"Egyptian Redaction" Theory & Fac 3

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Moving the goal posts again, I see.

Hey, in any case, un buen viaje.

[tagriffy]

What is "written by his own hand" supposed to mean? Did Joseph think the papyri he had in hand was actually written by Abraham or was it a conclusion derived from the content?

[bcuzbcuz]

Have some fun as well as studying...

Thank you. My wife complains that I spend all my time looking and photographing old documents and finds. In her words, "BOR-ing!"

[bcuzbcuz]

Moving the goal posts again, I see.

Hey, in any case, un buen viaje.

I thought that was the whole idea. Anytime someone makes a shot on goal, move the goalposts.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

No it does mean that an autograph is being referred to. But the person who is saying that is obviously a 19th century editor. What the phrase "written by his own hand," translated into some ancient language, might have meant to some hypothetical ancient Egyptian, is irrelevant.

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.

The words "purporting to be the writings of Abraham" are of course even more clearly those of a 19th century editor (e.g., Joseph Smith or Willard Richards), as is the phrase, "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt." But to the extent that the word "purport" might be construed as introducing doubt by the modern editor, it would be doubt as to whether the scrolls were "the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt," not doubt as to whether, assuming the scrolls were the writings of Abraham, it was written by his own hand. But I don't think the word "purporting" was put there to cause its reader to doubt anything. Using the word just adds an slight aura of scholarly impartiality, thus increasing the work's apparent credibility to its intended 19th century audience.

I am happily LDS, and have no reason to prove anything about it false, other than the far-fetched apologetic theories put forward to try to make the Book of Abraham into an actual writing of a real-live Abraham, rather than the (perhaps inspired) 19th century pseudoepigraphon that it obviously is.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[USU78]

Have some fun as well as studying...

And he should stay away from Getreidegasse, keeping his hand firmly on his wallet at all times.

[USU78]

What is "written by his own hand" supposed to mean? Did Joseph think the papyri he had in hand was actually written by Abraham or was it a conclusion derived from the content?

Better to ask what: ". . . by the hand of Abraham, purporting to be . . ." means in this context. It could mean pseudepigraphics are at work here. It could mean Abraham wrote the ca. 2nd Century BCE papyrus was penned by Abraham itself. It could mean that an editor put the language there at some point in the then hoary past.

There's no reason to think JSJr's cautious "purporting to be" means anything less than what it says. Our voting to accept it as scripture is quite another thing altogether.

[tagriffy]

Better to ask what: ". . . by the hand of Abraham, purporting to be . . ." means in this context. It could mean pseudepigraphics are at work here. It could mean Abraham wrote the ca. 2nd Century BCE papyrus was penned by Abraham itself. It could mean that an editor put the language there at some point in the then hoary past.

There's no reason to think JSJr's cautious "purporting to be" means anything less than what it says. Our voting to accept it as scripture is quite another thing altogether.

The basic question is still what did Joseph think he had.

[CA Steve]

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.

Robert are you saying that there were settlements circa 2000 BCE that have been identified as Israelite?

[Cobalt-70]

The basic question is still what did Joseph think he had.

There's two questions: (1) what did Joseph Smith convey to others that he thought he had, and (2) what did Joseph Smith really think he had, in his heart of hearts. The last question--which really gets to the heart of whether Smith was either a forthright magician or a pious fraud--does not really interest me. I don't think anyone can determine which was the "real" Joseph Smith, and I'm fine with either version of him. I'd rather look to the works themselves, pseudepigraphical as they are, and judge the fruits the same way that I judge other pseudepigraphical works such as the pastoral epistles.

As to the first question, I think we can be pretty sure that Joseph Smith conveyed the impression that he believed the scrolls actually contained the handwriting of Abraham. In addition to the heading of the Book of Abraham, there is an account by Josiah Quincy who said Smith told him that part of the scrolls were in "the handwriting of Abraham, the father of the Faithful." There is also a second-hand account related by Henry Caswall from 1842, and a statement in DHC says the papyri were "the writings of Abraham," which at least strongly implies Abraham's personal writings.

It would not be surprising that Smith claimed to be translating from the original, considering that none of the other real or mythical relics that Smith allegedly translated, including the Kinderhook plates, the golden plates, and the parchment of John (at least the latter of which, and maybe the latter two, he apparently only saw in a vision), were considered by Smith to be copies, or copies of copies, of the original holographs.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert are you saying that there were settlements circa 2000 BCE that have been identified as Israelite?

There were no Israelites in existence anywhere on planet Earth in 2000 BC. Surely you know that. Ca. 2000 B.C., which is known to ancient Near East historians as the Middle Bronze Age (the Middle Kingdom in Egypt) would have been about the time of Abraham the Hebrew, even though we have no concrete evidence that he existed. Abraham's descendant Jacob (for whom we also have no concrete evidence), aka Israel, is the eponymous father of the 12 tribes. The Genesis story has his son Joseph sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers -- Joseph then rises to be the prime minister to the king of Egypt, and the sons of Israel come down into Egypt and do not leave until Moses leads them forth on the Exodus. You should have learned some of that in Sunday School.

What you might not have learned is that archeologists know for certain that large numbers of Canaanites had been settling in Egypt since at least 2100 BC (we have vivid, contemporary color drawings of them entering), esp at Tell el-Daba' (Avaris) in the Delta. That same city later became the impregnable capital of the Canaanite Hyksos, who ruled much of Egypt until forced to leave by a native Pharaoh from southern Egypt. Some theorize that Joseph and the Israelites prospered under the Hyksos, and Josephus even thought that the exit of the Hyksos was the Israelite Exodus, but that is only speculation. What is certain is that during the next phase of Egyptian history, the New Kingdom, a people called "Hebrews" were working as slaves in Egypt. Some Egyptian descriptions of their work match biblical accounts. The first knowm mention of "Israel" is on a stele of Merneptah of the 13th century BC. (19th Dyn) -- there is an earlier inscription which some claim also mentions Israel, but we will let that go for now. The upshot of all this is that there were Semitic (Canaanite, Hebrew, Israelite, Jewish, and Aramean) settlements in Egypt during most of the 2,000 years before Christ, and during the 1st millennium BC, the Jewish settlements in Egypt even included holy temples run by the Aaronic priesthood. Nothing really odd or unaccountable about any of that, although most people do not know those facts.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[tagriffy]

There's two questions: (1) what did Joseph Smith convey to others that he thought he had, and (2) what did Joseph Smith really think he had, in his heart of hearts. The last question--which really gets to the heart of whether Smith was either a forthright magician or a pious fraud--does not really interest me. I don't think anyone can determine which was the "real" Joseph Smith, and I'm fine with either version of him. I'd rather look to the works themselves, pseudepigraphical as they are, and judge the fruits the same way that I judge other pseudepigraphical works such as the pastoral epistles.

As to the first question, I think we can be pretty sure that Joseph Smith conveyed the impression that he believed the scrolls actually contained the handwriting of Abraham. In addition to the heading of the Book of Abraham, there is an account by Josiah Quincy who said Smith told him that part of the scrolls were in "the handwriting of Abraham, the father of the Faithful." There is also a second-hand account related by Henry Caswall from 1842, and a statement in DHC says the papyri were "the writings of Abraham," which at least strongly implies Abraham's personal writings.

It would not be surprising that Smith claimed to be translating from the original, considering that none of the other real or mythical relics that Smith allegedly translated, including the Kinderhook plates, the golden plates, and the parchment of John (at least the latter of which, and maybe the latter two, he apparently only saw in a vision), were considered by Smith to be copies, or copies of copies, of the original holographs.

This brings us to the next question: Why did Joseph think the papyrus contain the writings of Abraham?

[Cobalt-70]

This brings us to the next question: Why did Joseph think the papyrus contain the writings of Abraham?

It had to come down to either Abraham, Joseph, or Moses, which were the three biblical characters whose mythology had a connection with Egyptian royalty. He seemed to have identified, very soon after seeing the scrolls, that one of them was written by Abraham, and one was written by Joseph. All we can do is speculate, but maybe the scroll that seemed in his imagination to be depicting a human sacrifice might have reminded him of Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac. Once he was on record with identifications to Abraham and Joseph, though, he would have been locked in. But he would have realized (since Egyptian reads right to left) that the first vignette would have to have occurred before the Egyptian court scene, so the sacrifice of Isaac would have been ruled out for vignette 1.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[Glenn101]

This brings us to the next question: Why did Joseph think the papyrus contain the writings of Abraham?

Maybe he had a revelation.

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

I thought that was the whole idea. Anytime someone makes a shot on goal, move the goalposts.

Yeh, its kind of like politicians engaging in gerrymandering and then saying "so what?"

[crixus]

So you admit that the phrase does not carry with it the meaning that an Urtext or autograph is being referred to.

You've presented no evidence to suggest otherwise. What else would it be referring to in the context of written manuscripts?

[crixus]

The two Egyptian documents containing the word "Abraham" offer no such evidence for the Book of Abraham. Ed Ashment destroyed that argument by revealing just how badly John Gee misused these documents and mistranslated portions to suit an apologetic deception. Robert Ritner agrees with Ashment's assessment.

Contrary to Gee, Book of the Dead chapter 163 is not related to chapter 162 or to hypocephali.[12] But since BD 162 does not contain the phrase, 'the pupil of the wedjat-eye', [13] which Gee has identified with Abraham and considers to be 'one of the Egyptian names' for a hypocephalus, he must treat BD 163 as though it too were a hypocephalus chapter, because of its reference to the deceased as one 'hidden within the pupil of the Sound Eye [wedjat]' (Allen 1974, 159). Gee thus improperly asserts that 'the pupil of the wedjat-eye' refers to a hypocephalus in order to make a connection between it and Abraham in his effort to authenticate 'Joseph Smith's explanation of the hypocephalus in the Book of Abraham' (FARMS 1991, 3). [14]

A crucial claim of Gee's article is that ABRACAM (Magical 8.8)/ABRAAM (384:1.6) refer to the biblical Abraham in such a way as to prove the historicity of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham. Unfortunately, he fails to acknowledge that his alleged references occur within series of magical abracadabra words. An important question, therefore, is whether those occurrences actually refer to Abraham probatively; or do they, like the words around them, primarily have the significance of magical abracadabra words? Appeals to Abraham and other Judeo-Christian elements — even Jesus — appear frequently in the syncretistic magical papyri. [15] One spell cites a portion of the Lord's Prayer, after which it appeals to, inter alia, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Kotansky in Betz 1992, 300). Another conjurs the god 'by the great, famous name, Abraam... ' (Smith in Betz 1992, 125). Indeed, coming from the Greco-Roman period, the magical material 'reflects an amazingly broad religious and cultural pluralism', with most spells being 'mixtures of several religions — Egyptian, Greek, Jewish, to name the most important', including 'a few sprinkles of Christianity' (Betz 1992, xlv). It is not known how the Jewish material made its way into the magical papyri, although at least some may have originated in the Greek Septuagint, written in the second century BCE. [16] To the itinerant magicians,

"the gods from the various cults gradually merged, and as their natures became blurred, they often changed into completely different deities. For these magicians, there was no longer any cultural difference between the Egyptian and the Greek gods, or between them and the Jewish god and the Jewish angels; even Jesus was occasionally assimilated into this truly "ecumenical" religious syncretism of the hellenistic world culture" (xlvi). [17]

Moreover, the magician 'no longer understood the old languages, although he used remnants of them in transcription' (xlv). In addition, 'incomprehensible words' were often used in the magical spells, 'arranged into patterns of sounds which are judged to be effective; they are a mixture of Egyptian, Babylonian, Cretan, and other foreign languages to make "abracadabra" spells' (Jacq 1985, 20f.). 'Abra-' was a widely-used formative element in the magical texts that was combined with various other elements to produce abracadabra words. It 'was probably originally a secret paraphrase of the name of the Jewish God Yahweh written in four (Hebrew: arba = abra) consonants (tetragram)' (Rudolph 1983, 311). [18] For example, observe how abra is combined with another element in the following instance: In the magical spell of which fig. 6 is a part, the magician stood on top of his house and sought divination from the moon, pronouncing an incantation from seven to nine times until the divinity appeared to him. This part of the incantation was 'Ho! Sax, Amun, Sax, Abrasax; for thou art the moon' (Griffith and Thompson 1904, 147). 'Abra' here was combined with s(t)-`ks[19] 'saks' to form the magical word 'Abrasaks'. [20] 'Abrasax'/'Abraxas' continued to be used throughout the centuries in connection with magical spells. [21]

Note the various uses of abra in other magical spells:

- abra (Betz 1992, 96);

- abrae abrao abraoa (17);

- abra abra sabaoth (37);

- abrat abrasax (45);

- abraiaoth (57, 58, 59);

- abraoth (61, 96, 103);

- abrasax (20, 22, 24, 30, 36, 67, 101, 103 [2], 107 [3], 121, 122, 136, 146, 148, 150 [2], 152, 155, 161 [2], 163, 174, 176, 184, 187, 233, 265, 266, 270, 272, 277, 282, 286 [2], 291, 292, 296, 297 [3], 299 [2], 302 [6], 303, 309, 314);

- ABRA BRACHA (67);

- ABRAA (77);

- ABRASILOA (11);

- ABRASIAOUA (159);

- ABRAARM (190); ABRAACH (190);

- ABRATIAOTH (193);

- ABRASAKS (218, 245);

- ABRATHIAOTH (261);

- ABRAXAS (30, 262);

- ABRATHIAO (277);

- ABRA A O (293);

- ABRASAKX (299);

- ABRASICHOOU (302);

- ABRAO (304);

- ABRASA (305).

It is therefore not surprising that the biblical name 'Abraham' would be popular in the spells — not only when the magicians would appeal to, among others, the god of 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' [22]; but especially because it contained the magically potent abra element, and consequently was a word that was felt to contain magical powersuo jure. [23]

For example, in the first magical spell that Gee cites (384:1.6-11, fig. 1 C), composed in Greek, ABRAAM occurs as part of a group of magical words. The second spell in which Gee finds an authenticating reference to Abraham (Magical 8.8; see fig. 5), does not refer probatively to the biblical Abraham. Rather, ABRACAM functions as a magical word, the proper pronunciation of which was important for making the spell effective. (Since the Demotic and hieratic writing systems were only consonantal, leaving uncertain the proper vocalization of important magical words, the scribe of 384 and Magical provided glosses in Old Coptic [24] for certain magical words so that they would be pronounced correctly [Johnson 1975, 48, 53]). [25] ABRACAM here is a gloss in Old Coptic for two Demotic elements: abra and hmy, the word for 'artificer' [26]:

Edited June 23, 2013 by crixus

[Glenn101]

The two Egyptian documents containing the word "Abraham" offer no such evidence for the Book of Abraham. Ed Ashment destroyed that argument by revealing just how badly John Gee misused these documents and mistranslated portions to suit an apologetic deception. Robert Ritner agrees with Ashment's assessment.

Ashment "destroyed" an argument that was not being made. Here are a couple or three excerpts from a review of Ashment's "The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham."

The evidence brought forth in the two articles was briefly mentioned and not fashioned into an historical argument. It would seem, though, that Ashment and the Tanners have not understood this point. They have the idea that, since the author of the articles believes the book of Abraham is authentic, and since he published evidence that refuted certain anti-Mormon claims connected with the book of Abraham, the work must be apologetic. They have, thereby, misconstrued the arguments of the articles. Since these arguments seem to cause such problems, I will summarize them below:

I. The name Abraham appears on Egyptian papyri.

A. The name Abraham on the papyri discussed is that of the biblical Abraham.

1. One of these occurrences of the name is connected with a lion couch scene.

2. Another of these occurrences is plausibly linked to hypocephali. (Facsimile 2 of the book of Abraham is a hypocephalus.)

II. Figure 3 in Facsimile 1 of the book of Abraham is a priest. (This was not a major argument in either of the articles in question but was implied in the second one.)

Out of the Mainstream

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

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

"Abraham" in Greco-Roman Egypt

Consider further what Ashment's and the Tanners' arguments about the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Anastasi priestly archive amount to. First they argue that the Joseph Smith Papyri can have no genuine connection to the book of Abraham because they are nothing but pagan magical documents from the archives of priests of Greco-Roman period Thebes.272 Then, when the name Abraham appears in Egyptian documents, they argue that these documents can have nothing to do with either the Joseph Smith Papyri or the book of Abraham because they are nothing but pagan magical documents from the archives of priests of Greco-Roman period Thebes. Setting aside for the moment the question of whether or not any of the documents has anything to do with the book of Abraham, if a scholar wanted to do research on the writings of the priests of Greco-Roman period Thebes, it would only make sense to study all of their archives together. The hysterical touchiness of some on this subject is astonishing. The appearance of the name Abraham in a Greco-Roman period Egyptian priestly archive from Thebes does not prove that the book of Abraham is authentic; it proves merely that Greco-Roman period Egyptian priests in Thebes knew something about Abraham. That a Greco-Roman period priest wrote the name Abraham directly underneath a lion-couch scene and noted that they should both be copied together may simply be coincidence—why it is there has never been satisfactorily explained—but the idea of connecting a lion couch scene found in a Greco-Roman period Egyptian papyrus from Thebes with Abraham can no longer be dismissed as absurd, as critics have done for years. Therein is and always has been the significance of the Anastasi priestly archive for the book of Abraham; not that the archive authenticates the book of Abraham—for it does not and no one has ever claimed that it did—but that it shows that the idea that a Greco-Roman period Egyptian priest might have had a copy of the book of Abraham is not completely out of the question.

I am going to repeat Gee's summary of the points made by the Ensign article:

"I. The name Abraham appears on Egyptian papyri.

A. The name Abraham on the papyri discussed is that of the biblical Abraham.

1. One of these occurrences of the name is connected with a lion couch scene.

2. Another of these occurrences is plausibly linked to hypocephali. (Facsimile 2 of the book of Abraham is a hypocephalus.)

II. Figure 3 in Facsimile 1 of the book of Abraham is a priest. (This was not a major argument in either of the articles in question but was implied in the second one.)"

Here is a link to the full review for those who wish to wade through the whole thing. It gets a bit tedious, but Gee goes out of his way to lay a foundation for his arguments. The argument is not that those mentions of the name Abraham support the authenticity of the Book of Abraham itself, but that they are references to the Biblical Abraham.

Glenn

Edited June 24, 2013 by Glenn101

[crixus]

You obviously do not understand the history of this apologetic argument, as Kerry Muehlstein went so far as to say that this particular papyrus translates to "Abraham upon his couch." This is an empirical claim which turns out to be 100% false, and as an Egyptologist, he most certainly knows this. Gee and Rhodes have also mentioned this papyrus in this context. If you're saying no one has ever argued that this papyrus supports the Book of Abraham in any way, then why bring it up in the first place? Why is Robert bringing it up? So he can say there is a "connection"?? What a stretch.

What Ashment does, which Gee carefully avoids doing, is explain why the word Abraham appears on this papyrus. What the LDS apologist are doing is playing a fallacious shell game of correlation in order to suggest plausibility for some weak tangential argument. In this case the existence of the "word" Abraham in and of itself offers no evidence for this notion of Abraham being pictured and sacrificed on an Egyptian funeral text. You should really read Robert Ritner's recent book of this issue. He puts to rest most of these lame and outdated apologetic stretches.

Edited June 23, 2013 by crixus

[Glenn101]

You should really read Robert Ritner's recent book of this issue. He puts to rest most of these lame and outdated apologetic stretches.

To which book ar you referring?

Glenn

[crixus]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Joseph-Smith-Egyptian-Papyri/dp/1560852321

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 20 June 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

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.

Cobalt said:

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?

Robert F. Smith said:

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.

No it does mean that an autograph is being referred to. But the person who is saying that is obviously a 19th century editor. What the phrase "written by his own hand," translated into some ancient language, might have meant to some hypothetical ancient Egyptian, is irrelevant.

So, anything you don't happen to like must be a "red herring," and you will writhe upside down and backwards to make it fit your preconceptions. History and fact is automatically "irrelevant."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cobalt said:

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.

Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Cobalt said:

The words "purporting to be the writings of Abraham" are of course even more clearly those of a 19th century editor (e.g., Joseph Smith or Willard Richards), as is the phrase, "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt." But to the extent that the word "purport" might be construed as introducing doubt by the modern editor, it would be doubt as to whether the scrolls were "the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt," not doubt as to whether, assuming the scrolls were the writings of Abraham, it was written by his own hand. But I don't think the word "purporting" was put there to cause its reader to doubt anything. Using the word just adds an slight aura of scholarly impartiality, thus increasing the work's apparent credibility to its intended 19th century audience.

I am happily LDS, and have no reason to prove anything about it false, other than the far-fetched apologetic theories put forward to try to make the Book of Abraham into an actual writing of a real-live Abraham, rather than the (perhaps inspired) 19th century pseudoepigraphon that it obviously is.

Glad to see that you are able to parrot my use of the word pseudepigraphon, even though you are unable to spell it correctly.

Does your use of the phrase "an actual writing of a real-live Abraham" indicate that you still maintain that the phrase "purporting to be" is to be ignored and the phrase "written by his own hand" is to be taken literally and seriously (something no scholar would ever do with the claimed autographs of St Paul, Pilate, or Hammurabi)? So far you seem to consistently want to have it both ways -- which is dirty pool.

[Robert F. Smith]

You obviously do not understand the history of this apologetic argument, as Kerry Muehlstein went so far as to say that this particular papyrus translates to "Abraham upon his couch." This is an empirical claim which turns out to be 100% false, and as an Egyptologist, he most certainly knows this. Gee and Rhodes have also mentioned this papyrus in this context. If you're saying no one has ever argued that this papyrus supports the Book of Abraham in any way, then why bring it up in the first place? Why is Robert bringing it up? So he can say there is a "connection"?? What a stretch.

Perhaps you'd like to quote Muhlestein in context. His actual words, rather that calling him a liar ("as an Egyptologist, he most certainly knows this"), and making the silly claim that his interpretation is "100% false" -- a bit of overkill, don't you think, crixus? Egyptologists rarely refer to each other in this rough fashion, much less by people who know nothing of Egyptology.

I see nothing wrong with suggesting that the word "Abraham" there might be taken to identify the person on the lion couch as Abraham, since that is ordinarily what happens in lion couch scenes (they carry the name of the Osiris-so-and-so, i.e., the deceased person on the couch is normally identified or labeled on the papyrus). You are obviously angry and petulant because the discussion hasn't been going your way, and the facts don't support your negative contentions.

What Ashment does, which Gee carefully avoids doing, is explain why the word Abraham appears on this papyrus. What the LDS apologist are doing is playing a fallacious shell game of correlation in order to suggest plausibility for some weak tangential argument. In this case the existence of the "word" Abraham in and of itself offers no evidence for this notion of Abraham being pictured and sacrificed on an Egyptian funeral text. You should really read Robert Ritner's recent book of this issue. He puts to rest most of these lame and outdated apologetic stretches.

And so you refer us to a lame and blatantly anti-Mormon book masquerading as scholarship in order to settle the matter? I have had occasion personally to hear Prof. Ritner speak intelligently and responsibly on Egyptological matters. The same for some of his writings (although his participation in a book on serpent spells was certainly ill-advised). This is not one of those intelligent and responsible writings. He needed a strong editor to rein him in.

You need to reread Glenn in post #43.

[volgadon]

You obviously do not understand the history of this apologetic argument, as Kerry Muehlstein went so far as to say that this particular papyrus translates to "Abraham upon his couch." This is an empirical claim which turns out to be 100% false, and as an Egyptologist, he most certainly knows this. Gee and Rhodes have also mentioned this papyrus in this context. If you're saying no one has ever argued that this papyrus supports the Book of Abraham in any way, then why bring it up in the first place? Why is Robert bringing it up? So he can say there is a "connection"?? What a stretch.

What Ashment does, which Gee carefully avoids doing, is explain why the word Abraham appears on this papyrus. What the LDS apologist are doing is playing a fallacious shell game of correlation in order to suggest plausibility for some weak tangential argument. In this case the existence of the "word" Abraham in and of itself offers no evidence for this notion of Abraham being pictured and sacrificed on an Egyptian funeral text. You should really read Robert Ritner's recent book of this issue. He puts to rest most of these lame and outdated apologetic stretches.

Ashment's criticism is not particularly devastating. Basically, what we have is the following. An Anubis, a lion, and a mummy for an illustration to be drawn on a papyrus with a text including a (fragmentary) historiola on Abraham. The torment- fire- racking the girl's body also raises an interesting possibility when one considers that in most of the extra-biblical accounts, Abraham was to be put to death by fire.

[volgadon]

The text from which Gee extracts his caption for the lion-couch vignette that 'expressly mentions Abraham', is actually in the middle of a series of magical abracadabra words for the spell immediately underneath the vignette (fig. 1 C).

Right, what Ashment neglects to mention is that this is a historiola, which undermines his criticism.