DiscussMormonism.com

I just posted this on MADB, but I thought some here might have something interesting to say about it, too. So here goes.

The current Book of Abraham identifies the deities in facsimile 1 as follows:



Fig. 4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.
Fig. 5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
Fig. 6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
Fig. 7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
Fig. 8. The idolatrous god of Korash.
Fig. 9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.

---------

Notice that the gods are named from right to left. The text of the Book of Abraham follows the same pattern whenever it lists the deities that stood before the altar (e.g. Abr. 1:6):

"For their hearts were set to do evil, and were wholly turned to the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt..."

Curiously, though, the name Korash doesn't appear in any of the Book of Abraham manuscripts till manuscript 1. In previous manuscripts, the list included only four deities. So continuing with Abr. 1:6 as our example,

MS 2:
for their hearts wer{e} set to / do evil
and were wholly turned to the {G}od of
Elk=kener and the / God of Zibnah and the
God of Mah-ma{c}{k}rah [ ] and / the God
of Pharoah King of Egypt

MS 3:
for their hearts were set to do / evil
and were wholly turned to the / God of
Elkkener and the god of / Zibnah and the
god of mah = / machrah [ ] and the god
of Pharo / {a}h, King of Eg{y}{p}t.

MS 1:
for their hearts were set to do evil, and / were wholly turned to the god of Elkkener / and
the god of Zibnah and the god of // Mahmackrah and the god of Koash / and the
god of Pharaoh King of Egypt,

(Transcription courtesy of Brent Metcalfe's handout from the 2006 Exmormon conference.)

Notice that Will's theory that MS 2 and 3 were copied from a common source doesn't change anything; since both of them omit any mention of Korash, so presumably would their source document. Notice also that this isn't a simple mistake; we find the same pattern in 1:13 and 1:17. And finally, recall that the gods are listed from right to left.



That would mean that, according to the earlier manuscripts, these gods from left to right are

Pharaoh, Mahmackrah, Zibnah, and Elkkeener

Notice that the one on the far left looks exactly like a pharaoh! This confirms, in my view, that Korash is a later addition.

So I pose to you two questions:

1) Why was Korash added? and
2) What is the proper methodology for studying possible ancient parallels? Do we revert to the earliest manuscripts as Dr. Skousen would undoubtedly have us do, or do we study Joseph's final, presumably inspired redaction? Or do we throw consistency to the wind and go with whichever version produces the most faith-promoting results?

-CK

Interesting! Thanks for posting.

I also see that Korash is missing from 13 and 17 later on. Which is wierd - if they added Korash to vs. 6, why not add it to versus 13 and 17?

You're correct; MS 1 adds Korash only in v. 6. Presumably they just forgot to add it to the other two verses.

CaliforniaKid wrote:You're correct; MS 1 adds Korash only in v. 6. Presumably they just forgot to add it to the other two verses.

What the hell is going on here? How is this a translation?

If someone were making it up as they went along, writing a piece of fiction, revising it, changing it, editing it, etc. - would the mss. look any different?

Shh! Who Knows, only the text of the Book of Abraham can tell us whether it's a true book. You have to deal with the text of the Book of Abraham.

Oops; that's what we're doing. Never mind.

EDIT: By the way, I thought the following quote from Gee's Tragedy of Errors was appropriate:

Until the critics are willing to take the book of Abraham—text as well as pictures—and the recent scholarship seriously, they only dodge the issues.

If there's anybody who just looks at the pictures, it's the apologists. Gee, for example, explains that the men in facs. 3 might be dressed up like women, but he doesn't even mention the fact that Joseph Smith translates "Anubis" as "Shulem". I can only conclude that Gee doesn't know how to wish away the Egyptian text associated with facsimile 3, so he pretends it isn't there.

Do we know anything about the timing differences between mss2&3 and mss1?

Also, do you have mss4? Do you know where I can view it? I see 1 through 3 at KG's board, but not mss4. Mss 4 could be the printers mss., and i'm curious to see if/where korash appears there.

Nah, MS 4 wasn't on the Tanner microfilm, so the only people who have a copy are the three Nephites (Smith/Ashment/Metcalfe) and their adversary the mighty Brian "Shiz" Hauglid.

CaliforniaKid wrote:Nah, MS 4 wasn't on the Tanner microfilm, so the only people who have a copy are the three Nephites (Smith/Ashment/Metcalfe) and their adversary the mighty Brian "Shiz" Hauglid.

OMG! You have to warn me before you do that! I had never heard that 3 Nephites reference before....Pepsi all over the screen again.

You should get some kind of plastic sheath to protect your monitor from corrosive carbonated substances.

-California "we could call it a monitor condom" Kid

CaliforniaKid wrote:You should get some kind of plastic sheath to protect your monitor from corrosive carbonated substances.

-California "we could call it a monitor condom" Kid

You and I are kindred spirits. I'm a California girl, too...that's probably why. LOL As soon as you said "plastic sheath" I immediately thought "condom for the monitor" before even reading the rest of the post.

;)