Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Book of Abraham pt. 1
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 25 Aug 1992 10:34:36 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University



If I gave the impression that I was trying to set up a "straw man" in my
postings on the BOA, I have been misunderstood.  Clearly, the Non-
Mormon explanations are based on the idea that JS drew on his
intellectual and religious environment (consciously if a fraud,
unconsciously if insane) in order to produce the BOA.  I never meant to
say otherwise.  This is called the "environmental explanation" in Mormon
circles.  Thus I agree with Karl that in evaluating the authenticity of JS's
interpretations of the facsimiles and his production of the BOA itself, the
key elements to search for are those which are authentically ancient, but
were unavailable to JS.

1.  Were the ancient god names Korash, Mahmackrah, Libnah, and
Elkenah available to JS in 1835?  The answer is no; the source for these
names is the Ebla tablets, which were discovered around 1977.  (The
name Elkenah, however, is vaguely similar to Elhanan in the OT (2 Sam.
21:19, 1 Chron. 20:5).)

2.  Was the name Olishem available to JS in 1835?  No.  The name
derives from an Akkadian inscription (see 3 below).  Cuneiform was not
deciphered until 1850.  I know of no source contemporary with JS which
uses that name.  On both points one and two, if non-Mormon's wish to
maintain that JS got these names from contemporary sources, the
burden of proof rests on the non-Mormons to show from where, and how.

3.  Is there any evidence that the four gods mentioned by JS were directly
associated with the Sons of Horus in the Middle Bronze Age (MB)?  No.
However, since "Since 90 percent of our textual evidence on Canaanite
religion comes from the Late Bronze Age [after 1550 B.C.] ..." (D. Redford,
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton, 1992, p. 117), this
is hardly surprising.  There are very, very few religious texts from Hyksos
Egypt, or from MB Canaan or Syria.  Indeed, what is surprising is that all
four god names appear in the same ancient text, dating from the Middle
Bronze in Syria at all!  Add to this, the fact that Ebla, (the source of the
god name texts) is near the ancient site of an Ulisum/Olishem.  "Naram-
sin the strong, defeated Arman and Ebla from the banks of the Euphrates
as far as Ulisum..." (Lundquist, p. 234, quoting an inscription of the
Akkadian king Naram-sin's conquest of Syria c. 2300 B.C.)  Note also
that the Hyksos ruled in Canaan and parts of Syria during their period
(1670-1550).

Thus, none of the four god names, nor the place name Olishem, were
available to JS in 1835, yet they are all authentic MB Syro-Canaanite
names.  If one begin to ponder the levels of probability that by
coincidence the four names of gods provided by JS could all appear in
MB texts from Ebla, near the site of the contemporary Olishem/Ulisum,
they become virtually nil.  Thus, the challenge to the Non-Mormons
remains.  How do they explain this?  (And, once again that the appeal to
chance is as unacceptable for the non-Mormon explanations as it is for
the Mormon explanations.)

4.  JS equating the Sons of Horus with the four cardinal directions strikes
Karl as "a lucky guess."  Perhaps so.  But, the cumulative effect of all
these lucky guesses makes it increasingly improbable that you can't
explain it ALL by mere "lucky guesses."  On the other hand, they strike
me not as a "lucky guess," but as an absolutely accurate interpretation.
Each person will have to decide for himself on this matter.  But however
Karl may wish to explain these parallels, if he is honest he will admit that
there is evidence here that would allow a reasonable person to conclude
that there may be more to JS's interpretations than mere "lucky guesses."

5.  Karl rightly points out that the crocodile is mentioned in Herodotus as
begin worshipped by the Egyptians.  (Her. 2.68-70; Penguin trans. p.
156.)  Note first, that Herodotus does not say it was "the god of Pharaoh,"
as JS does.  Indeed it was not part of the royal cult during the time of
Herodotus.  There were only two periods when Sobek the crocodile was
part of the royal cult: the 13th dynasty (c. 1700 B.C.), just before the time
of Abraham, and the Ptolemaic dynasty (331-30 B.C., after Herodotus).
There is another major problem with assuming that JS used Herodotus
as a source for his interpretations.  I should emphasize here, that the NM
explanations require a burden of proof as well as the Mormons.  The
entire burden of proof in this matter does not rest on the LDS.  If non-
Mormons wish to provide an alternative explanation, it cannot rest on
assertions that "maybe JS did this or that."  Rather, they must assume a
burden of proof to indicate that it is likely that JS had access to a given
source.  Thus on the Herodotus issue, there is not a shred of evidence  to
indicate that Herodotus was known to JS in 1835 (or anytime thereafter).
Let us assume, however, that JS did indeed secretly plagiarize from
Herodotus.  Two things become an issue.  First, one must assume that JS
was a conscious fraud, which is increasingly less accepted among non-
Mormon (but not anti-Mormon) historians of JS.  Most non-Mormon
professional historians view JS as a sincere man and a religious genius
(cf. the latest interpretation by secular Jew Harold Bloom).  But let us
even grant, for the sake of argument, that JS was a conscious fraud.  If JS
was using Herodotus, he did a very poor job of it.  He uses only an
obscure passage referring to crocodile worship, while ignoring the
detailed discussions of Isis, Osiris, Ammon, and other Egyptian gods, all
of whom are also mentioned in Herodotus.  Furthermore, JS mentions
none of the extensive syncretism between Greek and Egyptian gods
which is absolutely fundamental to Herodotus' discussion of Egyptian
religion. Thus, while it is possible that JS had resort to Herodotus for
knowledge of things Egyptian, it is highly unlikely, since there is virtually
nothing else in JS's interpretations which would seem to have been
drawn from Herodotus.  He certainly could have done a better job of
plagiarizing Herodotus than he did.

6.  Karl claims that there is "nothing unique" in facsimile 1, but then goes
on to point out that he hasn't found another example that is exactly the
same!  I should point out that current Egyptological thinking maintains
that all details in Egyptian iconography are important.  Which way the
figures are facing, what poses, what they are doing with their hands, etc.
can all be very meaningful.  Furthermore, the combination of elements is
just as important as the individual elements themselves.  Nibley dealt
with this issue; let me summarize his observations (Improvement Era,
Oct. 1968, pp. 80-81).  Nibley found the following features of facsimile 1
absolutely unique:

6.1-  Both hands raised.  (This point is disputed by non-Mormons.  There
is debate that what JS saw as a second hand was really a wing.  Since
this point can't be proven either way, we will leave it aside.)
6.2-  The traditional alternative is that only one hand is raised.  However
in all other such cases, the second hand is visible under or to the side of
the figure.  None is shown on fac. 1.
6.3-  No other examples clothed like fig. 2.
6.4-  No examples of shoes like fig. 2 wears.
6.5-  No examples of crocodile (fig 9) under similar scenes.
6.6-  No examples of hatched lines around crocodile (fig 12).
6.7-  No examples of "pillars of heaven" (fig. 11).
6.8-  No examples of lotus table.  (fig. 10)
6.9-  If the scene is a resurrection (to explain the upraised foot), then why
are Isis and Nephthys not present, as they are in all other resurrection
scenes.  If it is an embalming scene (to explain the presence of Anubis),
then why is the foot and hand upraised?
6.10- The traditional explanation of the "second hand" is that it is a
second bird hovering over fig. 2.  However, a second bird is never found
when Anubis is present.  Furthermore, if the second bird is hovering in a
procreation scene, why is the wing extended instead of down?

There are other more technical unique features I won't go in to.  It's
enough to show here that there are 10 unique features of fac. 1, which
can not be explained if we accept the traditional Egyptological
explanations.  Now maybe Nibley is wrong here, and these features are
not unique (although he examined over 100 similar scenes).  If so, the
burden of proof now rests on the non-Mormons to show that in fact
facsimile 1 is simply a common ordinary ritual scene.  Everyone claims it
is a common scene, but no one has come up with an exact parallel.  I ask
Karl: which type of the four usual lion-couch scene is it --  reposing,
embalming, resurrection, or procreation?  Please refer to an exact (or
even close match) for any of the four.  Note that the facsimile can't be
interpreted on a figure by figure basis only.  You can't claim that there is
one scene with a bird, another with a raised leg, another with a crocodile,
another with a raised arm, etc., therefore, the scene as a whole is
perfectly ordinary.  The particular combination of all these elements is
crucial.

Finally none of the discussion so far has gone into the numerous
parallels between the story line of the BOA an other pseudepigraphical
Abraham material (none of which was available in English in 1835).

William J. Hamblin