The Book of Abraham

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

continued from earlier....

......They have to make a sacrifice. They have to do something about it, and they do. Abraham goes up, and he is to be offered. The whole theme of the Abraham story in the book of Abraham is the rivalry between Abraham and Pharaoh as to the priesthood and kingship. That's why Pharaoh, we are told in the Midrash, wanted to marry Sarah - to raise up a righteous line, which is what Abraham wanted to do too. So he took Sarah away because she was the princess. He was to raise up a line. But there is this constant conflict between the two. And you notice in the first part Abraham is sacrificed on the altar in the place of Pharaoh, which is considered a great honor at this time. This goes back to the Sed-festival. The most important festival in Egypt was the Sed-festival. From prehistoric times you find it. The earliest monuments of Egypt have the Sed-festival. There are Sed-festival monuments over in the museum there now. The Sed was the celebration, originally at the end of thirty years, when the king started to get old and feeble. The king had to be sacrificed, and then he would be restored in his son Horus who would be regarded as the resurrected version of the king. He would disappear for three days, and suddenly he would come out as Horus (as himself). It was convenient also to come forth without being put to death that way but just disappear for a while and then come forth, and have somebody else put to death in your place. So you have the sacrifice. You have the proxy, which is done. The rules are very strict and they are followed here. There are a great many instances of this happening. Abraham was chosen. As I say, it was considered a great honor. You had to be a noble, and you had to have either yellow or red hair. They preferred red hair to anything else. So you were in real danger if you visited Egypt and were a redhead.


You notice it starts out by giving four gods in Cannan. Those were the four gods of Cannan that ruled the four parts. It says in the Book of Abraham, "Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon tha altar which was built in the land of Chaldea, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children" (Abraham 1:8). Well, what was the Egyptian king doing in Chaldea? In the eighteenth dynasty there was Ramses II. What was he doing up there in Megiddo? Well, he conquered that. That was Egyptian country in those days. That's where this was, Chaldea. It was a temporary time. At the time Abraham wrote this, or at the time his children were supposed to read it, apparently it was no longer part of the egyptian empire. It came and went, depending. In the eighteenth dynasty Thutmose III took the whole shebang clear over to the Euphrates. Then they lost it all. Then they got it back again in the twentieth dynasty. Then finally, in the twenty-second dynasty the great Sheshonk went out and conquered it all again, and even more. Then it was lost again. Then Alexander the Great took the name of Sheshonk, said he was the son of Amon, made himself Pharaoh, and went back and conqured the whole thing again following the very same pattern. Each one of these conquerers called himself a cosmocrator. The story of the cosmocrator is important because Abraham's rival, Pharaoh, always calls himself the cosmocrator. You know what that would be. The cosmos is the universe, and the crator is a person who rules. It's a Greek title, but this is a Latin form. The cosmocrator was the man who claimed to rule the world as God's successor on earth. The mortal rival of Abraham was a cosmocrator who went by the name of Nimrod. All the legends say that the Pharaoh who tried to sacrifice Abraham was this Nimrod. You know Nimrod, the mighty hunter of the Bible. Is it the same one? that's a long story; we won't go into it. But the point is that Abraham in the legends has this mortal rivalry with the person who claims to have the priesthood and the kingship. Does he have the right to rule, and does he have the priestly right? Well, that's what Abraham had, and that's what Pharaoh coveted.


When he tries to sacrifice Abraham (this is the story that is told in the Midrash here), Abraham was put on the altar, and the fire was ready. You first cut the throat of the victim and then you cast him on the fire. It is always done that way. You notice in Abraham's sacrifice of Isacc, Isacc was carrying the wood for the fire. But Abraham raised the knife- it was the sacrificial knife, and then the fire follows. Well, as the priest raised the knife, a great, mighty earthquake struck. It overthrew the altar. It killed the priest, and Abraham wasn't touched. Well this impressed the king, who immediately let him go. And he didn't have to sacrifice Abraham anymore because the sacrifice had already been made; the high priest was the substitute.


Now that someone had been sacrificed, he had no argument with Abraham. And he did honor Abraham by letting him sit on his throne. The Pharaoh had ordered the people all to bring cedar wood and make an enormous bonfire to burn Abraham on. Then the priest's knife was cast from his hand. The priest was overthrown and killed and Abraham was let go. Then he ordered them to gather wood and build a special place to put Abraham's throne on. Then he said he had 365 of the highest nobles of the land come with their children to Abraham to sit on the throne and be taught the principles of astronomy by Abraham. Well, that's what we have here in facsimile No.3. Figure One: "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, [notice the two feathers; that is the spiritual crown, the shew feathers], as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgement in his hand." Then it says, "Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king's court." We are told that's exactly what he did. We are told in the Bet Ha-Midrash (I have a Bet Ha Midrash text), page 140 in the fifth volume, that he sat upon the throne by Pharaoh's permission, and all the court brought their children to be instructed in the principles of astronomy. We are told he began preaching, "Blessed be God who created the sun, the moon, and the planets." That's the way he began his sermon to the children of the Egyptians after Pharaoh had accepted Abraham. He accepted Abraham at his court, and Abraham became a great favorite of him.....



Joseph Smith told us all this before any of the other texts of Abraham had been discovered.

The above is from Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Pearl of Great Price, pg. 295-297
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Quantumwave
_Emeritus
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:35 pm

Book of Abraham

Post by _Quantumwave »

Hi Gaz,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to provide this information. As you have seen from my posts, I am quite skeptical of even the existence of Abraham, but your references do bring up some interesting questions. There seems to be a large quantity of written material re Abraham, more than I would have ever guessed existed. This brings up the possibility that a thorough research of existing documents could reveal a reference to original source materials. I wouldn't bet on it, but the information you provide in your thread gives at least some hope.

Hugh Nibley, may he RIP, provides some interesting results of his research, but does not refer to original source materials, at least not to my knowledge. Your information motivates me to take a more detailed look at Abrahamic writings, including Hugh's research results. If I find reference to original source material, I'll let you know.

Thanks again.
_ozemc
_Emeritus
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by _ozemc »

Paul Osborne wrote:
The message of Animal Farm is correct, Paul. That doesn't make it scripture.


Harmony,

Animal Farm or no Animal Farm; is this scripture?

"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born."

Paul O


Not being familiar with it, I assume (!) that this is from the Book of Abraham?

Well, according to the LDS church, it is scripture. Other religions might tend to disagree, however.

I think the best question to ask is "Is this an accurate translation of the papyri that Joseph Smith had?"

Clearly, the answer to that question is no.
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk

Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

Quantum,

There's a big volume out from FARMS called traditions in the life of Abraham or something like that that brings them all together. It's supposedly a really good volume, used as a textbook even by some non-Mormon universities. I haven't looked at the Testament of Abraham, but the Apocalypse of Abraham has a few interesting similarities with the Book of Abraham. Then again, these similarities have been greatly exaggerated in the apologetic literature, such as the work of Michael D. Rhodes. I highly recommend people read these apocryphal works for themselves, rather than relying on the apologists' descriptions of them. In any case, the Apocalypse fits right into the scene of first-and-second century Jewish apocalypticism and anti-idolatry rhetoric. I can't imagine there being much extra-Biblical, historically accurate information about Abraham therein. Nor does the Book of Abraham exhibit the same kind of first-century earmarks, so making it a late apocryphon is almost as problematic as having it be an authentic account of Abraham's life.

-CK
_Quantumwave
_Emeritus
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:35 pm

Post by _Quantumwave »

CaliforniaKid wrote:Quantum,

There's a big volume out from FARMS called traditions in the life of Abraham or something like that that brings them all together. It's supposedly a really good volume, used as a textbook even by some non-Mormon universities. I haven't looked at the Testament of Abraham, but the Apocalypse of Abraham has a few interesting similarities with the Book of Abraham. Then again, these similarities have been greatly exaggerated in the apologetic literature, such as the work of Michael D. Rhodes. I highly recommend people read these apocryphal works for themselves, rather than relying on the apologists' descriptions of them. In any case, the Apocalypse fits right into the scene of first-and-second century Jewish apocalypticism and anti-idolatry rhetoric. I can't imagine there being much extra-Biblical, historically accurate information about Abraham therein. Nor does the Book of Abraham exhibit the same kind of first-century earmarks, so making it a late apocryphon is almost as problematic as having it be an authentic account of Abraham's life.

-CK


Thanks for the reference, CK.

I'm not much of a FARMS fan but given your recommendation, I'll look for it in the local library.

You stated:
Nor does the Book of Abraham exhibit the same kind of first-century earmarks, so making it a late apocryphon is almost as problematic as having it be an authentic account of Abraham's life.

I don't know about "earmarks" but I do have many problems with the content of the Book of Abraham.
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

I don't know about "earmarks"


If you spend much time with 1st c. apocrypha, you'll start to notice that even the extra-biblical themes they explore are shared broadly across the apocalyptic literature of the day. One example is making fun of idol worship by emphasizing that idols don't have the ability to keep themselves from getting destroyed or by emphasizing that it's humans who make the idols rather than the other way around. This is precisely what we find in the first several chapters of the apocalypse of Abraham. Bel and the Dragon is another wonderful little piece along the same lines. Even a number of the orthodox church fathers use this line of argument. The Book of Abraham calls the idols "dumb idols" and says they're "made from wood and stone," but this is a line of reasoning found in the Bible (cf. Deut. 29:17), and the Book of Abraham stops short of the full-fledged ridicule we find in 1st c. literature. Another common theme is angelology-- if the Book of Abraham contained common period angel names like "Raphael," "Ioael," etc., it would fit into period literature. If it made reference to aeons or to distinctly gnostic ideas, it would fit into period literature. If it described an ascent through the 7 levels of heaven in the company of an angelic being, it would fit the period literature. Most first-c. apocrypha are easily identifiable as first-c. apocrypha on the basis of their content. The Book of Abraham, however, contains nothing that obviously belongs to that era.

(note: I say "first-century," but really the same themes were utilized from about 3rd c. BC to 4th c. AD.)
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

I'm not much of a FARMS fan


Neither am I. This volume, however, is just a compilation of translated texts.
_jimmyspa
_Emeritus
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:32 pm

Re: The Book of Abraham

Post by _jimmyspa »

Quantumwave wrote:[Are you saying this part
Quote:
of the genuine papyrus used by the prophet and his associates to translate the Book of Abraham
was written by the hand of Abraham?
?



Yes, there is nothing wrong with this, if God made him "see" the Egyptian
object as really a document that Abraham had written ´by his own hand´...
There are no limits to the power of God or the ways in which He transmits
knowledge to a Prophet, therefore there is no contradiction between the
egyptological reality and what Joseph Smith saw and put down in writing for us... except
for those who want to ridicule and deny everything the LDS believe.

Jimmy
_Quantumwave
_Emeritus
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:35 pm

Re: The Book of Abraham

Post by _Quantumwave »

jimmyspa wrote:
Quantumwave wrote:[Are you saying this part
Quote:
of the genuine papyrus used by the prophet and his associates to translate the Book of Abraham
was written by the hand of Abraham?
?



Yes, there is nothing wrong with this, if God made him "see" the Egyptian
object as really a document that Abraham had written ´by his own hand´...
There are no limits to the power of God or the ways in which He transmits
knowledge to a Prophet, therefore there is no contradiction between the
egyptological reality and what Joseph Smith saw and put down in writing for us... except
for those who want to ridicule and deny everything the LDS believe.

Jimmy


Jimmy,
Did I say there was something wrong with that? You seem to suffer from some degee of paranoia.
I suggest you read Paul O's answer to the question, and if you continue to have a problem, take it up with him.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Quantumwave

Post by _Gazelam »

The book I quoted from is the transcript to a lecture series he gave to an honors class at BYU in 1986. So unlike a book where he puts tons of footnotes, this one is lacking unless he mentioned his source while he was speaking.

In this case he seems to draw from a Midrash.

Theres a really good lecture he gives on Enoch in the book. But this thread is about Abraham. Although the Abraham thread in the terrestrial kingdom seems to be the popular one.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Post Reply