Back to Book of Abraham section
Debating the Book of Abraham with a Professional Egyptologist
Dr. Castillos:
http://www.geocities.com/martsego/comments.txt
I've read the apologetic remarks by several Mormon writers trying
to justify Joseph Smith's version of the figures in the three
facsimiles attached to the Book of Abraham which I tried to
consider with an open mind, but after some thought I found them
to be quite unconvincing. Kerry Shirts' long and elaborate essay
on the canopic jars in Facsimile 1 does not at all deal with the
main flaw in his Prophet's identification of these vases as idols
when in fact they were meant to contain and preserve some of the
internal organs of the deceased, for some obscure reason he
prefers to write about their names as given in the Pearl of Great
Price and that those names were not so strange after all, but if
Joseph Smith was indeed a Prophet, he should have known the
correct meaning and names of what they represented and there
should be no confusion at all.
Kerry A. Shirts:
The main complaint appears to be the canopic
jars cannot be what Joseph said they were because they must be
something else, as if there is an exclusion principle at work.
And because they are something that Joseph did not mention that
proves Joseph is a false prophet.
I believe John Gee’s Master Thesis Notes on the Sons of
Horus, FARMS 1991, demonstrated clearly, succinctly, and quite
powerfully that the Canopic Jars were much more involved than
being exclusively used as containers of the viscera of the dead.
An instance of how Joseph Smith did get his explanation of the
four canopic jars correct is in E.A.W. Budge’s translation
of the Book of the Dead, the Papyri of Ani, we read, "The
four quarters of Ra [are] the extent of the earth." (Budge,
"The Egyptian Book of the Dead," Dover, 1967: 171.) But
we also read on page 124 of the Introduction of the same book,
that "originally they [the four Sons of Horus] represented
the four pillars which support the sky, or Horus. Each was
supposed to be lord of one of the four quarters of the world, and
finally became the god of one of the cardinal points.. Hapi
represented the north, Tuamautef the east, Amset the south, and
Qebhsennuf the west." Here we find Joseph Smith right on the
mark exactly.
But there is more to consider by looking at various Egyptologists
notes on the four sons of Horus.
From Hans Bonnet - Reallexikon der Agyptischen
Religionsgeschichte, Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1952, p.
466:
At the feast of Min four birds are released and we are
specifically told that they are similar in function to the four
sons of Horus who represent the four cardinal directions. "Diese
Vögel werden den vier Horussöhnen als den Vertretern der
Kardinalpunkte" (p. 466)
Again from Bonnet, p. 315:
"Ihrer Vierzahl entsprechend begegnen die Horuskinder
weiterhin vielfach als Vertreter der Himmelsrichtungen, wobei
Amset der Süden, Hapi der N., Duamutef der O., und Kebehsenuf
der W. zugeteilt zu werden pflegt. So tragen die Vögel, die nach
der Krönung als Herolde nach den vier Weltgegenden ausgesandt
werden die Namen der Horiskinder. Und wenn an Särgen des M.R.
ihre Bilder, ihre Namen, an den vier Ecken angebracht oder auch
nur auf die Eck nägel geschrieben sind, so ist dies gleichfalls
durch die Beziehung der Horuskinder zu den Himmelsrichtungen
bestimmt. Sie garantieren die richtige Orientation."
Roughly translating says:
The number four accordingly meets the children of Horus as
representatives of the directions many times furthermore, with
which Amset the south, Hapi that North, Duamutef that East, and
Kebehsenuf, to be allotted West. So the birds, who are sent out
after the coronation as heralds after the four quarters of the
world, carry the names of the children of Horus. Their names, are
installed at four corners of the coffin, or are also only written
on the corner nails, so likewise this is certain through the
relationship of the children of Horus to the directions. They
guarantee the right Orientation.
Bonnet even claimed that their children of Horus original
function was as the four stars of the constellation of Ursa
Major! (p. 315.) - "Sie begegnet im Totenbuch, das im 17
Kapitel von den Horuskinder als denen redet, die hinter dem
Oberschenkel des Nordhimmels (= großer Bär) sind und dieses
Sternbild des Seth im Dienst des Osiris bewachen." (We find
that in the Book of the Dead section 17 it speaks of the children
of Horus as those who are behind the thigh of the Northern heaven
(= the Big Bear).
Von Ludwig Borchardt "Der Kanopemkasten des Konigs
Sbk-m-sf" in "Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache"
1894, shows how the stone coffin of this particular king was
divided in 4 compartments (Innen war der Kasten fruher durch
halbhohe Bretter in vier Abteilungen...), translated reads:
"and in each of these compartments one of the canopic jars
was each placed." Diagrams on p. 25.
The Egyptologist John A. Wilson wrote in 1964 that "...the
number four suggests that they were placed at the four points of
the compass. Fortunately this arrangement appealed to the
Egyptian as being both strong and permanent." in
"Before Philosophy", Pelican Books, p. 55.
The Egyptologist Robert Bauval and co-author Adrian Gilbert, The
Orion Mystery, Crown Publishers, 1994, note that the four sons of
Horus "symbolised the four cardinal points." (205).
Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, The Bandlet of Righteousness: An
Ethiopian Book of the Dead [London: Luzac, 1929], p. 109, cites
from The Prayer of the Virgin Mary on Behalf of the Apostle
Matyas in Parthia: "O ye Four Angels, who stand on the four
corners of the earth (Rev. vii.1), and whose names are Fertiyal,
Ferfai, Famual and Fananyal." NOTE: Budge makes a point of
the fact that the Ethiopic material is based on the Egyptian,
after Christianization.
The Ethiopic document known as "The Testament of Our Lord
and Our Savior Jesus Christ" speaks, at the end of chapter 4
and the beginning of chapter 48, of "the four quarters of
the earth."
"the four corners (angles) of the earth" (Sir E. A.
Wallis Budge, The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the
Earth and Other Works of Bakhayla Mika'el (Zosimas)(Oxford,
1935), p.67)
It appears, at least in this instance that Joseph Smith is not so
off the mark.
Dr. Castillos continues:
In another part, these Mormons say: "THE SCHOLARSHIP
ARGUMENT. Bishop Spalding's chief argument is this: Because there
is a difference of opinion between certain eminent scholars and
the Prophet Joseph concerning the meaning of the hieroglyphics
the Prophet translated, therefore he is wrong and the scholars
are right. This is the most extraordinary attempt at logic ever
put forth by a scholar.
Kerry A. Shirts:
I believe this is an argument from the 1912 affair with the
Reverend Spaulding Dr. Castillos has brought up. For one thing,
it is a dated argument being from 1912. However, since the
Egyptologists of that day were claiming what they said was right,
no matter how often they contradicted each other (!), this is why
the LDS gentlemen of that day answered the way they did. I have
this information on my website for historical purposes because
critics in our day continue using the 1912 situation as a final
refutation of the Mormon claim. The Egyptologists then did not
win hands down with no refutation from the Mormons. That simply
did not happen. One area that is important is Hugh Nibley’s
research on this. Incidentally, this research of Dr.
Nibley’s was what Klaus Baer (Nibley’s instructor in
Egyptian) said was a delight and a necessity for upcoming
Egyptologists to read. This was Nibley's serial articles in the
Improvement Era, 1968-1970, "A New Look at the Pearl of
Great Price." Boyd Jay Petersen has also written about this
situation in his biography of Hugh Nibley, "Hugh Nibley: A
Consecrated Life," by Boyd Jay Petersen, Greg Kofford Books,
2002: 313-334; 397-405.
Dr. Castillos:
The conclusion rests upon the monstrous assumption that there is
an infallible, unchangeable scholarship, incapable of receiving
more light, and to contradict which is heresy. We know better,
and the Rev. gentleman knows better. He knows that scholars
sometimes are wrong, and that they are compelled by facts to
abandon old theories for new ones. In the case of a difference of
opinion, how does he know which side is certainly right? How does
he know that the Prophet is not right, and that those on the
other side are not wrong?
Kerry A. Shirts:
Again this is from the 1912 affair and in those days when
Egyptologists spoke, the thinking had been done. Dr. Castillos
impression here of LDS scholarship is what Egyptologists attitude
was then. To even ask questions was heresay, hence the Mormon
reply to their pontificating against Joseph Smith. I believe Dr.
Castillos would find it cleared up were he to consult
Nibley’s research on this which is available at FARMS.
Dr. Castillos:
Mathematics is an exact science, and its propositions may be
demonstrated, but not so archeology." This line of reasoning
is intrinsically fallacious and obscurantist, it appeals to most
people's distrust and lack of understanding of how science works
although it might satisfy some of the true believers because it
implies that if a certain unqualified person makes an inspired
statement at odds with current egyptological thinking, which is
based on a thorough and painstaking study of all the available
evidence using a scientific methodology, our acceptance should go
to the unqualified Prophet rather than to those to whom we owe
all the knowledge of ancient Egypt we have today. Rather
difficult to accept for the unbiased observer and is tantamount
to encouraging irrational thinking as a valid alternative to
science. No egyptologist has ever claimed his subject to be an
exact science and minor corrections are at all times being
introduced in the whole picture of this ancient civilization
improving our perception but never changing it drastically, as
they would have us believe.
Kerry A. Shirts:
an argument used way back in 1912 against Spaulding.
There has been enormous amounts of water go under the bridge
since then. Hugh Nibley has demonstrated this was the approach of
the Egyptologists in 1912 against the Joseph Smith Papyri.
Dr. Castillos:
The Mormons' comments on an Uppsala Egyptological Conference in
1987/88 also reflect this almost desperate attempt to grasp any
straw that even remotely seems to make Joseph Smith's
interpretations acceptable, for instance, also referring to
Facsimile 1 Kerry Shirts wrote:
Kerry A. Shirts:
I need to clarify that I do not in any instant represent
"The Mormons" as a whole. I have said that this is my
webpage, and I am responsible for its contents, not the Mormons
as a whole. I was impressed that there are items in
ERgyptological conferences which remind me of the Pearl of Great
Price and Abraham. I am not trying to prove anything, just make
notes and share insights. I'm sorry if Dr. Castillos feels this
is the wrong way to learn. So far as I am aware this is the
method every scholar uses in his research and studies. I found
the conference instructive, not proof of anything.
Dr. Castillos (continuing to
quote my article):
"So Joseph Smith was not incorrect to note that there was a
human figure on the lion-couch, since in Egyptian religious
terms, this person, by being involved in the very rituals of
Egyptian religion was Osiris. This is clearly confirmed again, by
none other than Klaus Baer who noted that it was after 2200 B.C.
that the private individuals began to claim the privileges of the
royalty. Those specific privileges Baer notes was "The
deceased person who has been 'justified' in the judgment of the
dead and lives again in a blessed existence in the Netherworld is
like Osiris and therefore accounting to the Egyptian way of
thought is Osiris."[54] So whether Abraham or Osiris, it is
correct! The Egyptians as already noted simply did not think in
exclusionary terms as we moderns do. Because A is A it cannot be
B. But to the Egyptian A can also be B, and we need to begin to
understand this. Joseph Smith does things the Egyptian way it
appears." The "Egyptian way" indeed ! Let's see
some of the things he wrote as an interpretation of this
Facsimile, taken from the Pearl of Great Price (I'm translating a
Spanish version of this book into English): "The idolatrous
priest of Elkenah trying to offer Abraham as a sacrifice",
(referring to the well known figure of Anubis performing
mummification rites over the body of the deceased), "Abraham
tied up to an altar", (here appears a human figure with
upraised arms which shows no sign whatsoever of being tied up, we
have no "altar" here but a (funerary) bed), I might go
on like this but I do not wish to repeat myself from what I have
already said in my webpage on this subject. I leave it to the
reader to decide how "Egyptian" all this sounds...
Besides, I find the attempt to twist a respected egyptologist's
remarks into some sort of approval of Mormon thought wrong and
rather despicable. The writer implies that whether Smith was
talking of Abraham or Osiris or whatever, then he was right !
What sort of endorsement is that? If I say someone is John, but
it actually was Peter, then I was right after all...(?)
Kerry A. Shirts:
And here we get to the crux of the matter. Dr. Castillos
translating from the Spanish version says things that have
already been addressed by Hugh Nibley in his ground breaking
articles "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price" in
the Improvement Era, 1968-1970. The bed was an altar as well as a
bed. It was both as Nibley has demonstrated.
As far as Anubis being concerned with mummification, it is
obviously true. What else Dr. Castillos ignores, however, is that
Anubis is also involved in matters of resurrection of the
sacrificed dead as I have also shown on my website, which Dr.
Castillos ignored. It is perfectly Egyptological to notice these
things since it was in Egyptological journals that I found the
information.
Concerning Anubis, the figure in our fac. 1, which Egyptologists
of 1912 incorrectly said was a mummy on the couch, with Anubis
embalming the mummy, well what of Anubis? A new study by Robert
K. Ritner, "Anubis and the Lunar Disc," in the
"Journal of Egyptian Archaeology," 71(1985): 149-155,
shows that Anubis is functioning as an agent of resurrection. The
archaeological evidence of Anubis involved with the moon as a
disc from the temple of Deir el-Bahari as well as Dendera and
Edfou is interesting. (p. 150).
Dr. Ritner notes that Anubis' involvment with the moon (an agent
of resurrection) ties in with the idea of cyclical rebirth (not
mummification). Dr. Ritner notes with surprise that "the
appearance of a funerary deity in a birth relief may at first be
surprising, but the inscriptions quoted above show that in his
capacity as guarantor of rebirth, as the god of mummification,
that Anubis is present...Anubis embodies the Egyptian concept of
the transition from death to life," [as does the moon]. (p.
151). The moon as a symbol of rebirth is also tied in with
Osiris, the God of resurrection (p. 152). After showing several
examples, Ritner notes "In each instance, the imagery
recalls the role of Anubis as the agent of resurrection and as
guarantor of a repetition of births like Osiris the moon."
(p. 155).
So we now have archaeological, Egyptological information showing
that Anubis himself has multiple functions, Interesting too is
our contention that Abraham on the lion couch is no mummy being
ambalmed by Anubis at all. Anubis works with the living also. We
have lion couch scenes which show mummies on lion couches. They
ARE mummies, as in looking like King Tut's sarcophagus. We also
have other lion couch scenes where the people are on them
moving... they are alive. So with the Book of Abraham lion couch
scene, the figure there is not a dead mummy at all as the 1912
Egyptologists said. And again, Anubis CAN be in the capacity of
resurrection and working with living beings. It is not an
incongruous situation at all in facsimile 1 in the Book of
Abraham, following some recent archaeological and Egytptological
research of Ritner.
The most important part of Ritner's article, On p. 154, Ritner
notes how as Anubis resurrects Osiris on the lion couch, with the
moon disc, so too mummies on lion couches took on the role of
Osiris as Anubis resurrected them. Now one of the criticisms
against fac. 1 is that it is not Abraham on the couch, but
Osiris. Yet the dead BECAME Osiris, (p. 154) so the idea that
Abraham cannot be Osiris is wrong. He is being rescued
(resurrected, the ULTIMATE rescue from death of course!)since he
is Osiris. It appears this is another mistake that Joseph Smith
did not make. I am not attempting to misuse a good Egyptologists'
views. I am simply trying to explain a situation which I believe
has relevance to the issues. In Fac. 1 the first problem that
faced the artist-scribe according to the text (Abr. 1:15), was to
represent a man who was both "fastened upon an altar"
*and* praying. He solved this problem with strict obedience to
the canons of his art in the only way it could be solved. The man
is supine, to indicate his incapacity and helplessness. Note his
body does not touch the altar - its position is enough to show
that he is on it; nor are the binding ropes shown; for the supine
position tells us, according to the Egyptian formula, that he is
helpless. This is diagrammatical, not realistic, of course. Now
even though the man is flat on his back, he is taking the correct
and conventional attitude of prayer. We can now see why it is
important to make clear that Abraham in this scene has both hands
before him for that not only makes this particular lion-couch
scene unique, but it also gives the whole drama of the situation.
Note the man's position on the couch. Note that Joseph Smith says
of this that Abraham prayed for his deliverance (Abr. 1:15). Now
when we look at the Egyptian determinatives, we see that this
position (as you turn the facsimile 1 on edge with the feet down)
is the Egyptian determinative for what? Prayer. This is
demonstrated in several Egyptological works by scholars.
In E.A.W. Budge's "Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary",
Vol. 1, p. xcvii we can see it obviously, numbers 5,6. Samuel A.
B. Mercer, "The Handbook of Egyptian Hieroglyphics", p.
150, says it means "worship". Note also that with the
hands above the head in prayer, this means "to pray with a
pure heart", (Budge, Vol. 2, p. 825). Note also that Sir
Alan Gardiner "Egyptian Grammar", p. 23 says it means
"praise, supplicate". And on page 445 he says this sign
means "praise...supplicate" (# 30). Well all this
certainly fits Smith's idea for what the man is doing in
facsimile #1 No wonder this facsimile is so unique... it is
telling a unique story apart from what others might be depicting.
When we look at Georges Posener, "A Dictionary of Egyptian
Civilization", p. 60 we see a lion-couch scene, but there is
a mummy on the couch, with Anubis clearly embalming him. But our
fac. is not an embalming scene as some of the Egyptologists in
1912 incorrectly claimed. Incidentally, the 8 supposed
Egyptologists that Spaulding got in 1912, were not all
Egyptologists, but several were ministers of Spaulding's own
church.So much for honesty as to who they were and their true
credentials. That isn't a mummy in fac. 1, the man is moving...
praying... On p. 175 we see two more lion couch scenes with the
corpses being purified. They are nothing like our fac. #1.
In John Baines, "Atlas of Ancient Egypt", 1980, p. 169
we see a late Roman depiction of a lion couch scene, but again,
it's clearly a mummy. It has no pillars of heaven or a crocodile
under it either. There are two figures on either end of the couch
as well, hardly the combination in our fac. #1. On p. 118 of the
same text, we see the lid of the anthropoid coffin of Espamai,
with a lion couch on it. But again there are 5 figures either
kneeling or standing by. There are 4 canopic jars under the
couch, but no pillars of heaven or crocodile. Also the figure on
the couch does not show his leg raised not either of his hands or
arms. This is not like our fac#1. The lion couch in "The
Mastaba of Mereruka", part 1, in the Sakkarah expedition,
1938, is nothing like our fac. #1. The lion couch scene in
Raymond Faulkner's "Egyptian Book of the Dead" is
clearly a mummy, with only a hawk in it, no other figures by
either end of the couch, no crocodile, no clothed praying figure.
This is nothing like our fac. #1 either. (plate 17 in the
magnificent illustrated book of his edited by Eva Von Dassow).
And plate 33 has Anubis bending over a mummy, not a living
figure. Now this particular one is funerary.
These two lion couches are the only ones illustrated in Budge's
"Egyptian Magic", p. 45, 113 respectively. The lion
couch scenes from the Grand Temple of Philae clearly shows us
that not all lion couch scenes are funerary at all either... On 3
of the 4 there are mummies to be sure, but on one of them (upper
left hand corner), clearly the man (nude as Nibley noted) is
moving. And Anubis is nowhere near this one! We know that in the
"Book of the Dead" Anubis is "he who is in the
embalming chamber..." and the "jackal-god who embalmed
the dead..." (Budge, "A Hieroglyphic Vocabulary to the
Book of the Dead", pp. 33,47). Margaret Bunson,
"Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt", 1991, calls him
"Lord of the mummy wrappings" (p. 27); "The patron
of embalmers" (p. 99). Bunson also shows a lion couch on p.
175, Anubis is bending over a mummy, clearly unlike our fac #1.
Well no wonder Anubis is not by this couch, since the man is
alive. The man in fac #1 is alive and praying, and we must
remember that Anubis is also considered the sacrificial god,
because his embalming knife makes the sacrificial cut on the
victim on the couch. Mummification is the sacrifice (Gee,
"Four Sons of Horus" p. 22).
Eric Hornung has many lion couch scenes we can compare in his
book "The Valley of the Kings", and we have several
lion couch scenes in Budge's "Osiris" 2 vols. which are
easier to get access to. The lion-couch scenes in v. 1, p. 280
show a mummy, but 5 other people/gods are around it, again
nothing under the couch, unlike our fac #1 (top). The bottom
shows an ithyphallic figure on the couch, with two birds hovering
over him (fac #1 only has 1 bird) and other types of creatures
under it instead of the 4 canopic jars in our fac #1 (bottom
panel). There are other differences, but in v. 2 we have many
lion couches we can compare and check with ours. None of them
have the combination of figures our fac #1 has.
In some there are no birds, (pp. 24, 26f, 29f, 32f, 33f, 41, 42f,
45ff, 48fff, 55, etc.),while others have one bird, but nowhere in
the position as in fac. #1, cf. pp. 23, 38f, 40 (no outstretched
wings), 42), others have 2 birds (pp. 25 [note the left is a
snake with feathered wings, and the other is a vulture, neither
like the bird in fac #1], 27 [note the hawk has a crown on its
head - unlike Fac #1, and the vulture also has a crown on its
head], p. 51 [Isis & Nephthys with wings providing Osiris
with air - hardly birds], 54 [note the two birds sitting atop the
rather elaborate big structure around the lion-couch - nothing
like our fac #1], while some scenes have 3 birds. And notice no
crocodiles, clothed figures on the couches, either with the
shendet (the apron body cloth) nor the anklets, no pillars of
heaven, no knife in Anubis' hand, none of them have the unique
combination of figures as our fac. #1 does.
The Egyptologist Dr. Richard Parker said this was a well known
scene from the Osiris mysteries, Young said it belonged to a well
known class of documents. And other experts said fac #1 was an
embalming scene, but Breasted said it was a resurrection scene.
Well in Budge's Osiris, vol. 2, p. 29 it is not a resurrection
scene, the guy is turned all the way over.
But he is as alive as the figure in our Fac #1 who is praying. Or
Budge, p. 40 shows another living figure, as is the one on p. 42
who is sitting up on his knees, and on p. 43 look at that awkward
position. So not all scenes are just more of the same standard
funerary scenes at all. Critics appear to be wrong on both
counts. Fac #1 is not ordinary and it is not exclusively or
necessarily funerary. The evidence seems to be against such
statements.
In Lucie Lamy's book "New Light on Ancient Knowledge:
Egyptian Mysteries," Thames and Hudson, 1989 reprint, p.
22f, she has many lion couch scenes of Osiris. What she says is
utterly significant, in my opinion. She notes that the figures on
the lion couch which are moving, are sitting up, or are twisted
around moving are not mummies at all, but are different
depictions of Osiris as he is resurrecting or reviving the ordeal
of the lion couch.
Critics think these facsimiles are pictures. This is incorrect.
They are symbolic diagrams. They are describing ritual events,
real ancient Egyptian ritual events. And when Dr. Mercer
contemptuously said there was nothing in fac #1 to remind him of
Abraham, he was right. The drawing is symbolically used to
illustrate events in Abraham's life, it is not suppose to be a
picture of Abraham. The scenes recorded and the episodes
recounted are strictly *ritual*. The facsimiles illustrate the
most significant events in Abraham's Egyptian career - his
confrontation with Pharoah as a rival claimant for God's
priesthood power and the supreme authority on earth. The BofA is
a discourse on divine authority, which is also the theme of the 3
facsimiles. The explanations of the facsimiles makes it perfectly
clear that they are meant as diagrammatic or formulaic aids to an
understanding of the subject of priesthood on earth.
For instance, we read that some figures "signify"
others are "made to represent", "answers to",
etc. Critics need to begin understanding the nature of the
facsimiles, as well as the facsimile themselves. It is rather
silly to claim that Joseph Smith drew these all wrong. Joseph
Smith didn't draw them, and they are symbols, not exact
representations.
Dr. Castillos:
Another example of such grotesque distortions by these Mormon
apologists is Hugh W. Nibley (1980), "THE THREE FACSIMILES
FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM ". There he wrote: "The Sed
Festival entailed putting the King to death only so that he could
arise anew as the ruler of the new cycle having overcome the
powers of death and thereby demonstrated his own divine power and
vindicated his life-giving authority. A dramatic text has been
discovered and commentated by a number of top-ranking
Egyptologists, which vividly recalls the scene before us in
Facsimile No. 1. It is a very old dramatic production preserved
in Spell 312 of the Coffin Texts and the 78th Chapter of the Book
of the Dead. The scene opens with the King as Osiris lying
helpless on the lion couch, calling upon the Most High God to
deliver him from his plight; in reply to his prayer a Messenger
(angel) appears in the form of a hawk and offers to save him; but
the messenger has neither the power nor the authority--he must go
up to heaven go get the proper authorization from the Lord of
All. While he is away a false Horus--a comic character according
to same--appears and boasts of his power and glory, offering to
deliver the victim on the couch. A few questions dealing with the
mysteries of the veil soon expose him as an ignoramus and a
fraud, and the real Horus appears, while a voice from heaven
attests his bona fides, and the hero on the bed is
delivered." Nibley concludes: "The Book of Abraham has
with uncanny skill anticipated the trends of modern scholarship;
note what strong emphasis is placed on the ritual nature of
everything that happens in the story of Abraham's sacrifice and
the Explanation of the Facsimile". The idea that in the Sed
Festival the king was ritually put to death is an invention that
has no grounds whatsoever, except for old speculative ideas in
Egyptology that this festival replaced an early ritual slaying of
the king as he lost his youth and his powers. T. Wilkinson in
"Early Dynastic Egypt" (2001: 212-215) writes:
"The significance of the Sed-festival went much deeper than
a simple celebration of the king's longevity. In essence, it was
a ritual of rejuvenation (Barta 1975; Gohary 1992:1), by which
the powers of the reigning king, both magical and physical, as
well as his relationship with the gods and his people were
renewed (Frankfort 1948: 79; K. Martin 1984: 783)., etc.
etc.". No mention of ritual death of the king anywhere...
The Coffin Texts quotation also misrepresents the scene, R.
Faulkner wrote in his translation of these texts the following
about Spell 312 ("The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts",
I, (1973), 232, note 1): "...The underlying idea is that
Osiris summons Horus to Djedu to make report on affairs, but that
Horus objects and instead sends a messenger, who has to obtain
from the Double Lion the passport of the Royal Wig-cover (nms)
before he can proceed on his journey to report to Osiris".
Both misinterpretations by this Mormon apologist have the obvious
aim of trying to link and justify somehow Smith's
"translation" of Facsimile 1 as a sacrifice scene, and
fit somewhere a "messenger or angel" that may
correspond to Smith's "Angel of the Lord", which shows
to what lengths these authors go in their manipulations and
distortions of ancient Egyptian religious ceremonies and funerary
texts in order to persuade people of their Prophet's accuracy.
Kerry A. Shirts:
Nibley was working within the parameters of his day in writing
this in the 1960’s, as with many of his articles and
research. To twit him for doing research within the parameters of
his day strikes me as a little ridiculous. Granted some things
Nibley wrote of are dated, to be sure, that is not the question.
We Mormons also like to try and keep things updated and ongoing.
And here is where there has been a fill in, so to speak, which,
yet again, you ignore. John Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid and John Gee
have released a new text "Traditions About the Early Life of
Abraham," FARMS 2001, wherein they work through over 100
texts discussing many themes in Abraham’s life that is
directly relevant to the Book of Abraham, one of those themes
being the attempt to
Sacrifice his life by the Pharoah, who in some of the early
sources, is identified as Nimrod. If the sacrifice of Abraham
cannot be made from the Egyptain side of things (although I am
not conceding it cannot be, just that I have not found updated
materials from Nibley, et al.), it most definitely can be and has
been established from the Jewish side of the Book of Abraham.
This book is the first in a series of some 9 or 10 volumes which
will deal directly with the papyri, the facsimiles, the Book of
Abraham, etc. So, I say give it time. There are no final answers,
just as you have shown. The speculation early on with the Sed
Festival was the king’s death and renewal, now the
speculation is something else. What will it be in another 40
years? The death of the king again? Who can say? In the mean time
it is not a hopelessly lost situation as Dr. Castillos claims.
There are quite strong materials out showing Abraham was
sacrificed, one just published into English by John Tvedtnes for
the first time is from Adolf Jellinek, Bet ha Midrasch (1853,
reprint 1967), demonstrates the story of Abraham being sacrificed
by Nimrod, pp. 164-165. This magnificent and handsome book
demonstrates rather definitely that the Book of Abraham is still
in the game. We have a long way to go before we can close out
Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham
Dr. Castillos:
Let's examine another example of such peculiar lines of thinking:
"The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book
of Abraham: A Critical Review" - Edward H. Ashment Salt Lake
City: Resource Communications, 1993. 29 pp. $2.95. Abracadabra,
Isaac and Jacob Reviewed by John Gee "Abraham" in
Greco-Roman Egypt "That a Greco-Roman period priest wrote
the name Abraham directly underneath a lion-couch scene and noted
that they should both be copied together may simply be
coincidence —why it is there has never been satisfactorily
explained— but the idea of connecting a lion couch scene
found in a Greco-Roman period Egyptian papyrus from Thebes with
Abraham can no longer be dismissed as absurd, as critics have
done for years. Therein is and always has been the significance
of the Anastasi priestly archive for the book of Abraham; not
that the archive authenticates the book of Abraham —for it
does not and no one has ever claimed that it did— but that
it shows that the idea that a Greco-Roman period Egyptian priest
might have had a copy of the book of Abraham is not completely
out of the question". This line of argumentation on the
possible existence of an instance of the name Abraham under a
couch or bed in a papyrus of the Graeco-Roman Period by Dr. John
Gee is an example of what we have just mentioned but at a higher
level of jugglery. Dr. Gee uses such an occurrence to justify his
speculation that a copy of the Mormon Book of Abraham
"might" have existed back then, after all, "it is
not completely out of the question", what sort of evidence
this is in normal scholarly practice is quite unclear to me, but
to most people who are eager to believe something, this
suggestion amounts to almost a certainty, that is, an apologetic
statement cleverly disguised as a declaration of possibility.
Again, the goal seems to be to try to find scraps of evidence
that in some way could lend acceptability to Joseph Smiths's
interpretation of at least one of the Facsimiles, ignoring the
lack of agreement of the Prophet's perception of the whole scene
with what we know of ancient Egyptian religion.
Kerry Shirts:
Gee also noted that waves of Jewish migrations into Egypt
occurred as early as 594 B.C. soon after the conquest of
Jerusalem. Jews have migrated into Egypt in most of the periods
since the conquest as far as that goes, as Gee shows.
"Jewish scriptures and texts could have come during any one
or a number of these immigrations into Egypt. By the Persian
period transcriptions were made of at least parts of the Jewish
scriptures into Demotic script." (Gee, Review of Ashment,
pp. 72f).
There is nothing that compels us to assume the Book of Abraham
had to be written by Abraham while he was in Egypt and preserved
by Egyptian hands all that time.. It very well could have been
passed down through the hands of Abraham’s posterity and
taken to Egypt later and there translated as far as that goes.
Asking what the Egyptians knew about Abraham in the Greco-Roman
period is a legitimate historical question. The Anastasi archive
is perfectly legitimate evidence for this historical question.
(p. 74).
I believe Dr. Castillos might profit from understanding fully the
LDS scholarship on this issue. He never really does get to the
LDS scholarship on the Book of Abraham, either on my website, in
Hugh Nibley’s or Johyn Gee's writings.
Dr. Castillos:
Although Mormon apologists try hard to make it unclear, the
symbols, the clumsy writing of the published copies of the
Facsimiles, the layout, corresponds iconographically,
stylistically, even linguistically in those discernible fragments
of recognizable writing, to ancient Egyptian religious funerary
scenes which Joseph Smith saw and wrongly interpreted as
something completely different.
KerryA. Shirts:
I do hope Dr. Castillos just had problems wording this. If not,
this is honestly distorted. We Mormons are by no stretch of the
imagination trying to keep things unclear at all. We are the ones
studying and publishing materials on these issues.
Dr. Castillos:
The vast majority of egyptologists reject the Mormon views based
on their Prophet's renderings not out of any secret agenda
against this church or out of ignorance, since some of the most
distinguished scholars in this field have at all times declared
their disagreement with Joseph Smith's "translations"
of these Facsimiles, but because the evidence is so clear in
favour of being Egyptian objects wrongly seen as events related
to Abraham, that they have no alternative.
Kerry A. Shirts:
Had Dr. Castillos been more cognizant of John Gee’s research
in this area, he would see the correlations better. Even having
read Nibley’s material could have helped Dr. Castillos out.
But as he noted, since it might take a little time, why bother? I
would hope in the future that Egyptologists will take the time to
learn of the in-depth LDS scholarship on the issues concerning
the papyri.
Dr. Castillos:
I am sure Mormon apologists would like their critics to read all
they have written before giving opinions, but such attitude is
unrealistic since going over all or most of what Mormons have
conceived to justify their beliefs would take so long that it is
beyond the possibilities of most people. These comments which
reflect a sampling of repetitive procedures in the apologists'
writings, may warn some of their readers before they penetrate
that network in which dubious statements and twisted facts are
frequent.
Kerry A. Shirts:
And I am sure that were I to review any Egyptologists work by
reading only say the Preface and writing a review based on that
mere sampling, the roof would come off from the heat the
Egyptologist would generate. It would be unfair and unwise for
precisely the same reason Dr. Castillos is being unfair and
unwise here. He takes a mere sampling, a few short strokes then
says this sampling reflects the Mormon apologists repetitive
procedures. My I wish we Mormon apologists could have that easy
way out of it all.
Dr. Castillos has apparently misunderstood the facts as Joseph
Smith himself explained them, not to mention the Egyptologists
and LDS scholars as well, and then he apparently complains it is
we Mormons who are doing this. I was sincerely hoping for better
than this. Granted some of the arguments from 1912 are dated, we
already know that. We have them for historical purposes since
many are still wrongly proclaiming Spaulding settled the whole
affair then. Our honesty in presenting the entire situation
demonstrates this is not so. We hope it also demonstrates we are
not afraid of getting on with this discussion in an honest and
serious attempt to analyze all the pertinent information. Without
background, how can we proceed correctly? We're not trying to
make this harder than it is. We are trying for a full
understanding.
Dr. Castillos:
When we read the hundreds of pages written by these apologists
trying to justify what can hardly be justified, some may start to
get the feeling that Joseph Smith might not have been so wrong,
Kerry A. Shirts:
We would hope you will someday soon begin to read the hundreds of
pages you claim you have not had time to, then you won’t be
making these inaccurate arguments because you will have the full
context of our research. But you just complained it would take
too long.
Dr. Castillos:
to what he actually wrote in the Pearl of Great Price as a
"translation" of these Facsimiles should convince the
reader who has become acquainted with ancient Egyptian religion
and is even a little familiar with the ancient Egyptian language,
that most of such renderings are quite divorced from everything
we know today of that civilization. I would find it particularly
curious (and really hard to explain) if any qualified colleague
openly defended today Joseph Smith's "translations" of
such Facsimiles on purely academic grounds, without pathetically
empty apologetic rhetoric. J. J. Castillos
Kerry A. Shirts:
This is in the works right now Dr. Castillos. I would like to
suggest, if I may, first acquainting yourself with John
Gee’s work on this area as well as Michael D. Rhodes. Then
reading Dr. Nibley’s materials "A New Look at the Pearl
of Great Price," of which writings Klaus Baer himself, one
of the translators of the Joseph Smith Papyri, said was
delightful and probably ought to be a mandatory read for upcoming
and budding Egyptologists. He was very impressed with
Nibley’s work, and I have copies of the letters between him
and Nibley. They are being published within the next few years
actually by Nibley’s son in law. They are out now in Boyd
Jay Petersen, "Hugh Nibley: A Consecrated Life." Baer
was Nibley’s teacher and checked into his materials
extensively and was well aware of what Nibley was writing.
Interestingly, FARMS just recently reissued Hugh Nibley’s
magnum opus, Abraham in Egypt. (FARMS, 2000) It will help give
you the context to continue learning about the context of the
Egyptian materials concerning the Book of Abraham.
FARMS can be contacted easily in order to order the book. I would
seriously suggest Tvedtnes, Hauglid, Gee’s book also.
1-800-327-6715
website:
www.farmsresearch.com
My good friend and LDS scholar John Tvedtnes also had some
comments on what Dr. Castillos has written concerning the Book of
Abraham.
Dr. Castillos:>Another example of such
grotesque distortions by these Mormon apologists is
>Hugh W. Nibley (1980), "THE THREE FACSIMILES FROM THE
BOOK OF ABRAHAM ".
John T.:
Nibley didn't distort things. He reported what some Egyptologists
had
written about the subject.
Dr. Castillos quoting Nibley:
>"The Book of Abraham has with uncanny skill anticipated
the trends of
>modern scholarship; note what strong emphasis is placed on
the ritual
>nature of everything that happens in the story of Abraham's
sacrifice and
>the Explanation of the Facsimile".
John T:
I presume that it would be useless to point out to him that many
ancient
Abraham stories describe the attempt to put Abraham to death in a
manner
that closely parallels the Book of Abraham, sometimes in minute
detail.(Kerry adds – I did that referring Dr. Castillos to
the latest book on that, which is one of John T’s books)
Dr. Castillos:
The idea that in the Sed Festival the king was ritually put to
death is an
>invention that has no grounds whatsoever, except for old
speculative ideas
>in Egyptology that this festival replaced an early ritual
slaying of the
>king as he lost his youth and his powers.
John T:
If it comes from Egyptology, why lay the blame at Nibley's feet?
I find
Finley doing the same thing in his critique of Nibley's study of
the Lachish
letters, which he compared to the background of Lehi while he was
living in
Jerusalem. Finley criticizes Nibley for making many errors in his
study,
but fails to note that the information Nibley used was from the
study by
Torczyner (who later changed his name to Tur-Sinai) and that it
was the only
study available when Nibley did his comparison. This kind of ex
post facto
criticism is unworthy of scholars.
Dr. Castillos:
>T. Wilkinson in "Early Dynastic Egypt" (2001:
212-215)writes: "The
>significance of the Sed-festival went much deeper than a
simple celebration
>of the king's longevity. In essence, it was a ritual of
rejuvenation (Barta
>1975; Gohary 1992:1), by which the powers of the reigning
king, both
>magical and physical, as well as his relationship with the
gods and his
>people were renewed (Frankfort 1948: 79; K. Martin
1984:783)., etc. etc.".
>No mention of ritual death of the king anywhere.
John T:
I presume that the good doctor would also fault James Frazer, who
reported
such renewal ceremonies throughout Africa and demonstrated that
originally
the king was actually put to death when he was too old to perform
his
duties. Nibley wasn't the first to suggest that later generations
used a
substitute for the king when the time came, and it's really
unfair to fault
Nibley for what scholars before him had said. BTW, John Gee has
discovered
a number of Egyptian texts that describe human sacrifice.
Dr. Castillos:
>Both misinterpretations by this Mormon apologist have the
obvious aim of
>trying to link and justify somehow Smith's
"translation" of Facsimile 1 as
>a sacrifice scene, and fit somewhere a "messenger or
angel" that may
>correspond to Smith's "Angel of the Lord", which
shows to what lengths
>these authors go in their manipulations and distortions of
ancient Egyptian
>religious ceremonies and funerary texts in order to persuade
people of
>their Prophet's accuracy.
John T:
I repeat that if there are mistakes, most of them were made by
Nibley's
sources.
Dr. Castillos:
>Let's examine another example of such peculiar lines of
thinking: "The Use
>of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of
Abraham: A Critical
>Review" - Edward H. Ashment Salt Lake City: Resource
Communications, 1993.
>29 pp. $2.95. Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob Reviewed by John
Gee "Abraham"
>in Greco-Roman Egypt "That a Greco-Roman period priest
wrote the name
>Abraham directly underneath a lion-couch scene and noted that
they should
>both be copied together may simply be coincidence -why it is
there has
>never been satisfactorily explained- but the idea of
connecting a lion
>couch scene found in a Greco-Roman period Egyptian papyrus
from Thebes with
>Abraham can no longer be dismissed as absurd, as critics have
done for
>years.
John T:
Actually, there are other magical papyri that also contain the
name Abraham,
and John Gee will undoubtedly publish that information as well.
To be sure,
one must use caution in scholarly research, but I see nothing
wrong with
using this kind of information to say that the critics have
slammed the door
prematurely. Also, the good doctor seems not to be aware of how
well
traditions are preserved in the Near East. Is he not aware of,
e.g., the
Shabako stone, which is a copy of a much earlier text? Is he
unaware of the
various flood stories that came down through the centuries in
Mesopotamia?
Dr. Castillos:
>This line of argumentation on the possible existence of an
instance of the
>name Abraham under a couch or bed in a papyrus of the
Graeco-Roman Period
>by Dr. John Gee is an example of what we have just mentioned
but at a
>higher level of jugglery. Dr. Gee uses such an occurrence to
justify his
>speculation that a copy of the Mormon Book of Abraham
"might" have existed
>back then, after all, "it is not completely out of the
question", what sort
>of evidence this is in normal scholarly practice is quite
unclear to me,
>but to most people who are eager to believe something, this
suggestion
>amounts to almost a certainty, that is, an apologetic
statement cleverly
>disguised as a declaration of possibility.
John T:
He obviously hasn't read all of Gee's research on this, only some
preliminary items. (Kerry adds: Yes I have indicated some of
Gee’s research that
Dr. Castillos needs to read and become acquainted with as well).
Dr. Castillos:
the goal seems to be to try to find scraps of evidence that in
some
>way could lend acceptability to Joseph Smiths's
interpretation of at least
>one of the Facsimiles, ignoring the lack of agreement of the
Prophet's
>perception of the whole scene with what we know of ancient
Egyptian
>religion. Although Mormon apologists try hard to make it
unclear, the
>symbols, the clumsy writing of the published copies of the
Facsimiles, the
>layout, corresponds iconographically, sylistically, even
linguistically in
>those discernible fragments of recognizable writing, to
ancient Egyptian
>religious funerary scenes which Joseph Smith saw and wrongly
interpreted as
>something completely different. The vast majority of
egyptologists reject
>the Mormon views based on their Prophet's renderings not out
of any secret
>agenda against this church or out of ignorance, since some of
the most
>distinguished scholars in this field have at all times
declared their
>disagreement with Joseph Smith's "translations" of
these Facsimiles, but
>because the evidence is so clear in favour of being Egyptian
objects
>wrongly seen as events related to Abraham, that they have no
alternative.
John T:
There is no real parallel to Facsimile 1 and Gee has shown that
the
description of the vignette that is to accompany the sensen text
is not the
one used in the Joseph Smith papyri. I suspect that your
correspondent
hasn't read this.
As for "the vast majority of egyptologists," I find it
interesting how the
1912 guys went out of their way to say that Joseph Smith's
identifications
for the various facsimulae were incorrect when, in fact, some of
them are
accepted even by Egyptologists. E.g., the contention that the
figures
beneath the lion couch are merely canopic jars and not Egyptian
gods, as
Joseph Smith contended. To be sure, they are canopic jars, but
each bears
the head of an Egyptian god. Another classic example is when
Joseph Smith
identified the four sons of Horus in Facsimile 2 with the four
quarters of
the earth. Aha! said the 1912 Egyptologists; they really
represent the four
cardinal directions, not four quarters. Man, how close does one
have to
get? Besides, the four cardinal directions really are quarters.
To the
ancient magnet-compass-less world, east, where the sun rose, was
not a fixed
direction, but actually encompassed 46 degrees of arc because of
the earth's
axis being tilted at 23 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic.
With another
46 degrees for west, this leaves 146 degrees of arc each for
north and
south. In the modern scientific mind, a "quarter" has
to be a precise
measurement, but until Euclid, a quarter would be one of four
pieces, not a
precise measurement of .25 or 1/4. This, BTW, probably explains
the
supposed "directional problems" in the Book of Mormon
when compared to
Mesoamerica.