Abraham - Facsimile 1 Uniqueness

[MDalby]

I was just reading some sources on what is unique about the facsimile 1 versus other lion couch scenes.  We know that other lion couch scenes seem to represent an embalming or resurrection scene.

I read what was in fairmormon.org the following:

• The original of Facsimile 1 shows the couch behind the priest's legs, and the reclining figure's legs are shown in front of the priest's. The figure was transferred on to the woodcut prior to publication in the Times and Seasons. The wood cut attempted to correct this odd perspective by placing the legs of the priest behind the lion couch.
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_1

Any thoughts on the significance of this particular difference?

 

Thanks,

MD

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by MDalby

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, MDalby said:

Any thoughts on the significance of this particular difference?

I'm not Egyptologist so I can't really comment on how different it is from other vignettes nor their significance. However the typical view of the papyri is that they represent pre-existing vignettes and texts transformed to other purposes. So I'm not sure we need assume there are significant differences that affect the meaning -- although it's possible any differences do have meaning. Put an other way it's quite possible that the owner of the papyri was quoting out of context such things.

[drums12]

This would be a good question for Robert F Smith.  

[MDalby]

I think this gives additional support that the reclining figure is alive.

[CA Steve]

The best treatment I have seen on this subject is by Lanny Bell in Egypt and Beyond.

 

Here are some relevant passages from that article.

 

Quote

 The deceased on the bier is not Osiris the god, but the Osiris N N = Hor/Horus/Horos. The dead were identified 
with Osiris, and the rites that had resurrected the god were thus also efficacious in the resurrection of deceased 
humans who had access to them.

The frequently represented scene of Anubis attending the deceased 's mummy lying on the 
funerary bier shows numerous iconographic variations. Let us examine some details of the 
depiction of the recumbent figure in the vignette of P. JS I, starting with his close-fitting kilt  
and the pose of his legs. Normally the individual lying on the bier is mummiform;  both the 
kilt and the striding legs of the figure who has thus already shed his mummy bindings — "the 
bonds of death"  — are relatively rare. The restoration of movement to the legs indicates a 
major step in the resurrection process.

 It should be observed that in ancient Egyptian art no strict iconographic canon was im- 
posed on all versions of a single type scene; therefore, variations occur among individual rep- 
resentations. Since each example was hand-produced, and not stenciled, even "direct copies" 
are not identical in every detail. 

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by CA Steve

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, MDalby said:

I think this gives additional support that the reclining figure is alive.

How so?

[MDalby]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The best treatment I have seen on this subject is by Lanny Bell in Egypt and Beyond.

 

Here are some relevant passages from that article.

 

 

The main point that I was making is that the reclined figure does not appear to be flat on the lion couch since the legs of the priest are between the couch and "Abraham."

[MDalby]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How so?

Refer to my response to CA Steve.

Edited May 15, 2017 by MDalby

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, MDalby said:

Refer to my response to CA Steve.

Still not clear how that implies he's alive. Seems more a flaw of perspective unless the figure is floating.

Edited May 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, MDalby said:

The main point that I was making is that the reclined figure does not appear to be flat on the lion couch since the legs of the priest are between the couch and "Abraham."

I don't know of anyone who would state otherwise. The question is why are the legs split. If you read the Bell article, he explains those legs are in that position because Hor is being resurrected.

 

Quote

 The restoration of movement to the legs indicates a major step in the resurrection process.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, MDalby said:

The main point that I was making is that the reclined figure does not appear to be flat on the lion couch since the legs of the priest are between the couch and "Abraham."

Egyptian art was never constrained by realism, but rather communicated through symbol and certain artistic canons.  The position of the legs of the priest is of no importance.  Rather it is the iconographic interpretation of the original theme which is important -- as it is reinterpreted by the Jewish scribes passing along the Book of Abraham text and adapting it to their own needs.

[RevTestament]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Egyptian art was never constrained by realism, but rather communicated through symbol and certain artistic canons.  The position of the legs of the priest is of no importance.  Rather it is the iconographic interpretation of the original theme which is important -- as it is reinterpreted by the Jewish scribes passing along the Book of Abraham text and adapting it to their own needs.

Are you saying you believe the Book of Abraham text is from a different scroll, which used the vignettes/facsimiles or traditional Egyptian iconography reinterpreted into a Hebraic interpretation which is what JS was "seeing." 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Are you saying you believe the Book of Abraham text is from a different scroll, which used the vignettes/facsimiles or traditional Egyptian iconography reinterpreted into a Hebraic interpretation which is what JS was "seeing." 

We do not currently have a text from which to translate the BofA.  Just the facsimiles.  The actual BofA text may have been located somewhere on the scroll containing the Sensen text.  Having diverse texts on the same scroll was common practice among the Egyptians, and Jewish scribes may indeed have appropriated the facsimiles for their own purposes -- especially if the original illustrations had been lost in the intervening 2,000 years of copying and translating since Abraham's day.

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We do not currently have a text from which to translate the BofA.  Just the facsimiles.  

Agreed.

Quote

Having diverse texts on the same scroll was common practice among the Egyptians, and Jewish scribes may indeed have appropriated the facsimiles for their own purposes -- especially if the original illustrations had been lost in the intervening 2,000 years of copying and translating since Abraham's day.

I'm just curious as to what you believe Robert. It sounds like you are saying your belief is that Jewish scribes copied the original facsimiles using Egyptian iconography with a Hebraic reinterpretation used in the text of the Book of Abraham. I see that as a possibility but am not convinced that is what is going on. The original text was apparently written by the pen of Abraham. In his day he would probably have used cuneiform script. At the time the Egyptians seemed to have scribes which could translate cuneiform. They certainly did later as they used it to communicate with their vassals in the Levant. Later scribes may have copied this into Egyptian hieroglyphics, and even copied Abraham's writings into an Egyptian iconography - or possibly misunderstood what Abraham was trying to say or just willfully reinterpreted it into their cultural viewpoint. What would be your response to this possibility?

[Rajah Manchou]

Here's a somewhat relevant article that helps explain the lack of uniformity in the funerary motifs.

Ancient Egyptian Coffin's Odd Art Hints at Brain Drain
Amateurish drawings on a 2,400-year-old coffin likely reflected a dearth of master painters in Egypt.

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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

I'm just curious as to what you believe Robert. It sounds like you are saying your belief is that Jewish scribes copied the original facsimiles using Egyptian iconography with a Hebraic reinterpretation used in the text of the Book of Abraham. I see that as a possibility but am not convinced that is what is going on. The original text was apparently written by the pen of Abraham. In his day he would probably have used cuneiform script. At the time the Egyptians seemed to have scribes which could translate cuneiform. They certainly did later as they used it to communicate with their vassals in the Levant. Later scribes may have copied this into Egyptian hieroglyphics, and even copied Abraham's writings into an Egyptian iconography - or possibly misunderstood what Abraham was trying to say or just willfully reinterpreted it into their cultural viewpoint. What would be your response to this possibility?

There was a large population of Canaanites living in Egypt in Abraham's day, and Abraham lived there as well for a time -- even hobnobbing with royalty and instructing the Egyptian court on astronomy (at which Mesopotamians excelled).  Abe likely spoke Amorite as his native tongue. He may have known cuneiform, but it is even more likely that he used scribes who knew cuneiform script (outside Egypt) and who knew Egyptian script (inside Egypt).  We have no Amorite literature, only Amorite names which appear in various writing systems.  So, if Abe authored a story of his adventures, it may have been passed down within the Canaanite community in Egypt for centuries.  After all, in those early days, the Hebrews were merely a species of Canaaanite -- all speaking the same West Semitic language, and with the same god as head of pantheon (El, Elqana).

As prime minister of Egypt, Joseph is likely to have known Egyptian well and to have overseen the collection and transmission of Abrahamic and Israelite documents.  Indeed, he may have begun the Egyptian collection we call The Brass Plates, which would have continued for centuries -- even after a Pharaoh arose who did not know Joseph. That is all speculation, but some Jews were definitely copying all sorts of Jewish documents in Greco-Roamn times centuries later.  It would be quite natural for the Book of Abraham to have been recopied at that time.

All royal courts in the ancient Near East employed multilingual scribes.  That was a necessity, just as it is today.

[The Nehor]

I was taught that the more an object was in the foreground the more important it is to the symbology. So you would have odd perspectives like this meant to be interpreted as degrees of importance. No idea if it is actually true though the person who taught it to me seemed to know what they were talking about. Then again I was young and relatively dumb when I heard it.