Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS: Book of Abraham, pt. 3
From: <HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Friday, 21 Aug 1992 15:59:12 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University

1.  Karl:  "If he [Nibley] acknowledges the identification of those items [fac.
 1,
items 5-8] as canopic jars, then how does he justify Smith's identification of
(from left to right) Imseti, Hapy, Duamutef, and Kebehsenuf as the idolatrous
gods of Korash, Mahmackrah, Libnah, and Elkenah?"

The answer is multifaceted.
     1.1  Yes, Nibley accepts the standard identifications of Egyptologists;
however, the issue is much, much more complicated than that.
    1.2  Abraham is generally dated to the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2100-1550 B.C.
)
(see John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed., Westminster, 1981, pp. 77-87 fo
r a
discussion and references to major sources).  Furthermore, the comings and
goings of the Patriarchs are frequently associated with a particular Egyptian
dynasty, the Hyksos (1670-1560 B.C.) (The most recent summary of the Hyksos,
with complete references, is in D. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in
Ancient Times, Princeton, 1992, pp.98-122).  I personally accept a date for
Abraham of about 1650 B.C.  The Hyksos were Syro-Canaanite Semitic
conquerors of the Delta, and are noted for their syncretism (mixing) of
Canaanite and Egyptian religion. (Redford, pp. 116-118)  (For example, they
worshipped the Canaanite gods under Egyptian names of Baal=Seth, and
Anat=Hathor (Redford, p. 117-118).
     Thus, at precisely the period of Abraham, we have a syncretism mixing the
worship of Egyptian and Semitic gods.  And, indeed, each of the four names
given by JS (Korash, Mahmackrah, Libnah, and Elkenah (Fac. 1, #4-8, Ab. 1:6))
have been recently identified as Semitic god names in the Ebla archives (Syro-
Canaanite documents from c. 2500-2300 B.C) by Prof. John Lundquist ("Was
Abraham at Ebla?" in Studies in Scripture, vol. 2: the Pearl of Great Price, (S
alt
Lake City: Randall Book, 1985), p. 323).  Thus, they are indeed idolatrous gods

of the Semitic Syro-Canaanite pantheon, and as such could have been
worshiped by Hyksos Egyptian pharaohs who ruled the delta (and parts of
Canaan and Syria) in the time of Abraham.  Score four direct hits for JS.
    1.4  Of course, it can be objected that maybe JS got four ancient Semitic g
od
names, but he was interpreting an Egyptian document, and he didn't get the
four standard Egyptian names right.  The response is twofold.  First, as noted
above, with Abraham dated to the Hyksos period, we find Abraham in an age
of Canaanite-Egyptian religious syncretism.  This would account for calling
Egyptian idols by Semitic names (or visa versa).  Second, the canopic jars, or
"Four Sons of Horus" as the Egyptians also called them, were noted for their
remarkable fluidity in the history of Egyptian religion.  (see John Gee, "Notes

on the Sons of Horus," an abridgement of a 1991 Berkeley Master's Thesis in
Egyptology, available from FARMS), esp. pp. 40-57.  Indeed. in the Bible their
counterparts appear in Ezekiel 1:4-14 (Gee, pp. 48-51), and Revelations 4:6-7
and 7:1-2 (Gee, p. 52).
    1.5  However, the four names are not the only interpretation which JS gives

to the Sons of Horus.  In fac. 2 #6 the same four Sons of Horus appear.  Here
JS believes they "Represent this earth in its four quarters."  Once again, a
direct hit!  The four sons of Horus do indeed represent the four quarters of
the earth (Gee, p. 29, note 175, and fig. 5).
    1.6  But there is more.  Karl failed to mention fac. 1 fig. 9, which is qui
te
obviously a crocodile.  JS interprets it as "The idolatrous god of Pharaoh."
Who, in the 1830s (or in the 1990s for that matter) would interpret an such an
obvious drawing of a crocodile as a god of Pharaoh?  But again, JS was
absolutely right.  The crocodile was called Sobek (Sebek, or Suchos in Greek),
and was an important Egyptian god of the Nile.  There only one period in pre-
Hellenistic Egypt when the god Sobek was worshiped by the Egyptian
pharaohs as the patron god of the king (i.e. the god of pharaoh), the
Thirteenth dynasty (1786-1674), just before Abraham's arrival in Egypt, when
many of the kings used Sobek as theophoric names (Nefersobk, Sebekhotep,
see any Egyptian king list  of the 13th dyn. for examples).  Thus we now have
six direct hits by JS.
1.7  There are several other outstanding examples of correct interpretation on
fac. 1, but I don't have time to go into them.  For half a dozen direct hits on

fac. 2, see Rhodes, "Translation," and the works by Nibley on Fac. 1
mentioned in pts 1 & 2.
1.8  One more example, however, I can't resist.  The BOA says that the
idolatrous altar was on the "plain of Olishem" (Ab. 1:10).  Once again, ancient

Near Eastern documents mention the place name "Ulishum" as being near
Ebla (Lundquist, p. 233-235).  Another direct hit: total = seven.


Let's pause for a moment, and ponder the implications of these
examples.  The NM theory maintains that JS simply invented the contents of
the BOA and interpretations of the facsimiles.  How, then, do they explain the
fact that JS provided half a dozen perfectly good ancient Egyptian and Near
Eastern names and interpretations?

Simply appealing to chance is not sufficient.  Maybe he could have
gotten one or two authentic ancient names and identifications by pure luck,
but four out of four Semitic god names, the crocodile as the God of Pharaoh at
the time of Abraham, and the authentic ancient Syrian place name Olishem?
The appeal to chance becomes a very weak argument at this point.  How
would the NMs respond if I were to say that the symbols in the margin of the
BOA manuscripts in the KEP resemble the hieroglyphics on JS pap. XI by
mere chance?  JS or the scribes were just doodling in the margins, and
happened to get a dozen symbols which match perfectly the first hieroglyphs
on JS pap. XI.  Naturally, they would say that this is absurd; a clear pattern
is
shown, demonstrating a causal relationship.  Likewise, then, I maintain that
the argument that JS produced these ancient names and interpretations by
mere chance becomes absurd.  The standards of evaluation of the evidence
must be consistent.  Furthermore, in competition between the two theories,
that theory is to be preferred which provides the best explanation for the
widest range of data.  If the NM theory has marginally superior explanatory
power for the KEP, the LDS theory is far superior in explaining the authentic
ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian elements in the BOA, and in JS's
interpretations of the facsimiles.  And this is only a portion of the evidence
supporting JS.
    Now all of JS's interpretations of all of the elements on the facsimiles ca
n
not be accounted for in terms of Egyptology or ancient Near Eastern cultures.
However, based on the LDS understanding of non-infallible prophets, this
can be explained.  If JS makes some mistakes in interpreting Egyptian, this is
only to be expected.  But that he can get half a dozen interpretations correct
requires a significant explanation, which the NM have never provided.

William J. Hamblin

(to be continued)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc