“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”
This new thread provides a powerful refutation of the Book of Abraham and destroys any hope of Mormon apologists saving the Book of Abraham through scholarly means. All other refutations and critical analysis of the Book of Abraham is secondary and hangs on a primary knowledge of the origins of Prehistoric Egypt and how and when Egypt sprang into existence.
Shulem wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:14 am
Joseph Smith’s Definition of an Egyptian King
The text of the Book of Abraham provides an accounting of the first Egyptian king so far as Joseph Smith was concerned. The narrative clearly states that Egypt’s making began after the flood when Ham’s daughter Egyptus founded the land of Egypt and established a new race and government through a line of kings beginning with her eldest son.
Abraham 1:25 wrote:Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
The first king of Egypt according to the narrative was the son of Egyptus. The narrative then informs us that the kingdom of Egypt was established by this blood line which was the royal line coming from Egyptus through Ham and that the king living during Abraham’s day was a direct descendant of that line. Abraham gives us the definition of a king saying, “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood”. The point I wish to make is that this royal line had nothing to do with the mythical goddess Isis who was believed to have lived long BEFORE a biblical flood and was married to the first legendary king of Egypt, Osiris.
Joseph Smith’s declaration that Facsimile No. 3, Fig. 2 (Isis) is a representation of King Pharaoh during Abraham’s day is impossible because Isis was not a descendant of Ham via a fictitious Egyptus! According to the Book of Abraham the kings of Egypt descended from the royal line “King by royal blood” which cannot include mythical Isis seeing she preceded that line (outside of dynastic chronology) and was the original queen from whence the royal race sprung. Her role was mother goddess to Horus who became the second king of Egypt having assumed the throne of his father, Osiris.
I think it’s important to make all these distinctions because it goes to show that Joseph Smith didn’t know what he was talking about nor did he know anything about the mythology of ancient Egypt or how the government of Egypt was actually founded in predynastic times by competing forces who sought control of the land and people in both the north (Lower Egypt) and in the south (Upper Egypt).
Isis was not a king. She was not a “Pharaoh” which according to Smith signifies a king by royal blood having descended from Ham. Finally, the very title of Pharaoh was not used until long after Abraham’s time and is therefore an anachronism. The word Pharaoh was not contemporaneous with kings who lived during Abraham’s time but was used later in the New Kingdom to designate one who lives in a great house.
Shulem wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 7:08 pm
0 X 0 = 0
It all boils down to credibility. What is credible and what is not? The first chapter of the Book of Abraham is anything but a credible introduction of the nation state of ancient Egypt. Everything in that chapter screams that it was written by someone totally unacquainted with the historical beginning of Egypt and how the Predynastic period was the historical precursor for the Unification of the Two Lands. Many thousands of years was Egypt in the making and all that greatly predates the characters of Noah and Adam (4,000 BC) as they are dated in the Hebrew bible.
Credibility in translating Egyptian hieroglyphs starts with the king’s name. That is the single most important name of any living person in all of Egypt. The king’s name is everything! The king’s name *IS* Egypt and here we see that Joseph Smith hadn’t a clue of what makes a king’s name or how to begin to even read one or decipher it. Joseph Smith has ZERO credibility when it comes to translating Egyptian. Mormon Egyptologists have ZERO credibility when it comes to defending someone who has no credibility. Zero times zero always equals zero and that is what we get from Joseph Smith, John Gee, and Kerry Muhlestein. Zero! No king’s name, not now and not ever.
Shulem wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:27 am
Thank you for posting! I agree with you, Alphus and Omegus:
“I’m sure you’ve probably mentioned this but the thread has so many pages that I haven’t read them all (sorry!), but the king’s name error is really part of a larger picture of Joseph Smith getting Egyptian history totally wrong.” (Alphus and Omegus)
I recently posted in a thread down in the Terrestrial Forum (RATED PG) about John Gee’s recent podcast with Scott Gordon of FAIR. It was a little combative in nature because I have so much passion in defending ancient Egypt from false Mormon claims, so please forgive me if it’s a little offensive; I tend to get colorful. Therefore, I will edit and post it here -- may readers please understand that my passions often bubble up and get intense, but I really am a kind person at heart and ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt.
Shulem in Terrestrial Forum wrote:Gee’s video presentation points out that the critic’s biggest problem is mainly with “TRANSLATION”. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
JOHN GEE, can you hear me? Come here so I can whisper in your ears and tell you what’s worse than the translation problem. I SHULEM am the ultimate critic of the Book of Abraham and I’m talking to you.
It’s the history of Book of Abraham chapter ONE that is the biggest problem. It’s Egypt’s making as explained in the Book of Abraham in concert with Smith’s chronology taken from the bible & D&C that is the biggest problem. Chapter one of the Book of Abraham is the biggest bunch of (edited) anyone could ever imagine or read about how Egypt came to be.
Do you get my drift, Mr. Gee? You know full well what I’m talking about. The connection between predynastic and dynastic Egypt find no place whatsoever in Smith’s fictitious story.
Gee, don’t even try to take me on. I’m not afraid of you or your credentials. An army of Egyptologists will back me up. (edited for Celestial Forum) I want peace! So, back off and find a way to influence the Church to pull back and realize that historical claims in the Book of Abraham cannot be taken literally. I really don’t want conflict but I will fight to defend ancient Egypt if I have to. World scholarship will stand behind me in that endeavor.
Am I not being reasonable?
Shulem wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:48 pm“Alphus and Omegus” wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:57 pmIt doesn’t matter what scroll theory you want to believe. The canonized English text of the Book of Abraham is littered with scores of anthropological and historical errors: Egyptus; a person named Pharaoh; a statement that the Noahic Flood covered Egypt; total ignorance of “Kemet,” the actual ancient Egyptian word for Egypt; totally wrong timelines, made up divine beings and words, I could go on and on.
Professor Gee listed the three general theories in his latest podcast (RATED PG) with Scott Gordon of FAIR:
1) Smith translated the Book of Abraham by using the existing fragments
2) Smith translated the Book of Abraham by using the missing roll
3) Smith translated the Book of Abraham by using papyrus as a catalyst
And guess what? You’re absolutely right in stating that it doesn’t matter which theory one ascribes to because it doesn’t make a lick of difference for the Book of Abraham which will ever remain a work of fiction, a nonhistorical narrative of ancient Egypt. Most critics (including me) tend to focus on the Facsimiles and translation issues but the heart of the matter is just how bad the chapters of the Book of Abraham are and the FALSE representation of the origins of Egypt and how the civilization rose. The narrative of chapter one is a farce and will never be published in a professional journal or book that explains the authentic history of Egypt’s Making.
“Alphus and Omegus” wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:57 pmIn my opinion, the scroll obsessions are actually a red herring to get people to focus on debates about documents rather than the numerous inexcusable errors Smith made in his pronouncements about Egyptian culture, history, and language.
Yes, there is some truth to that. Both the critics and the apologists have focused a great deal of energy on the Facsimiles. This is completely understandable considering the nature of the claims, the magnitude of the arguments, and the stakes are very high on both sides of the argument. Clearly, the apologists have lost the war with the Facsimiles and the King’s name showcases this on a level everyone can easily relate to and understand. It’s as simple as ABC. Everything begins with a name! Everyone has a name! That is why this particular example is so powerful and brings everything home.
But the core and foundation of the Book of Abraham is the opening chapter that gives an erroneous and false description of how Egypt was founded. Nothing could be further from the truth than chapter one! The narrative that was fabricated out of Joseph Smith’s head will not help anyone understand the historical beginnings of ancient Egypt. Predynastic Egypt (long before Noah’s time) thrived and continued until the Unification was finally forged under king Menes and Egypt became a powerfully combined nation state under a single banner.
Isn’t that right, professor Gee?
Shulem wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:14 pm
A Nail in the Coffin
The Messenger and Advocate was the Church periodical published monthly in Kirtland and was purchased by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in February of 1837. Warren Cowdery acted as editor. The following month, the paper produced a short article about ancient Egypt and described several interesting points of which I will highlight a few for the purpose of proving how later statements given in the Times and Seasons in 1842 about Facsimile No. 3 seem to contradict earlier views. Smith had already had the papyri and mummies in his possession for 20 months.
Messenger and Advocate wrote:The government of Egypt was a hereditary monarchy. The king and the priests, who were his deputies who filled the offices and exercised all the authority both civil and ecclesiastical.
Sounds great! I like it.
Messenger and Advocate wrote: The Egyptians were tenacious of their own manners, customs and ancient usages, and had a great abhorrence to strangers and to innovation . . . The Egyptians sequestered themselves from all strangers as much as was possible. They were not known to other nations by conquest, or much commerce. They had a great antipathy to strangers, consequently never imitated them in their customs or manners.
Indeed, there is some truth to that. The Egyptians protected their own heritage as well as any other nation and probably far more! Strangers were welcome in Egypt but Asiatics and shepherds were often looked upon as a vile people. How is it that Joseph Smith would later prop Abraham upon the throne of “King Pharoah” when having recognized earlier that strangers and foreigners were abhorred? Thus, the Explanation later given in Facsimile No. 3 Fig. 1, makes no sense at all.
Messenger and Advocate wrote: They preceded most of the ancient nations in the knowledge of the useful arts, and in the cultivation of the sciences.
Yes! Egypt was practically on top of the world and built the largest and tallest structures known to man. All of this was done long before shepherd Abraham was born! The Egyptians possessed great skills in science and astronomy and built great geometric structures in position with the stars above that required complicated skills involving mathematics and geometry long before Abraham entered the scene. And yet, Joseph Smith mistakenly takes what Josephus had to say about Egyptian history when he published his Explanations for Facsimile No. 3, several years later.
Messenger and Advocate wrote: Their pyramids and obelisks, are monuments, evincive of their skill in building and architecture as well as of their industry and perseverance to accomplish such great undertakings. Indeed the whole country abounds with the remains of ancient grandeur, surpassing almost any other. Thebes in upper Egypt was one of the most splendid cities in the world. Modern travellers describe the stones that were used in some of its walls or towers as being of curious workmanship, and of immense size. The Egyptians possessed considerable knowledge of geometry, mechanics and astronomy.
Indeed, the Egyptians possessed great skill and ability in building wonderful monuments and structures, even the Great Pyramids that were constructed long before Abraham. Isn’t that right, Dr. Gee? Yet, just five years later Joseph Smith would say, “Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court” in order to find a parallel with what Josephus was expressing about Abraham’s grandeur skills in celestial science and mathematics. The Egyptians had been studying the stars for millennia before Abraham was born. The Egyptians predated biblical Noah and the flood dated at 2300 BC! Predynastic Egyptian people were studying the stars and creating civilization before so-called Adam left the garden of Eden in 4000 BC.
Isn’t that right, Dr. Gee?
Shulem wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 4:11 am
Please refer to the Doctrine & Covenants and early official Church periodicals that provide *statements* made by the First Presidency about biblical chronology wherein revelations given by the prophet Joseph Smith regarding dating and chronology of the earth’s history that begins after Adam’s fall and continues with Noah floating about whereby eight souls were saved by water.
Let’s talk about the *BC DATE* which Smith gave for Noah and how KEMET was discovered by “EGYPTUS” and let’s discuss this as it relates to the long periods known as predynastic Egypt and the eventual Unification of both Upper and Lower Egypt. Tell me, Dr. Gee, do your colleagues find Abraham chapter one useful in better understanding Egypt’s making as they compare that with Smith’s chronology?
Is it not so that it’s the Mormons that are poisoning the well of Egyptology? I submit to you that the Book of Abraham is poisoning the well of conventional Egyptology and Mormon apologists are guilty of manufacturing poison and administering it to their victims through PEARL OF GREATH PRICE CENTRAL which poisons the minds of ignorant Latter-day Saints.
Shulem wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:26 pm
Real Egyptology is NOT from the Book of Abraham, Brigham Young University or the Mormons!
Study of Antiquity and the Middle Ages wrote: Watch YouTube 33 minute video
Origin of the Egyptians and Predynastic Egypt
Shulem wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:21 pm
The dynastic beginning of a unified Egyptian state long predates the biblical times of Noah and Abraham. Predynastic Egypt was an ancient civilization before Noah was ever conceived! Furthermore, Neithhotep and her contemporaries were ruling Egypt a thousand years before Joseph Smith’s so-called queen Egyptus (bogus name) discovered the Delta under water and the preposterous idea of Egypt’s founding by a Hamite king named Pharaoh. The whole story is outrageous! It’s absolute fiction.
There is universal consensus that the story of how Egypt came to be as recorded in the Book of Abraham chapter one is absolute fiction as is the assertion that a king’s name is in the label of Facsimile No. 3. The Book of Abraham is a lie told by Joseph Smith. It may safely be discarded as nonhistorical nonsense or more politely termed as modern pseudepigrapha.
There is nothing apologists or Mormon Egyptologists can do to save the Book of Abraham.