Another Try: Book of Abraham Translation Evidence from Sensen Papyrus and KEP

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You state, "As far as we know, the LDS church does not currently possess the papyrus from which the text of the BofA was translated. We actually we don´t know the opposite to that either. We don´t know if the Bof A comes solely from the papyrus that the church currently holds (two facsimiles not withstanding).

You further infer  that the documents the church does have are merely supplementary materials used by the Jewish community and are not Abrahamic materials, nor even copies, but rather Jewish community documents using Egyptian symbolism to convey some message. There simply is not enough proof of any such things. The links drawn don´t connect

This is the problem with expecting to understand an issue by reading a blog entry, instead of a formal paper with footnotes (which is so boring).  I here said "documents utilized by members of the very large Jewish community in Egypt in the transmission of the Abrahamic materials through time," etc., and you converted that to the opposite "Jewish community documents using Egyptian symbolism to convey some message."  Had you read my paper, or simply took my words here at face value, you'd understand that the documents are Egyptian documents, not "Jewish community documents."  The Jewish community used them (as they regularly did in other cases), to illustrate something of concern to them.  They adapted the standard Egyptian documents to their own purposes.  I actually provided illustrations of this phenomenon in my formal paper on the subject.

Moreover, scholars don't deal in "proof," as you seem to think.  They interpret the artifacts and inscriptions as best they can according to accepted norms.  I know of no reason to imagine that the facsimiles accompanying the BofA are original Abrahamic documents, any more than the papyri we have containing the letters of Paul are original autographs.  Indeed, in the case of the BofA illustrations, we are dealing with completely different illustrations than could have been used by Abraham in any original work.  If you disagree, please provide your sources with full documentation and discussion.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Indeed, in the case of the BofA illustrations, we are dealing with completely different illustrations than could have been used by Abraham in any original work.  

What I find fascinating with the  Fac 1 is that it seems to have been written in the third party.  This implies that Abraham himself is not the author of this facsimile, but perhaps it was a later addition. 

Not sure what that means in terms of the transmittal of the BOA papyrus.

Edited September 13, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, cdowis said:

What I find fascinating with the  Fac 1 is that it seems to have been written in the third party.  This implies that Abraham himself is not the author of this facsimile, but perhaps it was a later addition. 

Not sure what that means in terms of the transmittal of the BOA papyrus.

Good point.  Of course you are referring to the twelve numbered explanations accompanying the facsimile, but there are also explanations in chapter 1 of the BofA.  In addition, one can read the illustration itself -- each of the drawings in context, along with the accompanying SenSen text.

In my commentary, at Abraham 1:12-13, I discuss the ALTAR in form of a BEDSTEAD, such as was had among the Chaldeans (Fac. 1:2), presumably Akkadian eršu “bed” (Sumerian u2, ĝeš-nud, GÌŠ.NÁ) – cf. Egyptian nmt “place of execution, slaughtering block” (Pyramid Texts 811d, 865), nmmyt “bed, couch, bier,” and nmʻ “go to sleep” (with lion-couch determinative).  Leiden Papyrus I 383 & I 384, a 3rd cent. A.D. demotic magical papyrus with lion-couch scene and mentioning Abraham.  According to A. Goderoid, the Egyptian lion-headed altar depicted in the Hor Breathing text “has to do with the idea of solar rebirth” (Birmingham Egyptology Journal, 1 [2014]).

Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 supposedly shows Abraham himself on a lion-couch bed somewhere in Syria/Asia (at Olishem/Ulisum), a sacrificial knife in the hands of what would ordinarily be an Anubis priest.  Compare to that the scene on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos in which Ahiram holds a lotus, sitting before an altar opposite a priest holding a knife about to perform a sacrifice (National Museum, Beirut, Lebanon; John Gray, NEM, 100, top right).  Egyptologists Von Bissing, Woodward, and Hughes all agreed that the Anubis-priest in Fac. 1 could have a knife in hand, and it is Anubis who presides over blood sacrifices as representative of Pharaoh (Pyramid Texts 157, 590, 650, 727, 811d, 1286-1287, etc.).  As an analog of Osiris and as an anti-type of Jesus, Abraham would certainly have fit here – if so chosen to fit by some later (Jewish?) conveyor of the tradition.  For as Ran Zadok has observed, “Living in an Egyptian milieu, some Elephantine Jews adopted Egyptian names.  They also married Egyptian women.”  It might not be unreasonable to believe that the Book of Abraham was transmitted to the Ptolemaic period in Egypt by generations of scribes who passed it on much as they did other Jewish manuscripts – including biblical manuscripts such as the Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew Bible, as well as those MSS found in the Cairo Genizah and at Qumran.

One finds, for example, a lion couch scene carved on a funerary stela from the first half of the 5th century B.C., but with an Aramaic dedication just above the two offering registers and just below the lion Couch:  “Ankhohapi son of Takhabes, excellent (one) of Orisis the god,” written in Assyrian square letters.

As for the lion-couch as a bed, see the bed of Queen Hetep-heres in G. E. Reisner & W. S. Smith, A History of the Giza Necropolis, II (Harvard, 1955), plate 26; or the painting on the right interior of the cedar coffin (A2214) of nomarch Dhuty-nht of Hare Nome (11th Dyn.) in Edward L. B. Terrace, Egyptian Paintings of the Middle Kingdom: The Tomb of Djehuty-Nekht (N.Y., 1968), colorplate XV.  H. Nibley examined the scenes in Coffin Text 312 (T1C/ IV, 68-86 ∥Book of the Dead spell 78), at the Temple of ‘Opet, Seti I, Philae, etc. (Nibley, Improvement Era, 72 [Aug 1969]:76), and then presented the evidence for such a couch as an altar for human sacrifice (Nibley, Era, 72 [July 1969]:98-99,101-102), and all of that is now available in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley XIV & XVIII.  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); cf. G. Reisner on Middle Egyptian human sacrifice in Nubia in Harvard African Studies, V:65ff.

These lion couches, biers, beds, or altars were used annually in a variety of scenes in the context of Khoiak, the national Egyptian ritual festival of the god Osiris, with which all identified – either in the passion play publicly reenacting each step in “the death and resurrection of Osiris and the defeat of his foes,” or in the grand “procession, and ceremonial internment [sic] of Osiris figurines.”  The various scenes with such a bed represented Osiris impregnating Isis, the guarding of the mummy by his sisters,  and restoration of mobility (Opening of the Mouth), etc., all accompanied by “ritual dialogue,” some of which was part of every funeral.  Embalming was an integral part of that sequence, and the tables or beds (which “some scholars consider . . . to be offering tables”) used by the embalmers could be made of wood or stone, often slanted for draining of bodily fluids.

 

[bcuzbcuz]

On 13 September 2016 at 7:52 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Good point.  Of course you are referring to the twelve numbered explanations accompanying the facsimile, but there are also explanations in chapter 1 of the BofA.  In addition, one can read the illustration itself -- each of the drawings in context, along with the accompanying SenSen text.

In my commentary, at Abraham 1:12-13, I discuss the ALTAR in form of a BEDSTEAD, such as was had among the Chaldeans (Fac. 1:2), presumably Akkadian eršu “bed” (Sumerian u2, ĝeš-nud, GÌŠ.NÁ) – cf. Egyptian nmt “place of execution, slaughtering block” (Pyramid Texts 811d, 865), nmmyt “bed, couch, bier,” and nmʻ “go to sleep” (with lion-couch determinative).  Leiden Papyrus I 383 & I 384, a 3rd cent. A.D. demotic magical papyrus with lion-couch scene and mentioning Abraham.  According to A. Goderoid, the Egyptian lion-headed altar depicted in the Hor Breathing text “has to do with the idea of solar rebirth” (Birmingham Egyptology Journal, 1 [2014]).

Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 supposedly shows Abraham himself on a lion-couch bed somewhere in Syria/Asia (at Olishem/Ulisum), a sacrificial knife in the hands of what would ordinarily be an Anubis priest.  Compare to that the scene on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos in which Ahiram holds a lotus, sitting before an altar opposite a priest holding a knife about to perform a sacrifice (National Museum, Beirut, Lebanon; John Gray, NEM, 100, top right).  Egyptologists Von Bissing, Woodward, and Hughes all agreed that the Anubis-priest in Fac. 1 could have a knife in hand, and it is Anubis who presides over blood sacrifices as representative of Pharaoh (Pyramid Texts 157, 590, 650, 727, 811d, 1286-1287, etc.).  As an analog of Osiris and as an anti-type of Jesus, Abraham would certainly have fit here – if so chosen to fit by some later (Jewish?) conveyor of the tradition.  For as Ran Zadok has observed, “Living in an Egyptian milieu, some Elephantine Jews adopted Egyptian names.  They also married Egyptian women.”  It might not be unreasonable to believe that the Book of Abraham was transmitted to the Ptolemaic period in Egypt by generations of scribes who passed it on much as they did other Jewish manuscripts – including biblical manuscripts such as the Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew Bible, as well as those MSS found in the Cairo Genizah and at Qumran.

One finds, for example, a lion couch scene carved on a funerary stela from the first half of the 5th century B.C., but with an Aramaic dedication just above the two offering registers and just below the lion Couch:  “Ankhohapi son of Takhabes, excellent (one) of Orisis the god,” written in Assyrian square letters.

As for the lion-couch as a bed, see the bed of Queen Hetep-heres in G. E. Reisner & W. S. Smith, A History of the Giza Necropolis, II (Harvard, 1955), plate 26; or the painting on the right interior of the cedar coffin (A2214) of nomarch Dhuty-nht of Hare Nome (11th Dyn.) in Edward L. B. Terrace, Egyptian Paintings of the Middle Kingdom: The Tomb of Djehuty-Nekht (N.Y., 1968), colorplate XV.  H. Nibley examined the scenes in Coffin Text 312 (T1C/ IV, 68-86 ∥Book of the Dead spell 78), at the Temple of ‘Opet, Seti I, Philae, etc. (Nibley, Improvement Era, 72 [Aug 1969]:76), and then presented the evidence for such a couch as an altar for human sacrifice (Nibley, Era, 72 [July 1969]:98-99,101-102), and all of that is now available in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley XIV & XVIII.  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); cf. G. Reisner on Middle Egyptian human sacrifice in Nubia in Harvard African Studies, V:65ff.

These lion couches, biers, beds, or altars were used annually in a variety of scenes in the context of Khoiak, the national Egyptian ritual festival of the god Osiris, with which all identified – either in the passion play publicly reenacting each step in “the death and resurrection of Osiris and the defeat of his foes,” or in the grand “procession, and ceremonial internment [sic] of Osiris figurines.”  The various scenes with such a bed represented Osiris impregnating Isis, the guarding of the mummy by his sisters,  and restoration of mobility (Opening of the Mouth), etc., all accompanied by “ritual dialogue,” some of which was part of every funeral.  Embalming was an integral part of that sequence, and the tables or beds (which “some scholars consider . . . to be offering tables”) used by the embalmers could be made of wood or stone, often slanted for draining of bodily fluids.

 

I´ve been trying to put my finger on what it is in your writings that causes me confusion. After going back to your pdf  "A Brief Assessment of the LDS Boook of Abraham" I think I´ve got it. 

You have obviously studied Egyptian history and also studied the Egyptian language. You seem to be able to read both hieroglyphs and their middle Egyptian counterpart of transmogrifications used by Allen and Gardner, among others.

At one point you state: "The Book of Abraham facsimiles contain artistic and iconotropic material which 
(as with all Egyptian art and iconography) can be read all by themselves, or are to 
be read right along with the accompanying Egyptian words." (And you quote from Allen to prove your point)

The part I don´t get is, if you have studied Egyptian history and followed the timetables, such as Shaw has painstakingly compiled  to try to represent the various ages and pharoahs lifetimes, which part of that don´t you buy into?

The pyramids of Giza were constructed around the same time the Bible says that Noah´s flood wiped out everything and everyone on the earth. But then, within tens of years after the flood, the Egyptians get right back to building pyramids. They use the same constuction methods, the same kind of stones, the same huge numbers of workforces.

You know all this because you´ve studied the history of Egypt.

But then you state,here, on this site, that you accept the Bibles portrayal of time and generations, and since you accept the Book of Abraham you also accept that Egypt didn´t exist as a land prior to the flood. 

Somewhere along your line of reasoning I perceive a mental disconnect. You accept two mutually contradictory ideas regarding Egypt. It´s as though you have one part of your brain that can study all the minute details of Egypt, its development and its development  of language, and another part of your brain that compartmentalizes the ideas of the flood, Egyptus, etc, etc.

So which is it? 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

.................................................................................

The part I don´t get is, if you have studied Egyptian history and followed the timetables, such as Shaw has painstakingly compiled  to try to represent the various ages and pharoahs lifetimes, which part of that don´t you buy into?

I have no problem at all with the standard theories on the history and chronology of Egypt, even though some matters are in dispute, as you can see from my papers on Moses and on the Ramses II artifacts:  “Ramses II BYU Exhibit: Supplementary Comments on the Artifacts,” FARMS Preliminary Report, SMI-86 (Provo: FARMS, 1986); 30pp.  Online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/54423164/Ramses-II-BYU-Exhibit-Supplementary-Comments-on-the-Artifacts-FARMS-Preliminary-Report-SMI-86-Provo-FARMS-1986 ,   “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

 

 

Quote

The pyramids of Giza were constructed around the same time the Bible says that Noah´s flood wiped out everything and everyone on the earth. But then, within tens of years after the flood, the Egyptians get right back to building pyramids. They use the same constuction methods, the same kind of stones, the same huge numbers of workforces.

..................................................................

But then you state,here, on this site, that you accept the Bibles portrayal of time and generations, and since you accept the Book of Abraham you also accept that Egypt didn´t exist as a land prior to the flood. 

I don't know where you got the idea that I support any sort of chronology which has a late Noachic worldwide Flood.  That Deluge was a local, regional one, which had symbolic consequences for everyone on the planet, but Egypt being under water when discovered by Egyptus/Zeptah (whose son is the first Pharaoh) refers to the annual inundation of the Nile River.  Abraham 1:24-25

Quote

Somewhere along your line of reasoning I perceive a mental disconnect. You accept two mutually contradictory ideas regarding Egypt. It´s as though you have one part of your brain that can study all the minute details of Egypt, its development and its development  of language, and another part of your brain that compartmentalizes the ideas of the flood, Egyptus, etc, etc.

So which is it? 

I just asked myself whether my brain is compartmentalized, and it said "no." 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[bcuzbcuz]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no problem at all with the standard theories on the history and chronology of Egypt, even though some matters are in dispute, as you can see from my papers on Moses and on the Ramses II artifacts:  “Ramses II BYU Exhibit: Supplementary Comments on the Artifacts,” FARMS Preliminary Report, SMI-86 (Provo: FARMS, 1986); 30pp.  Online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/54423164/Ramses-II-BYU-Exhibit-Supplementary-Comments-on-the-Artifacts-FARMS-Preliminary-Report-SMI-86-Provo-FARMS-1986 ,   “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

 

 

 

I don't know where you got the idea that I support any sort of chronology which has a late Noachic worldwide Flood.  That Deluge was a local, regional one, which had symbolic consequences for everyone on the planet, but Egypt being under water when discovered by Egyptus/Zeptah (whose son is the first Pharaoh) refers to the annual inundation of the Nile River.  Abraham 1:24-25

I just asked myself whether my brain is compartmentalized, it and said "no." 

Please take it real slow for me here. I´m sometimes very slow on the uptake. Noah´s regional flood, 2300 BC or something like that. Right around the time that the Giza pyramids were being built, during the 4th Dynasty (Shaw´s chronology as follows). But you say that Egyptus´  son became the first Pharaoh.......And his name was??????

Wouldn´t that make all the Pharaohs that follow in his blood line descendants of Noah? Are there any Egyptologists that agree with that chronology?

First Dynasty  Dynasty I, c. 3100 – c. 2890 BC

Name                                 Comments                 Dates
Narmer         probably Menes on earlier lists        starting c. 3100–3050 B.C.
Hor-Aha                                                                 starting c. 3050
Djer                                                                        c. 3049–3008 (41 yrs Palermo Stone)
Djet                                                                        3008–2975?
Merneith         the mother of Den                          3008?
Den                                                                        2975–2935 30 to 50 years 
Anedjib                                                                  2935–2925 B.C.(10 yrs Palermo Stone)
Semerkhet                                                             2925?–2916? 9 years (Palermo Stone)
Qa'a                                                                       2916?–2890 B.C.

Second Dynasty  Dynasty II, c. 2890 – c. 2686 BC

Name                                                     Years Reigned
Hotepsekhemwy                                     38
Nebra (maybe identifiable with Weneg)                10–14
Nynetjer                                                   40
Senedj (maybe identifiable with Horus Sa)            20
Seth-Peribsen
 Khasekhemwy                                        17–18

Old Kingdom

Third Dynasty  2686 to 2613 BC.

Personal Name Horus-name    Regnal years          Burial                        Consort(s)
Djoser         Netjerikhet                            19             Saqqara                   Hetephernebti
Djoserty     Sekhemkhet                           6         Saqqara: Buried Pyramid     Djeseretnebti
Nebka         Sanakht                                 9             Abydos ?     
Teti         Khaba                                         6         Zawyet el'Aryan: Layer Pyramid     
Huni         Qahedjet ?                                24             Meidum ?                      Djefatnebti  
                                            Meresankh I

Fourth Dynasty  c. 2613 to 2494 BC

Personal Name  Horus Name         Date                      Pyramid                           Queen(s)
Sneferu     Nebmaat                        2613–2589 BC     Bent Pyramid                   Hetepheres I
                                                                                     Red Pyramid
                                                                                      Meidum Pyramid     
Khufu         Medjedu                        2589–2566 BC     Great Pyramid of Giza         Meritites I       Henutsen
Djedefre     Kheper                           2566–2558 BC ?     Pyramid of Djedefre                Hetepheres II    Khentetka
Khafre     Userib                               2558–2532 BC     Pyramid of Khafra                Meresankh II  Khamerernebty I
                                                                                                                                   Hekenuhedjet   Persenet
Baka          ??                                   2532 BC ?          ??                  ??
Menkaure     Kakhet                         2532–2503 BC ?     Pyramid Menkaure               Khamerernebty II
Shepseskaf     Shepseskhet             2503–2499 BC ?     Mastabet el-Fara'un         Bunefer?
Djedefptah      ??                              2499–2494 BC ?      ??                  ??

 

[cdowis]

 

del

Edited September 15, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Please take it real slow for me here. I´m sometimes very slow on the uptake. Noah´s regional flood, 2300 BC or something like that. Right around the time that the Giza pyramids were being built, during the 4th Dynasty (Shaw´s chronology as follows). But you say that Egyptus´  son became the first Pharaoh.......And his name was??????

Wouldn´t that make all the Pharaohs that follow in his blood line descendants of Noah? Are there any Egyptologists that agree with that chronology?

First Dynasty  Dynasty I, c. 3100 – c. 2890 BC

Name                                 Comments                 Dates
Narmer         probably Menes on earlier lists        starting c. 3100–3050 B.C.
Hor-Aha                                                                 starting c. 3050

.......................................   

You forgot to include Dynasty 0 pharaohs, one of whom may have been the son of Zeptah/Egyptus.  We do not know his name.  All Egyptologists accept that there were several Dyn 0 (or predynastic) pharaohs who controlled most or all of Egypt -- in the late 4th millennium BC.

As I said above, "I don't know where you got the idea that I support any sort of chronology which has a late Noachic worldwide Flood."  Your late biblical chronology is way out of whack.  You might want to have a look at David Miano, Shadow on the Steps: Time Measurement in Ancient Israel, Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 64 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010).  As he points out in chapter 3, the Massoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagint texts disagree on basic chronology.  According to Stephanie Dalley, “[n]o flood deposits are found in third millennium strata” in Mesopotamia.  

 

[bcuzbcuz]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You forgot to include Dynasty 0 pharaohs, one of whom may have been the son of Zeptah/Egyptus.  We do not know his name.  All Egyptologists accept that there were several Dyn 0 (or predynastic) pharaohs who controlled most or all of Egypt -- in the late 4th millennium BC.

As I said above, "I don't know where you got the idea that I support any sort of chronology which has a late Noachic worldwide Flood."  Your late biblical chronology is way out of whack.  You might want to have a look at David Miano, Shadow on the Steps: Time Measurement in Ancient Israel, Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 64 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010).  As he points out in chapter 3, the Massoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagint texts disagree on basic chronology.  According to Stephanie Dalley, “[n]o flood deposits are found in third millennium strata” in Mesopotamia.  

 

The Naqada III  (well I and II as well) are my favourite periods. Ever since I saw the blackrimmed red pottery in the Louvre I knew I had to study Egyptian history, language and art.

But Dynasty 0 is the big 0 because we have no data about when the pharaohs ruled. And no, I don´t think Dwayne Johnson portrayal of the Scorpion King was historically accurate.

But looking at the various chronology charts, comparing the standard masoretic calendar with the Samaritan or Septuagint, I dont see how you moved the flood 1000 years backin time.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/15/2016 at 4:53 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

.........................................................

But Dynasty 0 is the big 0 because we have no data about when the pharaohs ruled. And no, I don´t think Dwayne Johnson portrayal of the Scorpion King was historically accurate.

But looking at the various chronology charts, comparing the standard masoretic calendar with the Samaritan or Septuagint, I dont see how you moved the flood 1000 years backin time.

The first question might be why you would have any confidence in the chronology transmitted within the biblical text, since it cannot agree within itself.  And  you may have noticed that Abraham 2:14 and Gen 12:4 cannot even agree on how old Abe was when he left Haran.  But it goes much further than that, and here is an excerpt from my Book of Abraham Commentary to suggest the underlying rationale for the numbers we do have:

Age of the Patriarchs 

In Genesis 6:3, God sets the life-span of humans at a maximum of 120 years, a span lived by Moses (Deut 31:2, 34:7), among others.  The notion that the human life-span was limited by divine decree is expressed early in Mesopotamian tradition as well (in Atraḫasis and in Gilgamesh, for example), but the 120-year limit finds a unique parallel in Emar Text 771-774.^[1]

            However, like the ten heroes of Old Babylonian tradition, Ante-Diluvian biblical characters from Adam to Noah are incredibly long-lived (1000-900 year range).  Early Post-Diluvians have a vastly decreased longevity (600-200), then the Patriarchs still less long-lived (200-100), and finally a normal lifetime becomes the norm (70 years, Psalm 90:10).^[2]

            Enoch was a special case: He lived on Earth only 65 years, then Awalked with God@ (Gen 5:21-22), but is further listed as living 365 years (Gen 5:23) before being "translated," i.e., being taken alive by God into Heaven (Gen 5:24; cf. Elijah in II Ki 2:11).  Interestingly, Enoch has a close parallel in Old Babylonian tradition of the ten Ante-Diluvian heroes, the seventh of which, Enmeduranki/Enmeduranna (Enoch was likewise seventh in the biblical genealogy), was also taken directly by God!^[3]  In addition, as Speiser points out, AEnmeduranna=s capital city was the ancient center of the sun god of Sippar, which could explain the solar number of 365 that is recorded for Enoch.@^[4]

According to Genesis 14:14, the number of Abraham=s retainers is 318, which Stanley Gevirtz finds significant due to the sum of the twelve prime numbers from 7 to 7² = 318, which is also the number of fatalities in Homer=s Iliad, or the number of Mitannian invaders, etc.^[5]  This might seem anecdotal and insignificant were it not for other such factors in Genesis.  As pointed out by Eric Lowenthal, Nahum Sarna, Mordechai Cogan^[6] and William W. Hallo, for example, some of the Patriarchs have curious numerical relationships among their biblical ages:

Moreover, note that Joseph spends 17 years with Jacob in Canaan, and 17 years with him in Egypt (part of the chiastic symmetry of the Joseph Narrative). 

The ten antediluvian patriarchs from Adam to Noah live within a period of 1,656 years according to the Massoretic Hebrew text, with Adam dying at least by the time of Lamech, father of Noah.  Counting the year of the great Deluge, that would be 1,657 years (Gen 8:13) = 600,000 days + 2 x 7 years.  Not only is the sexigesimal implication clear,^[7] but Stephanie Dalley shows the tight relationship that exists with Berossus= version of the Mesopotamian story and chronology in his Babyloniaca: 

. . . the survivor of the Flood (Xisuthros, Noah) is the tenth antediluvian king in both Berossus and Genesis (Priestly source), that the month in which the Flood happened is named, and that the ten antediluvian kings whom Berossus cites ruled 432,000 Ayears@ (i.e. 86,400 x 5, five years being sixty months) and in Genesis (Priestly source) for 1,656 Ayears@ (i.e. 86,400 weeks), so the two accounts may originally have shared a common chronological scheme.^[8]

In summing up his comparison of the biblical antediluvian patriarchs and the earlier Sumerian King List, David Bokovoy concluded: 

If the total years connected with the names in Genesis 5 are calculated, the list covers a span of 6,695 years.  Then, if we convert this number to a sexigesimal number (the form used by the Sumerians), the result is 241,200 B the exact total of the Sumerian King List.^[9]

Although Miller & Hayes have commented on the tendency toward exaggeration for effect (hyperbole) in biblical sources, and although one ought always to keep that general ancient Near Eastern tendency in mind,^[10] such systematic examples raise other questions as well.  Are our surface impressions adequate?  Could there, for example, be hidden meaning in such texts?  In any case, what was the actual longevity of man in the ancient world? 

---

^[1] Jacob Klein, "The 'Bane' of Humanity: A Lifespan of One Hundred Twenty Years," Acta Sumerologica, 12 (1990):57-70, cited by P. Y. Hoskisson in K. L. Younger, Jr., W. W. Hallo, and B. F. Batto, eds., The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV, Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 11 (Lewiston/ Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991), 27-28.

^[2] See also A. Malamat, "Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels," AfO, 19 (1982):215-218.

^[3] Helge S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man (1988), part 1 from his dissertation, and part 2 from his article, AAn Akkadian Vision as Background for Dan 7,@ Studia Theologica, 35 (1981):85-89 (Akkadian AVision of the Netherworld@).

^[4] Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1, 43, citing Driver, Book of Genesis, 12^th ed. (1926), 78-79.

^[5] Gevirtz in Israel Exploration Journal, 19:112.

^[6] Lowenthal, Joseph Narrative in Genesis, 131-132, 193 n. 18, citing Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 84; Cogan in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:1004.

^[7] Cogan in Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:1004, citing U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem, 1972), 253-262.

^[8] Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, rev. ed., 6, citing J. Oppert Jewish Encyclopaedia (N.Y., 1903), IV:66-67.

^[9] Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, I:108, citing John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 130; cf. Carol A. Hill, AMaking Sense of the Numbers of Genesis,@ Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 55/4 (2003):239-251, online at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf .

^[10] J. M. Miller & J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2^nd ed. (Westminster John Knox, 2006), 193-194, and n. 11, citing K. L. Younger, Jr., AThe Figurative Aspect and the Contextual Method in the Evaluation of the Solomonic Empire,@ in D. J. A. Clines, et al., eds., The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield, JSOT Supplement 98 (JSOT Press, 1990), 157-175; and Marco de Odorico, The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, SAAS 3 (Helsinki, 1995).

Edited September 18, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The first question might be why you would have any confidence in the chronology transmitted within the biblical text, since it cannot agree within itself.  And  you may have noticed that Abraham 2:14 and Gen 12:4 cannot even agree on how old Abe was when he left Haran.  But it goes much further than that, and here is an excerpt from my Book of Abraham Commentary to suggest the underlying rationale for the numbers we do have:

Age of the Patriarchs 

In Genesis 6:3, God sets the life-span of humans at a maximum of 120 years, a span lived by Moses (Deut 31:2, 34:7), among others.  The notion that the human life-span was limited by divine decree is expressed early in Mesopotamian tradition as well (in Atraḫasis and in Gilgamesh, for example), but the 120-year limit finds a unique parallel in Emar Text 771-774.^[1]

            However, like the ten heroes of Old Babylonian tradition, Ante-Diluvian biblical characters from Adam to Noah are incredibly long-lived (1000-900 year range).  Early Post-Diluvians have a vastly decreased longevity (600-200), then the Patriarchs still less long-lived (200-100), and finally a normal lifetime becomes the norm (70 years, Psalm 90:10).^[2]

            Enoch was a special case: He lived on Earth only 65 years, then Awalked with God@ (Gen 5:21-22), but is further listed as living 365 years (Gen 5:23) before being "translated," i.e., being taken alive by God into Heaven (Gen 5:24; cf. Elijah in II Ki 2:11).  Interestingly, Enoch has a close parallel in Old Babylonian tradition of the ten Ante-Diluvian heroes, the seventh of which, Enmeduranki/Enmeduranna (Enoch was likewise seventh in the biblical genealogy), was also taken directly by God!^[3]  In addition, as Speiser points out, AEnmeduranna=s capital city was the ancient center of the sun god of Sippar, which could explain the solar number of 365 that is recorded for Enoch.@^[4]

According to Genesis 14:14, the number of Abraham=s retainers is 318, which Stanley Gevirtz finds significant due to the sum of the twelve prime numbers from 7 to 7² = 318, which is also the number of fatalities in Homer=s Iliad, or the number of Mitannian invaders, etc.^[5]  This might seem anecdotal and insignificant were it not for other such factors in Genesis.  As pointed out by Eric Lowenthal, Nahum Sarna, Mordechai Cogan^[6] and William W. Hallo, for example, some of the Patriarchs have curious numerical relationships among their biblical ages:

Moreover, note that Joseph spends 17 years with Jacob in Canaan, and 17 years with him in Egypt (part of the chiastic symmetry of the Joseph Narrative). 

The ten antediluvian patriarchs from Adam to Noah live within a period of 1,656 years according to the Massoretic Hebrew text, with Adam dying at least by the time of Lamech, father of Noah.  Counting the year of the great Deluge, that would be 1,657 years (Gen 8:13) = 600,000 days + 2 x 7 years.  Not only is the sexigesimal implication clear,^[7] but Stephanie Dalley shows the tight relationship that exists with Berossus= version of the Mesopotamian story and chronology in his Babyloniaca: 

. . . the survivor of the Flood (Xisuthros, Noah) is the tenth antediluvian king in both Berossus and Genesis (Priestly source), that the month in which the Flood happened is named, and that the ten antediluvian kings whom Berossus cites ruled 432,000 Ayears@ (i.e. 86,400 x 5, five years being sixty months) and in Genesis (Priestly source) for 1,656 Ayears@ (i.e. 86,400 weeks), so the two accounts may originally have shared a common chronological scheme.^[8]

In summing up his comparison of the biblical antediluvian patriarchs and the earlier Sumerian King List, David Bokovoy concluded: 

If the total years connected with the names in Genesis 5 are calculated, the list covers a span of 6,695 years.  Then, if we convert this number to a sexigesimal number (the form used by the Sumerians), the result is 241,200 B the exact total of the Sumerian King List.^[9]

Although Miller & Hayes have commented on the tendency toward exaggeration for effect (hyperbole) in biblical sources, and although one ought always to keep that general ancient Near Eastern tendency in mind,^[10] such systematic examples raise other questions as well.  Are our surface impressions adequate?  Could there, for example, be hidden meaning in such texts?  In any case, what was the actual longevity of man in the ancient world? 

 

You are so correct. For your first two sentences. 

The internal conflicts within the early scriptures, which are so often ignored, no, worse than that, people are totally ignorant about, do the absolute opposite to inducing believability. I truly don´t comprehend how so many try to create a cohesive story line where none exists.

Building a chronology from Genesis based on people living to the age of 900 years, and from that to then calculate a plausible earth age, is like throwing all the letters from a Scrabble game on to a table and expecting them to form a meaningful sentence. The average age for the early prophets was probably more in line with the average age for most herdsmen at that time, 40, possible 45, years of age.

So I do not agree with your summation nor with the calculations of the ages of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph as some play calculating using prime numbers.

The symmetry you talk about between different peoples ages or the years spent by Joseph in Canaan and Egypt, to me, is the symmetry that a storyteller winds into his tale when enchanting a crowd with wild and wonderful adventures.

I agree with your summation from Miller and Hayes. I think the Old Testament is rife with "exageration for effect". Hidden meaning? I don´t know. But I, for one, do not buy into the Biblical chronology whether it is 4,000 years of time or 6,695 or 241,000. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You are so correct. For your first two sentences. 

The internal conflicts within the early scriptures, which are so often ignored, no, worse than that, people are totally ignorant about, do the absolute opposite to inducing believability. I truly don´t comprehend how so many try to create a cohesive story line where none exists.

Building a chronology from Genesis based on people living to the age of 900 years, and from that to then calculate a plausible earth age, is like throwing all the letters from a Scrabble game on to a table and expecting them to form a meaningful sentence. The average age for the early prophets was probably more in line with the average age for most herdsmen at that time, 40, possible 45, years of age.

So I do not agree with your summation nor with the calculations of the ages of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph as some play calculating using prime numbers.

The symmetry you talk about between different peoples ages or the years spent by Joseph in Canaan and Egypt, to me, is the symmetry that a storyteller winds into his tale when enchanting a crowd with wild and wonderful adventures.

I agree with your summation from Miller and Hayes. I think the Old Testament is rife with "exageration for effect". Hidden meaning? I don´t know. But I, for one, do not buy into the Biblical chronology whether it is 4,000 years of time or 6,695 or 241,000. 

You are starting to talk turkey.  Thought you'd never get around to it, even though you clearly need to read David Bokovoy's book -- the explanation of the lengths of life in Gen 5 turn out to be exactly the length of the Sumerian King List (when converted to sexagesimal numbers) ought to make you sit up and take notice.  Not that people actually lived those lengths of life, but rather that we know where those figures come from and what genre of literature we are dealing with.  For I am sure that you don't want to be responding to Holy Writ the same shallow way in which evangelical christians do -- taking it all as literal and inerrant.

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are starting to talk turkey.  Thought you'd never get around to it, even though you clearly need to read David Bokovoy's book -- the explanation of the lengths of life in Gen 5 turn out to be exactly the length of the Sumerian King List (when converted to sexagesimal numbers) ought to make you sit up and take notice.  Not that people actually lived those lengths of life, but rather that we know where those figures come from and what genre of literature we are dealing with.  For I am sure that you don't want to be responding to Holy Writ the same shallow way in which evangelical christians do -- taking it all as literal and inerrant.

I´m too cheap to go out and buy Bokovoy´s book. I love my Scribd. But I´ve read  Bokovoy´s prologue. 

The idea that scribes, from so many years ago, tried to convey their own convictions and ideas while transcribing the biblical texts is nothing that I oppose. If they used matematical formulas, possibly unconsciously, to re-write ages, I´ll leave to others to calculate. 

I´m neither creationist not young earther so I already have an opinion that doesn´t interpret  Biblical scriptures literally nor inerrant. I´ve also studied Egyptian history and accept that when the years counted as a complete year in Egypt do not equate to a complete year in Biblical tems.

The part that I have most difficulty with is, the idea that, in times past, that people could live hundreds of years past the times considered possible. In modern times, we accept that people live 60 or 70 or 80 years old. When did people, without considering miraculous outcomes, accept that people could live 800 or 900 years old?

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I´m too cheap to go out and buy Bokovoy´s book. I love my Scribd. But I´ve read  Bokovoy´s prologue. 

Bokovoy's first volume is merely the first in a series of three about the nature and origin of the Bible.  One need not agree with everything he says in order to receive an excellent summary of what modern scholarship has to say.  A lot of the questions you ask on this board would be answered by your reading his secular explanations.

3 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The idea that scribes, from so many years ago, tried to convey their own convictions and ideas while transcribing the biblical texts is nothing that I oppose. If they used matematical formulas, possibly unconsciously, to re-write ages, I´ll leave to others to calculate. 

I´m neither creationist not young earther so I already have an opinion that doesn´t interpret  Biblical scriptures literally nor inerrant. I´ve also studied Egyptian history and accept that when the years counted as a complete year in Egypt do not equate to a complete year in Biblical tems.

The part that I have most difficulty with is, the idea that, in times past, that people could live hundreds of years past the times considered possible. In modern times, we accept that people live 60 or 70 or 80 years old. When did people, without considering miraculous outcomes, accept that people could live 800 or 900 years old?

It is always helpful to keep in mind that Hebrew scribes were no different than the Sumerian and Akkadian scribes who were keeping the very same sort of records, and in which they had no personal knowledge of these very ancient stories of long-lived people.  They simply transmitted the very archaic, primeval stories.

[RevTestament]

On 9/16/2016 at 9:16 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Thought you'd never get around to it, even though you clearly need to read David Bokovoy's book -- the explanation of the lengths of life in Gen 5 turn out to be exactly the length of the Sumerian King List (when converted to sexagesimal numbers) ought to make you sit up and take notice.  Not that people actually lived those lengths of life, but rather that we know where those figures come from and what genre of literature we are dealing with.

I haven't found that to work out... could you demonstrate the correspondence with the King List?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I haven't found that to work out... could you demonstrate the correspondence with the King List?

Here's the quote again from Bokovoy, which I gave you:

Quote

If the total years connected with the names in Genesis 5 are calculated, the list covers a span of 6,695 years.  Then, if we convert this number to a sexigesimal number (the form used by the Sumerians), the result is 241,200 B the exact total of the Sumerian King List.^[9]

^[9] Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, I:108, citing John Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 130; cf. Carol A. Hill, AMaking Sense of the Numbers of Genesis,@ Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 55/4 (2003):239-251, online at  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12‑03Hill.pdf .

The detailed math is worked out in Raúl López, “The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List,” Answers in Genesis, Dec 1, 1998, online at https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/the-antediluvian-patriarchs-and-the-sumerian-king-list/ , and he closes with the following summary:

Quote

When the kingdom durations of the antediluvian portion of the King List are represented with the early Sumerian numerical system, the total and all of the numbers except two need only two different symbols. These are the two largest units of the system, so that the numbers are expressed as multiples of 3600. The total (241,200) needs six 10x602 signs, six 602 signs, and six 10x60 signs. The duration of the lives of the biblical patriarchs, however, have the precision of one year, and the majority of the ages have units. If Adam the first man and Noah the Flood hero are not included to match the contents of the Kings List, their total ages would be 6695. If the ages are rounded to the two highest digits as in the Sumerian list, the final number has six 103 signs, six 102 signs, and six 10 signs for a total of 6660. Thus, the totals of both the adjusted Genesis and Sumerian lists have six of the signs for ten times the square of the base, six of the signs for the square of the base, and six signs for the next lower value of their respective system. In addition, when the number representing the sum of the ages of the biblical patriarchs is interpreted as having been written in the sexagesimal system, the two totals become numerically equivalent.

I have not seen John Walton's calculations, upon which Bokovoy bases his claim, and Carol Hill (whom I cite) says that the result is only superficially similar.  I do note that I misspelled John H. Walton's name (above), and so did Bokovoy, and I have corrected that.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Ed Goble]

On 9/8/2016 at 4:12 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

In your part 13, Ed, you speak about the conciliar nature of the LDS Church, and that even Joseph and his scribes constituted a council.  I don't know of any evidence for that latter council.  Are any and every group a "council"?  However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that they are:  Does that carry any weight in discussion of the BofA, and does that convince us that Joseph had complete charge of the process?

Also, one could speak of scholarly groups as councils in that same sense:  They engage in scholarly give and take.  They cite each other in formal presentations, and are subject to peer review, whether they like it or not.  Whatever rejection, refinements, or acceptance of disparate views take place within that larger scholarly community are all on record and are very specific.  We can go back in history and examine the stream of changes in theories and interpretations in a wide variety of fields.  We should be able to do the same with views on the BofA.  Scholars do that via detailed and very specific conversation with other scholars -- all of whom cite their sources.  It is a lot of bother, but it pays dividends.

You seem not to be much interested in such a conversation.  In addition, your statements on the Basic Theory don't really get into the nitty gritty.  For example, you don't state what sort of revelatory process was used by Joseph in receiving the BofA.  Did he read it on a stone?  Did it simply come to him in a burst of inspiration, while his scribes took down verbatim dictation?  Did he consult no papyrus at all during that receipt of revelation?  You speak of a papyrus owned by the Church (singular) not being the one written by Abraham, but rather by a priest in the Greco-Roman era.  Yet Joseph had a number of papyri, not all of which survived to this day, but some are now in possession of the Church.  You don't bother to discuss them in scholarly terms.  As for that one papyrus which you do mention (the SenSen), you claim that it contains "a bunch of pictures."  You don't bother to discuss the actual contents in terms of writing along with a specific number of pictures.  Why that careless approach?  Shouldn't you be more exacting and careful?  After all, why would you deliberately set out to allow your detractors to fix on such puny mistakes, rather than helping them focus on more substantial matters?

As always, Robert, I'm grateful for your ongoing criticisms, and they certainly amount to good advice as usual for future revisions of my papers on my site to take into consideration, but in substance they are quibbles given how far the my argumentation has come from where it used to be.  Anyone that doesn't see the substance of my arguments at this point are not interested so much in the "substantial matters" as they ought to be, but are more interested in how scholarly my production is.  Over time, my production will become more scholarly.  For now, I suggest however that you yourself take into consideration the more "substantial matters" yourself, although the suggestions for how to be more "scholarly" are always appreciated.

As for whether he read it on a stone or not, Hauglid shows indication that the seer stone was used.

Furthermore, in the callings of Joseph Smith's scribes, they clearly were given indication that they too would be involved in translation work themselves, so when they had inspiration themselves kn their calling and brought this inspiration to the attention of Joseph the Mastermind of the production, who would not be dismissive of genuine inspiration (as happens in councils in the Church, where Stake Presidents and bishops ask for input from everyone in the council and gladly accept the inspiration from whomever in the council it originates), then I argue that in effect, Joseph Smith and his scribes did indeed constitute an ad hoc translation council, whether it happened to be a duly constituted and well-defined council by some name.  You can quibble with that one all you please.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Ed Goble