My Paper On The Book Of Abraham Criticisms And Defenses - Please Review!

[cognitiveharmony]

Putting the priest thing aside do you agree that the JS papyri offers up several things that are unique to it not found on other papyri

I would propose that you list the items that you believe to be unique to the JS papyri and then we can test your assertions. That could be very interesting.

[volgadon]

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/rename.htm it could be a priest in a mask.

[Tacenda]

I learned recently that Egyptians held a ceremony for their dead, but before would take the brain out and get rid of it but take other organs out and put them into bottles with the body to preseve until the dead went to the other side. They believe that the dead had to be mummified with the organs preserved in order to live again. Therefore a lot of cutting. But certainly no mention of sacrificial ceremonies that I know about.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Don't have a clue how accurate this is, but an interesting collections of possibilities.

 

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/humansac.htm

[Calm]

Not on the altar sacrifice, Tac, but retainer (as IIRC was mentioned above and would not have appled to Abraham's case as described):

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0504/feature7/text2.html

 

However, as I understand it, Abraham's sacrifice did not occur in Egypt, but with the transposed faith to his homeland.  Could not they have mixed Egyptian practices with homegrown ones?  And if so, is there indication of human sacrifice there?

 

add-on:

 

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/boa.shtml (which pulls information together)

 

Another example of how the Book of Abraham matches its day is the mention in the Book of Abraham of human sacrifice after the manner of the Egyptians. We know from archaeological evidence that the Egyptians practiced human sacrifice at that time, in areas that they dominated outside of Egypt. This archaeological evidence corresponds in practice to later ritual texts that describe how do human sacrifice. It also corresponds to historical records from Egypt that detail the circumstances under which human sacrifice occurred in Abraham's day. Almost none of this material was available even to Nibley. This shows how much the picture can change in a few years. We also know the type of people targeted for human sacrifice: sbi, rebels or apostates (the term is used for both). Abraham says that his "fathers . . . utterly refused to hearken to my voice" (Abraham 1:5) when he condemned them for "having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given them , unto the worship of the gods of the heathen" (Abraham 1:5), instead they "endeavored to take away my life" (Abraham 1:7). There was no separation of church and state in ancient Egypt and the Pharaoh was the head of both. So to revolt against his authority, whether religious or political, made someone a rebel and subject to a ritualized death penalty. Archaeological evidence for this practice was first discovered about fifty years ago, but more archaeological evidence has appeared in the last ten years.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-the-larger-issue

 

Perhaps someone knows where to find reports of what is referred here.

Edited November 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

And if so, is there indication of human sacrifice there?

 

There is.

[volgadon]

 

Perhaps someone knows where to find reports of what is referred here.

 

Here is an early example of the royal smiting motif.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

My paper: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20Criticisms%20Defenses%20and%20Implications.pdf

I have found the Book of Abraham criticisms and defenses to be relatively complex and difficult to understand without visual aids. To solve these problems, I put together my own paper on the Book of Abraham. It includes 37 visual aids, and covers 6 main topics:

1. The Papyri's Age Proves That it Cannot Contain Abraham's Writing as Joseph Claimed

2. Joseph's Translation of the Facsimiles was Incorrect

3. The Church Proposes New Theories to Defend the Book of Abraham

4. The Missing Papyrus Theory Fails

5. The Catalyst Theory Fails

6. The Church Has Revised History in an Attempt to Minimize the Devastating Implications of the Book of Abraham

I would love your thoughts on my paper. What could I do to make it better? Did I get anything wrong? Any and all criticism is welcome!

I will read your paper, but I must say that the 6 principles or conclusions you list here don't make an auspicious beginning since five of them (1,2,3,4,6) are factually false, and the final one (5) is irrelevant.  When one begins with false premises, it is difficult to see how correct conclusions can be reached.

 

I know of no evidence that the LDS Church has proposed any new theories to defend the Book of Abraham, and the Church certainly has not revised Book of Abraham history for any reason.

Claiming that the age of the papyri falsifies the Book of Abraham is just like arguing that the late age of the papyri and codices of the New Testament falsify the early Christian religion -- just plain irresponsible claims -- as pointed out most recently by Stephen O. Smoot, “‘By His Own Hand, Upon Papyrus’: Another Look,” Interpreter Blog, Nov 14, 2013, online at  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/by-his-own-hand-upon-papyrus-another-look/ , and also available on the FAIR Mormon Blog online at http://www.fairblog.org/category/lds-scriptures/book-of-abraham/   This empty claim has been dealt with repeatedly on this discussion board.

 

Moreover, since most of Joseph's identifications of the illustrations in Facsimile 2 are correct, it seems that you have not read my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .  It is not possible to explain how Joseph managed to get so much correct based on the apriori assumption that he got everything incorrect.  Probability alone falsifies your claims.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I learned recently that Egyptians held a ceremony for their dead, but before would take the brain out and get rid of it but take other organs out and put them into bottles with the body to preseve until the dead went to the other side. They believe that the dead had to be mummified with the organs preserved in order to live again. Therefore a lot of cutting. But certainly no mention of sacrificial ceremonies that I know about.

Here are some bibliographical items and excerpts from my unpublished Commentary on the Book of Abraham:

 

Dann, Rachel J., “Changing Patterns of Violence at Qustul and Ballana. Part One: The Humans,” Der Antike Sudan: Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 18 (2007), 189-200.

 

Dann, Rachel J., “Changing Patterns of Violence at Qustul and Ballana. Part Two: The Animals,” Der Antike Sudan: Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 19 (2008), 111-121.  Available online at http://ku-dk.academia.edu/RachaelDann .

 

Green, Alberto R. W., The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ASOR Dissertation 1 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975).

 

Muhlestein, Kerry, “Violence in the Service of Order: The Religious Framework for Sanctioned Killing in Ancient Egypt,” doctoral dissertation (UCLA, 2003).

 

Muhlestein, Kerry, “Human Sacrifice in Ancient Egypt,” in ABC-CLIO World History Encyclopedia, 21 vols.

 

Muhlestein, Kerry, “Execration Ritual,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Willeke Wendrich and Jacco Dieleman, http://www.uee.ucla.edu .

 

Muhlestein, Kerry, “Royal Executions: Evidence Bearing on the Subject of Sanctioned Killing in the Middle Kingdom,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 51/2 (2008), 181–208.

 

Smith, W. Robertson, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 2nd ed. (London, 1903), 300-305, citing ZDMG, 39:45, on virgin sacrifice in Arabia and Syria (cf. Nibley, Improvement Era, Feb 1969, 64-67).

 

de Vaux, Roland, Les Sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament, Le Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 1 (Paris, 1964), 49-81, on human sacrifice in Israel and neighboring areas (Arabia, Phoenicia, and Mesopotamia) = Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice (Cardiff: Univ of Wales Press, 1964).

 

Yoyotte, J., “Héra d’Héliopolis et le sacrifice humain,” Annuaire, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études, V, section 89 (1980-1981), 29-102.

 

See also A. E. P. Weigall’s 1907 description of an altar for human sacrifice in Annales du service des antiquités de l’Egypte, VIII:45 (at Edfu); compare George Reisner on Middle Egyptian human sacrifice in Nubia in Harvard African Studies, V:65ff.; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities actually recounts the story of Abe’s arrested sacrifice.

 

NYU, Yale, and Univ. of Pennsylvania archeologists have determined that 1st Dynasty King Aha was accompanied at his funeral by a full retinue of officials and servants who were killed and buried with him.  “Human Sacrifice at Abydos?  Egypt’s First Kings Had Company in the Afterlife,” Archaeology Odyssey, 7/5 (Sept-Oct 2004), 12, quoting co-director of the team, David O’Connor.

 

The archeological evidence from 1st Dynasty King Aha’s funeral enclosure at Abydos is that 6 courtiers were killed and buried simultaneously under the plaster floor of the enclosure, and that another 35 were killed and buried at his tomb.  Evidence further suggests that some were killed by strangling, others perhaps with drugs (Petrie believed that some were still alive when buried).  King Djer continued and even expanded on human sacrificial practice, taking some 569 courtiers with him at both tomb and enclosure, while King Qaa took only 30 courtiers with him at his tomb (his enclosure has yet to be discovered).  Leonard Woolley found the same type of royal sacrificial practice at Ur in southern Mesopotamia. John Galvin, “Abydos: Life and Death at the Dawn of Egyptian Civilization,” National Geographic, 207/4 (April 2005), 106-121.  With photos (by Kenneth Garrett) and illustrations.  Only a century before Abraham, six members of the royal harem of Nb-pt-Rʿ Mntw-tp II were sacrificed and placed within the precincts of his tomb-temple at Deir el-Baari. 

 

W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 132, “human sacrifice lasted much longer among the Canaanites and their cogeners than in either Egypt or Mesopotamia.”  cf. Moabite King Meshaʿ, as described on his own stela (830 B.C.), sacrificed thousands of captives (and his own son) to his god Chemosh (C. H. Gordon, Orientalia, 37 [1968], 427 §9); see also Morton Smith in JAOS, 95:477-479; C. Maurice Bowra, Homer (N.Y., 1972), 49,105, and plate 8, on biblical, Carthaginian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Mycenaean, and Achaean human sacrifice long after the time of Abraham.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Both Egyptologists and critics may refer to that figure as a priest but never as the "idolatrous priest of Elkenah". Of course I believe that the reference would entail a priest playing the role of Anubis and not Anubis playing the role of a priest especially the priest to another God. It would be interesting if there is any evidence of Anubis ever being portrayed as sacrificing humans? 

You must bear in mind that these human sacrifices in the Book of Abraham are taking place in north Syria (the Plain of Olishem is probably to be identified with Ulisum), not far from Abraham's birthplace.  The setting is ecumentical, and a variety of priests are present on behalf of both Syrian and Egyptian gods.  Elkenah is a god-name then in common use by Hittites and Canaanites.  Shagreel is an obvious Semitic god-name.  You are mistaking the very late scene in Facsimile 1 as depicting the original scene.

[omni]

 

 

Moreover, since most of Joseph's identifications of the illustrations in Facsimile 2 are correct

 

Can you point us to any non-LDS Egyptologists who agree with this?  Perhaps one that agrees with Joseph's interpretation of Facsimile 3?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Can you point us to any non-LDS Egyptologists who agree with this?  Perhaps one that agrees with Joseph's interpretation of Facsimile 3?

Non LDS. You know trotting this out is such a non starter. What needs to be dealt with is the evidence presented regardless of were it comes from.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would propose that you list the items that you believe to be unique to the JS papyri and then we can test your assertions. That could be very interesting.

Ha that has already been done. Lets take just a few. That the person on the couch has his eyes open and his hands are by his face. Also 2 legs are shown instead of just a side view of one and the priest is in between the legs and the table.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[omni]

Non LDS. You know trotting this out is such a non starter. What needs to be dealt with is the evidence presented regardless of were it comes from.

There have been a number a non-LDS Egyptologists who have examined the papyri and facsimiles and none to my knowledge have ever acknowledged that "most" of the interpretations are correct. I'm not saying one should expect a complete consensus in the Egyptological community, but wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a majority or even some of the non-LDS Egyptologists to agree with the interpretations?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How can those who are unwilling to put faith in the witness of the Holy Ghost put unwavering faith in the "scholarship" of man? This isn't meant as an attack on Truthseeker. I honestly think critics and defenders put too much stock in academia. Just my two cents.

He (Brother Nibley) is hard to follow (at times) when speaking, but when you read him (for example, his book" "Approaching Zion) just WOW! I guess witting he can slow down and collect his thoughts...I wish he was still here to write more. He made a comment one in the before mentioned book that, "the more we move away from Zion, the more we wrap ourselves in the symbols of Zion". The same can be said of America, the further we get away from the ideals of what America was ment to be, the more we wrap ourselves in the flag. There are things in the BoA, that just lie there on the floor leading us to scratch our heads, and there you read things like..."the glory of God is intelligence", and see beyond the viel! Edited November 19, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There have been a number a non-LDS Egyptologists who have examined the papyri and facsimiles and none to my knowledge have ever acknowledged that "most" of the interpretations are correct. I'm not saying one should expect a complete consensus in the Egyptological community, but wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a majority or even some of the non-LDS Egyptologists to agree with the interpretations?

The issue is that the vast majority won't even look at it. That is why you get a lot of LDS scholars that write papers about it. So again why not deal with the evidence presented instead of sticking your head in the sand and pretend nothing is really there?

[omni]

So again why not deal with the evidence presented instead of sticking your head in the sand and pretend nothing is really there?

Oh, the irony!

[cognitiveharmony]

You must bear in mind that these human sacrifices in the Book of Abraham are taking place in north Syria (the Plain of Olishem is probably to be identified with Ulisum), not far from Abraham's birthplace.  The setting is ecumentical, and a variety of priests are present on behalf of both Syrian and Egyptian gods.  Elkenah is a god-name then in common use by Hittites and Canaanites.  Shagreel is an obvious Semitic god-name.  You are mistaking the very late scene in Facsimile 1 as depicting the original scene.

I can't verify any of this. Everything in this post appears to be pure conjecture but I'd like to hear the evidence that you personally believe supports these assertions. There are several points of view form LDS scholars regarding several of these things.

[cognitiveharmony]

Ha that has already been done. Lets take just a few. That the person on the couch has his eyes open and his hands are by his face. Also 2 legs are shown instead of just a side view of one and the priest is in between the legs and the table.

I'll first point you to the following links:

Removed links to site with temple content

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ehFJoKfDNAg/T4Hth70yHZI/AAAAAAAABR0/Wddn9bNgZL8/s1600/RELIGION_mummification_anubis_ba.gif

 

I would take exception to you saying that his "hands" are by his face. There is only evidence of one "hand" being by his face. I would guess that the original image more closely resembled one of these images. The fourth image very clearly depicts Anubis between the deceased and the lion couch which is actually what the JS papyri also depicts. So maybe you can start over.

 

We don't allow sites that contain temple content.  Please read the board guidelines.

 

Nemesis

Edited November 20, 2013 by Nemesis
Temple content

[california boy]

My paper: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20Criticisms%20Defenses%20and%20Implications.pdf

I have found the Book of Abraham criticisms and defenses to be relatively complex and difficult to understand without visual aids. To solve these problems, I put together my own paper on the Book of Abraham. It includes 37 visual aids, and covers 6 main topics:

1. The Papyri's Age Proves That it Cannot Contain Abraham's Writing as Joseph Claimed

2. Joseph's Translation of the Facsimiles was Incorrect

3. The Church Proposes New Theories to Defend the Book of Abraham

4. The Missing Papyrus Theory Fails

5. The Catalyst Theory Fails

6. The Church Has Revised History in an Attempt to Minimize the Devastating Implications of the Book of Abraham

I would love your thoughts on my paper. What could I do to make it better? Did I get anything wrong? Any and all criticism is welcome!

Quite an interesting paper.  I haven't read much on the Book of Abraham issues.  Just curious, what has this done to your faith?  Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?  What role does the Book of Abraham play in that belief?

[nealr]

 

I would take exception to you saying that his "hands" are by his face. There is only evidence of one "hand" being by his face. I would guess that the original image more closely resembled one of these images. The fourth image very clearly depicts Anubis between the deceased and the lion couch which is actually what the JS papyri also depicts. So maybe you can start over.

 

Lanny Bell, "The Ancient Egyptian 'Books of Breathing,' the Mormon 'Book of Abraham,' and the Development of Egyptology in America," in Egypt and Beyond: Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology, ed. Stephen E. Thompson and Peter Der Manuelian (Providence, RI: Brown University, 2008), 21-39 insists that the figure on the lion couch has two hands up in the air and that there is not a second bird.

 

I'm going to assume that most here would agree that Bell's careful, professional analysis carries more weight than your guess. 

[Robert F. Smith]

How can those who are unwilling to put faith in the witness of the Holy Ghost put unwavering faith in the "scholarship" of man?  This isn't meant as an attack on Truthseeker.  I honestly think critics and defenders put too much stock in academia.  Just my two cents.

Hey, drums,

Does it have to be either . . . or,

Or can it be both . . . and?

Can we seek knowledge by learning and also by faith?

And who is to say which is favored over another?

Is the Liahona more important than the Iron Rod?

[drums12]

Hey, drums,

Does it have to be either . . . or,

Or can it be both . . . and?

Can we seek knowledge by learning and also by faith?

And who is to say which is favored over another?

Is the Liahona more important than the Iron Rod?

I didn't mean to imply that it's an either/or proposition.  Certainly scholarly pursuits are worthwhile, and appreciated.  Certain articles by Dan Peterson, John Sorenson, and several others have helped me through the last year or so.  The post was directed primarily at critics.  However, I think defenders of the faith can also put too much stock in the learning of men, i.e. academia in general

[Robert F. Smith]

You must bear in mind that these human sacrifices in the Book of Abraham are taking place in north Syria (the Plain of Olishem is probably to be identified with Ulisum), not far from Abraham's birthplace.  The setting is ecumentical, and a variety of priests are present on behalf of both Syrian and Egyptian gods.  Elkenah is a god-name then in common use by Hittites and Canaanites.  Shagreel is an obvious Semitic god-name.  You are mistaking the very late scene in Facsimile 1 as depicting the original scene.

I can't verify any of this. Everything in this post appears to be pure conjecture but I'd like to hear the evidence that you personally believe supports these assertions. There are several points of view form LDS scholars regarding several of these things.

I am not sure what you are unable to verify, although these  matters have been discussed previously on this discussion board.

 

You could begin with the Book of Abraham itself in order to determine where the human sacrificial rites are taking place:  Long before he goes down to Egypt, in the land of the Chaldeans (Abr 1:1), Abram's pagan fathers were worshiping a variety of gods, whom he lists (1:5-7, noting the dual role for the priest of Elkenah, who also acted as priest of Pharaoh).  He then turns to the ecumenical setting for the sacrificial altar in the land of Chaldea (1: 8 ), on a hill at the head of a plain (1:10).  The altar itself is Chaldean, not Egyptian (1:13), which is why a papyrus from 2,000 years later does not depict a Chaldean one.

 

If your problem is with Akkadian Ulisum/Ulishim in northwest Syria as Book of Abraham Olishem, then see the inscriptions of kings Rim Sin and Naram Sin (ca. 2250-2150 B.C.), in J. M. Lundquist, "Was Abraham at Ebla?" in R. L. Millet & K. P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, 7 vols. (SLC: Randall, 1985), II:233-235; P. Y. Hoskisson, “Where Was Ur of the Chaldees?” in H. D. Peterson & C. D. Tate, eds., Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God (BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), p. 136, n. 44; John Gee, FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, IV (1992), 115, n. 64; Daniel Peterson, Ensign 24/1 (Jan 1994), 17-18, citing I. J. Gelb & B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königs-inschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Christentums (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1990), 255-256; cf. “Inscription of Naram-Sin, the Campaign Against Armanu and Ebla,” in William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds., The Context of Scripture, vol. 2, Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (Boston: Brill, 2003), 245 (the line reads, “From the Bank of the Euphrates until Ulisum”).  See also Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob,” 26–27; C. Wood in Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri (SLC: Smith-Pettit Fdn/Signature Books, 2011), 74, U₂-li-śi-imki, “roughly in the area of Ebla, west of the Euphrates and far west of Haran.”

 

If you don't know the origin and use of Elkenah, please see Hebrew ʼEl-qanah (I Sam 1:1,4), ʼEl-qoneh “El, Creator of the Earth,” short for ’El ‘Elyon qone šamayim wa’ares “God Most High, Creator of Heaven & Earth” (Gen 14:19,22, Acts 4:24; cf. with Yahweh Ex 20:11, II Chron 2:11-12, Isa 42:5) = Aramaic ʼl qn(‘)rʿ(‘), Aramaic & Neo-Punic ʼl qn ʼrs = 1200 B.C. Hittite El-qônê-ersi (El-ku-ni-ir-ša), late Hittite Elkoners. -- Patrick Miller, “El, The Creator of the Earth,” BASOR, 239 (Summer 1980), 43-46, comparing 1200 B.C. Hittite Il Kunirsha, and Aramaic and Neo-Punic ʾl qnʾrs.  W. F. Albright felt that this reflected Canaanite El-kunirša, ’El-qone-’erşi on the Hittite tablet (El-ku-ni-ir-ša pronounced ’Elqonrs "El-Creator-of-the-Earth," Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan [London, 1968], 46,107 [late Hittite Elkoners]; R.J. Clifford, CBQ, 33:222; A. Goetze in Pritchard, ed., ANET, 3rd ed., 519).  See also Conrad E. L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Dagan, and the Rephaim, Harvard Semitic Monograph 21 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979); E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monograph 2 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980); cf. the 700 B.C. Jerusalem ostracon with ['l] qn 'rs "[El] Creator of the Earth" (Cross, From Epic to Canon, 87 n. 8, citing N. Avigad, IEJ, 22 [1972], 195 pl. 42B.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

There have been a number a non-LDS Egyptologists who have examined the papyri and facsimiles and none to my knowledge have ever acknowledged that "most" of the interpretations are correct. I'm not saying one should expect a complete consensus in the Egyptological community, but wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a majority or even some of the non-LDS Egyptologists to agree with the interpretations?

Your statements here are incorrect, omni.

It would be nice if you could find any non-Mormon Egyptologist who has bothered to take a close look and tic them off one by one according to standard Egyptology. None have, and that is the primary problem here.  What has been done (by me and others) is to go over them one-by-one according to the identifications given by standard Egyptology (when not examining the Joseph Smith Papyri, but other papyri and inscriptions), and the result is always that the majority of identifications given by Joseph are correct.  I provide some of this in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham , wherein I cite primarily non-Mormon Egyptologists (and other non-Mormon scholars).