of a Pharaoh?

Why would the Egyptians preserve a copy of a text originally written by Abraham for nearly 2000 years?

First of all, the mummy in question was not a pharaoh. Second, you might want to read up on the syncretism in the Roman-Hellenistic world. The trend was not to totally discount another's myths or gods, but to either relate your own version of the events, often calumnising the other, or to identify them with your own heroes, gods, etc. An ancient text was considered important, even if it its POV could conflict with your own. Moses and Abraham were considered sources of ancient wisdom, and power, and IAO, that is, YHWH, was frequently used in ritual and "magical" settings.

[volgadon]

-- I disagree -- the Book of Abraham, as translated by Joseph Smith, it the purest definition of a pastiche -- It is based on, and borrows heavily from the Genesis narrative -- much of the text is an exact copy of the KJV Genesis. ------- as to the "coherent and cohesive" component - Yes, I agree is is consistent with the standard Abrahamic mythos -- It is the astronomical and theological components that (for me) have limited value. I no longer read ancient texts as historical accurate narratives. --- fool me once, shame on you......

I'm using pastiche in the sense of hodgepodge, I.E., something cobbled together from different sources. The degree and usage of such things is what counts. The BoA is certainly not that, even though it does use the biblical text, the text is an integral part of the narrative, and is adapted accordingly. I really think you might be missing the point I was making about a coherent and cohesive narrative, in which case that is probably my fault. I'm talking about the BoA as a whole, by itself. It has its own story to tell, which is not identical to other Abrahamic writings. The choices and presentation of the narrative make internal sense, and this impression isonly strengthened when compared to other Abrahamic writings.

[CA Steve]

First of all, the mummy in question was not a pharaoh. Second, you might want to read up on the syncretism in the Roman-Hellenistic world. The trend was not to totally discount another's myths or gods, but to either relate your own version of the events, often calumnising the other, or to identify them with your own heroes, gods, etc. An ancient text was considered important, even if it its POV could conflict with your own. Moses and Abraham were considered sources of ancient wisdom, and power, and IAO, that is, YHWH, was frequently used in ritual and "magical" settings.

I realize Horos was not a Pharaoh. Joseph Smith thought he was Pharaoh. If we consider who Horos was, a Theban priest who live around 150 BC from a priestly family belonging to a cult of "Min who massacres his enemies", it remains equally implausible that these Egyptians would bury texts "written by Abraham and Joseph" with Horos.

[volgadon]

I realize Horos was not a Pharaoh. Joseph Smith thought he was Pharaoh. If we consider who Horos was, a Theban priest who live around 150 BC from a priestly family belonging to a cult of "Min who massacres his enemies", it remains equally implausible that these Egyptians would bury texts "written by Abraham and Joseph" with Horos.

No, it really doesn't remain equally implausible. Egyptian priests used texts which refered positively to Abraham, Moses, and other prophets. One text even has the priest identify himself with Moses.

[DBMormon]

DBMormon,

You have a very superficial understanding of the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham; this shows in your inability to dive further than an opinion. Perhaps a lit review would help you see that the debate is much richer than you are making it sound.

Basically, your argument centers on, "critics are really blind and dumb if they can't see or understand...."

No what I am saying is that critics (as many members do on the other end of the spectrum) allow very little flexibility in what could be or what might be permitted or reasonable.

All ex-LDS feel they have moved onto stage 5 faith and see themselves as enlightened. They fail to recognize that just as many ex-LDS are still in stage 3 as there are believing members of the church. It is just as difficult to get a critic to allow some flexibility as it is with members who are in stage 3. I see room here to say... "You know, I don't think that is what happened, bu there is enough evidence to at least make it a reasonable possibility)

I see little of that on both sides of the debate. between critic and apoligetics and between Stage 3 believers and those in stage 4 or 5 (who may even be deeply rooted believers as well)

Edited September 2, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Also I am enjoying reading these posts and they are assisting me in better wrapping my head around this issue.

My thoughts.... there are many different reasonable ways to come to a conclusion.

[Tacenda]

Also I am enjoying reading these posts and they are assisting me in better wrapping my head around this issue.

My thoughts.... there are many different reasonable ways to come to a conclusion.

I'm hesitant to ask a personal question but I've read some here refer to you as "bishop". Are you currently serving as one? If so I think you would totally be a huge help to those that struggle with historical issues or the like.

[DBMormon]

I'm hesitant to ask a personal question but I've read some here refer to you as "bishop". Are you currently serving as one? If so I think you would totally be a huge help to those that struggle with historical issues or the like.

I am currently serving as a Bishop..... yes. My dream is to be 2nd councelor in the Ward Sunday School Presidentcy though. I try to do what you have implied with the exception of this board where my inner puma seems to show.

Edited September 2, 2012 by DBMormon

[volgadon]

Also I am enjoying reading these posts and they are assisting me in better wrapping my head around this issue.

My thoughts.... there are many different reasonable ways to come to a conclusion.

Agreed.

[volgadon]

No, it really doesn't remain equally implausible. Egyptian priests used texts which refered positively to Abraham, Moses, and other prophets. One text even has the priest identify himself with Moses.

I will preempt any CFR.

PGM V. 96-172

[CA Steve]

I will preempt any CFR.

PGM V. 96-172

Thanks for the reference Volgadon. Can you give me a bit more information on that reference that will help me find it and read it? I am not familiar with "PGM" or how to look it up.

One reference to a priest identifying himself with Moses, or even to other priests who used texts referring to Abraham or Moses still does not explain, as far as I can see, why a Theben priest from that cult circa 150 BC, nearly 2000 years after Abraham would be buried with a lengthy text about Abraham and possibly even Joseph. Remember the second scroll which was never translated was about Joseph. We are not talking about references to them rather texts the length of the Book of Abraham burred with them.

Edited September 2, 2012 by CA Steve

[volgadon]

Thanks for the reference Volgadon. Can you give me a bit more information on that reference that will help me find it and read it? I am not familiar with "PGM" or how to look it up.

One reference to a priest identifying himself with Moses, or even to other priests who used texts referring to Abraham or Moses still does not explain, as far as I can see, why a Theben priest from that cult circa 150 BC, nearly 2000 years after Abraham would be buried with a lengthy text about Abraham and possibly even Joseph. Remember the second scroll which was never translated was about Joseph. We are not talking about references to them rather texts the length of the Book of Abraham burred with them.

There is more than one positive reference to Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and YHWH. There are quite a few, as even a cursory look at the PGM, that is, the Papyri Graecae Magicae, will reveal. Pedro has even posted on this board the other day an example of a text using Abraham's name. Hard to escape the feeling that you are switching the goalposts. First you talked about texts, now it is lengthy texts. Why is length an issue? If there was such a strong antipathy to biblical figures, why would there be even a short, positive mention? In other words, why would an Egyptian priest identify himself with Moses in a ritual context, if what you are saying is true.

[CA Steve]

There is more than one positive reference to Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and YHWH. There are quite a few, as even a cursory look at the PGM, that is, the Papyri Graecae Magicae, will reveal. Pedro has even posted on this board the other day an example of a text using Abraham's name. Hard to escape the feeling that you are switching the goalposts. First you talked about texts, now it is lengthy texts. Why is length an issue? If there was such a strong antipathy to biblical figures, why would there be even a short, positive mention? In other words, why would an Egyptian priest identify himself with Moses in a ritual context, if what you are saying is true.

I am not trying to move the goal posts rather I am trying to explore the question of the plausibility of a hieratic text the length of the book of Abraham being buried with Horos and why the Egyptians would preserve such a text intact (either an original or a copy of the original) for 2000 years to be buried in such a manner. . I am not sure your response about priests referencing Moses, Abraham and the prophets addressed either of those questions.

On Edit.

Length is not an issue other than how much hieratic text would be required to write the Book of Abraham.

Edited September 2, 2012 by CA Steve

[volgadon]

I am not trying to move the goal posts rather I am trying to explore the question of the plausibility of a hieratic text the length of the book of Abraham being buried with Horos and why the Egyptians would preserve such a text intact (either an original or a copy of the original) for 2000 years to be buried in such a manner. . I am not sure your response about priests referencing Moses, Abraham and the prophets addressed either of those questions.

On Edit.

Length is not an issue other than how much hieratic text would be required to write the Book of Abraham.

An ancient text ascribed to a powerful figure who enjoyed the protection of a powerful deity and from whom he recieved revelations regarding the creation of the world, the heavenly bodies and their governing powers, as well as the times and seasons in the celestial and earthly spheres, none of this knowledge would have been of the slightest interest or use to an Egyptian priest?

[volgadon]

For the record, I wouldn't mind seeing more nuanced and sophisticated critical arguments against the BoA. As we shall be dealing with critcisms no matter what, might at least have something worthy of the little grey cells.

[volgadon]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58763-greek-magical-papyri-and-the-demotic-spells/

[CA Steve]

deleted.

Edited September 3, 2012 by CA Steve

[volgadon]

PGM V. 96-172

*Stele of Jeu the hieroglyphist in his letter:

"I summon you, Headless One, who created earth and heaven, who created night and day, / you who created light and darkness; you are Osoronnophris whom none has ever seen; you are Iabas; you are Iapos; you have distinguished the just and the unjust; you have made female and male; / you have revealed seed and fruits; you have made men love each other and hate each other.

"I am Moses your prophet to whom you have transmitted your mysteries / celebrated by Israel; you have revealed the moist and the dry and all nourishment; hear me.

"I am the messenger of Pharaoh Osoronnophris; / this is your true name which has been transmitted to the prophets of Israel. Hear me, ARBATHIAO REIBET ATHELEBERSETH [ARA] BLATHA ALBEU EBENPHCHI CHITASGOE IBAOTH IAO; / listen to me and turn away this daimon."

"I call upon you, awesome and invisible god with an empty spirit," AROGOGOROBRAO SOCHOU MODORIO PHALARCHAO OOO. Holy Headless One, deliver him, NN, from the daimon which restrains him, / ROUBRIAO MARI ODAM BAABNABAOTH *** ADONAI APHNIAO ITHOLETH ABRASAX AEOOY; mighty Headless One, deliver him, NN, from the daimon which restrains him. / MABARRAIO IOEL KOTHA ATHOREBALO ABRAOTH, deliver him, NN AOTH ABRAOTH BASYM ISAK SABAOTH IAO. /

"He is the lord of the gods; he is the lord of the inhabited world; he is the one whom the winds fear; he is the one who made all things by the command of his voice."

"Lord, King, Master, Helper, / save the soul, IEOU PYR IOU PYR IAOT IAEO IOOU ABRASAX SABRIAM OO YY EY OO YY ADONAIE, immediately, immediately, good messenger of God ANLALA LAI GAIA APA DIACHANNA CHORYN."

"I am the headless daimon with my sight in my feet; [i am] the mighty one [who possesses] the immortal fire; I am the truth who hates the fact that unjust deeds are done in the world; I am the one who makes the lightning flash and the thunder roll; / I am the one whose sweat is the heavy rain which falls upon the earth that it might be inseminated; I am the one whose mouth burns completely; I am the one who begets and destroys; / I am the Favor of the Aion; my name is a heart encircled by a serpent; come forth and follow."

Preparation for the foregoing ritual: Write the formula on a new shcet of papyrus, and after extending it from one / of your temples to the other, read the 6 names, while you face north saying,

"Subject to me all daimons, / so that every daimon, whether heavenly or aerial or earthly or subterranean or terrestrial or aquatic, might be obedient to me and every enchantment and scourge which is from God." / And all daimons will be obedient to you.

The bennefcial sign is: >

*Tr.: D. E. Aune.

[wenglund]

Perhaps, but a bit too speculative for my taste. We know neither Seixas' attitude to aggadah, nor the extent of his familiarity with it. Those questions do need to be answered before too much can be made of Seixas as a source.

Besides, if memory serves me correctly, Seixas didn't arrive in Kirtland until the first part of January, 1836. Most scholars agree that at least the first couple of chapters of the BoA had been translated prior to that time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-