DiscussMormonism.com

Hello all. This is my first post although I am a long time lurker. There was an excellent discussion on the book of Abraham a while ago. It was titled positive evidences for the Book of Abraham. It covered a lot of territory and there were some outstanding aspects brought forth, although they were primarily from the critics. To help me better understand the apologist and the critics positions I am asking for your input. I would like to have a discussion on Olishem.

I am asking for apologist to present an explanation as to what Olishem is and why it supports their position. I am asking the critics to do likewise.

I would ask to have supporting evidence primarily shown here and not just a link to some other information, although links are greatly appreciated. I feel this will help the discussion greatly.

My hope is to keep this on point and to help me and others less knowledgeable understand both sides. Thanks. frodo

For a critical response to Olishem (Ulishim) see Christopher Woods essay in Ritner's "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri". 2011 p.74

Woods argues against Ulishim as being Olishem for the following reasons.

1.The is no evidence of regular worship of Egyptian Gods in this area at that time.
2. The phonetic link between Olishem and Ulishim is 'superficial", "accidental" ("cuneiform sources attest thousands of place names" so a superficial match is not surprise) and such a match "would have to be based on much more substantial evidence."
3. Potiphar's Hill "has no place linguistically or culturally in the toponymy of Southern or Northern Mesopotamia."
4. If Ulishim is to be considered as a match for Olishem it would make no sense geographically in the context of Abraham's travels from Ur to Haran and subsequently to Canan because it would lie west of Haran. Haran could not be considered en route from Ulishem to Canaan.

I believe the apologetic position is "Hey look it sounds close, how could Joseph Smith have known?"

Apologetic sources to check on this same issue are Gee, Mulhstein and Hoskisson. Ill try and look for some links to their articles later on.

Actually, let's discuss those points: http://valsederholm.blogspot.com/2010/04/plain-of-olishem-and-field-of-abram.html

1. If the Book of Abraham is to be believed, then the reference to Egyptian Gods and Egyptian names for places like Potiphar's Hill suggests a later date for the Patriarchal Age then is generally assumed.
2. The actual place name found in the Akkadian record is Ulisem ((u[2]-li-se[2]-em) and shows that Olishem has semetic roots (by the way - there is a degree of interchangability of english vowels and consonants for Akkadian). Also, bear in mind that Hebrew wasn't in use at this time. The language used by the Chaldeans was the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian however which is interesting.
3. Again, if there is a later date for the Patriarchal Age and the Egyptians had pre-dominance for a time, it shouldn't be surprising that the names for places used at that time would have been Egyptian in some cases and lost as their influence waned.
4. The Akkadian record states "Naram-Sin the strong defeated Arman and Ebla and from the banks of the Euphrates as far as Ulisum." It is hard to say if it is a good match or not for the location discussed in the Book of Abraham.

Did Nibley ever establish a time frame for Abraham or was it just dictated by what ever evidence he wanted to fit into his current argument?

Fence Sitter wrote:Did Nibley ever establish a time frame for Abraham or was it just dictated by what ever evidence he wanted to fit into his current argument?

I don't know or maybe (I'm just spitballing) we should look at what is stated before making assumptions. Clearly the Bible mentions that Abram (Abraham) was of the Chaldees as well. But I suppose we shouldn't believe in the Bible since it doesn't fit the time frame?!?

Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

I don't think the problem with the Book of Abraham mentioning Potiphar's Hill is a time frame issue so much as location. It is mentioned in Abraham as being in the "land of Ur" which is in Mesopotamia, probably southern. Wood's point is that Potiphar does not belong in Mesopotamia linguistically or culturally as it is "Egyptian in derivation". Moving the time frame of Abraham does not solve the problem.

Fence Sitter wrote:I don't think the problem with the Book of Abraham mentioning Potiphar's Hill is a time frame issue so much as location. It is mentioned in Abraham as being in the "land of Ur" which is in Mesopotamia, probably southern. Wood's point is that Potiphar does not belong in Mesopotamia linguistically or culturally as it is "Egyptian in derivation". Moving the time frame of Abraham does not solve the problem.

The hill was where sacrifices were being conducted by a "priest of Pharoh' (according to the Book of Abraham). It was of significance and would have been named by the predominant cultural/religious influence of the time. The criticism is complete non-sense if you spend even a moment considering what is described in the Book of Abraham.

Maybe we need to back up and see what we agree on then.

Here are some of the assumptions that I am using.

The 'alter' in Abr 1:10 is "by a hill called Potiphar's Hill at the head of the plain in Olishem".
Verse 20 places Potiphar's Hill in the land of Ur of Chaldea.

Do we agree that Abraham is stating that Potiphar's Hill is in the land of Ur of Chaldea?

I don't see why that was necessary, but yes.

Tobin wrote:I don't see why that was necessary, but yes.

Then please explain more why you think the time frame has anything to do with Abrham's use of Potiphar and the location does not.

I am not trying to argue with you here Tobin but I would like to understand your point better.