Olishem

[_Tobin]

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).

You do realize that Ramses II ruled from 1279BC - 1213BC? We are talking about 400 years from the early expansion till his reign, and that is a very long time for a lot to happen in.

[_Fence Sitter]

Tobin,

Are these time frames correct?
Middle Bronze age 2050 - 1650 BCE which would make the first half 2050-1850 BC where Hoskisson places Abraham.

You placed the earliest Egyptian influence in that area at 1650 BC so there is still a two hundred year gap between Abraham and and Egyptian influence that could explain "Potiphar"?

[_Tobin]

Tobin,

Are these time frames correct?
Middle Bronze age 2050 - 1650 BCE which would make the first half 2050-1850 BC where Hoskisson places Abraham.

You placed the earliest Egyptian influence in that area at 1650 BC so there is still a two hundred year gap between Abraham and and Egyptian influence that could explain "Potiphar"?

Yes - we are talking about a 150-200 year shift.

Bear in mind we have the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2160–1788BC J. H. Breasted's dates) which had period of expansion and decline during the Second Intermediate Period, then there was a new expansion of the New Kingdom of Egypt. It is suggested by my source that the events of the Book of Abraham could not have occurred during the Middle Kingdom since there is no evidence its influence went far beyond the Sinai. However, it might have then the dates work. It is interesting to note that Mentuhotep II revived the cult of the ruler though.

The New Kingdom of Egypt did influence the regions in question however which would seem to indicate it was at the beginning of the expansion of the influence of this kingdom that the Book of Abraham must have taken place if true.

[_Frodo]

Thanks to all for your participation in my post. From what I knew of Olishem prior to the post it did not seem to be much evidence at all. In reading the information and the links provided here I still find Olishem to be a very weak at best positive evidence for the Book of Abraham. I was in anticipation of having a stronger apologetic side presented here. In my opinion if this is one of the better supports for the Book of Abraham, it is in deep trouble.

[_Tobin]

Thanks to all for your participation in my post. From what I knew of Olishem prior to the post it did not seem to be much evidence at all. In reading the information and the links provided here I still find Olishem to be a very weak at best positive evidence for the Book of Abraham. I was in anticipation of having a stronger apologetic side presented here. In my opinion if this is one of the better supports for the Book of Abraham, it is in deep trouble.

Frodo,

If you are going to look at the Book of Abraham from the point of view of it proving that it is true by simply referencing the text, I'm afraid you'll be sadly disappointed. Books by themselves can not prove they are true and expecting strong proof along those lines is simply unrealistic. The Bible would fail the same test as well if you think about it. There are interesting things about the Book of Abraham and that is all. I, myself, don't find the Book of Abraham overly compelling and I certainly don't believe Joseph Smith could read egyptian hierography. If anything about the Book of Abraham is true, it must have been given to Joseph Smith by God.

Anyway, the default position you should take is Joseph Smith is a fraud and a con-artist. His claims are preposterous (seeing God, angels, gold plates, etc) and are not things people typically see and do. Now, given that, if you believe in God and feel that he might be right about man being able to speak with God yourself, then speak with God and see if God backs him up. Otherwise, there is nothing useful here for you.

[_Fence Sitter]

If you are going to look at the Book of Abraham from the point of view of it proving that it is true by simply referencing the text, I'm afraid you'll be sadly disappointed. Books by themselves can not prove they are true and expecting strong proof along those lines is simply unrealistic. The Bible would fail the same test as well if you think about it. There are interesting things about the Book of Abraham and that is all. I, myself, don't find the Book of Abraham overly compelling and I certainly don't believe Joseph Smith could read egyptian hierography. If anything about the Book of Abraham is true, it must have been given to Joseph Smith by God.

Anyway, the default position you should take is Joseph Smith is a fraud and a con-artist. His claims are preposterous (seeing God, angels, gold plates, etc) and are not things people typically see and do. Now, given that, if you believe in God and feel that he might be right about man being able to speak with God yourself, then speak with God and see if God backs him up. Otherwise, there is nothing useful here for you.

Tobin,

While I agree these are two ways of looking at the Book of Abraham, there is a third way. As a believer I found the Book of Abraham mildly interesting, perhaps a bit more than the Book of Mormon. As a non believer I find it to be a fascinating. To me, it represents the pinnacle of Joseph Smith's career as a religious author. It is the one piece of scripture he translated of which we have still have some of the original material that he used. The history of the papyri itself is interesting, and tracing the discussions on both sides as the field of Egyptology developed and the papyri reappeared is must see drama. So whether or not you are a believer, from a purely historical standpoint, it is worth studying also.

[_moksha]

Paul is always going on about that Anubis figure with the Charley Brown head called Shulem, in the Book of Abraham. I would like to suggest an alternative name for that character, Baurack Ale Obama. This would take away the stigma of Anubis being viewed as a slave and give a tie-in to the predicted coming of Joseph Smith Jr. found in Genesis 50 of the Joseph Smith Translation.

Hope that helps.

[_Tobin]

While I agree these are two ways of looking at the Book of Abraham, there is a third way. As a believer I found the Book of Abraham mildly interesting, perhaps a bit more than the Book of Mormon. As a non believer I find it to be a fascinating. To me, it represents the pinnacle of Joseph Smith's career as a religious author. It is the one piece of scripture he translated of which we have still have some of the original material that he used. The history of the papyri itself is interesting, and tracing the discussions on both sides as the field of Egyptology developed and the papyri reappeared is must see drama. So whether or not you are a believer, from a purely historical standpoint, it is worth studying also.

I don't know if I find it that fascinating. I think Joseph Smith ran across some papyri and didn't know what it was. Joseph Smith had just translated the Book of Mormon and probably thought a lot of himself (he often comes across to me as being rather arrogant) and thought no sweat, I'll just translate these too. Now clearly, the papyri could not have been from 2,000 BC and written by the hand of Abraham, so the assumptions and statements around the papyri are majorly screwed up to begin with. IF there is anything that Joseph Smith could tell us about the original tales (from which the Egpytians would have altered and molded to fit their theology and myths till it was completely unrecognizable), it would have had to come from God. And it would have been much better if Joseph Smith had clearly stated that instead of pretending he knew more than he obviously did and muddied the waters (which many apologists fall into again and again to this very day).

[_Buffalo]

While I agree these are two ways of looking at the Book of Abraham, there is a third way. As a believer I found the Book of Abraham mildly interesting, perhaps a bit more than the Book of Mormon. As a non believer I find it to be a fascinating. To me, it represents the pinnacle of Joseph Smith's career as a religious author. It is the one piece of scripture he translated of which we have still have some of the original material that he used. The history of the papyri itself is interesting, and tracing the discussions on both sides as the field of Egyptology developed and the papyri reappeared is must see drama. So whether or not you are a believer, from a purely historical standpoint, it is worth studying also.

I don't know if I find it that fascinating. I think Joseph Smith ran across some papyri and didn't know what it was. Joseph Smith had just translated the Book of Mormon and probably thought a lot of himself (he often comes across to me as being rather arrogant) and thought no sweat, I'll just translate these too. Now clearly, the papyri could not have been from 2,000 BC and written by the hand of Abraham, so the assumptions and statements around the papyri are majorly screwed up to begin with. IF there is anything that Joseph Smith could tell us about the original tales (from which the Egpytians would have altered and molded to fit their theology and myths till it was completely unrecognizable), it would have had to come from God. And it would have been much better if Joseph Smith had clearly stated that instead of pretending he knew more than he obviously did and muddied the waters (which many apologists fall into again and again to this very day).

So your position is that the Book of Abraham was inspired from God, but that Joseph Smith falsely claimed the source to be the papyrus?

That doesn't work either. It fails the historical test, and is chock-full of anachronisms and historical inaccuracies.

[Guest]

I don't know if I find it that fascinating. I think Joseph Smith ran across some papyri and didn't know what it was. Joseph Smith had just translated the Book of Mormon and probably thought a lot of himself (he often comes across to me as being rather arrogant) and thought no sweat, I'll just translate these too. Now clearly, the papyri could not have been from 2,000 BC and written by the hand of Abraham, so the assumptions and statements around the papyri are majorly screwed up to begin with. IF there is anything that Joseph Smith could tell us about the original tales (from which the Egpytians would have altered and molded to fit their theology and myths till it was completely unrecognizable), it would have had to come from God. And it would have been much better if Joseph Smith had clearly stated that instead of pretending he knew more than he obviously did and muddied the waters (which many apologists fall into again and again to this very day).

My fascination probably has a lot to do with having grown up in the church at the time when the papyri were rediscovered, and now looking back at how the Church has approached the unfolding story, both from an ever evolving apologetic view and a leadership one. Additionally the more I discover about Joseph Smith's interest in languages and all things mystical, throughout his life, the more I understand why he appears to some as arrogant in his ability to translate. While I do not believe he could translate anything, I think he believed he could and I think he was truly intrigued by the possibility of rediscovery ancient Adamic wisdom and knowledge. What a shame he did not live long enough to complete the Books of Abraham and Joseph. Of course the Church may not have survived the production of those books in light of what we now know about Egyptian.