Three Book of Abraham questions

[Freedom]

Three questions about the Book of Abraham that have been asked and answered before but I cannot find the responses so I apologize right up front. This topic usually goes off track pretty quickly but I have a blog as does a million other people and wanted to touch on this book.

1)  Are there peer reviewed articles on the B of A? My understanding is that there is not much to research since we cannot confidently say we have the original manuscripts and there is not enough academic interest in the doctrinal aspects of the book. I have seen a lot of people point to sunstone, but I do not think this qualifies as a peer reviewed journal.

2) What non-lds research gives credence to the argument presented by John Sorensen and others that the facsimiles could have had a different interpretation prior to the Egyptians use? My understanding is, due to general illiteracy and the difficulty in producing written documents, documents such as the facsimiles would be used by different peoples to mean different things in an effort to create a pseudo written record without having to create your own. This has been established as a regular occurrence in Mesoamerica for example.

3) I have taken the time recently to keep up with sunstone, but when an article is published that sets the B of A in a negative light, do they also publish articles that soundly counters these arguments?

[cdowis]

May I suggest that you start your research ==>>

Kerry Muhlestein,. PhD in Egyptology at UCLA talks about recent research on the Book of Abraham. He has served as the chairman of a national committee for the American Research Center in Egypt and serves on their Research Supporting Member Council. He has also served on a committee for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, and currently serves on their Board of Trustees and as a Vice President of the organization. He is also a Senior Fellow of the William F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research. He is involved with the International Association of Egyptologists, and has worked with Educational Testing Services on their AP World History test. He gave a presentation at the international Egyptological conference in Moscow held in the fall of 2009.
He has published articles in professional journals including the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology.

A sampling of Dr. Muhlestein’s other Egyptological work includes: “Binding with Heraldic Plants,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, 2 vols., ed. Jean-Claude Goyon and Christine Cardin (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Department Oosterse Studies, 2007), 1335–41; “Empty Threats? How Egyptians’ Self-Ontology Affect the Way We Read Many Texts,” JSSEA 34 (2007): 115–30; “Execration Ritual,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Jacco Dieleman and Willeke Wendrich (Los Angeles, Cali.: UCLA, 2008), online athttp://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz000s3mqr (Accessed February 27, 2013); “Royal Executions: Evidence Bearing on the Subject of Sanctioned Killing in the Middle Kingdom,” in The Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 51/2 (2008): 181–208; “Teaching Egyptian History: Some Discipline-Specific Pedagogical Notes,” in The Journal of Egyptian History, 2/1–2 (2009): 173–231.

Let's see what he has to say
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzU6C5Wb8U

You will find this especially of interest
https://youtu.be/6EHKY1NUmcg?t=1m10s

He has a playlist of 15 videos on this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzU6C5Wb8U

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 hours ago, Freedom said:

Three questions about the Book of Abraham that have been asked and answered before but I cannot find the responses so I apologize right up front. This topic usually goes off track pretty quickly but I have a blog as does a million other people and wanted to touch on this book.

1)  Are there peer reviewed articles on the B of A? My understanding is that there is not much to research since we cannot confidently say we have the original manuscripts and there is not enough academic interest in the doctrinal aspects of the book. I have seen a lot of people point to sunstone, but I do not think this qualifies as a peer reviewed journal.

2) What non-lds research gives credence to the argument presented by John Sorensen and others that the facsimiles could have had a different interpretation prior to the Egyptians use? My understanding is, due to general illiteracy and the difficulty in producing written documents, documents such as the facsimiles would be used by different peoples to mean different things in an effort to create a pseudo written record without having to create your own. This has been established as a regular occurrence in Mesoamerica for example.

3) I have taken the time recently to keep up with sunstone, but when an article is published that sets the B of A in a negative light, do they also publish articles that soundly counters these arguments?

If you're looking for more scholarly, peer reviewed type of material I'd look more to Dialogue than Sunstone.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/topic-pages-book-of-abraham/

[Freedom]

What about question #2?

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

What about question #2?

He deals with that issue in video #1 == "How we know things" especially at 0;32

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[Freedom]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

He indirectly answers that question in video #1 == "How we know things".

I was hoping to have references other than Mulhestein. I have seen all his videos but it is not very effective to link to him when critics outright refuse to listen to him. The problem is he says we have all this evidence but he does not provide any references. We just have to take his word for it. 

Edited November 4, 2016 by Freedom

[cdowis]

I wish you all the best in your search for the truth

Matt 16 [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?  [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

[Freedom]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I wish you all the best in your search for the truth

Matt 16 [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?  [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Now hold on a minute, you post these videos as evidence in support, but when challenged for evidence that his claims can actually be collaborate by non-lds scholars you resort to the 'faith'? Why post the videos at all if you recognize that his claims may be suspect? I am not asking  faith question, I am asking for the non-lds scholars who the apologists anonymously reference in all their videos and articles. If they do not actually exist then why would you post them in the first place? I do not take Muhlestein to be a liar, I am just looking for the research that he eludes to but consistently fails to actual reference. 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

I was hoping to have references other than Mulhestein. I have seen all his videos but it is not very effective to link to him when critics outright refuse to listen to him. The problem is he says we have all this evidence but he does not provide any references. We just have to take his word for it. 

Good luck in you quest.  But I think you are going to be disappointed if you are looking for anything faith promoting.  No Egyptologist out side of the Mormon box (Gee, Mulhestein, etc.) will give the BoA story any credence because we can now read Egyptian. There is no mystery to this.  The original papyrus can be translated by real professionals.   It is an open and shut case. We have the original Egyptian papyrus that have the facsimiles that are printed in the BoA.  We have Joseph Smith's translation of these facsimiles.   And they don't match. They don't match by a lot.  They are not even close.  It is the the smoking gun.  It doesn't matter what part of the scrolls might be missing or not, or how long the scrolls might of been, or what type of catalyst these 2nd century funeral scrolls might of been to JS, or what JS might of really meant when he said these were written by the hand or Abraham.  The fact is they are not what JS said they were.  It is not a translation.  It is far from it.  Now, the apologist response to this will be to obfuscate by posting links to lengthy articles written by fellow apologist that spin their pet theories of why things are not what they should be.  They will expect you to wade though all of this, and if you don't, they will discount you.  And of course, in the end there is always the big fall back to testimony of why science and evidence is messed up but good feelings are never wrong.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

Now hold on a minute, you post these videos as evidence in support, but when challenged for evidence that his claims can actually be collaborate by non-lds scholars you resort to the 'faith'? 

I agree with you that this discussion is a waste of time.  I wish you all the best.

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Good luck in you quest.  But I think you are going to be disappointed if you are looking for anything faith promoting.  No Egyptologist out side of the Mormon box (Gee, Mulhestein, etc.) will give the BoA story any credence because we can now read Egyptian. There is no mystery to this.  The original papyrus can be translated by real professionals.   It is an open and shut case. We have the original Egyptian papyrus that have the facsimiles that are printed in the BoA.  We have Joseph Smith's translation of these facsimiles.   And they don't match. They don't match by a lot.  They are not even close.  It is the the smoking gun.  It doesn't matter what part of the scrolls might be missing or not, or how long the scrolls might of been, or what type of catalyst these 2nd century funeral scrolls might of been to JS, or what JS might of really meant when he said these were written by the hand or Abraham.  The fact is they are not what JS said they were.  It is not a translation.  It is far from it.  Now, the apologist response to this will be to obfuscate by posting links to lengthy articles written by fellow apologist that spin their pet theories of why things are not what they should be.  They will expect you to wade though all of this, and if you don't, they will discount you.  And of course, in the end there is always the big fall back to testimony of why science and evidence is messed up but good feelings are never wrong.

Well it clearly is not that simple. Clearly the critics cannot explain the text itself which contain details of Abraham that Joseph smith would not have known. There are a lot of questions the critics cannot answer. but more importantly, claims are made and either the apologists are lying (and it should be noted that none of the critics have accused them of this) or there sources that are consistently not mentioned. 

[cdowis]

If you are specifically looking for sources on question #2, I suggest that you do a contact with FairMormon.  Give them the direct quote from Sorenson, et al, that you are trying to get the sources to verify his statement, and the link to where found those statements.  
Go to questions -- contact us from the home page.

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Freedom said:

Well it clearly is not that simple. Clearly the critics cannot explain the text itself which contain details of Abraham that Joseph smith would not have known. There are a lot of questions the critics cannot answer. but more importantly, claims are made and either the apologists are lying (and it should be noted that none of the critics have accused them of this) or there sources that are consistently not mentioned. 

I respectfully disagree.  It is that simple.  With the rediscovery of the original papyrus, the foundational narrative of the how the BoA came to be has been proven false.  CFR on your statement on details of Abraham that JS would not have known. No one really knows details of Abraham's life. In fact it is a debate among scholars that he even existed.  Besides, that has never been the focus of much debate among critics.  Probably because it never gets that far  Why argue historic correctness of a book whose claimed origins have been proven fraudulent.  As for the text its self, people can and have found personal meaning and inspiration just about any literary work, including fictional works such as the Work and the Glory, and The Lord of the Rings.  As far as doctrinal contributions goes, lets not forget that the church's ill-advised curse of Cain priesthood restriction teachings were based on the BoA.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

What apologists have found is that the BoA contains narrative traditions regarding Abraham that can be found in ancient pseudepigraphal texts (400 BC - 400 AD) but were undiscovered and unknown in Joseph Smith's time. I don't claim to know the details on these, but I do trust that apologists are, at the least, accurately communicating the known timeline and details on these texts and contained traditions. As with the history of the Rechabites, 2nd Enoch, Book of the Giants, etc., the key texts aren't discovered and translated in Joseph's time. I'm sure this has been discussed more than once on the board. That being said, if someone has references, I'd be interested in which pseudepigraphal traditions were known and which weren't in the 1830s. Usually, I just see the general claim and an aknowledgement that some of the non-canonical traditions were known and some weren't but no deciphering between which pseudepigraphal traditions were known and which weren't.

I do think it's interesting that most of the ancient texts JS has been connected to are pseudepigraphal texts from the turn of the 1st millennium give or take a few hundred years. This certainly doesn't suggest historicity, but it does represent, perhaps, some kind of valid connection, usually explained as revelatory by apologists while critics look for less miraculous explanations.

I personally see JS being inspired by his environment at every turn, so while I see his revelatory experiences as sincere, I wonder if there isn't a more concrete (non-revelatory) 19th century link to these texts and traditions. I think it's fair to ask why God would reveal pseudepigraphal traditions. At first blush, we might make an argument that these connections to ancient documents support the validity of the book, but when there is a dearth of sufficiently ancient evidence for historicity of these traditions, then that validity is undermined, at least in part. The connection remains valid, but the assumption of a divine source deserves reexamination.

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

No one really knows details of Abraham's life. In fact it is a debate among scholars that he even existed.  Besides, that has never been the focus of much debate among critics.  Probably because it never gets that far  Why argue historic correctness of a book whose claimed origins have been proven fraudulent. 

I don't even know where to begin.

Well, let's make it very simple and basic.

Let's suppose that, thousands of years in the future, we have lost most of the history of the United States.  We have legends about someone called George Washington, but we don't even know if such a person existed.  One day, a person claims he knows some of the details of his life, but his source is unknown/ unproven.

Now how do we verify his claim?  His source is unavailable, so we can't use that.  This problem was discussed by both the believers and nonbelievers for decades.  Over time we do historical and archaeological research and discover that some of the details of his narrative have been proven correct.  There was a city called Philadelphia which was in the correct location, there was indeed an influential person called Benjamin Franklin who lived in that city and had a printing press.  Gradually we discover small details which match the narrative of George Washington. 

While we have not directly proven his existence, nor that the original source is authentic , we find it consistent with historical facts which were not available when the source was discovered.  

We cannot authenticate the source itself, but we have strong evidence for the narrative itself.

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I respectfully disagree.  It is that simple.  With the rediscovery of the original papyrus, the foundational narrative of the how the BoA came to be has been proven false.  CFR on your statement on details of Abraham that JS would not have known. No one really knows details of Abraham's life. In fact it is a debate among scholars that he even existed.  Besides, that has never been the focus of much debate among critics.  Probably because it never gets that far  Why argue historic correctness of a book whose claimed origins have been proven fraudulent.  As for the text its self, people can and have found personal meaning and inspiration just about any literary work, including fictional works such as the Work and the Glory, and The Lord of the Rings.  As far as doctrinal contributions goes, lets not forget that the church's ill-advised curse of Cain priesthood restriction teachings were based on the BoA.  

Here is the "Saucepan of the Prophet Abraham" (and its accompanying more modern box) as displayed in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, Turkey. The saucepan/pot, made of stone, is claimed as the actual cookware used by Abraham (Ibrahim) and is therefore 4,000 years old. This photo is an unusually good view of the pot. When viewing the saucepan in the relics room from the marvellous palace of the sultans, the actual view is a disappointingly poorly lit display without any opportunity for photos. 

 

The papyri owned by the church are of much more modern origin, as much as 2,000 years younger. The tenuous link to Abraham that is stated in the Mormon scriptures, but not confirmed by the actual text of the papyri, is a constant issue when trying to obtain meaning from the "translation".

 

The "saucepan of the prophet Abraham" is (perhaps) equally tenuous, or what do you think?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I respectfully disagree.  It is that simple.  With the rediscovery of the original papyrus, the foundational narrative of the how the BoA came to be has been proven false.  CFR on your statement on details of Abraham that JS would not have known. No one really knows details of Abraham's life. In fact it is a debate among scholars that he even existed.  Besides, that has never been the focus of much debate among critics.  Probably because it never gets that far  Why argue historic correctness of a book whose claimed origins have been proven fraudulent.  As for the text its self, people can and have found personal meaning and inspiration just about any literary work, including fictional works such as the Work and the Glory, and The Lord of the Rings.  As far as doctrinal contributions goes, lets not forget that the church's ill-advised curse of Cain priesthood restriction teachings were based on the BoA.  

Have you read any of the following:

 W. Federn, "The Transformations in the Coffin Texts: A New Approach", "JNES" vol. 19 (1960), pp. 241-257

Gertrud Thausing's "Sein und Werden: Versuch einer Ganz-heitsschua der Religion des Pharaonenreiches" in "Acta Ethnologica Et Linguistica," No. 23, (Vienna: 1971)

Kurt Sethe, "Dramatische Texte zu Altaegyptischen Mysterienspielen", "Untersuchunger zur Geschichte und Alter- umskunde," vol. 10, (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagbuchhandlung," 1964.

J. Gwyn Griffiths, "Motivation in Early Egyptian Syncretism" in M Heerma van Voss, ed., "Studies in Egyptian Religion: Dedicated to Professor Jan Zandee", Leiden E.J. Brill, 1982

Robert Bauval/Adrian Gilbert, "The Orion Mystery", Crown Publishers, 1994, note that the four sons of Horus "symbolised the four cardinal points." (. 205).

Or have you read the following:

Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham EDITED BY JOHN A. TVEDTNES, BRIAN M. HAUGLID, AND JOHN GEE, Chicago University Press. 

I think you will find that the issue is not as cut and dry as you are trying to make it out to be. 

[Freedom]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 That being said, if someone has references, I'd be interested in which pseudepigraphal traditions were known and which weren't in the 1830s. Usually, I just see the general claim and an aknowledgement that some of the non-canonical traditions were known and some weren't but no deciphering between which pseudepigraphal traditions were known and which weren't.

Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham Edited by JOHN A. TVEDTNES, BRIAN M. HAUGLID, AND JOHN GEE, University of Chicago Press

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/T/bo3648094.html

[Freedom]

But back to my original question, how does one respond to the request for peer reviewed papers on the Book of Abraham, and what scholarship is there to support the idea that the facsimiles may have been adopted by the Egyptians and therefore may have had a different interpretation to Abraham. . 

[Kevin Christensen]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Good luck in you quest.  But I think you are going to be disappointed if you are looking for anything faith promoting.  No Egyptologist out side of the Mormon box (Gee, Mulhestein, etc.) will give the BoA story any credence because we can now read Egyptian. There is no mystery to this.  The original papyrus can be translated by real professionals.   It is an open and shut case. We have the original Egyptian papyrus that have the facsimiles that are printed in the BoA.  We have Joseph Smith's translation of these facsimiles.   And they don't match. They don't match by a lot.  They are not even close.  It is the the smoking gun.  It doesn't matter what part of the scrolls might be missing or not, or how long the scrolls might of been, or what type of catalyst these 2nd century funeral scrolls might of been to JS, or what JS might of really meant when he said these were written by the hand or Abraham.  The fact is they are not what JS said they were.  It is not a translation.  It is far from it.  Now, the apologist response to this will be to obfuscate by posting links to lengthy articles written by fellow apologist that spin their pet theories of why things are not what they should be.  They will expect you to wade though all of this, and if you don't, they will discount you.  And of course, in the end there is always the big fall back to testimony of why science and evidence is messed up but good feelings are never wrong.

By the original papyrus, are you saying that we have everything that Joseph Smith purchased or not?  

When the "open and shut case" actually accounts the most intriguing content of our Book of Abraham (for instance, the kinds of things Robert Smith observes in as essay that he links now and then, and Ricks and Gee here https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/historicity-and-latter-day-saint-scriptures/3-historical-plausibility-historicity-book), rather than uncritically dismissing it, perhaps it will merit that label.

It's interesting to see such rhetorical cliches as "smoking gun" and the advice to trust our case to the objectivity of the prosecution, a healthy slathering of "apologist" and "spin" and "obfuscate" and "put theories" and no specific references to support any of it, particularly "science and evidence is messed up and but good feelings are never wrong" without any documentation to support the blanket accusation.  In recent years, I've gotten more and more interested in how "controlling the narrative" by various critics has replaced serious "proving contraries."  Is it good scholarship to demand that the case for the defense be thrown out without a hearing?  After all, should we take seriously defenses of the Book of Abraham that do not confront the arguments of the skeptics?  Of course not.  So why should I take seriously someone who recommends we ignore the defense on the basis of graffiti sprayed around the neighborhood that claims we've got nothing interesting worthwhile to say?

Actually what I fall back on is that there are some very interesting things in the Book of Abraham compared to the ancient world, and there has long been a conspicuous tendency of skeptics to prefer to change the subject altogether.

For instance, Rhodes here on "Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles"

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-4-number-2-2003/teaching-book-abraham-facsimiles

And there is the interesting subtitle of Nibley's commentary on the Book of Breathings.  An Egyptian Endowment.

Really?  Worth a look?  Or just "nothing to see here folks, move along."

Gee's comments here on the controversies and positions provide helpful perspectives:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1463&index=19

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[cdowis]

38 minutes ago, Freedom said:

But back to my original question, how does one respond to the request for peer reviewed papers on the Book of Abraham, and what scholarship is there to support the idea that the facsimiles may have been adopted by the Egyptians and therefore may have had a different interpretation to Abraham. . 

You dismiss the source (the papyrus), but why do you also ignore the evidence presented in favour of the narrative?  The dismissal of the source is based on several assumptions, and the narrative, standing alone, points to the necessity to re-evaluate those assumptions.

Finally, the demand for peer reviewed papers has already been addressed by Muhlelstein in video #1.  The short answer is that in the field of Egyptology we just don't know what we don't know.  We are currently at the stage of being Galileo in the field of astronomy -- having gone beyond the the geocentric view of the universe but still using epicycles, and awaiting Newton.

Edited November 4, 2016 by cdowis

[Ouagadougou]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Good luck in you quest.  But I think you are going to be disappointed if you are looking for anything faith promoting.  No Egyptologist out side of the Mormon box (Gee, Mulhestein, etc.) will give the BoA story any credence because we can now read Egyptian. There is no mystery to this.  The original papyrus can be translated by real professionals.   It is an open and shut case. We have the original Egyptian papyrus that have the facsimiles that are printed in the BoA.  We have Joseph Smith's translation of these facsimiles.   And they don't match. They don't match by a lot.  They are not even close.  It is the the smoking gun.  It doesn't matter what part of the scrolls might be missing or not, or how long the scrolls might of been, or what type of catalyst these 2nd century funeral scrolls might of been to JS, or what JS might of really meant when he said these were written by the hand or Abraham.  The fact is they are not what JS said they were.  It is not a translation.  It is far from it.  Now, the apologist response to this will be to obfuscate by posting links to lengthy articles written by fellow apologist that spin their pet theories of why things are not what they should be.  They will expect you to wade though all of this, and if you don't, they will discount you.  And of course, in the end there is always the big fall back to testimony of why science and evidence is messed up but good feelings are never wrong.

I agree with your post 100%.

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

The church essay on the “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” states the following:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture.” 

It goes on to say that:

“None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.  Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies.”

I do not believe that copies of copies of copies of Abraham’s writings (lived ~2,000 B.C.E.) somehow were passed down for thousands of years and then made it into a random funerary text in the Egyptian language (between the third and first century) that do not "mention Abraham's name or any of the events recorded in the Book of Abraham."  Furthermore, the original copies of the Book of Abraham Joseph Smith translated mention that Abraham wrote this text himself, as seen below:

"THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

Even Wilford Woodruff said the following:

Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God."

-  Diary of Wilford Woodruff, entry of February 19, 1842, LDS archives; also in Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1969), p. 221)

Don't forget that Joseph Smith also translated/channeled a scroll that was supposedly from Joseph of Egypt (The Book of Joseph).

Why is the word "pharaoh"found in the Book of Abraham?  

Verse 6 of chapter 1 states,

 "6 For their hearts were set to do evil, and were wholly turned to the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt;"

I have to find the source, but I believe the word pharaoh wasn't used until well after the 1000's (~1200's I think).  So why would this word end up in a text (that came from Abraham's writings or copies of his writings), who lived ~2,000 B.C.E., from papyri that were dated way before this word was ever used?  

[Nevo]

5 hours ago, Freedom said:

Have you read any of the following:

 W. Federn, "The Transformations in the Coffin Texts: A New Approach", "JNES" vol. 19 (1960), pp. 241-257

Gertrud Thausing's "Sein und Werden: Versuch einer Ganz-heitsschua der Religion des Pharaonenreiches" in "Acta Ethnologica Et Linguistica," No. 23, (Vienna: 1971)

Kurt Sethe, "Dramatische Texte zu Altaegyptischen Mysterienspielen", "Untersuchunger zur Geschichte und Alter- umskunde," vol. 10, (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagbuchhandlung," 1964.

J. Gwyn Griffiths, "Motivation in Early Egyptian Syncretism" in M Heerma van Voss, ed., "Studies in Egyptian Religion: Dedicated to Professor Jan Zandee", Leiden E.J. Brill, 1982

Robert Bauval/Adrian Gilbert, "The Orion Mystery", Crown Publishers, 1994, note that the four sons of Horus "symbolised the four cardinal points." (. 205).

Or have you read the following:

Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham EDITED BY JOHN A. TVEDTNES, BRIAN M. HAUGLID, AND JOHN GEE, Chicago University Press. 

I think you will find that the issue is not as cut and dry as you are trying to make it out to be. 

But you haven't read any of these things either, have you? You just copied these references from an old article by Kerry Shirts (who I understand is no longer a believer).

When you state that the Book of Abraham contains "details of Abraham that Joseph Smith would not have known" and that there are "a lot of questions the critics cannot answer," what sorts of things do you have in mind exactly? What, in your view, are the top 10 things that Joseph Smith got right that critics have no explanation for?

(By the way, Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham wasn't published by the University of Chicago Press. It was published by FARMS.)

Edited November 4, 2016 by Nevo

[Calm]

I have read Traditions, grabbed it as soon as I could.  Beautiful and interesting book.

Am interested in your opinion of it, Nevo.

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have read Traditions, grabbed it as soon as I could.  Beautiful and interesting book.

Am interested in your opinion of it, Nevo.

I haven't read it. At $90 USD ($120 CAD), it's way out of my price range. But I'll definitely take a look if I ever come across a copy. I assume the traditions compiled in the book are mainly variations on the story of Abraham being cast into the fire by Nimrod. Are there any that you think are a close match to the Book of Abraham?

I've mentioned elsewhere that I find some of the parallels to the Apocalypse of Abraham intriguing; namely the heavenly ascent motif and panoramic vision of the cosmos (see, e.g., Jared Ludlow's "Abraham's Vision of the Heavens"). Not sure what to make of the similarities, but they're interesting.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Nevo