Bokovoy on Facsimile 3

[_CaliforniaKid]

The final posts read,

Critics need to recognize that when it comes to the Book of Abraham that they are in fact fighting a losing battle.

That's easy to state, but not so easy to demonstrate.

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.

I agree. Of course, I think he did this by employing resources like the Bible and Josephus rather than by miraculously accessing antiquity via inspiration.

I don't particularly have a problem with the rest of your post. Yes, the Bible did borrow from neighboring cultures and was firmly rooted within its historical context. Just, I might add, as Joseph Smith was.

-Chris

Thanks, Chris.

I don't always agree with your position, but I always enjoy reading what you have to say. As has been said, I too appreciate the friendly way you express your challenges.

best,

--DB

Thanks, David. Always a pleasure to exchange ideas with someone as intelligent, sincere, and irenic as yourself.

[_harmony]

It would help those of us who don't follow Book of Abraham apologetics closely if we could have the Reader's Digest version.

Could you boil this down to the 3 main points that you and EE disagree on, please, each with the appropriate foundation?

Thanks.

[_Who Knows]

Critics need to recognize that when it comes to the Book of Abraham that they are in fact fighting a losing battle.

Uh, wow. That's just amazing. I thought this guy was one of the more reasonable ones. There can hardly be a more openly blatant, clear-cut case of fraud, than what exists with the Book of Abraham. A losing battle? wow, just, wow.

[_Dr. Shades]

Uh, wow. That's just amazing. I thought this guy was one of the more reasonable ones. There can hardly be a more openly blatant, clear-cut case of fraud, than what exists with the Book of Abraham. A losing battle? wow, just, wow.

My thoughts entirely.

Although that's the most egregious case, let's examine the other whoppers:

Joseph Smith is not trying to reproduce an ancient Egyptian understanding of these documents

But he told everyone that he was. Fraud.

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.

In that case, everything means anything, language is unreliable, and everything is a translation of anything.

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.

But that's not what he said he was doing.

When we consider Joseph’s interpretation of this facsimile, it “comes alive with theological depth and meaning”.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

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.

False and false. In Smith's interpretation, Abraham is seated on the throne as a special favor of Pharaoh. There is no "heavenly assembly," it's merely members of the king's court, such as Olishem the waiter.

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.

I doubt it.

In Facsimile 3, Hor clasps hands with lady Ma’at and is introduced at the veil.

That is a blatant falsehood. He's merely sitting on a throne.

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.

Hor, maybe, but not Abraham, since that's not who the facsimile depicts.

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.

Does this "evidence" come from Mormons, or from non-Mormons?

When we combine Joseph’s views with Ancient Near Eastern views, we get rich theological implications.

We get rich theological implications from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion. Doesn't mean it's true.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi, Shades!

In Facsimile 3, Hor clasps hands with lady Ma’at and is introduced at the veil.

That is a blatant falsehood. He's merely sitting on a throne.

I think you confused Hor and Abraham here.

Does this "evidence" come from Mormons, or from non-Mormons?

I'm fairly certain David cited at least one non-Mormon scholar in his podcast. And since scholars will jump at the chance to make a controversial argument, I don't doubt that there are more where that one came from. Although I am no expert in Old Testament studies, what I have read in support of the view that Israelite kings were deified seems pretty thin. Certainly the king was anointed into a special relationship with Yahweh (or his deity of choice), but I don't think Israelite kings claimed divinity.

-Chris

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hi Harmony,

It would help those of us who don't follow Book of Abraham apologetics closely if we could have the Reader's Digest version.

Could you boil this down to the 3 main points that you and EE disagree on, please, each with the appropriate foundation?

Thanks.

David and I actually agree on a great deal. It is sometimes baffling, in fact, how much he can agree with me even while disagreeing about the main issue, Joseph Smith's inspiration.

I guess the crux of our disagreement is that I believe Joseph Smith made his connection between deification and astronomy by means of a human investigation into the sources available to him, including the Bible, Josephus, and the papyri themselves. David believes Joseph could not have made this connection except by means of revelation, which put him in touch with the theology of ancient Mesopotamia more directly.

Hope that helps,

-Chris

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Dr. Shade,

let's examine the other whoppers

I haven’t written any “whoppers,” Dr. Shades.

Might I humbly suggest that you refrain from misinterpreting your lack of understanding as me somehow lying?

Your comments have demonstrated a lack of awareness regarding not only my perspectives regarding the Book of Abraham, but even the observations made by non-LDS scholars, such as Robert Ritner.

Hence, if you’re in part basing your apostasy from Mormonism upon the Book of Abraham as Joseph Smith’s Achilles heel, you may really, really want to reevaluate your position.

In that case, everything means anything, language is unreliable, and everything is a translation of anything.

Please review my post regarding Semitic adaptation in the production of scripture.

False and false. In Smith's interpretation, Abraham is seated on the throne as a special favor of Pharaoh. There is no "heavenly assembly," it's merely members of the king's court, such as Olishem the waiter.

I’m sorry, but you are incorrect. The correct answer is “true and true.”

When I state that Facsimile no. 3 depicts the deified deceased Hor “at the veil,” being introduced into the heavenly council or assembly, I have made an observation sustained by every single learned critic of the document.

As every learned critic knows, in Facsimile 3, the gods who appear assembled in the council setting include Isis, Osiris, Ma'at, Hor, and Anubis.

Figure five is Hor, the deceased and deified owner of the documents which serves as a “permit” created by Isis to assure that this deified man regains the ability to breathe and function after death while enjoying the privileges and responsibilities connected with the members of the divine council of gods.

I suggest you read Robert Ritner's Anti-Mormon article if you still refuse to take my word for it.

Joseph Smith adapts this Egyptian document to provide a depiction of Abraham sitting upon the throne. In other words, the Prophet has adapted an ancient temple drama to depict Abraham receiving sacred privileges from the king, including a type of enthronement.

As I have illustrated, enthronement in the ancient Near East and in the Bible is directly linked with deification. Hence, Joseph’s adaptation of the scene as a depiction of an event in Abraham’s life presents a foreshadowing of Abraham’s current enthronement as an exalted deity within LDS theology (see D&C 132:29).

I recognize that this information has got to prove disturbing to those who want nothing more than to view the Book of Abraham as Joseph's Achilles heel, but I can assure you that I have not presented anything new that learned critics of the text would find objectable.

I doubt it.

Doubt away, my distrustful Brother.

Yet of course your doubts won’t alter the fact that Facsimile no. 3 is a standard ancient Near Eastern temple drama that historically derives from ancient Sumerian cylinder seals, which depict the owner of the document being introduced into the presence of deity via a sacred handclasp.

Here is an example of one such seal from Mesopotamia. Notice the owner of the seal clasping hands with the deity in the same exact manner depicted in Facsimile no. 3.


Concerning the basic pattern for this ritual depiction, Harvard professor Irene Winter explains:

“The approaching individual usually wears a simple fringed garment draped over one shoulder, and one arm at least is bent at the elbow, the hand raised almost to the lips in what seems to be a gesture of greeting” Irene J. Winter, “The King and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals,” Insight Through Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada, (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1986): 254.

This ancient Near Eastern motif, which expresses unity with the divine via the act of a sacred handclasp, appears throughout the biblical psalms in connection with kingship and temple worship:

“Nevertheless I am continually with thee [Oh God] because you have clasped me by my right hand” (Psalm 73:23).

Concerning this important biblical ritual, Psalm’s specialist Hans Joachim Kraus suggests:

“This [the clasping of the right hand] points to a royal (might we even say, messianic) procedure. The formula, ‘God grasps- one by the hand, when the king ascends the throne and is inducted into royal office, denotes the conferring of privilege and charisma on the king (Isaiah 45:1; 42:1)” Hans~Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, 173.

Note the connection between the handclasp and enthronement.

That is a blatant falsehood. He's merely sitting on a throne

.

As Chris has explained, it is once again, you, my friend, who are mistaken. Hor clasps hands with Lady Ma’at in facsimile no. 3. It is Osiris, not Hor, who appears seated upon the throne.

Does this "evidence" come from Mormons, or from non-Mormons?

Yes indeed. I’ll address this question via Chris’ post.

Peace and joy.

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Chris,

Hi, Shades!

I'm fairly certain David cited at least one non-Mormon scholar in his podcast. And since scholars will jump at the chance to make a controversial argument, I don't doubt that there are more where that one came from. Although I am no expert in Old Testament studies, what I have read in support of the view that Israelite kings were deified seems pretty thin. Certainly the king was anointed into a special relationship with Yahweh (or his deity of choice), but I don't think Israelite kings claimed divinity.

-Chris

[/quote]

I'm actually a bit surprised to read this statement.

In reality, the evidence for divinized kings in ancient Israel is really quite compelling. Without this perspective, I find it nearly impossible to make any sense of the later New Testament tradition which indicates that the faithful in Christ will become divinely enthroned kings (see Rev. 1:6; 5:10).

From the Revelator's perspective, "To him that overcometh," Christ will grant the opportunity "to sit with [him] in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3:21).

And surely, with this view, Joseph's interpretation of the Egyptian drama in Facsimile no. 3 in the context of Pharaoh inviting Abraham to share in his glory by sitting upon the divine throne, doesn't seem quite so silly.

Hopefully at this point, you’ve begun getting your hands dirty with some theological German.

If so, I would highly recommend taking the time to explore Kay Weissflog’s “Der König als Kind in Altägypten und im Alten Testament,” in Leqach 6 (2005): 115-152. Weissflog’s article provides an essential background for my views concerning the Book of Abraham.

In the essay, Weissflog discusses the iconographical and textual material from ancient Egypt that reflects the conception of Pharaoh as a divine child. According to a traditional Egyptian perspective, the Pharaoh commenced exercising his divine rule already in the womb. Weissflog suggests that this Egyptian view concerning kingship provided the traditionsgeschichtlich background for a variety of biblical texts, which identify the Israelite king as the “Son of God.”

One classic illustration of this biblical trend includes Psalm 2, which refers to the Judahite king as a deified ruler:

“I, [God], created my king upon my holy hill of Zion… You are my Son, I begat you this day” (Psalm 2:6-7).

My translation from the Hebrew reflects the observations of Jeffery Tigay. In a recent article concerning Psalm 2, Tigay explains that the meaning of the term nsk in verse six, which is usually translated as 'set,' 'put,' 'installed,' 'established,' and 'appointed,” should be understood as meaning 'create' or 'form.'

Hence, from Tigay’s perspective Ps 2:6 refers to the divine 'creation' of the king; see Jeffery Tigay, “Divine Creation of the King in Psalms 2:6,” Eretz-Israel 27 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003): 246-251.

In reality, if one ignores the evidence for the deification of Israelite kings, texts such as Psalm 45 which address the king via the divine vocative elohim, make little sense:

“You must love justice and hate iniquity, because Oh God [Elohim], your God [Elohim], has anointed you” (Psalm 45:8).

I suppose you could try and interpret this biblical text as a reference to God’s, i.e., Elohim’s father anointing him as God, but contextually it is clear that the Israelite king shares this divine title with deity.

In his article entitled “Degrees of Divinity,” Northwest Semitic specialist Nicholas Wyatt refers to the possibility of ritual performances attested in the Bible, which bestowed deification on the king:

“The rituals which transform status of the earthly king, removing him from ‘merely human’ status to that of a sacral figure, to be couched in a narrative about a god, carries with it the hint that the king himself is to be seen as transformed into a god… the enthronement of the king, is thus his apotheosis” N. Wyatt, “Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical and Ritual Aspects of West Semitic Kingship,” Ugarit-Forschungen 31:1999, 857.

In connection with the Book of Abraham, note that the enthronement of the king is his "apotheosis." Wyatt identifies Psalm 19 as one such ritual:

The teaching of Yahweh is perfect,
restoring the breast.

The testimony of Yahweh is certain,
making wise the head,

The precepts of Yahweh are upright,
rejoicing the heart.

The commandment of Yahweh is pure,
making bright the eyes.

The speech of Yahweh is ritually pure,
standing forever.

The judgments of Yahweh are truth,
they are righteous all together,

More desirable than gold,
than much pure gold,

More sweet than honey,
or the refined comb

Your servant is indeed illumined by them,
and in their observance is there great gain

Concerning this passage, Wyatt explains:

“It is true that there is no narrative statement about unction here: oil is not even mentioned. But only thus can the successive blessings on various parts of the king’s body by explained. For comparison we should consider the unction of priests, in Exod 29:4-9,19-2, 40:12-15 and Lev. 8:10-12, 22-24, where various parts of the priest’s body are anointed with oil and blood, undoubtedly with some liturgical commentary on the action, such is now narrated in these passages, providing a suitable performative utterance” Ibid. 875.

Via the tablets of ancient Ugarit, it is easy for contemporary scholars to decipher this ancient Israelite view reflected in the Bible. Consider the Northwest Semitic portrayal of the great King Kirta:

“Must you also, father, die like mortal men… do gods die, does the offspring of the Gracious One not live?... Kirta is a god (bn il)” (see KTU 1.16)

Canaanite kings, like their Israelite counterparts, were considered divine, the offspring of deity, and members of the categorization “Son of God.”

Indeed, it is a well known fact that deceased West Semitic kings appear fully deified in the Ugaritic tables (ca. 1400-1200 BCE).

Most recently, Robert Stieglitz has discussed the well-preserved cuneiform tablets from Ebla’s Royal Palace G which reveal that in ancient Ebla, deceased, divinized kings were likewise worshiped in elaborate ritual performances; see Robert Stieglitz, “The Deified Kings of Ebla,” Eblaitica (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, 2002): p 4, 215-222.

Stieglitz' publication reveals that the Northwest Semitic view of divinized kings was not unique to Ugarit and Israel.

In reality, the biblical view of kingship was simply a mere subset to the broader Canaanite tradition.

best,

--DB

[_aussieguy55]

So we have the still missing papyri theory, the catalyst theory and now the adaptation theory. What Mormons will do to save their prophet from being exposed as a fraud. But then we have Jim Jones and David Korish. People who seemed nice and bright followed a prophet to their death. They say they have found a God spot in our brains. Maybe there is a believe something at all cost spot.

[_Enuma Elish]

So we have the still missing papyri theory, the catalyst theory and now the adaptation theory. What Mormons will do to save their prophet from being exposed as a fraud. But then we have Jim Jones and David Korish. People who seemed nice and bright followed a prophet to their death. They say they have found a God spot in our brains. Maybe there is a believe something at all cost spot.

I suppose. It's probably right there next to the "deny everything and don't bother reading the evidence" spot.