"Egyptian Redaction" Theory & Fac 3

[Brian 2.0]

Rhodes posits a theory that the Facsimiles we have in the JS Papayri are just as they appear to be, mainly, Egyptian facsimiles from Hor Breathing Permit, but that those fascilmiles were actually derived from Abraham's original drawings from 2000 years earlier. Abraham drew the original... people copied and adapated that image over 2000 years... eventually ending up as what we know as Facs 3 from the Hor Breating Permit.

I don't know if this theory has a name, but I call it the "egyptian redaction" theory because it's similar to the "Jewish Redaction" theory only taken a few step further back in history. It's the Egpytians that were adating Abraham. And Joseph Smith was explaning the original Abraham drawing when interpretting Fac 3.

He has a paper on this "Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimlies"

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...aham-facsimiles

It's also in this FAIR video, link below is cued up to correct spot:

http://youtu.be/Ha-17UFyH90?t=3m49s

Rhodes continues saying that the real "pivitol question" regarding this theory is that "is there evidence that, even in distorted form, these illustrations were anciently associated with Abraham?"

Truly a valid question to this interesting theory.

Rhodes goes on to say YES, there is. And as his support regarding Facs 3, he cites the Testament of Abraham.

This reference purplexes me.

Yes, I will grant the similaries between the two. But the Testament of Abraham is written AFTER the Hor Breathing Permit, even accoring to Rhodes' own dating. This fact is why Barney uses Testament as evidence for his Jewish Redaction theory.

Rhodes obviously isn't saying that the person who scribed Facs 3 in the Hor Breathing Permit was adapting the judgement scene in the Testament of Abrahman, because Testament hadn't even been written yet! So what is he saying?

In regards to Fac 3 (which is what I'm focusing my research on right now) Rhodes pivitol question remains unanswered. Are there evidences of Abraham's original drawing of him teaching astronomy in King Pharoah's court, even if it's distorted and adapted drawings used by redactors throughout the 2000 years betwen Abraham and the Hor Breathing Permit?

Rhodes seems to provide no evidences of such examples within that time period, and thus it seem that this "Egyptian Redaction" theory is, as far as i can tell, a theory without evidence.

Any other sources I'm missing on this particular point?

Edited June 17, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not certain why you posit this so-called "Egyptian redaction" theory. The transmission of a document such as the Book of Abraham would most likely have taken place within the large and very active Jewish community in Egypt. My documentary analysis shows it to be a J document, i.e., a Yahwist document connected with the traditional Jewish community. The Testament of Abraham, which is dated from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D. by various commentators, is believed to have been just such a document transmitted within Egypt by the Jewish community.

What sort of illustrations may have originally been associated with the book can only be guessed at, but the range of possible Egyptian iconography available was likely as good for the Testament of Abraham as it was for the Book of Abraham -- both of which clearly use Egyptian iconotropy.

[Brian 2.0]

I am not certain why you posit this so-called "Egyptian redaction" theory.

I'm not trying to posit anything. I'm trying to restate what Rhodes is positing...

Rhodes: "The likely explanation here is that the original illustrations done by Abraham had been modified and adapted for use by Hor, the owner of the papyrus."

He's saying that Abraham composed an illustration of him teaching Astronomy in Egypt and over the next 2000 years it was tranmitted and adapted to other communities eventually ending up as the Facsimiles we have on the Hor Breathing Permit, and now in the Book of Abraham. For example, The Egyptian iconography of Fac 3 from the Breathing Permit has been borrowed from Abraham. While the Egyptian image is very different (showing the deceased Hor entering the precense of Osiris), the image has roots to Abraham's original 2000 years earlier of Abraham teaching astronomy, it's just been distorted and adapted over two millenium.

This isn't my theory. I'm just trying to understand it.

The transmission of a document such as the Book of Abraham would most likely have taken place within the large and very active Jewish community in Egypt. My documentary analysis shows it to be a J document, i.e., a Yahwist document connected with the traditional Jewish community.

I'm assuming that the "it" in "shows it to be a J document" is referring to the Book of Abraham correct? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you.

The Testament of Abraham, which is dated from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D. by various commentators, is believed to have been just such a document transmitted within Egypt by the Jewish community.

What sort of illustrations may have originally been associated with the book can only be guessed at, but the range of possible Egyptian iconography available was likely as good for the Testament of Abraham as it was for the Book of Abraham -- both of which clearly use Egyptian iconotropy.

I totally understand that the writer of The Testament of Abraham had access to Egpytian iconogrpahy and could have adapted the Egpytian art to use in the Abraham story. Rhodes himself says that it appears that the writer of the Testament of Abraham might have been looking at images from the Book of the Dead.

I'm talking about a different argument. One that has Egyptians borrowing their inconogrpahy from Abraham or the Jewish community. Evidence of this would be in the form of Abraham's original (obviously not discovered) or any copies over the following 2000 years of Abraham's illustration of him teaching astronomy, even if they were highly distorted... something to show that the the Egyptian iconogrpahy had roots in Abraham's original.

That is the evidence i'm not seeing for Rhodes theory.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[cdowis]

Rhodes: "The likely explanation here is that the original illustrations done by Abraham had been modified and adapted for use by Hor, the owner of the papyrus."

He's saying that Abraham composed an illustration of him teaching Astronomy in Egypt and over the next 2000 years it was tranmitted and adapted to other communities eventually ending up as the Facsimiles we have on the Hor Breathing Permit, and now in the Book of Abraham. For example, The Egyptian iconography of Fac 3 from the Breathing Permit has been borrowed from Abraham. While the Egyptian image is very different (showing the deceased Hor entering the precense of Osiris), the image has roots to Abraham's original 2000 years earlier of Abraham teaching astronomy, it's just been distorted and adapted over two millenium.

This isn't my theory. I'm just trying to understand it.

I'm assuming that the "it" in "shows it to be a J document" is referring to the Book of Abraham correct? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you.

I totally understand that the writer of The Testament of Abraham had access to Egpytian iconogrpahy and could have adapted the Egpytian art to use in the Abraham story. Rhodes himself says that it appears that the writer of the Testament of Abraham might have been looking at images from the Book of the Dead.

I'm talking about a different argument. One that has Egyptians borrowing their inconogrpahy from Abraham or the Jewish community. Evidence of this would be in the form of Abraham's original (obviously not discovered) or any copies over the following 2000 years of Abraham's illustration of him teaching astronomy, even if they were highly distorted... something to show that the the Egyptian iconogrpahy had roots in Abraham's original.

That is the evidence i'm not seeing for Rhodes theory.

Here is one possibility. This goes back to the Tvedtnes mneumonic theory.

The "Hor document" was the original BOA in mneumonic form, but, while the Egyptians knew that this BOD was an important religious text, over the centuries they lost the knowledge that it related to Abraham and, like the Bible today, gave it their own interpretation.

[Brian 2.0]

Here is one possibility. This goes back to the Tvedtnes mneumonic theory.

The "Hor document" was the original BOA in mneumonic form, but, while the Egyptians knew that this BOD was an important religious text, over the centuries they lost the knowledge that it related to Abraham and, like the Bible today, gave it their own interpretation.

I understand that theory, but I don't see any evidence for it.

And evidence for this theory can't simply be "there are examples of Mneumonic text" There would need to be some evidence to show how this Hor document could be one. I can claim today's New York Times is a mneumonic text about an Abraham, but I would need to show evidence of that if anyone wants to believe that theory.

[Lasvegasrichard]

There still isn't any rational answer to how Osiris ever can be interpreted to be Abraham

[Kevin Christensen]

There still isn't any rational answer to how Osiris ever can be interpreted to be Abraham

Sure there is. Blake Ostler, here, for example.

http://www.blakeostl...ocs/Abraham.pdf

Nibley made similar observations.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 18, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[cdowis]

There still isn't any rational answer to how Osiris ever can be interpreted to be Abraham

I do not understand what you mean here.

For example, in the Bible, how can "The Father and I are one" be interpreted as homoousia (one substance). I find no rational basis for that interpretation.

That is what happens when an apostate (Egyptian) religion gets its hands on a scriptural text (BOA). You have to ignore the apostate interpretation, don't try to figure it out, and substitute the correct interpretation. The apostate Egyptian merely substituted Horus for Abraham.

Do you have a problem with that? Is that your rational answer. If not, please explain "one substance" to me.

[Brian 2.0]

That is what happens when an apostate (Egyptian) religion gets its hands on a scriptural text (BOA). You have to ignore the apostate interpretation, don't try to figure it out, and substitute the correct interpretation. The apostate Egyptian merely substituted Horus for Abraham.

Do you have a problem with that?

This is the exact theory I am talking about in my OP. Is this possible? Sure. Almost anything is "possible". Including that the JS Papyri is a mnemonic device for the lyrics to Stairway to Heaven. So what evidence is there to this theory you describe?

Evidence for this would come in the form of proving some of these "scriptural texts" of the BOA that these Egyptians "got their hands on". Abraham's original of him teaching astronomy, copies of that original, alterations of that original... Something over that 2000 year period that you could look to and say "it was these kind of documents that the Egyptians were looking at when they made Facs 3.

No evidence like this has been provided as far as I can tell. So your theory, while possible, has no supporting evidence behind it.

The only "evidence" I see put forth for this basically amounts to "Redaction happens" (I agree). And "sometime that redaction involves Abraham or a judgement scene" (I agree). But that is NOT evidence that Facs 3 or anything in the JS Papyri is an Egyptian redaction of the original BOA.

[bcuzbcuz]

Rhodes posits a theory that the Facsimiles we have in the JS Papayri are just as they appear to be, mainly, Egyptian facsimiles from Hor Breathing Permit, but that those fascilmiles were actually derived from Abraham's original drawings from 2000 years earlier. Abraham drew the original... people copied and adapated that image over 2000 years... eventually ending up as what we know as Facs 3 from the Hor Breating Permit.

I don't know if this theory has a name, but I call it the "egyptian redaction" theory because it's similar to the "Jewish Redaction" theory only taken a few step further back in history. It's the Egpytians that were adating Abraham. And Joseph Smith was explaning the original Abraham drawing when interpretting Fac 3.

He has a paper on this "Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimlies"

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...aham-facsimiles

It's also in this FAIR video, link below is cued up to correct spot:

http://youtu.be/Ha-17UFyH90?t=3m49s

Rhodes continues saying that the real "pivitol question" regarding this theory is that "is there evidence that, even in distorted form, these illustrations were anciently associated with Abraham?"

Truly a valid question to this interesting theory.

Rhodes goes on to say YES, there is. And as his support regarding Facs 3, he cites the Testament of Abraham.

This reference purplexes me.

Yes, I will grant the similaries between the two. But the Testament of Abraham is written AFTER the Hor Breathing Permit, even accoring to Rhodes' own dating. This fact is why Barney uses Testament as evidence for his Jewish Redaction theory.

Rhodes obviously isn't saying that the person who scribed Facs 3 in the Hor Breathing Permit was adapting the judgement scene in the Testament of Abrahman, because Testament hadn't even been written yet! So what is he saying?

In regards to Fac 3 (which is what I'm focusing my research on right now) Rhodes pivitol question remains unanswered. Are there evidences of Abraham's original drawing of him teaching astronomy in King Pharoah's court, even if it's distorted and adapted drawings used by redactors throughout the 2000 years betwen Abraham and the Hor Breathing Permit?

Rhodes seems to provide no evidences of such examples within that time period, and thus it seem that this "Egyptian Redaction" theory is, as far as i can tell, a theory without evidence.

Any other sources I'm missing on this particular point?

Rhodes references to Abraham come from a book published in 1842. Why is that significant? Many, if not most of the writers about Egyptian history who published prior to the early 20th century had a conviction that Biblical stories, such as Abraham and Moses, were based in fact. If someone claimed a link between Abraham and Egypt it was accepted without question.

When actual archaeological evidence has not provided any evidence of any connection between Abraham and Egypt, then the link to Abraham becomes tenuous at best.

The evidence, in fact, makes the personage of Abraham questionable. It is not even known if Abraham existed. The founding father for Egyptian burial systems is extremely questionable. It befalls the proposition to be proven with some actual evidence instead of mere conjecture.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not trying to posit anything. I'm trying to restate what Rhodes is positing...

Rhodes: "The likely explanation here is that the original illustrations done by Abraham had been modified and adapted for use by Hor, the owner of the papyrus."

He's saying that Abraham composed an illustration of him teaching Astronomy in Egypt and over the next 2000 years it was tranmitted and adapted to other communities eventually ending up as the Facsimiles we have on the Hor Breathing Permit, and now in the Book of Abraham. For example, The Egyptian iconography of Fac 3 from the Breathing Permit has been borrowed from Abraham. While the Egyptian image is very different (showing the deceased Hor entering the precense of Osiris), the image has roots to Abraham's original 2000 years earlier of Abraham teaching astronomy, it's just been distorted and adapted over two millenium.

This isn't my theory. I'm just trying to understand it.

Sorry, Brian, I see what you are saying here and in the OP.

In Rhodes' 2003 FAIR presentation, online at http://www.fairlds.o...hael-Rhodes.pdf , he is saying of the "facsimile problem,"

Why are they

associated with this ancient pagan text, when somehow, there is a relationship with Abraham?

The answer, to me, is simply that these illustrations ultimately derive through a 2,000 year period

from illustrations done by Abraham in that intervening period, and adapted for other uses. What

Joseph Smith simply did was to give the original interpretation of the illustrations as they had

been done by Abraham, although they are in a very distorted form as they appear now. The key

to that is, is there evidence, then, that anciently, these illustrations were associated with

Abraham? That’s the real pivotal question, and the answer is, “Yes.” This is really, to me, the

bulk of the evidence that supports Joseph Smith’s association of these scenes with the Book of

Abraham.

Rhodes then goes on to give concrete examples of Egyptian uses of Abraham's name on their own papyri. It is clear that there was the acquisition by Egyptians of Jewish traditions, which was something that Egyptians did on a regular basis from other religions throughout their history. In this case, it merely points up the strength of the Jewish community in Egypt. Apart from such illustrations, however, I think that the BofA was transmitted via the Jewish community -- regardless of spillover into another environment.

I'm assuming that the "it" in "shows it to be a J document" is referring to the Book of Abraham correct? Just want to make sure I'm understanding you.

Correct. And it is available online at http://www.scribd.co...Book-of-Abraham .

I totally understand that the writer of The Testament of Abraham had access to Egpytian iconogrpahy and could have adapted the Egpytian art to use in the Abraham story. Rhodes himself says that it appears that the writer of the Testament of Abraham might have been looking at images from the Book of the Dead.

Scholars are clear that this is the case -- see the translation in Charlesworth, ed., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. I. And we even have such instances in the Book of Mormon, http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=849 (Egyptian illus in publication on p. 285). The flow of ideas in both directions should be no surprise given the propinquity of the two nations.

I'm talking about a different argument. One that has Egyptians borrowing their inconogrpahy from Abraham or the Jewish community. Evidence of this would be in the form of Abraham's original (obviously not discovered) or any copies over the following 2000 years of Abraham's illustration of him teaching astronomy, even if they were highly distorted... something to show that the the Egyptian iconogrpahy had roots in Abraham's original.

That is the evidence i'm not seeing for Rhodes theory.

I thought that Rhodes made a good case and provided adequate evidence. Certainly there are plenty of cases of Egyptian syncretism, i.e., including foreign deities in their own iconography -- as for example this 19th dynasty one which has a lower register similar to fac. 3, with the Semitic Goddess 'Anath sitting on a throne with the crown of Osiris receiving her worshipers. The crown of Osiris is, of course, the Зtfw-crown (“wrapped-crown” with ostrich feathers along each side), the very crown worn also by a 9th century Ammonite king – whose limestone bust features flowers in a rosette pattern along the base of the front. Her sister Ashera stands on a lion in the upper register en face between Ptah-Min-El and Reshef-Nergal-Melcarth.

And this 5th century B.C. one in which the use of a lion couch is made by Arameans living in Egypt (note the inscription in Aramaic):

Edited June 19, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Rhodes references to Abraham come from a book published in 1842. Why is that significant? Many, if not most of the writers about Egyptian history who published prior to the early 20th century had a conviction that Biblical stories, such as Abraham and Moses, were based in fact. If someone claimed a link between Abraham and Egypt it was accepted without question.

When actual archaeological evidence has not provided any evidence of any connection between Abraham and Egypt, then the link to Abraham becomes tenuous at best.

The evidence, in fact, makes the personage of Abraham questionable. It is not even known if Abraham existed. The founding father for Egyptian burial systems is extremely questionable. It befalls the proposition to be proven with some actual evidence instead of mere conjecture.

It is not conjecture that Egyptians referred to Abraham in some of their late documents. The connection between Osiris and Abraham in late documents is not a conjecture. As Rhodes has shown (citing his sources), such was a fact.

You're asking for evidence of a wholly different character: Did Abraham actually exist in Middle Kingdom Egypt? Was there ever such a person? This is the same as asking whether Moses existed, or whether there is a God. You are demanding archeological evidence of some sort, but that doesn't actually deal with the OP here -- which posits the existence of Abraham and asks how a book by him could have been transmitted down through time as the LDS claim. If you want to deal with that other question, you probably need to start another thread. Rather than derailing this one. Why? Just bcuzbcuz . . .

Edited June 19, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

There still isn't any rational answer to how Osiris ever can be interpreted to be Abraham

The evidence points heavily towards considerable Jewish borrowing of pagan (including Egyptian) gods for their descriptions and depictions of biblical people and events.

[Brian 2.0]

The evidence points heavily towards considerable Jewish borrowing of pagan (including Egyptian) gods for their descriptions and depictions of biblical people and events.

I will grant that... but Facsimile 3 is not a Jewish redaction. It's a seemingly unaltered Egyptian religious document. It has no evidence of Jewish alteration to accomodate an interpretation of Abraham.

If there is any borrowing going on, it appears to be by Joseph Smith borrowing from the Hor Breathing Permit for his description of Abraham teaching Astronomy in Egypt.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Rhodes then goes on to give concrete examples of Egyptian uses of Abraham's name on their own papyri. It is clear that there was the acquisition by Egyptians of Jewish traditions, which was something that Egyptians did on a regular basis from other religions throughout their history. In this case, it merely points up the strength of the Jewish community in Egypt. Apart from such illustrations, however, I think that the BofA was transmitted via the Jewish community -- regardless of spillover into another environment.

You are correct Robert. I should have mentioned those others examples of his. Since I was looking into Facsimile 3 I was skipping to when he's talking about Facsimile 3 and his source there is the Testament of Abraham. And thank you for the images you provided! I had not seen those ones specifically yet.

I agree that evidence appears to show a lot of borrowing both ways between the Jewish and Egyptian cultures. I just haven't found compelling evidence, yet, to support a link between Fac 3 from the Breathing Permit and an image of Abraham teaching astronomy.

[bcuzbcuz]

It is not conjecture that Egyptians referred to Abraham in some of their late documents. The connection between Osiris and Abraham in late documents is not a conjecture. As Rhodes has shown (citing his sources), such was a fact.

You're asking for evidence of a wholly different character: Did Abraham actually exist in Middle Kingdom Egypt? Was there ever such a person? This is the same as asking whether Moses existed, or whether there is a God. You are demanding archeological evidence of some sort, but that doesn't actually deal with the OP here -- which posits the existence of Abraham and asks how a book by him could have been transmitted down through time as the LDS claim. If you want to deal with that other question, you probably need to start another thread. Rather than derailing this one. Why? Just bcuzbcuz . . .

Your reference to Abraham being referred to in late Egyptian documents could do with some clarification. By late Egyptian you are referring to the Jewish community in Lower Egypt around 300 BCE up to and including 452 CE. And naturally, they brought with them their established beliefs. But that does not infer that a belief in Abraham already existed in Egypt. As far as your comment that "The connection between Osiris and Abraham in late documents is not a conjecture." I'll have to ask for a CFR on that and ask that you restrict yourself to Egyptian documents, not to undocumented articles that makes that conjecture.

Rhodes, in his article makes references to, firstly, a one word snippet from an papyrus around first or second century CE, secondly, to a book written by Richard Lepsius in 1842, and thirdly, to a text from the early Christian era. All of these Rhodes comment as "associated with Abraham anciently". That's a far cry from actually written by Abraham. Dancing around the issue of whether "written by the hand of Abraham" actually means "by the hand of" or just copied from some unknown source doesn't really enlighten the reader.

[Cobalt-70]

Rhodes then goes on to give concrete examples of Egyptian uses of Abraham's name on their own papyri. It is clear that there was the acquisition by Egyptians of Jewish traditions, which was something that Egyptians did on a regular basis from other religions throughout their history. In this case, it merely points up the strength of the Jewish community in Egypt. Apart from such illustrations, however, I think that the BofA was transmitted via the Jewish community -- regardless of spillover into another environment.

Why would Egyptians, circa the late centuries BC, need to borrow Jewish stories about Abraham in order to prepare a burial scroll depicting the deceased's approach to the throne of Osiris? It doesn't make sense.

[bcuzbcuz]

Rhodes then goes on to give concrete examples of Egyptian uses of Abraham's name on their own papyri. It is clear that there was the acquisition by Egyptians of Jewish traditions, which was something that Egyptians did on a regular basis from other religions throughout their history. In this case, it merely points up the strength of the Jewish community in Egypt. Apart from such illustrations, however, I think that the BofA was transmitted via the Jewish community -- regardless of spillover into another environment.

It is clear?. Something the Egyptians did on a regular basis?

CFR,!

[Brian 2.0]

It is clear?. Something the Egyptians did on a regular basis?

CFR,!

I think it is pretty clear that there was redaction or borrowing between Jewish and Egyptian culture during the years surround the Hor Breathing Permit. I'm sure scores of evidence can be provided on that, including at least a couple that involved Egyptian use of the name "Abraham."

But to me this is really only evidence to show "redaction happened" and "at some points it involved Abraham."

I do NOT see it as evidence of a link between Facsimile 3 (Hor ushered to Osiris) and the image Joseph Smith describes in his explanations of Facsimile 3 of Abraham teaching Astronomy.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[volgadon]

It is clear?. Something the Egyptians did on a regular basis?

CFR,!

Here is an example. http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Phil%20281b/Philosophy%20of%20Magic/Arcana/Ancient/Papyri_Graecae_Magicae.pdf

Here are some more. http://books.google.com/books?id=K0hCj5u3HNQC&pg=PR52&dq=papyri+magicae+graecae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z3jCUdvyJIHkyAHHt4CQBQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=abraham&f=false

Searches for other biblical figures will show that this isn't limited to Abraham.

[Robert F. Smith]

Your reference to Abraham being referred to in late Egyptian documents could do with some clarification. By late Egyptian you are referring to the Jewish community in Lower Egypt around 300 BCE up to and including 452 CE. And naturally, they brought with them their established beliefs.

Canaanite and Israelite settlements had existed in Egypt for most of the previous two thousand years, and they were deeply influenced by Egyptian culture and religion. You appear not to realize in any way the degree of syncretism taking place there.

But that does not infer that a belief in Abraham already existed in Egypt.

Are you talking about belief in Abraham as a god? Is this even part of our discussion?

As far as your comment that "The connection between Osiris and Abraham in late documents is not a conjecture." I'll have to ask for a CFR on that and ask that you restrict yourself to Egyptian documents, not to undocumented articles that makes that conjecture.

The names Abρaaμ and ʿbrʿm can be found on two separate late demotic papyri from Thebes, accompanying a lion-couch scene and a Wd3t-eye (Rhodes, JSH-TYL, 6, citing Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, lviii; Johnson, “Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384,” XIII:6,16; and Griffith & Thompson, Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden, VIII:8 ).

Egyptian sources were often used by the Hebrews/Israelites and adapted to their own literary needs, e.g., Miriam Lichtheim has maintained that the Egyptian motifs evident in the Egyptian tale of Setne Khamwas II “formed the basis for the parable of Jesus in Luke 16,19-31 [Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, who replaces Osiris], and for related Jewish legends, preserved in many variants in Talmudic and medieval Jewish sources.” Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, III:126, citing H. Gressmann, Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus, Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1918, no. 7 (Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1918); cf. K. Grobel, “. . . Whose Name Was Neves,” New Testament Studies, 10 (1963-1964), 373-382; Blake T. Ostler, “Abraham: An Egyptian Connection,” FARMS OST-81 (1981), 4.

Rhodes, in his article makes references to, firstly, a one word snippet from an papyrus around first or second century CE, secondly, to a book written by Richard Lepsius in 1842, and thirdly, to a text from the early Christian era. All of these Rhodes comment as "associated with Abraham anciently". That's a far cry from actually written by Abraham. Dancing around the issue of whether "written by the hand of Abraham" actually means "by the hand of" or just copied from some unknown source doesn't really enlighten the reader.

As long as you agree to apply these objections to the letters of St Paul (signed by him), to the sign placed above Jesus on the Cross (written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek by Pontius Pilate himself), and the Code of Hammurabi (carved by him personally on his stelae), etc., we might have a meeting of the minds. Otherwise, it is clear that you are engaging in special pleading or some sort of ritual dance.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[bcuzbcuz]

Canaanite and Israelite settlements had existed in Egypt for most of the previous two thousand years, and they were deeply influenced by Egyptian culture and religion. You appear not to realize in any way the degree of syncretism taking place there.

Are you talking about belief in Abraham as a god? Is this even part of our discussion?

The names Abρaaμ and ʿbrʿm can be found on two separate late demotic papyri from Thebes, accompanying a lion-couch scene and a Wd3t-eye (Rhodes, JSH-TYL, 6, citing Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, lviii; Johnson, “Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384,” XIII:6,16; and Griffith & Thompson, Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden, VIII:8 ).

Egyptian sources were often used by the Hebrews/Israelites and adapted to their own literary needs, e.g., Miriam Lichtheim has maintained that the Egyptian motifs evident in the Egyptian tale of Setne Khamwas II “formed the basis for the parable of Jesus in Luke 16,19-31 [Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, who replaces Osiris], and for related Jewish legends, preserved in many variants in Talmudic and medieval Jewish sources.” Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, III:126, citing H. Gressmann, Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus, Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1918, no. 7 (Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1918); cf. K. Grobel, “. . . Whose Name Was Neves,” New Testament Studies, 10 (1963-1964), 373-382; Blake T. Ostler, “Abraham: An Egyptian Connection,” FARMS OST-81 (1981), 4.

As long as you agree to apply these objections to the letters of St Paul (signed by him), to the sign placed above Jesus on the Cross (written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek by Pontius Pilate himself), and the Code of Hammurabi (carved by him personally on his stelae), etc., we might have a meeting of the minds. Otherwise, it is clear that you are engaging in special pleading or some sort of ritual dance.

I'm travelling to Berlin next week to study the papyrus collection there (among other things). I will ask specifically about the prevalence of Abraham being mentioned in any papyrus prior to 300 BCE. They have one of the largest papyrus collections outside of Egypt. If I get a chance I will also ask about the terminology of "by the hand of" and its reference to copying.

[Cobalt-70]

As long as you agree to apply these objections to the letters of St Paul (signed by him), to the sign placed above Jesus on the Cross (written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek by Pontius Pilate himself), and the Code of Hammurabi (carved by him personally on his stelae), etc., we might have a meeting of the minds. Otherwise, it is clear that you are engaging in special pleading or some sort of ritual dance.

These examples are red herrings, as is all the apologetic musing about the possible meanings of possible ancient translations of the phrase "by his own hand." Who cares?

Here we have an introductory sentence that first appeared in 1842 when the text was being prepared for publication, describing the following text as "A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand upon papyrus." This paragraph is followed by the title "The Book of Abraham" (which was in all-caps in an 1842 pre-printer manuscript, but in the published version was centered and bolded), and the entire heading was, in the version approved by Joseph Smith, indented and in a different font and a different font size from the following text, which begins the actual story allegedly in the voice of Abraham.

Nobody whose opinion is not constrained by faith-based preconceptions is going to interpret the phrase "by his own hand" as intended to be part of the alleged translation that follows, or the title itself, rather than as part of the modern introduction. There are just too many clues, and if they don't hit you squarely over the head, then you are indeed a true believer.

[Calm]

I'm travelling to Berlin next week

Have some fun as well as studying...

[Robert F. Smith]

These examples are red herrings, as is all the apologetic musing about the possible meanings of possible ancient translations of the phrase "by his own hand." Who cares?

So you admit that the phrase does not carry with it the meaning that an Urtext or autograph is being referred to. Good. That is progress. Baby steps. At least my reductio here had value.

Here we have an introductory sentence that first appeared in 1842 when the text was being prepared for publication, describing the following text as "A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand upon papyrus." This paragraph is followed by the title "The Book of Abraham" (which was in all-caps in an 1842 pre-printer manuscript, but in the published version was centered and bolded), and the entire heading was, in the version approved by Joseph Smith, indented and in a different font and a different font size from the following text, which begins the actual story allegedly in the voice of Abraham.

Nobody whose opinion is not constrained by faith-based preconceptions is going to interpret the phrase "by his own hand" as intended to be part of the alleged translation that follows, or the title itself, rather than as part of the modern introduction. There are just too many clues, and if they don't hit you squarely over the head, then you are indeed a true believer.

You are so certain of your parsing of these words "called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand upon papyrus," but you don't deal with the "purporting to be the writings of Abraham." You give great credence to the one, Cobalt, but not to the other, even though one might interpret them as diametrically opposed. Maybe you ought to consider finding a disinterested third party to suss out the likeliest meaning -- someone not motivated by loyalty to the LDS faith on the one hand, nor dedicated to proving it false on the other.

You conveniently understand those words as extratextual, even though you don't believe in the text itself (as you define and limit it). What I do is to understand such phrases in their traditional, ancient context -- whether applied to pseudepigrapha or to other sorts of documents. I don't automatically look for the most negative possible interpretation, although I appreciate your bringing it to the fore for discussion.