Manetho, Josephus, and the Book of Abraham

[drumdude]

How do you explain DCP’s breathless list of parallels?

To me, DCP’s parallels argue that Joseph Smith was miraculously inspired and Smith could not have done this without divine inspiration. That’s a subjective position that reaffirms Joseph’s claims. If you believe Joseph, then DCP’s piece strengthens your conviction. If you do not, DCP’s piece does nothing to change your mind.

Do you think you would find similar parallels in any work of pseudepigrapha?

[Res Ipsa]

Smith is the easiest to think about. I certainly can accept that Smith was attempting to fill out Josephus's account. But to conscious emulate what Josephus was doing, wouldn't Smith have had to understand that Josephus had a different meaning of historically accurate than Smith had? I don't think that Smith and I so far apart that me asking him the question: does the Book of Abraham describe what really happened to real people in Egypt? would not be unintelligible to him in some material way. if I asked, would his answer look like "Yes, the Book of Abraham describes real events that occurred in the real Egypt to real people, including Abraham."? Or would it look like: "I'm emulating Josephus, whose understanding of historically accurate is much different than my understanding. So, no, it's not about real people doing real things in a real place as you understand it?"

I don’t know, RI. I can’t read Joseph Smith’s mind. He seemed to be skeptical of the assumed value of worldly learning, and he could have believed Josephus contained lost truths removed from the Bible. He may have really believed he could restore more of those truths based on the nuggets Josephus gave him. What he was doing with Mormon scripture was in no way comparable to the writing of history. The methods and tools are so radically different, that it seems silly to me to suppose the results ought to be the same or that Joseph Smith intended them to be the same.

I don't know either. But I think you got to the heart of my question, which is not "what was Joseph Smith thinking?" but "how should I think about what Joseph Smith was thinking?" I agree that, when dictating the Book of Mormon, Smith was not trying to write a history in the way you or I would understand "writing history." He was dictating scripture -- a second witness to Jesus Christ.

The Book of Abraham is tougher for me because of context. I'm not sure that Smith was that skeptical of worldly learning. He certainly placed a high value on the learning of languages. And the Book of Abraham seems tied into Egypt as a scholarly subject. Because he purported to be translating actual characters on a real scroll, that ties it more closely with what I think of as a historical narrative, even though the ultimate purpose was to explain astronomy.

[Kishkumen]

Do you think you would find similar parallels in any work of pseudepigrapha?

The question is whether anyone would look for similar parallels for that purpose. Usually, the author is unknown, so one would be questioning whether an unknown author was inspired. The canonical status of pseudepigrapha bears on this question. Few people would care if the work is not canonized. If it is, then they may tend to assume that the work is inspired. Still, they have almost no basis for getting into the sincerity or motives of the author, so there really is little need to argue in favor of the divine inspiration of the author through the parallels in the work.

[Kishkumen]

I don't know either. But I think you got to the heart of my question, which is not "what was Joseph Smith thinking?" but "how should I think about what Joseph Smith was thinking?" I agree that, when dictating the Book of Mormon, Smith was not trying to write a history in the way you or I would understand "writing history." He was dictating scripture -- a second witness to Jesus Christ.

The Book of Abraham is tougher for me because of context. I'm not sure that Smith was that skeptical of worldly learning. He certainly placed a high value on the learning of languages. And the Book of Abraham seems tied into Egypt as a scholarly subject. Because he purported to be translating actual characters on a real scroll, that ties it more closely with what I think of as a historical narrative, even though the ultimate purpose was to explain astronomy.

Thanks for clarifying. I doubted you would be asking that question, but I was not patient in how constructed my response. Hmmm . . . Well, you may be right to question my statement that he was skeptical of worldly learning, suggesting perhaps he had no use for it. I do not believe the latter, but I think he believed divine revelation trumped worldly learning all the same. In the case of the hieroglyphics, I doubt he really understood there were ample worldly tools for translating Egyptian. So, he undertook a revelatory translation where a worldly one was lacking. Like many of his time, he seemed to assume that Egyptian had a special mystical quality and hierophantic purpose. So, I still have to wonder whether the thought his revelatory process would bring forth a straightforward history.

I mean, no doubt that Smith was not right about the literal translation of the papyri, but I still think it is problematic to assume that he was simply lying to his followers about his beliefs regarding his prophetic abilities.

[Res Ipsa]

I don't know either. But I think you got to the heart of my question, which is not "what was Joseph Smith thinking?" but "how should I think about what Joseph Smith was thinking?" I agree that, when dictating the Book of Mormon, Smith was not trying to write a history in the way you or I would understand "writing history." He was dictating scripture -- a second witness to Jesus Christ.

The Book of Abraham is tougher for me because of context. I'm not sure that Smith was that skeptical of worldly learning. He certainly placed a high value on the learning of languages. And the Book of Abraham seems tied into Egypt as a scholarly subject. Because he purported to be translating actual characters on a real scroll, that ties it more closely with what I think of as a historical narrative, even though the ultimate purpose was to explain astronomy.

Thanks for clarifying. I doubted you would be asking that question, but I was not patient in how constructed my response. Hmmm . . . Well, you may be right to question my statement that he was skeptical of worldly learning, suggesting perhaps he had no use for it. I do not believe the latter, but I think he believed divine revelation trumped worldly learning all the same. In the case of the hieroglyphics, I doubt he really understood there were ample worldly tools for translating Egyptian. So, he undertook a revelatory translation where a worldly one was lacking. Like many of his time, he seemed to assume that Egyptian had a special mystical quality and hierophantic purpose. So, I still have to wonder whether the thought his revelatory process would bring forth a straightforward history.

I mean, no doubt that Smith was not right about the literal translation of the papyri, but I still think it is problematic to assume that he was simply lying to his followers about his beliefs regarding his prophetic abilities.

Thanks. Neither of has the experience of being a self-proclaimed prophet, so we have very little to go on when we try to imagine what Smith was thinking. Given what I know about the complexity of individuals, "simply lying" is far from an adequate description of Smith's mental state.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks. Neither of has the experience of being a self-proclaimed prophet, so we have very little to go on when we try to imagine what Smith was thinking. Given what I know about the complexity of individuals, "simply lying" is far from an adequate description of Smith's mental state.

If the last decade has taught me anything, it has taught me not to assume a whole lot about the thought processes of others, especially when I see them believing in QAnon. In other words, we may not understand Joseph Smith, but that does not mean we have to accept his claims all the same.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks. Neither of has the experience of being a self-proclaimed prophet, so we have very little to go on when we try to imagine what Smith was thinking. Given what I know about the complexity of individuals, "simply lying" is far from an adequate description of Smith's mental state.

If the last decade has taught me anything, it has taught me not to assume a whole lot about the thought processes of others, especially when I see them believing in QAnon. In other words, we may not understand Joseph Smith, but that does not mean we have to accept his claims all the same.

I think that's a good way to put it. Even though you and I are in agreement on a huge number of propositions, we sometimes get there in completely different ways. And when we disagree, the differences in how we think about the world are fascinating and helpful to me.

[drumdude]

Thanks. Neither of has the experience of being a self-proclaimed prophet, so we have very little to go on when we try to imagine what Smith was thinking. Given what I know about the complexity of individuals, "simply lying" is far from an adequate description of Smith's mental state.

If the last decade has taught me anything, it has taught me not to assume a whole lot about the thought processes of others, especially when I see them believing in QAnon. In other words, we may not understand Joseph Smith, but that does not mean we have to accept his claims all the same.

I expect you’ll soon be receiving another nastygram from a certain retired BYU professor for comparing Mormon believers to QAnon believers.

[Kishkumen]

I expect you’ll soon be receiving another nastygram from a certain retired BYU professor for comparing Mormon believers to QAnon believers.

That’s not my intention. All I am saying is that we ought to be open to the possibility that thought processes of others may be quite different from our own.

[Philo Sofee]

Manetho was an Egyptian priest who lived in the early third century BC. He wrote a history of Egypt in Greek that begins as follows [at least according to the fragment preserved in Eusebius]:

1. The first man (or god) in Egypt is Hephaestus,​1 who is also renowned among the Egyptians as the discoverer of fire. His son, Helios (the Sun), was succeeded by Sôsis; then follow, in turn, Cronos, p5 Osiris, Typhon, brother of Osiris, and lastly Orus, son of Osiris and Isis. These were the first to hold sway in Egypt. Thereafter, the kingship passed from one to another in unbroken succession down to Bydis (Bites)​2 through 13,900 years. The year I take, however, to be a lunar one, consisting, that is, of 30 days: what we now call a month the Egyptians used formerly to style a year.3

2. After the Gods, Demigods reigned for 1255 years,​4 and again another line of kings held sway for 1817 years: then came thirty more kings of Memphis,​5 reigning for 1790 years; and then again ten kings of This, reigning for 350 years.

What part of this is truly historical? Did the Egyptians call their first man or god Hephaestus 5000 years before Manetho wrote his history? No. Undoubtedly not, but this was the story Manetho wanted to tell about Egypt's past in the early Ptolemaic period.

Josephus, a learned Jewish scholar of the first century AD, puts a character from the Hebrew Bible named Abram in Egypt, teaching its priests the sciences:

2. For whereas the Egyptians were formerly addicted to different customs, and despised one another's sacred and accustomed rites, and were very angry one with another on that account, Abram conferred with each of them, and, confuting the reasonings they made use of, every one for their own practices, demonstrated that such reasonings were vain and void of truth: whereupon he was admired by them in those conferences as a very wise man, and one of great sagacity, when he discoursed on any subject he undertook; and this not only in understanding it, but in persuading other men also to assent to him. He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for before Abram came into Egypt they were unacquainted with those parts of learning; for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from thence to the Greeks also.

This undoubtedly did not happen, but it suited Josephus as a proud Jew to tell his people's story in a way that flattered them.

Joseph Smith, an American of the 19th century, took Josephus' ideas about Abraham and updated them for his own purposes. He shared the revelation that God gave Abraham that enabled Abraham to school the priests and pharaoh:

15 And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words.

None of this stuff happened. It is not historically accurate. OK? It was not written to be historically accurate according to our understanding. All of these accounts were written for other purposes than to craft a scientific history. They are true to the extent that they seek to communicate something of great value to and about the time, place, and culture that they come out.

Most interesting!
We need to get you on my show and talk through stuff like this, I can see it being quite valuable for ALL of us