Shulem wrote:Nero? What does Nero have to do with Facsimile No. 3 and the funerary writing therein? My answer: Absolutely nothing. Just like Nero has nothing to do with a photo of Clark Goble with his name under it.
Again, I'm just asking question. I don't know enough here to really have much of an opinion. But if we're looking at the papyri purely in terms of being 1st century productions, then doesn't how those would have been used within Roman culture matter? That is you're emphasizing the use in the original Egyptian setting. But we know in the 1st century huge fixation with Egypt including allowing various Egyptian inspired cults to spring up. Why should we assume the papyri were used only in an original Egyptian setting rather than the broader Roman setting?
Again this is pretty independent of the question of Abraham or the meaning of the vignette in its Egyptian setting. Rather this is the question of use of Egyptian materials in ways that were undeniably not accurate to the Egyptian context. (Indeed the Isis/Osiris cults in Rome bore only passing connection with accurate Egyptian beliefs as I understand it -- to the point that Isis and Hathor were merged)
I recognize that one strong argument for an Egyptian rather than Roman connection was their origin in Thebes. I was just curious if there were other markers for that argument.
Shulem wrote:I don't think it was Joseph Smith's original idea taken out of thin air, per se. There were rumors and ideas of such thing running rampant and Joseph Smith got wind of it and capitalized on it when the Egyptian exhibit made its way to Kirtland. The Christians were merely trying to increase faith among their people and Smith took advantage of an opportunity that already existed.
You don't need to even appeal to that. Part and parcel of the general masonic culture were the hermetic beliefs that Hermes Trismegistus was a contemporary of either Moses or Abraham. There was even a strong tradition that true theology came from Hermes and that the Hermetic beliefs predated Moses and that Judaism formed a kind of apostate version of them. They also attributed these beliefs (which really date to 100 - 300 AD as part of theurgical platonism) to the hermetic tradition.
So Joseph would already have been primed to believe in this stuff. And much of his work around the text involves a lot of these traditions. So Abraham 3 in particular offers several parallels to theurgical platonic and hermetic writings.
But we know in the 1st century huge fixation with Egypt including allowing various Egyptian inspired cults to spring up. Why should we assume the papyri were used only in an original Egyptian setting rather than the broader Roman setting?
If we are after actual knowledge then these issues become relevant. If we are looking to find out if Joseph Smith was prophetically accurate this is fundamentally irrelevant because of what he himself and many others said about the papyri, which we now know is just wrong. Joseph Smith made many claims that have not panned out with actual Egyptological knowledge. To a believing Mormon and the Book of Abraham that is all that matters. Even under inspiration (again, definitely claimed God Himself informed them), they got it wrong, which means so did God. That is the basis of my failure to continue accepting what Joseph Smith said about anything concerning the papyri or Abraham. It's guess work, and he was wrong. That is what my chapter set out to find out. Just what did Joseph Smith himself know about all this? It turns out nothing of any actual value or reality of the ancient world of the Egyptian religion or the papyri he purchased. Now there is actual and real knowledge about the influence of Egypt in the first century B.C. through a few hundred years, but this has nothing to do with Joseph Smith or Book of Abraham authenticity.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
ClarkGoble wrote:Why should we assume the papyri were used only in an original Egyptian setting rather than the broader Roman setting?
No assumption necessary. The text and story has already been translated. Interesting one of the most important issues regarding Joseph's claim of prophet-hood and you admit you know little of it.
Clark, where is God in all this? Maybe out having lunch at the time? Possible if you believe a day where God lives is a thousand years to us. Maybe lunch is too long and he was using the lavatory.
ClarkGoble wrote:So Joseph would already have been primed to believe in this stuff. And much of his work around the text involves a lot of these traditions. So Abraham 3 in particular offers several parallels to theurgical platonic and hermetic writings.
Joseph Smith was a common thief. He stole from the KJV. He stole from the Masons. He stole from the Egyptians. He stole other men's wives. The list goes on and on. Mormons today who approve of Joseph Smith's Egyptian lies are sharing themselves in his lies and are in some ways no better than he is. Mormonism is all about lying and deception. Everything Joseph Smith ever said about the Book of Abraham are lies.
Themis wrote:Clark, where is God in all this? Maybe out having lunch at the time? Possible if you believe a day where God lives is a thousand years to us. Maybe lunch is too long and he was using the lavatory.
Well for discussion I'm leaving the religious angles out of it. Just as a person who's interested in the philosophy of late antiquity I find it interesting. Although the expansion of cults with strong Egyptian influence started centuries earlier. As I recall there was an Isis cult in Athens around the 4th century. If I recall Alexander then expanded that in a syncretic form as he conquered the region. In the 1st century BC with the Roman era there was more tension with it for various reasons. Several emperors outlawed Egyptian related cults. But with Nero they were pushed pretty hard, possibly contributing to the rise of more theurgical platonism and paganism just prior to the dominance of Christianity.
Shulem wrote:Joseph Smith was a common thief. He stole from the KJV. He stole from the Masons. He stole from the Egyptians. He stole other men's wives. The list goes on and on. Mormons today who approve of Joseph Smith's Egyptian lies are sharing themselves in his lies and are in some ways no better than he is. Mormonism is all about lying and deception. Everything Joseph Smith ever said about the Book of Abraham are lies.
That doesn't really answer my question. Plus nearly all thinkers borrow from other thinkers. So even if you think Joseph a fraud, he's not really doing much different from prior major thinkers like Swedenborg, Ficino, or others.
What was that Steve Jobs quote? Good artists copy, great artists steal.
Themis wrote:No assumption necessary. The text and story has already been translated. Interesting one of the most important issues regarding Joseph's claim of prophet-hood and you admit you know little of it.
Well I know a bit, but I've just not had time to follow apologetics the past decade or so. So I have no clue what the current theories all are nor where the current state of affiars is. I'd read Nibley's stuff way back in the day, but he's coming from the structuralist myth-criticism school of thought. To my eyes I'm not sure I buy that entire set of premises behind Campbell, Eliade and company. They're interesting for a set of meanings, but not terribly useful for finding out what came from where.
Themis wrote:Clark, where is God in all this? Maybe out having lunch at the time? Possible if you believe a day where God lives is a thousand years to us. Maybe lunch is too long and he was using the lavatory.
Well for discussion I'm leaving the religious angles out of it. Just as a person who's interested in the philosophy of late antiquity I find it interesting. Although the expansion of cults with strong Egyptian influence started centuries earlier. As I recall there was an Isis cult in Athens around the 4th century. If I recall Alexander then expanded that in a syncretic form as he conquered the region. In the 1st century BC with the Roman era there was more tension with it for various reasons. Several emperors outlawed Egyptian related cults. But with Nero they were pushed pretty hard, possibly contributing to the rise of more theurgical platonism and paganism just prior to the dominance of Christianity.
None of that is relevant to Joseph's papyri and what he claims about it through divine assistance. We have all three facsimiles and the text that goes with it. We already know what the story is actually about, and it's nothing to do with Abraham. This is not in any real dispute among the experts who can read it.
If you admit the papyri has nothing to do with Abraham then the religious question has to come into how you explain what Joseph and the divine were doing and why. If you want to believe Joseph was inspired of God, and not where the evidence points, which is making it all up.
