Shulem, One of the King’s Principal Waiters (Facsimile 3, Figure 5)

[Shulem]

But even if the Hebrews were (among) the Hyksos, it doesn't mean that any of the Genesis or Exodus stories are true, any more than the legends of Romulus and Remus were true of Rome's founding. And as we've both discussed, the Bible chronology is completely wrong regarding Egypt, in addition to being filled with impossible claims of people living hundreds of years, among many others.

I am so glad you are here, Alphus and Omegus. Sometimes I feel so alone on this f-ing board and I can scream and scream and scream and people don't get it because they've not researched chronology and understand the true implications of what the numbers entail.

THANK YOU for being here. You're my hero today.

[Shulem]

Did you read their chapter trying to spin Joseph Smith's misidentification of Isis as the pharaoh in Facsimile 3? It's pretty hilarious:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/isis ... -figure-2/

Yes, I've read it and have offered a reply up in the Celestial forum:

“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

[Alphus and Omegus]

But even if the Hebrews were (among) the Hyksos, it doesn't mean that any of the Genesis or Exodus stories are true, any more than the legends of Romulus and Remus were true of Rome's founding. And as we've both discussed, the Bible chronology is completely wrong regarding Egypt, in addition to being filled with impossible claims of people living hundreds of years, among many others.

I am so glad you are here, Alphus and Omegus. Sometimes I feel so alone on this f-ing board and I can scream and scream and scream and people don't get it because they've not researched chronology and understand the true implications of what the numbers entail.

THANK YOU for being here. You're my hero today.

You're welcome. I personally find the Abraham stuff to be the most interesting part of Joseph Smith's corpus because it presents his most mature theology and also his attempts to engage in secular scholarship. This was a unique mode of behavior among 19th century Great Awakening founders.

I suspect that because you've posted most of your research in the less popular Celestial forum that it hasn't been as noticed. I enjoy reading it but I admit that I generally read the Terrestrial and Spirit Paradise forums.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Did you read their chapter trying to spin Joseph Smith's misidentification of Isis as the pharaoh in Facsimile 3? It's pretty hilarious:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/isis ... -figure-2/

Yes, I've read it and have offered a reply up in the Celestial forum:

“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Thanks for linking that thread again. I had read the first part of it but because I don't frequent Celestial, I missed this post which I think is absolutely correct.

I find it interesting that Joseph Smith did not provide proper names for King Pharaoh and his Prince in the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. And yet, Smith generously provides the names and titles for lesser characters, namely: Shulem the waiter and Olimlah the slave. Why did Smith reveal the names of lesser characters and leave off the names of the most important characters in all of Egypt? Smith knew full well that several proper names for Pharaohs were contained in the Bible such as Necho and Shishak. He was also aware of the detailed account in the Book of Jasher about Abraham going into Egypt and the king being infatuated with Sarah’s beauty. Although the name of the king and names of his royal house are not mentioned in Jasher or the Bible, it’s reasonable to think that Smith may have supposed it was written in another account contained in historical records in which he was unfamiliar. Smith knew that there were many historical records and accounts of ancient biblical dealings that he was not versed in and he may have considered the possibility that royal names during Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt may have been mentioned in those accounts.

Therefore, I offer my conjecture that Smith was not willing to chance it. He was not going to risk that some informed scholar could question his revelation about the royal names posted for the King & Prince of Facsimile No. 3. Why take that chance? But providing the proper names for a servant and slave could certainly never be traced or proven otherwise. So, I think Smith neglected to reveal royal names because he feared that they could be disproved.

This makes so much sense. And there's a parallel with the Exodus narrative as well which also doesn't name the Egyptian king who supposedly was killed in the Red Sea. If your god kills an Egyptian king, there's no way that you wouldn't preserve the name of the king in your records. Killing a pharaoh is the ultimate hunting trophy for a god!

But the story never actually happened and so that's why they didn't bother to name the king. Mythical origin stories must not be too detailed because that makes them vulnerable to being debunked.

Both the Exodus pharaoh and the Book of Abraham pharaoh should be named. That they aren't is extremely suspicious.

[Shulem]

It's notable that the word "hand" does not appear in the very short essay.

Right, they don't want to concentrate on the area that proves Smith didn't know what he was talking about -- the very hieroglyphic writing does NOT spell the name "Shulem!" John Gee knows that there is nothing he can say, no amount of tricks he can play, and nothing to suggest that the name Shulem is represented by the hieroglyphic characters above the hand.

Instead of an intelligent confession explaining how Smith's translation of the hieroglyphic characters don't add up, we are given a snappy statement aimed at lessoning the impact of Smith's inability to explain what was going on in the scene:

We don’t know anything more about the man Shulem beyond this brief description because he does not appear in the text of the Book of Abraham. blah blah blah

Oh, you don't say! Really? I never would have figured that out had you not told me. But you claim to know his name is Shulem and that he is the king's steward. Where in the hieroglyphs above his hand indicate that nonsense?

You're a liar and a cheat, John Gee. You're a dishonest man.

[hauslern]

Why is the "slave" holding onto the waiter likewise the prince of pharaoh holding hands with a servant waiter. Doesn't "shulems" real name appear above his head as "hor"

[Alphus and Omegus]

I'm no Egyptologist, but I think also that it's incredibly offensive that Joseph Smith interpolated a servant (Shulem) and a slave (Olimlah) into a text about a deceased nobleman becoming deified by the gods.

What he did would be equivalent to someone looking at a nativity scene and saying that it was really about a farmer's family celebrating the birth of their new grand child, that the three kings from afar are actually some field slaves on leave from castrating sheep, and that the mother was being welcomed home after turning back from a life of prostitution.

Smith took probably the most iconic and sacred Egyptian rite and totally profaned it. It's really quite outrageous, and I think only our Shulem and Robert Ritner have really enunciated that appropriately.

Beyond being offensive, though, it's also nonsensical that the Egyptians would have ever bothered to depict servants and slaves into such a prominent scene of a nobleman being received by the gods. It's like putting a taxi driver into the Mormon temple play asking people if they want a ride when they're running an errand for Elohim.

Even if Facsimile 3 were a depiction of Abram interacting with the king, there's no way that he would have bothered to include servants and slaves in the scene with him. That grossly diminishes his own significance to do so. You'd want to depict legions of princes and generals paying honor rather than a servant and a slave hanging out.

[hauslern]

Have u seen this? https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show ... ri-e23d325

Really worth listening too. Three theories.

1. Joseph Smith translated or pretended to translate from the surviving fragments

2. 19th century eye witnesses the "long roll theory

3. Smith by revelation.

I think theory 3 is all they have to use to keep credibility

[Alphus and Omegus]

Have u seen this? https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show ... ri-e23d325

Really worth listening too. Three theories.

1. Joseph Smith translated or pretended to translate from the surviving fragments

2. 19th century eye witnesses the "long roll theory"

3. Smith by revelation.

I think theory 3 is all they have to use to keep credibility

That seems to be an audio version of this article:
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the- ... th-papyri/

And yes, I agree, the "catalyst" theory is basically the only theory that can survive the harsh reality that the text of Book of Abraham does not match the Egyptian glyphs at all. Believing the other two is a recipe for insanity.

[Moksha]

But I just don't know if Kerry's eyes have been open whereby he can see that Toto has opened the curtain and the lying wizard has been fully exposed for what he is.

How can we find out if Kerry is in an Eyes Open state of mind? Might there be a tonal indicator in how he says, "Yeah Baby"? Shulem, let's hope your message gets through and there can be a true Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra moment.