Who was Pharaoh in book of Abraham

[Christian Mormon]

Is it known who was the pharaoh in the book of Abraham?

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Christian Mormon said:

Is it known who was the pharaoh in the book of Abraham?

Facsimile 3 depicts Abraham sitting on pharaoh's throne.

And king pharaoh is represented as standing behind Abraham.

You can arrive at your own conclusion(s) from that.

Some say they know pharaoh's Egyptian name.

Edited June 11, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

[JLHPROF]

Estimates place Abraham as living somewhere between 2100 BC & 1800 BC.

That would place him somewhere in the 11th or 12th Dynasty at the start of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt.
Lots of Pharaohs to choose from.

 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Christian Mormon said:

Is it known who was the pharaoh in the book of Abraham?

As Hagoth pointed out, Joseph Smith identified Pharaoh as part of illustration in Facsimile 3, and we can even learn the Pharaoh's name by reading the writing above his head.

Apparently, the person in that figure is a woman, and the writing above her head identifies her as "Isis the Great, the God's Mother", so it looks like Pharaoh at the time of Abraham was actually a woman named "Isis", and she had a baby named "God." 

https://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_6.html

[smac97]

Some useful information here: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_3

[hagoth7]

.

Edited June 12, 2017 by hagoth7

[Duncan]

It was me, so if you lost money on that bet I apologize

[ksfisher]

Edited June 12, 2017 by ksfisher

[ksfisher]

The identity of the pharaoh seems without question.  I just can't identity the cowled figure standing in front of him.

(for some reason I can't add text to the post above from my iPad)

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Christian Mormon said:

Is it known who was the pharaoh in the book of Abraham?

Since at least two separate pharaohs (kings of Egypt) are mentioned in the BofA, it depends on which one interests you:

1.  The founding pharaoh of Egypt, during the Predynastic period, ca. 3100 B.C., mentioned in Abraham 1:23-27.  We do not know his name.

2.  The pharaoh who took Sarai into his harem for awhile under the ruse that she was Abe's sister (Abraham 2:22-25, Gen 12:11-20).  This is likely the same pharaoh mentioned  in Joseph's explanations accompanying the Ptolemaic period illustration (2000 years later than Abraham) known as Facsimile 3, which is unlikely anything like the original, which has Abe sitting on pharaoh's throne and lecturing the royal court on astronomy.  This may be the very same pharaoh (but doesn't have to be), represented by the priest of Elkenah in north Syria, at Olishem, who attempted to sacrifice Abe (Abraham 1:6-20, Fac 1:3).  Since the god of that pharaoh is represented as a crocodile (Fac 1:9), it is possible that his name included the Egyptian word for "crocodile" Sobek, and there are a number of pharaohs with that name-element in the 12th & 13th dynasties -- Queen Sokek-nefru, and three kings named Sobek-hotep.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

oops

Edited June 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

10 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Threadwinner.

[FormerLDS]

JS: "

Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

"

I fully realize that I would need at least 15-20 years of schooling from an LDS Egyptology expert to understand the "true meaning" of facsimile #3, but the fact remains that Joseph Smith incorrectly identified two obviously female figures as "King Pharaoh" and "Prince of Pharaoh."

Slam dunk? Conclusive?  Hardly.

Suggestive?  Yes, for those who have the courage to consider the truth about Joseph Smith and LDS theology...

[ksfisher]

   

 

The above image, which appeared in several early printings of the Pearl of Great Price, was latter removed and ordered "hidden" by church leaders.  Purportedly they were embarrassed by the increased "funkiness" that entered the court of pharaoh following Abraham's sojourn in Egypt.

Edited June 12, 2017 by ksfisher

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

I fully realize that I would need at least 15-20 years of schooling from an LDS Egyptology expert to understand the "true meaning" of facsimile #3, but the fact remains that Joseph Smith incorrectly identified two obviously female figures as "King Pharaoh" and "Prince of Pharaoh."

I think the main argument (and I think it's a strong one) is that someone was using the vignettes and that in that use it was acontextual. i.e. someone was doing exactly what the critics say Joseph was doing. While I'm not up on all the debates about the Book of Mormon the idea of a first century person quoting pre-existing stuff in a syncretic fashion always struck me as very plausible. That's actually well in keeping with the era. 

[strappinglad]

As an aside, were you to attend a Shakespearian play in his era  you would see men and women on the stage. The problem is, there were no women actually on the stage. At least that is what I was taught in school and by Hollywood.

Edited June 13, 2017 by strappinglad

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

JS: "

Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

"

I fully realize that I would need at least 15-20 years of schooling from an LDS Egyptology expert to understand the "true meaning" of facsimile #3, but the fact remains that Joseph Smith incorrectly identified two obviously female figures as "King Pharaoh" and "Prince of Pharaoh."

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

It takes no such vast schooling to understand the elementary facts, as well as to understand that Fac 3 is not the original illustration used by Abraham  himself -- it is around 2000 years later than Abe, and a substitute for the original.  You can read the basic facts in my "Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

[Kevin Christensen]

On 6/12/2017 at 11:22 AM, FormerLDS said:

JS: "

Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

"

I fully realize that I would need at least 15-20 years of schooling from an LDS Egyptology expert to understand the "true meaning" of facsimile #3, but the fact remains that Joseph Smith incorrectly identified two obviously female figures as "King Pharaoh" and "Prince of Pharaoh."

Slam dunk? Conclusive?  Hardly.

Suggestive?  Yes, for those who have the courage to consider the truth about Joseph Smith and LDS theology...

And of course there are those who have the courage to read up on what has been written by people who have at least 15 to 20 years of schooling in Egyptology regarding Joseph Smith incorrectly identifying two obviously female figures in facsimile 3:

Quote

Facsimile 3, Figures 2 and 4: Questions of Gender

Anyone wishing to demolish Joseph Smith’s interpretation of Facsimile 3 with the greatest economy of effort need look no further than his designating as “King Pharaoh” and “Prince of Pharaoh” two figures so obviously female that a three-year-old child will not hesitate to identify them as such. Why then have Egyptologists not simply pointed to this ultimate absurdity and dismissed the case? Can it be that there is something peculiarly Egyptian about this strange waywardness that represents human beings as gods and men as women? We have already hinted at such a possibility in the case of Imhotep in which, to carry things further, we see both his wife and mother dressed up as goddesses, the latter as Hathor herself (fig. 70).¹²⁸ Even more surprising, Dietrich Wildung notes an instance in which “we can identify Anat [the Canaanites’ version of Hathor] as ʾAnat of Ramses [the king] himself in the shape of a goddess” (fig. 71).¹²⁹ There you have it—the Lady Hathor, who is figure 2 in Facsimile 3, may be none other than Pharaoh himself. The two ladies in the Facsimile, figures 2 and 4, will be readily identified by any novice as the goddesses Hathor and Maat. They seem indispensable to scenes having to do with the transmission of power and authority. The spectacle of men, kings, and princes at that, dressed as women, calls for a brief notice on the fundamental issue peculiar to the Egyptians and the Book of Abraham, namely, the tension between the claims of patriarchal vs. matriarchal succession.

From Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, "All the Court's a Stage"

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1093&index=13

More recently, in a 2014 thread at Interpreter, Jeff Lindsay made this comment:

Quote

Regarding Facs. 3 and the “mistake” of identifying women as men, I need to update my LDSFAQ page on the BOA with some of the interesting info I recently posted on my Mormanity blog as well as the Nauvoo Times. Google Mormanity, Isis and Maat. On second thought, perhaps Googling ISIS will get the NSA on your back given the modern Gadiantons who have started using that acronym. Just Googling “Mormanity and Maat” ought to do it. So interesting how some of the slam dunk arguments against Joseph Smith start looking a little more in his favor than the critics let on once you dig a bit.

More recently, 2016, Lindsay offered this:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/lds/isis-maat-book-of-abraham/

Also very suggestive.  I've long noticed the that many of the most interesting things I have learned about things Mormon have come whenever I ran across something I did not expect, to take the time to seriously explore what I should expect.  It has also taught me to appreciate the comment made by a famous carpenter about checking one's own eye for beams in order to see clearly.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited June 13, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
typo, word missing

[FormerLDS]

Wow, that is really amazing.  LDS apologists arriving at conclusions that support LDS theology.  

Yeah never saw that one coming...

[cinepro]

On 6/13/2017 at 0:39 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

And of course there are those who have the courage to read up on what has been written by people who have at least 15 to 20 years of schooling in Egyptology regarding Joseph Smith incorrectly identifying two obviously female figures in facsimile 3:

From Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, "All the Court's a Stage"

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1093&index=13

More recently, in a 2014 thread at Interpreter, Jeff Lindsay made this comment:

More recently, 2016, Lindsay offered this:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/lds/isis-maat-book-of-abraham/

Also very suggestive.  I've long noticed the that many of the most interesting things I have learned about things Mormon have come whenever I ran across something I did not expect, to take the time to seriously explore what I should expect.  It has also taught me to appreciate the comment made by a famous carpenter about checking one's own eye for beams in order to see clearly.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Okay, I'm a little confused here.

The Nibley and Lindsay quotes both deal with the problem of Joseph identifying a female-appearing figure as "Pharaoh." 

Fine.

But that isn't just what Joseph Smith said.  He didn't say "I think this female-appearing figure is actually a man."

He said " Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."  In other words, the identification of the figure in the picture is given in the picture itself, in Egyptian writing.

It seems a little odd that an explanation of figure 2 wouldn't also mention that Joseph Smith said that the character's name appeared above their head, and whether or not we're able to read what is actually written.  I wonder why that is...?

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by cinepro

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, cinepro said:

But that isn't what Joseph Smith said.  He said " Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

It seems a little odd that an explanation of figure 2 wouldn't also mention that Joseph Smith said that the character's name appeared above their head, and whether or not we're able to read what is actually written.

Well as I said I'm much more tied to the idea of someone in the 1st century using the vignette. But for Joseph's translation, isn't the clear implication that Pharaoh's name in the vignette is Isis? I'm not quite sure what the problem is unless you think Joseph only meant the given name of the Pharoah (the way mine is Clark). i.e. that he intended to identify which Pharoah this was. While I'm open to being wrong here, I'm skeptical that's what Joseph meant by name.

It's worth noting that if this was done during the Nauvoo era rather than the 1830's that this was a period when names were coming to mean something quite different theologically for Joseph. Certainly by April of 1843 we know the place of a "new name" was extremely important. (See D&C 130) I suspect this theological notion goes back to the 1830's as well. So receiving the name of a God is important contextually. I'm far from knowledgeable about Egyptology but I believe Isis usually represented the power of the Pharaoh. So taking her name presumably was significant of his power.

Since the papyri are from the 1st century and at least from one of the major theories significantly syncrestic it's worth looking at 1st century views especially in the loose near eastern magic tradition. That was very popular in the Roman empire at the time and was an odd mix of Egyptian and Greek notions. It's worth noting that Josephus claims Caligula dressed in female clothing and was initiated in mysteries. Philo of Alexandria tied this to Venus but some have tied it to Isis. Certainly Caligula popularized bringing Egyptian religion into the empire more broadly including participation in Isis worship and portrayed himself as the heir of the pharaohs. 

While we should be careful reading too much into this, it is interesting that this transpires right around the time the papyri are usually dated. I don't know enough about what mysteries Caligula and others were participating in at this time. But emulation of the Gods to become a god was pretty typical of most mystery rites. Certainly in the years that followed that's what the Roman transformation of Egyptian religion became. This then became communicated in the Renaissance via the Corpus Hermeticum and by the theurgical neoplatonic texts such as those by Iamblichus. Those date to around the third century but the ideas go back to these earlier syncrestic use of Egyptian religion that Caligula helped popularize.

Edited June 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well as I said I'm much more tied to the idea of someone in the 1st century using the vignette. But for Joseph's translation, isn't the clear implication that Pharaoh's name in the vignette is Isis? I'm not quite sure what the problem is unless you think Joseph only meant the given name of the Pharoah (the way mine is Clark). i.e. that he intended to identify which Pharoah this was. While I'm open to being wrong here, I'm skeptical that's what Joseph meant by name.

It's worth noting that if this was done during the Nauvoo era rather than the 1830's that this was a period when names were coming to mean something quite different theologically for Joseph. Certainly by April of 1843 we know the place of a "new name" was extremely important. (See D&C 130) I suspect this theological notion goes back to the 1830's as well. So receiving the name of a God is important contextually. I'm far from knowledgeable about Egyptology but I believe Isis usually represented the power of the Pharaoh. So taking her name presumably was significant of his power.

Since the papyri are from the 1st century and at least from one of the major theories significantly syncrestic it's worth looking at 1st century views especially in the loose near eastern magic tradition. That was very popular in the Roman empire at the time and was an odd mix of Egyptian and Greek notions. It's worth noting that Josephus claims Caligula dressed in female clothing and was initiated in mysteries. Philo of Alexandria tied this to Venus but some have tied it to Isis. Certainly Caligula popularized bringing Egyptian religion into the empire more broadly including participation in Isis worship and portrayed himself as the heir of the pharaohs. 

While we should be careful reading too much into this, it is interesting that this transpires right around the time the papyri are usually dated. I don't know enough about what mysteries Caligula and others were participating in at this time. But emulation of the Gods to become a god was pretty typical of most mystery rites. Certainly in the years that followed that's what the Roman transformation of Egyptian religion became. This then became communicated in the Renaissance via the Corpus Hermeticum and by the theurgical neoplatonic texts such as those by Iamblichus. Those date to around the third century but the ideas go back to these earlier syncrestic use of Egyptian religion that Caligula helped popularize.

Yes, that makes much more sense than Joseph thinking the figure's name was actually written in the characters above their head and being wrong about it.

Edited June 14, 2017 by cinepro

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Yes, that makes much more sense than Joseph thinking the figure's name was actually written in the characters above their head and being wrong about it.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

I think the use of the Isis cult in the 1st century AD when the papyri date to is significant here. Plutarch's Isis and Osiris is worth reading here and almost certainly represents beliefs quite similar to the owner of the papyri. And I think most scholars assume that the Metamorphoses of Apuleius describes the actual mysteries despite being fictional.

I'm completely open to being wrong of course. But again there's nothing particularly out of the ordinary in what I wrote. We know that the Book of Abraham composition process was fairly significant in Joseph's thinking of what Mormons would come to call the endowment. D&C 130 is just one text related to that. Most associate fac. 1 as used by Joseph as illustrating Abraham chapter 3. But Abraham 3 has a lot of parallels to what the masonic/hermetic culture of the 19th century would tie to Egyptian religion via the Hermetic corpus and figures like Iamblichus. So even for someone who thinks Joseph is a fraud this interpretation actually fits pretty well with the historic situation with Joseph. 

I'd think the complaint about Joseph was that he tended to see the papyri and Abraham through what we'd now call the hermetic culture. Elements of his Egyptian Grammar certainly bear far more resemblance to Kircher rather than Champollion. You're assuming the Champollion type reading is what makes the most sense whereas I think that's fairly alien to how Joseph thought.

Edited June 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

I think the use of the Isis cult in the 1st century AD when the papyri date to is significant here. Plutarch's Isis and Osiris is worth reading here and almost certainly represents beliefs quite similar to the owner of the papyri. And I think most scholars assume that the Metamorphoses of Apuleius describes the actual mysteries despite being fictional.

I'm completely open to being wrong of course. But again there's nothing particularly out of the ordinary in what I wrote. We know that the Book of Abraham composition process was fairly significant in Joseph's thinking of what Mormons would come to call the endowment. D&C 130 is just one text related to that. Most associate fac. 1 as used by Joseph as illustrating Abraham chapter 3. But Abraham 3 has a lot of parallels to what the masonic/hermetic culture of the 19th century would tie to Egyptian religion via the Hermetic corpus and figures like Iamblichus. So even for someone who thinks Joseph is a fraud this interpretation actually fits pretty well with the historic situation with Joseph. 

I'd think the complaint about Joseph was that he tended to see the papyri and Abraham through what we'd now call the hermetic culture. Elements of his Egyptian Grammar certainly bear far more resemblance to Kircher rather than Champollion. You're assuming the Champollion type reading is what makes the most sense whereas I think that's fairly alien to how Joseph thought.

Do you believe the name of character in figure 2 is "given in the characters above his head"?

 

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by cinepro