DiscussMormonism.com

Although I am ordinarily tremendously averse to listening to podcasts, which I consider an extremely awkward medium for presenting scholarly conclusions, I broke down and listened to David Bokovoy's just-posted series on Facsimile 3. There are three parts so far, but I get the impression there will be more. I suppose I'll probably take further notes and post them as he goes, if I can convince myself it's worth investing the time required. Here are notes on the first three parts

Part 1:

• Joseph Smith is not trying to reproduce an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents
• Ritner’s criticism is the only critique of the Book of Abraham that isn’t silly. Ritner obviously has an agenda to mock and belittle the Book of Abraham, should not have used the language he used.
• Ritner claimed the meaning of the document is “certain”, but David points out that language is symbolic and like all symbols can have more than one meaning. Joseph Smith gives this document a new Sitz im Leben and thus a new meaning. This is what he is doing when he interprets the figures in Facsimile 3 in something other than the way the ancient Egyptians interpreted them.
• This standard Egyptian presentation scene actually derives from Mesopotamia, are seen on cylinder seals. These show a deified figure seated on a throne, often include a symbolic hand clasp, show someone being introduced into the presence of the deified figure. In Sumerian seals, the person on the throne is a human, deified king, just as Joseph Smith interprets Figure 1 in Facsimile 3.
• When we consider Joseph’s interpretation of this facsimile, it “comes alive with theological depth and meaning”.

Part 2:

• Facsimile 3 shows the deified deceased person “at the veil”, being introduced into the heavenly council or assembly. In Joseph Smith’s interpretation, Abraham is the enthroned god.
• During the Ur-III period, Sumerian kings begin to be depicted as deified, and are so presented in the cylinder seals that inspired the Egyptian presentation scenes.
• From a Sumerian perspective, this scene is “temple drama”: a person enters the presence of a god with a spiritual guide and clasps the deity’s hand.
• The scene is not foreign to the biblical world. In Ps. 73:23, the king claims to be continually with God and to grasp his right hand. This indicates the conferral of privilege and charisma on the king.
• In Facsimile 3, Hor clasps hands with lady Ma’at and is introduced at the veil.

Part 3:

• According to D&C 132:29, Abraham has entered into his exaltation and sits upon his throne.
• Revelation refers to our becoming kings and priests and reigning on the earth.
• From this angle, the Facsimile presents a “type” of what would eventually occur for Abraham as a result of his faithfulness: his deification. When Abraham sits on the throne, he becomes the deified Osiris.
• The star imagery at the top of Facsimile 3 is reminiscent of the “dinger” symbol on the Mesopotamian cylinder symbols, which was originally a star but later just a web-shaped writing reminiscent of a cross. The stars were connected with deities, were included in the cylinder seals to mark the king as a divine being.
• The presence of the stars in Facsimile 3 are interesting because they connect back with the astrological imagery in chapter 3. Joseph Smith uses this to introduce his material about the divine council.
• We find the same sort of view in the Hebrew Bible. There is evidence that some Israelite kings were considered deified, and participated in enthronement rituals that changed them from humans into gods. Enthronement = apotheosis.
• When we combine Joseph’s views with Ancient Near Eastern views, we get rich theological implications.

ad

My main objection to David's argument is basically that it relies on some assumptions that he does not defend, and that I think are erroneous. Consider the following unsourced claims:

CaliforniaKid wrote:

• Joseph Smith is not trying to reproduce an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents
• Joseph Smith gives this document a new Sitz im Leben and thus a new meaning. This is what he is doing when he interprets the figures in Facsimile 3 in something other than the way the ancient Egyptians interpreted them.

I see no evidence that Joseph thought he was doing anything other than reproducing an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents. David's claim requires vigorous defense to overcome the prima facie evidence to the contrary. Why should we accept that when Joseph claimed King Pharaoh's name was given in the label above his head, he meant, "I am recontextualizing this document in order to make the labels above the figures' heads mean something other than what they meant to ancient Egyptians"?

Moreover, if David's claim is accepted, then why didn't Joseph make it clearer to his contemporaries what he was doing? Does not presenting his project as conventional translation constitute a fraud of sorts, albeit a "pious" one?

And finally, if Joseph was recontextualizing the document, why on earth should we assume that ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals can shed theological light on his recontextualization? Why not treat it as a nineteenth-century production? David's methodology here appears to be a slightly more reserved version of the Nibley-mish-mash approach to apologetics: cite evidence from times and cultures not directly relevant to the interpreted document in order to produce desirable results.

Best,

-Chris

Hey Chris,

I'm not going to have enough time and/or interest to carry on an extended discussion on one board, let alone two.

Still, I appreciate your thoughtful critique and for those interested, here is my basic response:

Thanks for listening to my ideas and taking the time to respond. I admit that an audio podcast is cumbersome and not an ideal forum for scholarly exchange, but it provides an opportunity to share some ideas without having to take the time to write them up.

Besides that, I can present my religious views in the context of playing songs like "Dirty Water," which is always fun.

The problem, of course, is that I may on occasion use a word or two that does not correctly reflect my views, so I recognize that I might at some point need to go back and revise a statement, etc.

However,

I see no evidence that Joseph thought he was doing anything other than reproducing an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents. David's claim requires vigorous defense to overcome the prima facie evidence to the contrary.

Joseph believed that he had in his possession “the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus” (see History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 248-351).

Hence, Joseph did not assume that he was reproducing an ancient Egyptian understanding of texts such as facsimile 3, Joseph believed that he was restoring the way Abraham used these documents to restore Abraham’s life history and theological views.

Even Oliver Cowdery's attempt to interpret Joseph Smith Papyrus V presents the pictographic portrayals in terms of ancient Israelite tradition, including Satan's influence in the Garden of Eden, Enoch's pillar, etc.

Why should we accept that when Joseph claimed King Pharaoh's name was given in the label above his head, he meant, "I am recontextualizing this document in order to make the labels above the figures' heads mean something other than what they meant to ancient Egyptians"?

I’ll grant that Joseph believed that he could correctly interpret the Hieroglyphics, but that does not equate to Joseph Smith restoring an ancient Egyptian understanding of these texts.

Moreover, if David's claim is accepted, then why didn't Joseph make it clearer to his contemporaries what he was doing? Does not presenting his project as conventional translation constitute a fraud of sorts, albeit a "pious" one?

I believe that Joseph assumed he was producing a literal translation when in fact he clearly was not. I believe that Joseph failed to recognize that he was in fact simply recontextualizing this document to depict ancient Near Eastern and biblical theological views regarding human deification/enthronement, premortal existence, and the divine council of deities, not to mention, obviously, events from the life of Abraham.

And finally, if Joseph was recontextualizing the document, why on earth should we assume that ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals can shed theological light on his recontextualization?

Well, clearly because the Egyptian drama derives from ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals that in the Ur IIII time period depict human deification.

I believe that the deification of kings from this era had a tremendous cultural influence upon the ancient Semitic world, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, which served in part, as a polemical response to the sacred marriage rituals of the Neo-Sumerian time period.

I believe that the Epic of Gilgamesh, in turn, had a direct influence upon biblical myths and that Israelite kings, like their Canaanite counterparts, were deified via the process of enthronement.

These views regarding kingship and deification continue to have significance in the New Testament (see Revelation 1:6; 5:10, etc.).

So when Joseph Smith recontextualizes an Egyptian presentation scene to depict Abraham as the enthroned god/king in facsimile no. 3, Joseph has created an undeniable link between ancient Near Eastern and biblical views regarding enthronement and human deification that reflects Joseph’s revelation regarding Abraham’s present glorified state: “[Abraham] hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne” (D&C 132:29).

Why not treat it as a nineteenth-century production? David's methodology here appears to be a slightly more reserved version of the Nibley-mish-mash approach to apologetics: cite evidence from times and cultures not directly relevant to the interpreted document in order to produce desirable results.

Because of course facsimile no. 3 is not a nineteenth-century production, Chris.

Historically, the Egyptian scene derives from ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals that depict a temple drama, and which during the Ur III period were connected with human deification, an ancient Semitic belief which in turn is a biblical concept restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Hi C-kid, you said:

And finally, if Joseph was recontextualizing the document, why on earth should we assume that ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals can shed theological light on his recontextualization? Why not treat it as a nineteenth-century production? David's methodology here appears to be a slightly more reserved version of the Nibley-mish-mash approach to apologetics: cite evidence from times and cultures not directly relevant to the interpreted document in order to produce desirable results.

Interesting 1,2,3 stuff in OP. As well your comments above. It all makes me wonder about the time spent on any of this--except as a hobby, such as collecting Hockey/Basball Cards, or artifacts of other times.

When the conclusion is reached that the original Mesopotamian things are only recording myths, or history, that doesn't impact reality with absolute evidence of Universal truth being a part of what is passed on by these recordings, then their author authenticity seems of little importance, other than novelty, to them serving any practical purpose???

In that light (dim that it might be :-) Joe's makes as good reading as any. Right??
Roger
*
*

P.S. Without going back and listening, I'm not sure exactly what I said, but when referring to Ritner’s criticism as the only critique of the Book of Abraham that isn’t silly, I specifically had in mind Anti-Mormon critiques, i.e. works intentionally designed to mock and belittle the beliefs of Latter-day Saints.

As I've illustrated on my blog and now on my website, clearly Ritner's article falls into this category.

I would not, however, place the work of Brent Metcalfe, for example, into this same genre.

Brent is no Charles Larson.

Whereas Brent's efforts have certainly challenged in a healthy way the traditional orthodox interpretation of the Book of Abraham, I in no way would define his work as Anti-Mormon in scope and actually enjoy reading his insights.

Like many others here at MD, I'm looking forward to the eventual publication of Brent's book.

I apologize if I was in anyway unclear in my informal, off the cuff remarks. No one should leave my site confused now via an updated post.

best,

-DB

Hi, David!

Thanks for the clarification of your views posted on MADB; that helps a little, although it's still difficult to have a conversation about a view of the Book that isn't clear even to the one who holds it. I'll do my best.

I should begin by stating my own view that there probably was not a historical Abraham, or if there was, that the information related in Genesis about his life probably is not especially accurate. It is not that I see an overwhelming weight of evidence against the existence of a historical Abraham, but rather that the account of his life was written so long after the murky pre-history it purports to relate that I don't particularly see why the account should be trusted.

As for the inspiration of the Book of Abraham, you might be surprised to learn that I am not averse to the view that it reflects an inspiration of sorts. As a pluralist, I believe that the divine inhabits and is accessible to us all, perhaps embedded archetypally deep within our subconscious minds. These Jungian archetypes, which the great psychologist referred to collectively as the image of God, are brought to conscious awareness by art and myths and dreams. Such symbolic expressions enable us to give shape to impulses that are otherwise beyond the reach of our understanding. I believe this is part of the reason that similar religious ideas recur across vast distances of space, time, and culture. (Of course, another reason is simply that such ideas are more virulent than generally realized, and are frequently nursed and remembered in obscure texts and arcane traditions even after they have fallen out of popular favor; here they patiently wait until the time is right for them to reassert themselves.) In my view, of course, the Book of Abraham and ancient Mesopotamian religion are not inspired in the sense that they contain any propositionally true messages. Nor does their being "inspired" productions in the pluralists' understanding of the term assuage the prophet's culpability for any deliberately fraudulent claims he may have made about his ability to read ancient hieroglyphic script. Nor, frankly, does my pluralist understanding of inspiration allow that Joseph Smith knew any more about ancient Mesopotamia than he did about ancient Egypt. But it does mean this: that I can appreciate the text and its mythic symbols, even as I express my profound skepticism concerning your conclusions about its connections to the ancient world.

David Bokovoy wrote:Joseph believed that he had in his possession “the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus” (see History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 248-351).

Hence, Joseph did not assume that he was reproducing an ancient Egyptian understanding of texts such as facsimile 3, Joseph believed that he was restoring the way Abraham used these documents to restore Abraham’s life history and theological views.

The prophet's comments suggest that Abraham himself authored the facsimiles, and that they were designed to depict scenes from Abraham's life. The prophet's comments also suggest that he thought Abraham had labeled the facsimiles in fairly conventional Egyptian hieroglyphic script, and that the prophet's interpretations of these texts reflected both the Egyptological meaning and the intent of the author, Abraham.

I'm glad to see you grant, at least, that Joseph claimed he could correctly interpret the hieroglyphics. In addition to Mortal's instructive quotations, I will merely point out that Joseph's bound Alphabet and Grammar was of "the Egyptian Language," not "the Abrahamic Recontextualization of the Egyptian Language."

So when Joseph Smith recontextualizes an Egyptian presentation scene to depict Abraham as the enthroned god/king in facsimile no. 3, Joseph has created an undeniable link between ancient Near Eastern and biblical views regarding enthronement and human deification that reflects Joseph’s revelation regarding Abraham’s present glorified state: “[Abraham] hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne” (D&C 132:29).

The link you perceive is hardly "undeniable". Joseph Smith does not identify this as a presentation scene, of either the Egyptian or Mesopotamian variety. He expresses no awareness that it is a stock Egyptian scene or that it has Mesopotamian roots, and he certainly does not claim that its Mesopotamian roots are reflected in his interpretation of the vignette. Your analysis tells us what the theological meaning of the vignette might be if the significance of these factors is admitted, but it does not in and of itself establish that said significance should be admitted. A more likely backdrop for the prophet's interpretation, given what he actually says in his explanations of the Facsimile, is Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapters 7 and 8. We know from Cowdery's letter to William Frye that he was reading Josephus in conjunction with the interpretation of the vignettes on the papyri.

I agree with you that the vignette as Joseph interpreted it is a classic, ironic role-reversal. Abraham comes to the king of Egypt, who claims priesthood from Ham, and pharaoh implicitly recognizes Abraham as the true priest and king. I also agree with you that Joseph saw Abraham's enthronement in the court of pharaoh as symbolically presaging his final, eternal enthronement. But this all seems to me to be suggested by a combination of Josephus, the vignette itself, and Joseph's developing theology during this period. I see no need to posit that the prophet miraculously accessed ancient Mesopotamian presentation motifs in order to arrive at his interpretation. Saying that the prophet's views of deification mirror ancient Mesopotamian religion because ancient Mesopotamian religion in these respects was true is one thing. But saying that the prophet actually had miraculous access to ancient Mesopotamian concepts (despite apparently not having had the same access to ancient Egyptian ones) is quite another. It seems to me that your view multiplies complexities that need not be multiplied.

As a sidenote, the passage you cite from D&C 132 actually provides support for Susan Staker's suggestion that the narrative of God commanding Abraham to lie about his marital relations was designed to justify the prophet's ongoing deception concerning Nauvoo polygamy. This D&C section, which is of course the famous polygamy revelation, genealogically links Joseph Smith to Abraham and promises that the exaltation and increase of seed promised and given to Abraham will be available to Joseph also, if Joseph will obey the commandments. It then argues,

God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

Earlier you referred to polygamy as a "mistake". It seems to me that your cardinal text for linking Facsimile 3 to deification is thoroughly implicated in that mistake.

I would like to encourage you, and anyone else who is reading this, to think of the Book of Abraham and the facsimile explanations as "inspired" nineteenth-century productions rather than insisting on some ancient context. Certainly much of the mystique of Restoration theology comes from the way that it is wrapped in stories about antiquity, and I can understand the reluctance to risk losing that mystique. But when the texts are approached with a "second naïvété", as sacred stories and symbols rather than as genuine histories, I believe it is possible to retain the mystique. It may seem that the mystique must be fundamentally changed, from a mystique of history to a mystique of poetry. But in truth, it is merely recognized for what it really is: it has been poetry all along.

Best,

-Chris

C-kid:

... I believe that the divine inhabits and is accessible to us all, perhaps embedded archetypally deep within our subconscious minds. These Jungian archetypes, which the great psychologist referred to collectively as the image of God, are brought to conscious awareness by art and myths and dreams. Such symbolic expressions enable us to give shape to impulses that are otherwise beyond the reach of our understanding.

I tend to agree. One is born with the "Authority"/Keys to receive and deliver inspiration/revelation/wisdom as they apply their "God" given intellect to problem-solve and aspire to new understanding.

In other words, we are all "Prophets"... Some of whom might be more 'false' than others... That determination is the challenge to all who listen to others; as well as to themselves...
Roger
*
*

David and I have just concluded this interesting discussion at MADB. Here are the major posts from the remainder of the discussion. First from David:

David Bokovoy wrote:Hello Chris,

So let's address your well thought out (although quite lengthy) comments a bit at a time.

Chris Smith wrote:Thanks for the clarification; that helps a little, although it's still difficult to have a conversation about a view of the Book that isn't clear even to the one who holds it. I'll do my best.

My view is clear at a foundational level, however, many of the concepts connected with my understanding are admittedly in a state of flux.

The link you perceive is hardly "undeniable". Joseph Smith does not identify this as a presentation scene, of either the Egyptian or Mesopotamian variety.

This point is irrelevant to my position. The connection between the Mesopotamian and Egyptian presentation scenes and LDS/biblical theology occurs via Joseph’s identification of the enthroned deity as Abraham.

He expresses no awareness that it is a stock Egyptian scene or that it has Mesopotamian roots, and he certainly does not claim that its Mesopotamian roots are reflected in his interpretation of the vignette.

Of course not, which is why I feel so impressed by the connection. The Egyptian scene, together with its Mesopotamian roots, creates an undeniable link between LDS temple worship, deification, and Near Eastern tradition beyond what the Prophet himself was even aware of at the time.

I doubt he even recognized from an ancient Near Eastern perspective how incredibly profound the connection is between the astrological imagery at the beginning of chapter three and the story of the Divine Council at the conclusion of the chapter. But in my mind, the fact that Joseph expresses no awareness of these links actually strengthens the argument for divine inspiration.

Your analysis tells us what the theological meaning of the vignette might be if the significance of these factors is admitted, but it does not in and of itself establish that said significance should be admitted.

And why, pray tell should we ignore ancient Near Eastern connections between the Book of Abraham and LDS theology? Simply because you do not believe the Prophet Joseph was inspired of God?

A more likely backdrop for the prophet's interpretation, given what he actually says in his explanations of the Facsimile, is Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapters 7 and 8. We know from Cowdery's letter to William Frye that he was reading Josephus in conjunction with the interpretation of the vignettes on the papyri.

The fact that Joseph Smith’s interpretation of facsimile 3 appears to have been influenced by Josephus' story of Abraham does not negate the Near Eastern connection between the Prophet’s reading of the facsimile and Abraham’s enthronement/deification in LDS theology.

I agree with you that the vignette as Joseph interpreted it is a classic, ironic role-reversal. Abraham comes to the king of Egypt, who claims priesthood from Ham, and pharaoh implicitly recognizes Abraham as the true priest and king. I also agree with you that Joseph saw Abraham's enthronement in the court of pharaoh as symbolically presaging his final, eternal enthronement.

Excellent. Then you’re on you’re way to understanding what I mean by an undeniable link.

But this all seems to me to be suggested by a combination of Josephus, the vignette itself, and Joseph's developing theology during this period.

Ok.

I see no need to posit that the prophet miraculously accessed ancient Mesopotamian presentation motifs in order to arrive at his interpretation.

I don’t believe that he did. Joseph accessed ancient Israelite concepts that are made clearer for us as interpreters via a proper historical understanding of the Mesopotamian influence upon biblical theology and facsimile 3.

Saying that the prophet's views of deification mirror ancient Mesopotamian religion because ancient Mesopotamian religion in these respects was true is one thing.

Simply because ancient Mesopotamian views regarding deification involved enthronement and sacred marriage does not mean that I believe that the Prophet’s views on these issues “mirror” ancient Mesopotamian religion. Though they do reflect some important elements of the Near Eastern system.

But saying that the prophet actually had miraculous access to ancient Mesopotamian concepts (despite apparently not having had the same access to ancient Egyptian ones) is quite another.

Again, I don’t believe that he accessed either Egyptian or Mesopotamian religion per se, I believe Joseph accessed ancient religious truths attested in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Israelite traditions.

It seems to me that your view multiplies complexities that need not be multiplied.

Not really. It’s only too complex if you assume Joseph Smith was not inspired.

As a sidenote, the passage you cite from D&C 132 actually provides support for Susan Staker's suggestion

I don’t have a problem with seeing a historical connection between Joseph’s attempt to hide his plural marriage practices and the Book of Abraham.

I replied,

Chris Smith wrote:Hi David,

It appears that on some counts we may simply have to agree to disagree. I won't drag this discussion on too much longer, but I would like to respond to at least a couple of your points.

David Bokovoy wrote:The Egyptian scene, together with its Mesopotamian roots, creates an undeniable link between LDS temple worship, deification, and Near Eastern tradition beyond what the Prophet himself was even aware of at the time.

My point is simply that if the prophet was unaware of it and does not make it explicit, he can hardly be given credit for having revealed it. Morgan Robertson was not trying to predict the sinking of the Titanic when she wrote her 1898 novel about a giant ship called the Titan striking an iceberg and sinking. Had she billed her book as a prediction, we might be inclined to label her a prophet on account of her success. Instead, her novel is remembered as one of history's most remarkable coincidences.

I doubt he even recognized from an ancient Near Eastern perspective how incredibly profound the connection is between the astrological imagery at the beginning of chapter three and the story of the Divine Council at the conclusion of the chapter.

This may, as I suggested in my previous post, be the result of reading Josephus in connection with the papyrus vignettes and the prophet's developing theology. Book 1, Chapter 7 of Antiquities says of Abraham,

He was a person of great sagacity, both for understanding all things and persuading his hearers, and not mistaken in his opinions; for which reason he began to have higher notions of virtue than others had, and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God; for he was the first that ventured to publish this notion, That there was but one God, the Creator of the universe; and that, as to other [gods], if they contributed any thing to the happiness of men, that each of them afforded it only according to his appointment, and not by their own power. This his opinion was derived from the irregular phenomena that were visible both at land and sea, as well as those that happen to the sun, and moon, and all the heavenly bodies, thus:—"If [said he] these bodies had power of their own, they would certainly take care of their own regular motions; but since they do not preserve such regularity, they make it plain, that in so far as they co-operate to our advantage, they do it not of their own abilities, but as they are subservient to Him that commands them, to whom alone we ought justly to offer our honor and thanksgiving."

Here the hierarchy of gods is assumed to function in the same way as the hierarchy of celestial bodies. A similar idea, called by Bishop Butler the "analogy of nature", characterized nineteenth century natural theology.

And why, pray tell should we ignore ancient Near Eastern connections between the Book of Abraham and LDS theology? Simply because you do not believe the Prophet Joseph was inspired of God?

By all means, make your ancient Near Eastern connections. I am simply objecting to certain inferences about the meaning and significance of those ancient Near Eastern connections.

Best,

-Chris

David answered,

David Bokovoy wrote:Critics need to recognize that when it comes to the Book of Abraham that they are in fact fighting a losing battle. Contrary to the opinion of detractors, apologists for the Book of Abraham are not simply grasping at far-fetched straws.

There exist three undeniable facts concerning the Book of Abraham:

1. Semitic Adaptation is a fact, not a theory.
2. The type of adaptation responsible for the Book of Abraham, i.e. iconotropy or syncretism appears in the Bible.
3. The Book of Abraham contains a number of direct religious and cultural links with the ancient Near East.

First, Semitic Adaptation in the Book of Abraham is a fact.

The only theoretical aspect to Kevin’s views includes Kevin’s hypothetical Egyptian-Jewish redactor with the original name J-red. According to Kevin’s theory, J-Red adopted or adapted vignettes from a Book of Breathings and a hypocephalus as illustration for the Book of Abraham.

In so doing, J-Red reinterpreted the Egyptian symbols in accordance with Semitic traditions.

Kevin’s view is certainly a possibility. I tend to believe, however, that the evidence suggests that the Prophet Joseph himself is responsible for adapting the Egyptian symbols and putting them into an ancient Semitic context.

When I stated ealier that my understanding of the Book of Abraham is in some areas in a state of flux, this refers to the fact that I am open to having my mind changed by scholars such as John Gee and Brian Hauglid to accept the idea that we do not have the papyrus used by Joseph to produce the Book of Abraham, but at least right now, in my mind that suggestion does not appear very strong.

Like everyone else, I’m anxiously awaiting Brian and Brent’s forthcoming work on the matter and am willing, as a believer, to simply accept which ever way the evidence suggests.

Honestly, whether an ancient Jewish editor or the Prophet Joseph Smith himself was responsible for the Semitic adaptation witnessed in the Book of Abraham, in my mind the result is the exact same: Through the adaptation of Egyptian symbols, the Book of Abraham contains an inspired portrayal of God, man, and the universe.

Second, even a cursory survey of this biblical trend of assimilating while revamping “pagan” religious traditions like those adapted in the Book of Abraham would produce literally hundreds of examples.

One classic illustration of biblical adaptation includes God’s struggle with Leviathan. For a historical consideration of this legend from Near Eastern, to biblical, to finally rabbinic traditions, I would highly recommend Michael Fishbane’s Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Regarding this example of biblical adaptation, C. Uehlinger notes that “some assimilation of Egyptian religious traditions and the Leviathan concept could have occurred in Southern Palestine and Northern Egypt already during the Hyksos period.” C. Uehlinger, “Leviathan,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1999): 513.

Even the prophet Isaiah draws upon this foreign Near Eastern imagery. The Ugaritic tablets indicate that Baal “smote Litan the wriggling serpent, finished off the writhing serpent,” an expression that Isaiah adapts into his prediction that the Lord will eventually punish Leviathan, the wriggling and writhing serpent on the Day of the Lord.  Isaiah’s adaptation of the Canaanite Baal myth, therefore, ultimately provides an important comparison with the Book of Abraham.

Similarly, the conflict between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Son of Man depicted in the book of Daniel parallels the Baal Cycle in which the younger god Baal empowered by the older god El defeats Yam (The Sea); see J.J. Collins, “Stirring up the Sea: The Religio-Historical Background of Daniel 7,” The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings; A.S. van der Woude, ed. (Levuven 1993): 121-126.

As another example of Canaanite influence upon late biblical texts, Simon Parker has argued that the depiction of El’s residence at Ugarit at the springs of the Rivers among the streams of the Deep is “exploited in Ezekiel’s account of the presumptuousness of the king of Tyre, who, Ezekiel says, has claimed, ‘I am God (El), I sit in the seat of God in the midst of the sea’ (Ezek 28:2).” Simon B. Parker, “Ugaritic Literature and the Bible,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63:4 (2000): 231.

Indeed, as Andre Caquot has suggested, imagery associated with early Canaanite mythology may even appear directly reflected within the New Testament:

"No one contests today the fact that knowledge of Ugarit is indispensable for exegetes of the Old Testament. But those of the New Testament should not neglect it either for it attests to details that were long retained by popular memory. The seven-headed best of the Apocalypse of John (12:3) does not come from the visions of Daniel, and Psalm 74 does not mention the number of Leviathan’s multiple heads. On the other hand, the Ugaritic ancestor of this dragon, reportedly defeated by Baal, is certainly the beast with seven heads. We have perhaps not considered sufficiently the fact that in Matthew 6:30-52, Mark 14:13-33 and John 6:1-20, the story of the multiplication of the loaves is immediately followed by the scene describing Jesus walking on the waters as if deliberately recalling two events in the cycle of Baal wherein Baal gives men their nourishment and vanquishes the sea” Andre Caquot, “At the Origins of the Bible,” Near Eastern Archeology 63:4 (2000): 227.

In the Bible, we could just as easily turn to examples of sycretism with ancient Egypt.

Third, well friends, that’s what my little audio presentations were all about.

best,

--DB