Jump to content

Could the Books of Jasher and Josephus Have Helped Joseph Fabricate the Book of Abraham?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Human Sacrifice

There is evidence of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt during the 1st Dynasty, for the rulers and rich of the time. This possibly came from Predynastic times, but no strong evidence has been found to prove this. The labels of King Aha and Djer. are pictures of men that may be being ritually killed, yet the people buried with the rulers do not seem to have been killed in that fashion - they were most likely poisoned before being buried with the rulers and nobles. There is also a possibility that predynastic people may have cannibalized others to gain their power, but without evidence this can not be proved - it may have just been a dramatic way of showing the strength and power of the king! Other than the killing of prisoners of war, no other evidence for human sacrifice, neither as offerings to the gods nor in the form of retainer sacrifice, has been found. Since the Egyptians gave up the practice during the Old Kingdom, they seemed to have come to object to the practice through the rest of their history.

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

Predynastic is around 5500 - 3100 BC, 1st Dynasty is around 3100-2900 BC and Abraham was around 2000 BC.

M.

How do you explain the quote Kwaku gave in his second video, the quote describing ritualistic human sacrifice in Egypt?  It’s at the 6:41 mark. 
 

Kwaku said this is just one quote among many. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Putting on my Secular Hat: We know from Smith's other works that he liked to riff off of other material.  Many of the stories in the BoM "could" have had there origins in the Bible. We now know that Smith did use Adam Smith's Bible Commentary as source materila for his JST, the same could be said for Swedenbourg or Thomas **** in the PoGP.  Smith like to take someone else's original idea and then expound upon it.  I think that is what we have here with these two stories.  Smith has taken the stories and then expanded them into the BoA.  Ok hat off.

 

If Joseph Smith intended to defraud the world and he had access to ancient source material, why would he not make his fake correspond precisely to the source material? Why change it in any particular?

Link to post
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How do you explain the quote Kwaku gave in his second video, the quote describing ritualistic human sacrifice? It’s at the 6:41 mark. 
 

Kwaku said this is just one quote among many. 

It's not much of a quote and Kwaku describing what he thinks happened doesn't make it true. I'd rather find articles and documentation from people who have studied Egyptian history.

M.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

It's not much of a quote and Kwaku describing what he thinks happened doesn't make it true. I'd rather find articles and documentation from people who have studied Egyptian history.

M.

Why do you say it’s not much of a quote? The reference is given on screen. The ritual described there incorporates both cutting and burning, which would facilitate a harmony between the Book of Abraham account and other ancient sources. 
 

Saying “it’s not much of a quote” does not explain it. Are you saying the quote is fraudulent, inauthentic, what?

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you say it’s not much of a quote? The reference is given on screen. The ritual described there incorporates both cutting and burning, which would facilitate a harmony between the Book of Abraham account and other ancient sources. 
 

Saying “it’s not much of a quote” does not explain it. Are you saying the quote is fraudulent, inauthentic, what?

Did the quote give a time period for such rituals?

Not that we actually know when Abraham lived, so I am not sure that could disqualify anything. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Abraham was around 2000 BC.

According to whom?

Edited by Calm
Link to post
1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Since the Egyptians gave up the practice during the Old Kingdom,

Old Kingdom was 2686–2181 BC.  We don’t have a definite time period for Abraham as far as I know. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did the quote give a time period for such rituals?

Not that we actually know when Abraham lived, so I am not sure that could disqualify anything. 

The quote itself had no time period. 
 

The citation says, “Translation from the Egyptian Fortress, Mingissa, Middle Kingdom”

Dont know what to make of that as I lack the expertise. 

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The quote itself had no time period. 
 

The citation says, “Translation from the Egyptian Fortress, Mingissa, Middle Kingdom”

Dont know what to make of that as I lack the expertise. 

Middle Kingdom is 2050 to 1710 BC, so that extends the range quite a bit as well as countering Maureen’s source. 
 

Maureen appears to have used the first citation google pulled up (it was first for me) and is from a tourism site, so I may look for a more academic, credible reference. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Old Kingdom was 2686–2181 BC.  We don’t have a definite time period for Abraham as far as I know. 

There are some of scholars who believe that the Pentateuch itself originates from the 5th or 6th century BCE, and was invented out of whole cloth in order to help the then authorities bolster their authority. A retcon in other words. As you say, the fact remains that nobody knows when Abraham lived, whether he was an actual person, a mythical person, or a composite person from many different legends. No actual documentation exists, obviously.

As for me, I trust that the account in the PofGP is true. As far as its dating is concerned, meh.

Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you say it’s not much of a quote? The reference is given on screen. The ritual described there incorporates both cutting and burning, which would facilitate a harmony between the Book of Abraham account and other ancient sources. 
 

Saying “it’s not much of a quote” does not explain it. Are you saying the quote is fraudulent, inauthentic, what?

Under the quote it reads:

Urkunden mythologischa Inhalts (1929)

And thanks to google, that translated into english reads:

Documents mythological content (1929).

So what does that mean?

M.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Under the quote it reads:

Urkunden mythologischa Inhalts (1929)

And thanks to google, that translated into english reads:

Documents mythological content (1929).

So what does that mean?

M.

You tell me. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The quote itself had no time period. 
 

The citation says, “Translation from the Egyptian Fortress, Mingissa, Middle Kingdom”

Dont know what to make of that as I lack the expertise. 

Mirgissa

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirgissa

Link to post

In An Egyptian Context for the  Sacrifice of Abraham, John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein write:

"...archaelologists have discovered evidence of human sacrifice. Just outside the Middle Kingdom fortress at Mirgissa, which had been part of the Egyptian empire in Nubia, a deposit was found containing various ritual objects such as melted wax figurines, a flint knife, and the decapitated body of a foreigner slain during rites designed to ward off enemies. Almost universally, this discovery has been accepted as a case of human sacrifice.....The remains in the deposit are consistent with those of later ritual texts describing the daily execration rite, which was usually a wax figure substituting in effigy for a human sacrifice: "Blind with the sinew of a red cow...spit on him four times...trample on him with the left foot...smite him with a spear...decapitate him with a knife...place him on the fire...spit on him in the fire many times" Again we see that the use of a knife was followed by burning. The fact that the site of Mirgissa is not in Egypt proper but was part of the Egyptian empire in Nubia informs us that the Egyptians extended such practices beyond their borders."

But in an article/essay called: Did the Ancient Egyptians Practice Human Sacrifice? the author writes:

...On the other side of the coin is the argument that retainer sacrifice carried on well into the Middle Kingdom. The argument being based on the one discovery of a decapitated foreigner inside the Middle Kingdom tomb in Migrissa, which was part of the Egyptian empire in Nubia. While sacrifice disappeared in certain regions when Nubia was ruled by the Egyptians, there is evidence their practices of ritual sacrifice continued well into the 5th and 6th century AD. Van Dijk mentions evidence of cultic retainer sacrifice in smaller numbers occurring at Migrissa. This was Nubian sacrifice, not Egyptian. This was not a case of ‘Egyptians extending such practices’ beyond their borders’. It was a Nubian practice that trickled away during Egyptian rule only to be revived when Nubian rule over Egypt ended in 657 BC. When Nubia was an Egyptian colony, Van Dijk maintains that “Slaves were protected from grim Nubian customs such as retainer sacrifice.”

https://www.historyoftheancientworld.com/2014/08/did-the-ancient-egyptians-practice-human-sacrifice/

M.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 4/9/2020 at 2:34 PM, Tacenda said:

Why wouldn't Joseph borrow from writings around him, he did that with the JST of the Bible. 

Because it would imply that JS was not translating directly from the papryi. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

If you are really interested in the topic, Muhlestein's dissertation on the subject was published and is available for free download here:

https://www.academia.edu/10132431/Violence_in_the_Service_of_Order_the_Religious_Framework_for_Sanctioned_Killing_in_Ancient_Egypt._British_Archaeological_Reports_International_Series_2299_Oxford_Archaeopress_2011_

After reading this, ask yourself if the events he describes really are analogous to the events described in Abraham 1.

Link to post
37 minutes ago, Steve Thompson said:

If you are really interested in the topic, Muhlestein's dissertation on the subject was published and is available for free download here:

https://www.academia.edu/10132431/Violence_in_the_Service_of_Order_the_Religious_Framework_for_Sanctioned_Killing_in_Ancient_Egypt._British_Archaeological_Reports_International_Series_2299_Oxford_Archaeopress_2011_

After reading this, ask yourself if the events he describes really are analogous to the events described in Abraham 1.

Not sure I’m inclined to invest the time just to go through your intellectual exercise. Can we cut to the chase and get your opinion on that question?

Link to post
On 4/10/2020 at 4:19 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

If Joseph Smith intended to defraud the world and he had access to ancient source material, why would he not make his fake correspond precisely to the source material? Why change it in any particular?

As I stated earlier in this thread, Smith has a pattern of taking the works of others and then expounding  and expanding on the original ideas of others in his own works.  At least that's the secular argument.  A secularist can find the works of Thomas ****, Swedenborg and Adam Smith among others within the writings of Joseph Smith.  There is enough evidence to support this secular claim for those who want to go down that path.

Link to post
On 4/9/2020 at 3:20 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Here are some more videos from Kwaku, and he is actually quite good and responsible (and funny):

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd9rQ7AZ_xghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul62FNJ8tsA   (at UVU)

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/watch-five-evidences-for-book-of-mormon-names

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRxdGUp3LKY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezaprqQwbhE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kf38PkkkWg&list=RDCMUC2LBmYIOq6Eu_ZC14i_YkIg&index=14

Fair enough, Fair Dinkum.  You correctly distinguish between two very separate modes of thought:  Faith and Reason.  Since you clearly favor reason (a bloke after my own heart), I highly recommend my own piece, “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 11, Dec 23, 2019, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .  I employ therein solely and only standard scholarship.  Unlike Kwaku, I tell no jokes, and try to get no laughs.

 

To quote Bro. Lloyd "Not sure I’m inclined to invest the time just to go through your intellectual exercise. Can we cut to the chase and get your opinion on that question?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

To quote Bro. Lloyd "Not sure I’m inclined to invest the time just to go through your intellectual exercise. Can we cut to the chase and get your opinion on that question?"

Not sure that mere opinion carries much weight.  Brigham Young used to say that no man's opinion is worth a straw.  In your case, I was under the impression that you actually understand the difference between faith and reason.  Was I wrong?

Link to post
On 4/9/2020 at 3:20 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Here are some more videos from Kwaku, and he is actually quite good and responsible (and funny):

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd9rQ7AZ_xghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul62FNJ8tsA   (at UVU)

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/watch-five-evidences-for-book-of-mormon-names

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRxdGUp3LKY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezaprqQwbhE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kf38PkkkWg&list=RDCMUC2LBmYIOq6Eu_ZC14i_YkIg&index=14

Fair enough, Fair Dinkum.  You correctly distinguish between two very separate modes of thought:  Faith and Reason.  Since you clearly favor reason (a bloke after my own heart), I highly recommend my own piece, “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 11, Dec 23, 2019, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .  I employ therein solely and only standard scholarship.  Unlike Kwaku, I tell no jokes, and try to get no laughs.

 

 

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

To quote Bro. Lloyd "Not sure I’m inclined to invest the time just to go through your intellectual exercise. Can we cut to the chase and get your opinion on that question?"

Seems to me Robert did express his opinion — quite clearly. 
 

On the other hand, the words you quoted from me were originally in response to a post phrased in essence as “Read _____ and then ask yourself ___ .”

It put me off, because it struck me that he, an anonymous stranger to most if not all of us, was arrogating to himself the role of schoolmaster with us as his presumed pupils.
 

That’s why I responded as I did. I believed it was not too much to ask that he tell us upfront what he was getting at and then let us decide individually whether we want to bother going to his link. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure that mere opinion carries much weight.  Brigham Young used to say that no man's opinion is worth a straw.  In your case, I was under the impression that you actually understand the difference between faith and reason.  Was I wrong?

Yes I understand the difference between faith and reason. When I saw Bro. Lloyd's post I remembered that I hadn't replied to your post and thought his words captured my feelings exactly.  Rather then reading your 48+ page essay, I was hoping you might provide the cliffs notes  rather then me investing the intellectual exercise.  It's ok, I'm sure you are a busy man, no need, I just felt you deserved a reply from me.

Edited by Fair Dinkum
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Yes I understand the difference between faith and reason. When I saw Bro. Lloyd's post I remembered that I hadn't replied to your post and thought his words captured my feelings exactly.  Rather then reading your 48+ page essay, I was hoping you might provide the cliffs notes  rather then me investing the intellectual exercise.  It's ok, I'm sure you are a busy man, no need, I just felt you deserved a reply from me.

Thanks for your frank reply, Fair Dinkum.  In the midst of all that faithful folderol which true believers throw your way, I thought you might appreciate an analysis based strictly on standard scholarship -- showing that the Book of Abraham is extraordinarily accurate and fits very well into its ancient Near Eastern niche.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...