Book of Abraham claims
- From: millerjamesc@xxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 02:43:58 -0000
In light of discussions in several recent threads about the _Book of
Abraham, an LDS scripture, I present the following claims for
examination. I have supported the claims with evidence and await the
apologists' response. Most of my evidence consists of reputable
scholarly sources, but I have also included popular sources which might
be more accessible to some readers. I have included no anti-LDS
sources to avoid the appearance and substance of source bias.
I have no doubt that apologists will attack the sources as
non-scholarly and not reputable using criteria more stringent than what
they allow for their own evidence. I leave it up to the reader to
judge how reliable the sources are.
In all likelihood, apologists will respond with references to LDS-only,
blatantly apologist websites, probably those of Jeff Lindsay and
others. I caution the reader about the absolutely certain pro LDS bias
in these sources, in contrast to my neutral sources, and advise that
the evidence will consist mainly of (1) calls to personal revelation,
and (2) of discussions of thematic similarities between the BofA and
obscure and apocryphal sources the LDS wouldn't accept from critics
because they don't consider them canon, rather than verification of
translation accuracy. Personally, I've found the thematic
similarities too tenuous to take seriously and I note that many people
find they receive no personal revelation about the BofA while others
get revelation that the BofA is a hoax. In that respect, the personal
revelation approach seems to be a double-edged sword.
Specifically in reference to apologists claims about how the four sons
of Horus also represent the four winds or four corners of the earth
(and "how could Joseph Smith have know than?"), please bear in mind
that despite some of the sites implying that the BofA says this,
NOWHERE in the BofA are the figures said to represent Horus' four
sons, let alone the four winds or four corners of the earth.
I am sympathetic to the apologists having to rely on these two
avoidance approaches instead of presentation of actual evidence of
Smith's claimed names of Egyptian gods spelled out in an actual
ancient Egyptian document or inscription. But, I note that the only
way to really support the LDS position would be presentation of such
actual documents or inscriptions. I also note that my sources DO
include actual evidence of the real gods names (and not Joseph
Smith's) spelled out in actual ancient Egyptian documents and
inscriptions.
I am also sympathetic to the apologists resting their belief system on
the LDS claims and thus having a need to accept the claims even in the
face of compelling evidence otherwise. All I can answer is that when I
was faced with the same dilemma, I decided that my belief system needed
to be revised. We each must make this decision for ourselves.
I further note that some apologists may complain that I'm repeating
evidence I've already presented (which they may refer to as
"rehashing"). If so, I will find such complaints ironic since
other apologists also complain that I NEVER present evidence and only
make "baseless assertions." I leave it to the reader to decide if
I support my claims with evidence and if the evidence is persuasive and
compelling. One of the advantages to my evidence is that the readers
can check it out themselves on the Internet or by borrowing books at
the library.
Finally, I note that the apologists may claim that while to date, no
actual evidence supporting the BofA's claims has been found, science
discovers new things daily and the supporting pro-LDS evidence could be
discovered any day now. I respond that this is entirely possible. But
I also respond that it hasn't happened yet. Moreover, it is also
possible that researchers could uncover a manuscript in Smith's
identifiable handwriting confessing to having made up the BofA.
Remember, anything is possible.
A brief pause before we consider the claims. I remind the apologists
and reader that the best evidence to support the LDS claims would be
even just a single actual ancient Egyptian document or inscription
which spells out Smith's names.
C L A I M S
Claim #1 [from LDS sources]: The Book of Abraham makes explicit claims
that the four labeled figures (Figs 5, 6, 7, and 8) in the Facsimile 1
accompanying the text represent the Egyptian gods, Elkenah, Libnah,
Mahmackrah, and Korash [ 1 ].
Supporting evidence: footnote 1.
Refuting evidence: Not yet presented.
Claim #2 [from LDS Scripture]: The text of the Book of Abraham,
independent of any facsimiles, claims that of the Egyptian gods, four
were named Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash [ 2 ].
Supporting evidence: footnote 2.
Refuting evidence: Not yet presented.
Claim #3 [from critics]: There are no Egyptian gods with the names the
BofA claims. [ 3 ]
Supporting evidence: footnote 3.
Refuting evidence: Not yet presented.
Claim #4 [from critics]: Instead of what Smith claims, professional
Egyptologists have identified the four labeled figures as the canoptic
jars (including the figure lids) which contain the internal organs of
the mummified individual and their lids represent the four sons of
Horus, Imset, Hapt, Qebe-senuwef, and Duwa-mutef. [ 4 ] Smith's
names for the same figures appear nowhere in any literature outside of
LDS circles.
Supporting evidence: footnote 4.
Refuting evidence: Not yet presented.
Claim #5 [from LDS sources]: Dr. Hugh Nibley's opinions about the
BofA are honored and respected by all, if not most Egyptologists, LDS
or not. [ 5 ].
Counter claim to #5 [from LDS critics]: Dr. Nibley is a well-respected
and justifiably honored scholar in his field of ancient studies and LDS
and non-LDS scholars have praised his work. However, Dr. Nibley's
apologist work on the BofA was criticized recently in a respected,
peer-reviewed academic journal. [ 5 ].
Supporting evidence: footnote 5.
Refuting evidence: Not yet presented.
Conclusion: Had Joseph Smith actually translated the papyri, he would
have referred to the figures as the four sons of Horus and given their
actual names of Imset, Hapt, Qebe-senuwef, and Duwa-mutef. This would
have stood as a powerful witness to the truthfulness of the BofA and to
Smith's prophetic role. But because he didn't, it draws into
question the truthfulness of the BofA and Smith prophetic role.
Footnotes
[ 1 ] My wife's 1981 Three-In-One shows an explanation below
Facsimile 1 which carries the following:
For the man with the knife.
"Fig. 3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah, attempting to offer up
Abraham as a sacrifice."
For the bird headed figure, farthest on the right:
"Fig. 5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah."
For the black-snouted figure, second from the right:
"Fig. 6. The idolatrous god of Libnah."
For the animal headed figure, second from the left:
"Fig. 7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah."
For the bearded man figure, first on the left:
"Fig 8. The idolatrous god of Korash."
[ 2 ]
[1:12] "And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me,
that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this
altar; and that you may have knowledge of this altar, I will refer you
to the representation at the commencement of this record."
[1:13] "It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had
among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah,
Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of
Egypt."
[1:14] That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given
you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner
of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies
hieroglyphics."
[1:17] "And this because they have turned their hearts away from me
to worship 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; therefore I have come down to visit them, and to destroy him who
hath lifted up his hand against thee, Abraham, my son, to take away my
life."
[1:20] "Behold, Potiphar's Hill was in the land of Ur, of Chaldea.
And the Lord broke down the altar of Elkenah, and of the gods of the
land, and utterly destroyed them, and smote the priest that he died;
and there was in the court of Pharaoh; which Pharaoh signifies king by
royal blood."
[ 3 ]
I've looked up Smith's claimed names, but did not find them, in the
following books:
A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, George Hart, Routledge,
New Ed (June 1, 1986).
The Oxford Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology, Berkley (July 1,
2003)
The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, Richard H. Wilkinson,
Thames & Hudson (May 26, 2003)
The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Munson, Margaret Gramercy Books: New
York, 1991.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead (The Papyrus of Ani) Egyptian Text
Transliteration and Translation, E.A. Wallis Budge, Dover Publications,
1967 (reprint of 1895 edition).
[ 4 ]
The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Munson, Margaret Gramercy Books: New
York, 1991, p51 [all four together, Imset, Hapt, Qebe-senuwef, and
Duwa-mute/Tuwa-mute], p. 105 [Hapi/Hapt], p 123 [Imset/Imsety], p 214
[Qebehsenuf/Qebe-senuwef].
The Egyptian Book of the Dead (The Papyrus of Ani) Egyptian Text
Transliteration and Translation, E.A. Wallis Budge, Dover Publications,
1967 (reprint of 1895 edition), p cxxiv [all four, Imset,
Hapi/Mestha-Hapi, Tuamautef, Qebhsennuf], 38 [all four, Imset,
Hapi/Mestha-Hapi/Hapy, Tuamautef, Qebhsennuf], and 39 [all four, Imset,
Hapi, Tuamautef, Qebhsennuf].
http://www.akhet.co.uk/4sons.htm
[not a scholarly site, but good pictures and agrees with the plethora
of other sources]
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/horus.htm
[not a scholarly site, but good information]
http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/explore/main.html
[The British Museum, which is one of the very best scholarly sites with
an international reputation]
http://www.si.umich.edu/CHICO/mummy/Afterlife/Gods/Godstextx.html
[From the University of Michigan, which is a reputable scholarly site,
several gods including the four sons of Horus, including their
alternative names, none of which resemble Smith's in the slightest.
These particular frames are from the University of Michigan's
Cultural Heritage Initiative for Community which is an award-winning
site [[http://www.si.umich.edu/CHICO/Awards/]] with a long list of
distinguished academic partners
[[http://www.si.umich.edu/CHICO/AboutChico/partners.html]].
http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/OI_Search.html
[This is the search feature of the University of Chicago's Oriental
Institute. The University of Chicago is one of the most prestigious
universities in the world for several of its departments including the
Oriental Institute which may be the most important and prestigious
departments for the study of Egypt and Sumer in the world, and is the
publisher of two of the most important and respected peer-reviewed
journal in the world, including the _Journal of Near Eastern Studies_]
[ 5 ]
Dr. Robert Ritner, "'The Breathing Permit of Hor' Among the Joseph
Smith Papyri," _Journal of Near Eastern Studies_, July 2003 issue,
Volume 62, Number 3, pp. 161-180.
Professor Ritner indicated that his article was written at the request
of several sources to "provide an impartial reassessment of Baer's
translation [of the Joseph Smith papyri] in light of Egypological
advances in the past thirty-four years." In doing so, he examined not
only Professor Baer's translation work, but also that of Professor Hugh
Nibley, and Professor Ritner's own student, Dr. John Gee, author of
several BoA articles and books published by the LDS Church. Professor
Ritner is generally laudatory of Baer's work, but rather critical of
that of Gee and Nibley. In addition, Professor Ritner pointed out an
unjustified refusal by the LDS Church for customary scholarly access to
the original papyri, and Dr. Gee's failure to follow the customary
academic practice in Egyptology of having one's former mentor review
articles and other publications in draft form. In the article,
Professor Ritner noted, "With regard to the articles by my former
student John Gee, I am constrained to note that unlike the interaction
between Baer and Nibley, and the practice of all my other Egyptology
students, Gee never chose to share drafts of his publications with me
to elicit scholarly criticism, so I have encountered these only
recently. It must be understood that in these apologetic writings,
Gee's opinions do not necessarily reflect my own, nor the standards of
Egyptological proof that I require at Yale or Chicago." Dr. Ritner also
noted, "A customary scholarly request to examine the original Joseph
Smith Papyri for this publication was refused by Steven R. Sorenson,
Director of the LDS Church Archives."
In a footnote in the article, Professor Ritner noted a 1912 publication
of professional opinion on the BoA's Facsimiles which " ... drew
uniformly derisive assessments ..." from eight distinguished
Egyptologists of the time. Professor Ritner said, "Apart from ad
hominem attacks on the Egyptologists themselves [Cf. N. L. Nelson, _The
Improvement Era_ 16(1913): 606 ff.: " ... a jury of Gentiles,
prejudicial, ill-tempered and mad with the pride of human learning."],
the matter generated little further discussion."
Professior Ritner pointed out Nibley's colorful ad hominem attacks on
the 1912 panel of Egyptologists. In a series of 1968 articles in _The
Improvement Era_, Nibley called A.B. Mercer "a hustling young
clergyman;" said that Sayce was a "spoiled dilettante;" said that
Petrie "never went to a theatre;" that Meyer "lacked aesthetic sense"
and had a rationalistic bent that "ineffectively [sic] disqualifies
himself from the jury;" that Brested was "pro-German;" that von Bissing
had "an uncompromising loyalty to a feudal society and feudal religion
- hardly the man to look with a kindly eye on the supernaturalism ...
of a Joseph Smith." Professor Ritner went on to say that "Nibley's
tactic has been adopted by his followers. The earlier version of this
article produced internet discussions devoted not to the translation,
but to scurrilous remarks concerning my own religious and personal
habits. Let the scholar be warned."
Dr. Ritner's credentials:
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/nelc/facultypages/ritner/
James Clifford Miller
Millerjamesc@xxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Book of Abraham claims
- From: Stormin Mormon
- Re: Book of Abraham claims
- Prev by Date: Re: A Rose by any other name... was:- Temple Recommend interview: Lett
- Next by Date: Re: Depictions of Christ
- Previous by thread: Undergarments?
- Next by thread: Re: Book of Abraham claims
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
