DiscussMormonism.com

https://youtu.be/dG5XuNjLJzA
I analyze and share why the Mormon apologetic "Hit for Joseph Smith" Abraham as an astronomer just does not work. This is an entirely new investigation and discovery for me, and I am very interested in seeing if any apologists will adjust their take on this because the evidence literally forces them to. Of course, they won't do so, but that is not my problem. Come and enjoy! THis is my 3rd video in this list of videos refuting my former self.

Josephus wrote:He [Abram] communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for before Abram came into Egypt they were unacquainted with those parts of learning; for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from thence to the Greeks also.

False! Josephus was dead wrong.

• Wikipedia: Egyptian astronomy "Egyptian astronomy started in prehistoric times, in the Predynastic Period. In the 5th millennium BCE ..."

• Wikipedia: Ancient Egyptian mathematics "Ancient Egyptian mathematics is the mathematics that was developed and used in Ancient Egypt c. 3000 to ..."

The Backyard Professor wrote:So, when we get to Josephus's claim that introduced arithmetic and astronomy to a previously ignorant Egypt, uh, no, that's historically implausible.

Correct! Josephus & Joseph Smith (who copied Josephus) were wrong!

Please reference:

• The Pyramid Scheme

• A Nail in the Coffin

The Backyard Professor wrote:The Abraham astronomy passage was not buried in an inaccessible Egyptian manuscript. In other words, it was part of the published historical work. So, Latter-day Saint scholar Lincoln Blumell, he examined Josephus's availability and concludes that yes, he actually was available.

Lincoln H. Blumell

Mormon scholars feast on silly Parallels while avoiding and bypassing genuine Egyptian scholarship that predates Abraham!

Blumell-baby wrote:

• A more substantial parallel may be found in their reading

• Another interesting parallel

• there is a general parallel here in the accounts of Josephus and Joseph Smith

• with respect to parallels between Joseph Smith and Josephus has to do with Abram

• is certainly a very distinct parallel here between Josephus and Joseph Smith

• is significant extrabiblical parallel between Josephus and Joseph Smith

• Josephus has to be the direct source for this parallel

• Despite this significant parallel

• The other parallel worthy of note between Josephus’s and Joseph Smith’s handling

• here are any significant parallels with Josephus

• a couple of distinct parallels that warrant comment

• share a number of parallels

• there is one other parallel between Josephus and the Book of Mormon worth pointing out

• represents an important parallel

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 09, 2026 5:22 am

https://youtu.be/dG5XuNjLJzA
I analyze and share why the Mormon apologetic "Hit for Joseph Smith" Abraham as an astronomer just does not work. This is an entirely new investigation and discovery for me, and I am very interested in seeing if any apologists will adjust their take on this because the evidence literally forces them to. Of course, they won't do so, but that is not my problem. Come and enjoy! THis is my 3rd video in this list of videos refuting my former self.

My time is limited, but from what I have sampled of your video you make some very telling points.

As a favour which I have no right to demand (so I just ask humbly) would it be possible for you to make a short post summing up the main stages of your argument in a few bullet points? I have downloaded the Reed article you mention,

Reed, Annette Yoshiko (2004). "ABRAHAM AS CHALDEAN SCIENTIST AND FATHER OF THE JEWS: JOSEPHUS, ANT. 1.154-168, AND THE GRECO-ROMAN DISCOURSE ABOUT ASTRONOMY/ASTROLOGY." Journal for the Study of Judaism 35 (2): 119–158.

Its abstract runs as follows:

This article analyzes Josephus’ approach to Abraham and astronomy/astrol-
ogy in Ant. 1.154-168. This retelling of Genesis 12 describes Abraham as
inferring the one-ness of God from the irregularity of the stars, thereby
implying his rejection of “the Chaldean science” for Jewish monotheism.
Soon after, however, Josephus posits that the patriarch transmitted astron-
omy/astrology to Egypt, appealing to the positive connotations of this art
for apologetic aims. Towards explaining the tension between these two
traditions, I rst map the range of early Jewish traditions about Abraham
and the stars, and then consider the Hellenistic discourse about astral wis-
dom as the domain of ancient “barbarian” nations, as it shaped Hellenistic
Jewish traditions that celebrate Abraham’s astronomical/astrological skill.
I conclude with Josephus’ own cultural context, proposing that the atti-
tudes towards astronomy/astrology among his Roman contemporaries may
help to account for the ambivalence in his characterization of Abraham
as both Chaldean scientist and father of the Jews.

(Note of information, for convenience cribbed from Wikipedia: as you and others reading this will know, but not necessarily everybody else on this board, Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Mattityahu; c. 36 – c. 100 CE) was a Jewish scholar who at first resisted the Roman power in Judea, but surrendered to Vespasian in 67 CE. After Vespasian became emperor in 69 CE, he granted Josephus his freedom, at which time Josephus assumed the Emperor's family name of Flavius. ... Some notable works were The Jewish War (c. 75), Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94), and his autobiography The Life of Flavius Josephus (c. 94-99).)

Could you perhaps do a similar abstract for your video? In any case, many thanks for reviving our interest in the serious historical analysis of the roots of Joseph Smith's historical claims, which used to be a lively and fascinating topic on this board in previous decades. Alas, it faded away as one by one the apologists tacitly confessed defeat and ceased to engage in combat in a forum where their arguments were consistently shredded.

Stimulated by the Backyard Professor's fascinating post - it may be interesting to look at what Josephus actually said about Abraham teaching astronomy etc. in Egypt.

Here is part of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities referring to Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/28 ... nk2HCH0008

CHAPTER 8. That When There Was A Famine In Canaan, Abram Went Thence Into Egypt; And After He Had Continued There A While He Returned Back Again.

1. Now, after this, when a famine had invaded the land of Canaan, and Abram had discovered that the Egyptians were in a flourishing condition, he was disposed to go down to them, both to partake of the plenty they enjoyed, and to become an auditor of their priests, and to know what they said concerning the gods; designing either to follow them, if they had better notions than he, or to convert them into a better way, if his own notions proved the truest. Now, seeing he was to take Sarai with him, and was afraid of the madness of the Egyptians with regard to women, lest the king should kill him on occasion of his wife's great beauty, he contrived this device:—he pretended to be her brother, and directed her in a dissembling way to pretend the same, for he said it would be for their benefit. Now, as soon as he came into Egypt, it happened to Abram as he supposed it would; for the fame of his wife's beauty was greatly talked of; for which reason Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, would not be satisfied with what was reported of her, but would needs see her himself, and was preparing to enjoy her; but God put a stop to his unjust inclinations, by sending upon him a distemper, and a sedition against his government. And when he inquired of the priests how he might be freed from these calamities, they told him that this his miserable condition was derived from the wrath of God, upon account of his inclinations to abuse the stranger's wife. He then, out of fear, asked Sarai who she was, and who it was that she brought along with her. And when he had found out the truth, he excused himself to Abram, that supposing the woman to be his sister, and not his wife, he set his affections on her, as desiring an affinity with him by marrying her, but not as incited by lust to abuse her. He also made him a large present in money, and gave him leave to enter into conversation with the most learned among the Egyptians; from which conversation his virtue and his reputation became more conspicuous than they had been before.

2. For whereas the Egyptians were formerly addicted to different customs, and despised one another's sacred and accustomed rites, and were very angry one with another on that account, Abram conferred with each of them, and, confuting the reasonings they made use of, every one for their own practices, demonstrated that such reasonings were vain and void of truth: whereupon he was admired by them in those conferences as a very wise man, and one of great sagacity, when he discoursed on any subject he undertook; and this not only in understanding it, but in persuading other men also to assent to him. He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for before Abram came into Egypt they were unacquainted with those parts of learning; for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from thence to the Greeks also.

3. As soon as Abram was come back into Canaan, he parted the land between him and Lot, upon account of the tumultuous behavior of their shepherds, concerning the pastures wherein they should feed their flocks. However, he gave Lot his option, or leave, to choose which lands he would take; and he took himself what the other left, which were the lower grounds at the foot of the mountains; and he himself dwelt in Hebron, which is a city seven years more ancient than Tunis of Egypt. But Lot possessed the land of the plain, and the river Jordan, not far from the city of Sodom, which was then a fine city, but is now destroyed, by the will and wrath of God, the cause of which I shall show in its proper place hereafter.

Some time back, it was thought that Abraham might have had a historical basis in a 'patriarchal age' in the 2nd millennium BCE (i.e. between 2000 and 1000 BCE. Nowadays it is, I believe more common to conclude that stories about him may have originated in the millennium following. But no-one doubts that the ancient Egyptians show clear evidence of systematic astronomical knowledge well before any reasonable date for a historical Abraham, if indeed there ever was one.

PS - Abraham was said to have been born in 'Ur of the Chaldees' (Genesis 11:28), so he would have seemed to Josephus to have been a reasonable person to have passed on 'Chaldean' knowledge to the Egyptians.

Chap wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 09, 2026 4:00 pm

Some time back, it was thought that Abraham might have had a historical basis in a 'patriarchal age' in the 2nd millennium BCE (i.e. between 2000 and 1000 BCE. Nowadays it is, I believe more common to conclude that stories about him may have originated in the millennium following. But no-one doubts that the ancient Egyptians show clear evidence of systematic astronomical knowledge well before any reasonable date for a historical Abraham, if indeed there ever was one.

And that is entirely the scholarly point we hereby make! And all of that was over Joseph Smith's head. Little did Smith know that the Egyptians predated the Bible and ancient Egypt was far older than Smith ever imagined:

THE EVENING AND THE MORNING STAR Independence, Mo. August, 1832 wrote:
PRESENT AGE OF THE WORLD.

There are so many different opinions upon, as well as various periods to the age of the world, that we fear the truth of the matter will be believed by few. Whether by the commentators upon the sacred writings, or by the clergy, the term of four thousand and four years, was put down as the exact time from the beginning till the birth of the Savior, we shall not pretend to say, but content ourselves by stating, that 4004 years, which is the present Christian calculation, added to the current year of our Lord, makes but 5836 years since the commencement of time in this world. But upon collecting the passed periods that the Lord has been pleased to measure out to his servants, by the prophets, we find a very different amount of years from the beginning. We compute thus:

Chapters. Years.

Gen. 5 & 8 From Adam to the end of the flood, ... 1656

" 11. From the flood to Abram, .............. 292

" 21. From Abram to Isaac, .................. 100

" 25. From Isaac to Jacob, ................... 60

" 47. From Jacob's birth to his entering Egypt, 130

Ex. 12. The children of Israel in Egypt, ..... 430

From their departure out of Egypt till the birth of the Savior.

----------------------------------------------------------------- 1491

Years before Christ, ................. 4159

Since his birth, ..................... 1832

From the beginning till now, ......... 5991

Deduct, .............................. 5836

Difference, .......................... 155

Abraham the Astronomer?
The Ancient Apologetics That Mormon Apologists Missed!
30 Key Points from My Presentation

1. An ancient parallel is not proof of historical authenticity. Finding an ancient story resembling something in Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham does not establish that Joseph Smith translated an ancient document correctly or that the events actually occurred.

2. The Bible never says Abraham taught astronomy to the Egyptians. Genesis 12 describes Abraham's visit to Egypt, but says nothing about him teaching astronomy, mathematics, or astrology to Pharaoh.

3. Ancient Jewish writers expanded Abraham's story centuries after his supposed lifetime. These additions must be investigated as literary traditions rather than automatically accepted as preserved historical memories.

4. Josephus claimed Abraham introduced astronomy and arithmetic to Egypt. In Jewish Antiquities 1.154–168, Josephus portrayed Abraham as a philosopher who recognized one supreme God and as a teacher who transmitted scientific knowledge from the Chaldeans to Egypt.

5. Artapanus provided an even closer parallel to Joseph Smith's Facsimile 3. This second-century BCE Jewish writer claimed Abraham taught astrology to an Egyptian king named Pharethothes and remained in Egypt for twenty years. This resembles Joseph Smith's description of Abraham discussing astronomy in Pharaoh's court.

6. Pseudo-Eupolemus connected Abraham's astronomy with Enoch and Greek mythology. This ancient Jewish tradition identified Enoch with the Greek figure Atlas and portrayed Abraham as transmitting celestial knowledge to Egyptian priests. This illustrates how ancient writers incorporated other cultures' traditions into their own ancestral histories.

7. Ancient Jewish writers were competing for cultural prestige. Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks claimed great antiquity and intellectual achievements. Jewish authors could elevate their own civilization by portraying Abraham and Enoch as the original possessors or transmitters of scientific knowledge.

8. Annette Yoshiko Reed's 2004 scholarly study provides a major explanation for these traditions. Reed demonstrates how portrayals of Abraham as an astronomer developed within Greco-Roman debates about science, religion, cultural identity, and the origins of civilization. The stories may reflect ancient Jewish apologetic interests rather than independently verified events.

9. Ancient writers did not agree about Abraham's astronomical activities. Jubilees and Philo emphasized Abraham's rejection of celestial worship and his recognition of divine authority. Artapanus emphasized astrology, while Josephus emphasized astronomy and arithmetic. These differences demonstrate the development and adaptation of traditions.

10. Astronomy and astrology were not always sharply separated in antiquity. Ancient celestial observation, mathematical calculation, and astrological interpretation often overlapped. We must understand these terms within their original historical settings rather than impose modern definitions.

11. Multiple ancient sources do not necessarily mean multiple independent witnesses. Artapanus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, and Josephus may reflect related or inherited traditions. Repeated stories establish that a belief circulated, not necessarily that the reported event occurred.

12. Egyptian astronomy existed before the traditional lifetime of Abraham. Egyptian celestial traditions, including those reflected in the Pyramid Texts and later star tables, challenge Josephus's claim that Abraham introduced astronomy to a previously ignorant Egypt. Egyptian mathematics also developed independently.

13. Josephus was available in Joseph Smith's nineteenth-century environment. William Whiston's English translation circulated widely, and research by Lincoln Blumell documents access to Josephus in the region where Joseph Smith lived.

14. Oliver Cowdery used Josephus in connection with the Egyptian papyri. In December 1835, Cowdery referred to Josephus while discussing ancient traditions concerning Enoch, Seth's descendants, and heavenly knowledge. This establishes a meaningful connection between Josephus and Joseph Smith's Egyptian project, although it does not prove Joseph Smith copied the Abraham-astronomy passage.

15. Adam Clarke's Bible commentary provided another accessible connection. Clarke associated Ur of the Chaldees with astronomy and astrology. Research by Thomas Wayment and Haley Wilson-Lemmon has also demonstrated significant connections between Clarke's commentary and Joseph Smith's Bible revision.

16. Astronomy was already part of Joseph Smith's Egyptian-language project in 1835. Joseph Smith's October 1 journal mentions a system of astronomy being unfolded during work on the Egyptian alphabet. This occurred years before the 1842 publication of Facsimile 3.

17. Joseph Smith did not need access to Artapanus to develop the general idea. Josephus supplied Abraham teaching astronomy in Egypt, while Genesis supplied Abraham's encounter with Pharaoh. These ideas could have been combined without access to the specific Artapanus fragment. This establishes possibility, not proof of borrowing.

18. The differences between Artapanus and Joseph Smith matter as much as the similarities. Artapanus describes astrology, names an Egyptian king, and gives Abraham a twenty-year stay in Egypt. Joseph Smith's explanation does not reproduce these distinctive details. A valid comparison must consider both agreements and disagreements.

19. Facsimile 3 is an Egyptian funerary illustration, not an independently verified scene from Abraham's life. Egyptologists identify the enthroned figure as Osiris and interpret the surrounding figures and inscriptions within Egyptian funerary religion. Joseph Smith instead identified Abraham, Pharaoh, Shulem, Olimlah, and others.

20. An ancient parallel cannot substitute for an Egyptian translation. Even if Abraham really taught astronomy to Pharaoh, that would not establish that Facsimile 3 depicts the event. The Egyptian inscriptions must independently support Joseph Smith's identifications, and they do not provide the names and astronomical scene he claimed.

21. Bayesian reasoning requires comparing competing explanations. We must ask whether the Abraham-astronomy parallel is more expected if Joseph Smith possessed authentic ancient knowledge or if he developed his account within the religious and intellectual environment of nineteenth-century America. A resemblance that is expected under both explanations has limited power to distinguish them.

22. We have no independently verified biography of Abraham. Archaeological and documentary evidence has not established Abraham as an identifiable historical individual. This does not prove he never existed, but it prevents us from independently verifying particular conversations, journeys, and activities attributed to him.

23. Major biblical scholars have challenged the historical reliability of the patriarchal narratives. John Van Seters, Thomas L. Thompson, William G. Dever, and Israel Finkelstein have questioned older arguments that ancient customs and parallels establish the historical authenticity of Abraham's stories.

24. Even scholars open to ancient memories reject treating the patriarchal stories as verified biographies. Amihai Mazar allows that some Genesis traditions may preserve genuinely old information, while warning that this does not establish the actual deeds of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. Ancient cultural information and authentic personal history are different things.

25. Ancient historical writers sometimes reshaped the lives of real or legendary figures. Examples from Herodotus, Xenophon's Cyropaedia, and later Jewish traditions about Moses show that ancient narratives could contain reconstructed speeches, invented adventures, and literary embellishments. A story's antiquity does not guarantee its factual accuracy.

26. Joseph Smith's own Bible revision illustrates how patriarchal stories can be expanded. His Joseph Smith Translation added revelations, priesthood teachings, covenant material, and other details to Abraham's life. These expansions provide a useful comparison with the literary development of Abraham traditions in ancient Judaism.

27. Andrei Orlov's scholarship demonstrates how ancient religious traditions developed. His studies of Abraham, Enoch, and heavenly priesthood show how Jewish authors transformed biblical figures to communicate theological ideas. Similar themes across ancient texts do not necessarily require a single original historical autobiography.

28. The BYU Studies argument faces a serious methodological problem. Stephen Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John Thompson acknowledge limitations in the historical accuracy of ancient Abraham traditions but suggest that an ancient Book of Abraham could explain those traditions. The question remains: what independent evidence establishes the Book of Abraham as the authentic historical source behind them? Without that evidence, the argument risks circular reasoning.

29. We must distinguish three different kinds of authenticity. Literary authenticity establishes that a tradition genuinely existed in antiquity. Contextual plausibility establishes that a story fits a possible historical setting. Historical authenticity establishes that the particular events actually occurred. The first two do not automatically establish the third.

30. Ancient apologetics can become the foundation of modern apologetics without establishing historical truth. Ancient Jewish authors may have elevated Abraham's astronomical reputation to defend their civilization's intellectual prestige. Modern Latter-day Saint apologists then use those same traditions to defend Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. Neither use establishes that Abraham actually taught astronomy to Pharaoh or that Joseph Smith correctly interpreted the Egyptian papyri.

My Overall Conclusion
The existence of ancient Jewish traditions portraying Abraham as an astronomer is historically fascinating. But those traditions tell us much more securely about what ancient Jewish writers believed, taught, and wanted to communicate than about what Abraham himself actually did.

We have substantial evidence for the history of stories about Abraham. We do not have comparable independent evidence establishing the history of Abraham himself.

Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham must be evaluated by the same historical standards applied to Josephus, Artapanus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, and every other ancient source. Ancient parallels are worth investigating, but they cannot establish historical authenticity without the necessary supporting evidence.

Most importantly, no amount of literary resemblance can replace the requirement to translate and accurately identify the Egyptian inscriptions in Facsimile 3.

My central point is simple:

A parallel is not causation. An ancient tradition is not verified history. And an interesting resemblance is not proof of divine revelation.

Finding a parallel should begin a historical investigation, not end it.

The real questions are not merely whether a parallel exists, but why it exists, how it developed, whether its sources are independent, and whether it actually supports the historical claim being made.

That is the distinction I wish I had understood and applied more rigorously during my own years defending the Book of Abraham.















Is this conversation helpful so far?

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2026 12:32 am

Most importantly, no amount of literary resemblance can replace the requirement to translate and accurately identify the Egyptian inscriptions in Facsimile 3.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

I see promise in your analysis that Joseph used a similar process as that used by Artapanus. I’ll shamelessly say that process could be seen as a form of the roman a clef method that I see having been used in the composition of the Book of Mormon.

In the Book of Abraham, at its base, we find a man seeking priesthood authority, greater knowledge, and the blessings of the fathers, a rejection of contemporary religious practices, persecution, and authority from God.

All of which is compatible with Joseph’s developing prophetic role at the time he was composing the Book of Abraham.

I’d offer that Joseph could have been doing more than expanding Abraham’s story by projecting his own experiences and those of his inner circle into an ancient story. I’ve long thought that “Olimlah” represented Oliver, as Joseph’s slave. In fact I think the idea that “Abraham was bound” directly reflects the position Joseph found himself in, with his followers expectations of him “putting him in a bind,” so to speak.

Do you have insight into the distinctions between the 1835 and 1842 efforts that could reflect amendments to Joseph’s theology?

Essentially it seems clear to me that Joseph was doing with Abraham what earlier Jewish writers had already done by using an ancient figure to explain and legitimize the religious questions of their own time.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 10, 2026 12:32 am

Is this conversation helpful so far?

Yes -very helpful, very impressive! Thanks a lot.

Alas, no apologist will dare to answer ...