Olishem

[_Tobin]

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.

Let's assume the Book of Abraham is valid (for fun), then the Patriarchal Age would have likely had to occur during a period of Egyptian ascendancy and influence in the region. That doesn't seem to be the case for many early dates for the Patriarchal Age (so maybe the assumption of those dates is wrong?!?). Next, let's state the Egyptians were pre-dominant in the culture and religion of the area. Clearly their language would have been in some use in the region, worship of their gods encouraged, and places for this worship would take on those names as well. Given that context, the Book of Abraham setting is pretty reasonable.

[_Fence Sitter]

How much of a later date?

(And thanks for your last response. It was quite helpful.)

[_Frodo]

Thanks Fence Sitter

I did find a paper by Muhlestein.

Kerry Muhlestein, "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers," in Religious Educator 11, no. 1 (2010): 91–108.

Here is an excerpt.

"While critics pounce on what they see as anachronisms, what they ignore are textual elements that support an authentic Abrahamic context. Space permits only one example: Abraham mentions that the altar on which he was nearly sacrificed was located in a valley called Olishem. During Joseph Smith’s day, this name was completely unknown. However, since then an Egyptian text roughly contemporary with Abraham, which outlines geographic areas in the Levant, names an Olishem.[31] Further, this Olishem is in the same area as a likely candidate for the city Ur.[32]The odds that Joseph would make up a random name that happened to match a real ancient place in the correct time and region are extremely slight."

Was the word Olishem unknown to Joseph Smith? I do not know

Is the area or place really spelled Olishem? It appears most who know have it spelled differently. If it is, it seems deceptive for him not to say so in his paper.

Is it located in the correct geographical area? It appears to at least be questionable.

Thanks for the input.

[_Tobin]

How much of a later date?

(And thanks for your last response. It was quite helpful.)

The Patriarchal Age is usually estimated from 2100-1800BC. However, the Egyptians didn't really start expanding into the regions described till Second Intermediate Period (1650-1550BC) and into the New Kingdom (1550-1069BC).

[_Fence Sitter]

How much of a later date?

(And thanks for your last response. It was quite helpful.)

The Patriarchal Age is usually estimated from 2100-1800BC. However, the Egyptians didn't really start expanding into the regions described till Second Intermediate Period (1650-1550BC) and into the New Kingdom (1550-1069BC).

So by moving the time frame for Abraham forward a few hundred years one then can pose a case for the use of an Egyptian word in the region. Do other historical problems arise from proposing a more recent time frame for Abraham? Are there any other reasons one might suggest such a view? Or by doing so does one create a lot more problems with the historical Abraham then are solved?

I guess I am getting back to my Nibley question where he used such a wide time frame for Abraham to prop up evidence.

[Guest]

I discussed the Ulisum issue briefly here:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 43#p226843

[_bcspace]

Yes. And I recalled correctly too.

[_Tobin]

So by moving the time frame for Abraham forward a few hundred years one then can pose a case for the use of an Egyptian word in the region. Do other historical problems arise from proposing a more recent time frame for Abraham? Are there any other reasons one might suggest such a view? Or by doing so does one create a lot more problems with the historical Abraham then are solved?

I guess I am getting back to my Nibley question where he used such a wide time frame for Abraham to prop up evidence.

I don't know. Maybe it helps for all I know. It would go a long ways towards explaining the fascination the patriarchs had with Egypt during this period.

[Guest]

So by moving the time frame for Abraham forward a few hundred years one then can pose a case for the use of an Egyptian word in the region. Do other historical problems arise from proposing a more recent time frame for Abraham? Are there any other reasons one might suggest such a view? Or by doing so does one create a lot more problems with the historical Abraham then are solved?

I guess I am getting back to my Nibley question where he used such a wide time frame for Abraham to prop up evidence.

I don't know. Maybe it helps for all I know. It would go a long ways towards explaining the fascination the patriarchs had with Egypt during this period.

It seem a bit strange to move Abraham's time frame forward a few hundred years just to explain the use of a name in a book of dubious provenance.

Edited to add:
Hoskisson does not think it is possible to move Abraham forward that much.

I must reject a date later than the first half of the Middle Bronze period because of the time span required
by the number of events between Abraham and Moses (assuming that the Pharaoh of Moses was Ramses II).

[_Fence Sitter]

Frodo,

Hoskisson 1989 article (apologetic) on Where was Ur of Chaldees.http://rsc.BYU.edu/archived/pearl-great-price-revelations-god/7-where-was-ur-chaldees

I know you wanted discussion from both sides but at this point a link is the best I can provide from the apologetic side. I think I can find a few more if you are interested in reading more. The Hoskisson article is only 6 pages long.