The God of Korash - not in the earliest mss

[_DonBradley]

CK,

The identification of the Pharaonic-looking figure as the god of Pharaoh seems spot on; and a crocodile doesn't obviously make a fitting "god of Pharaoh." So it would appear that Joseph Smith initially offered the names of the gods as an explanation of the canopic jars, but later treated the text as an entity in its own right, rather than as an explanation of the lion couch scene. My guess would be that the Nauvoo identification of the crocodile as the god of Pharaoh was an attempt both to account for the crocodile and to pin the intrusive god of Korash to something in the lion couch scene.

Of course, it's also possible that Smith realized in Kirtland that he could add another god to explain the crocodile figure near the canopic jars. But in this case it would be puzzling that he chose to identify "Koash" or Korash with the Pharaoh figure and the god of Pharaoh with the crocodile.

None of this explains exactly why Smith would have added Koash/Korash to the divine mix, but it does offer some probable insight into Joseph Smith's method of composition: at first, he appears to be tied more tightly to opening vignette (and to the Grammar readings), but with time he comes to treat the text as an entity in itself, to be modified without much regard for the vignettes and the Grammar readings. Another illustration of this might be his transformation of the Grammar-style name "Zeptah" into the Josephus-derived "Egyptus."

by the way, what do you make of the variant spellings--is "Libnah" just a misreading of "Zibnah," or is there early attestation of the form "Libnah"? and is "Korash" attested in the manuscripts, or is "Koash" likely the correct form?

Don

[_sailgirl7]

Let me try with my apologist thinking cap on.

There are several plausible explanations:

1. There is no discrepancy.

2. There is a discrepancy but it was deliberate for some unknown reason.

3. There is a discrepancy but it was not deliberate because man is not infallible.

4. You must be cheating on your spouse or robbing banks.

5. Korash/Koash is a mysterious diety and can control his presence at will.

6. Ms. 1 is the MOST CORRECT version and all others should be dismissed.

7. You cannot be trusted. CFR.

8. Pray about it. Sincerely.

9. Joseph was learning as he went along.

Does this cover them all? :)

[_Yoda]

Does this cover them all? :)

You hit it out of the park, Sailgirl!

;)

[_DonBradley]

Sailgirl,

I believe #4 should actually be "You must be cheating on your spouse while robbing banks."

However, I'm partial to #5. Who are we to dictate the ways of (a) god?

[_CaliforniaKid]

My guess would be that the Nauvoo identification of the crocodile as the god of Pharaoh was an attempt both to account for the crocodile and to pin the intrusive god of Korash to something in the lion couch scene.

MS 1 actually isn't Nauvoo-era. It was probably written in November 1835.

Of course, it's also possible that Smith realized in Kirtland that he could add another god to explain the crocodile figure near the canopic jars. But in this case it would be puzzling that he chose to identify "Koash" or Korash with the Pharaoh figure and the god of Pharaoh with the crocodile.

I agree; that is odd.

by the way, what do you make of the variant spellings--is "Libnah" just a misreading of "Zibnah," or is there early attestation of the form "Libnah"? and is "Korash" attested in the manuscripts, or is "Koash" likely the correct form?

Don

I don't know about the "correct" form, but Zibnah and Koash do seem to be the earliest forms. (Unless there's something in the GAEL I'm not remembering.)

-CK

[_DonBradley]

My guess would be that the Nauvoo identification of the crocodile as the god of Pharaoh was an attempt both to account for the crocodile and to pin the intrusive god of Korash to something in the lion couch scene.

MS 1 actually isn't Nauvoo-era. It was probably written in November 1835.

Right. But the interpretation of Facsimile 1 is Nauvoo-era, and that's what I was referring to. It appears that Joseph Smith added "the god of Ko[r]ash" without considering how this would affect the line-up of gods/jars in the lion couch scene, and only later connected the now-fifth god, the god of Pharaoh, to the crocodile. This is suggested by the way inserting "Ko[r]ash" into the list displaces the Pharaoh figure from being "the god of Pharaoh" and requires the addition of a new god figure, and by the artificiality of connecting "the god of Pharaoh" to what appears to be a living crocodile, rather than a statuary Pharaoh.

Does that make sense?

by the way, Shades, if CK doesn't object, I'd suggest moving this thread to his kingdom (the CK) and pinning it. Pinned scholarly discussions in the Celestial Kingdom appear to be the most productive.

Don

[_Bond...James Bond]

by the way, Shades, if CK doesn't object, I'd suggest moving this thread to his kingdom (the CK) and pinning it. Pinned scholarly discussions in the Celestial Kingdom appear to be the most productive.

Don

CK? It's your thread.......

[_Who Knows]

But the interpretation of Facsimile 1 is Nauvoo-era, and that's what I was referring to.

Is it? I know it wasn't published until the nauvoo-era (along with the first part of the Book of Abraham), but are you sure facsimile 1 wasn't 'translated' until then?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Right. But the interpretation of Facsimile 1 is Nauvoo-era, and that's what I was referring to. It appears that Joseph Smith added "the god of Ko[r]ash" without considering how this would affect the line-up of gods/jars in the lion couch scene, and only later connected the now-fifth god, the god of Pharaoh, to the crocodile. This is suggested by the way inserting "Ko[r]ash" into the list displaces the Pharaoh figure from being "the god of Pharaoh" and requires the addition of a new god figure, and by the artificiality of connecting "the god of Pharaoh" to what appears to be a living crocodile, rather than a statuary Pharaoh.

You're probably right. Verse 14 does connect the deities with the figures at the beginning, but since Joseph Smith overlooked adding Korash to v. 13 in MS 1, he may not have realized that adding that deity to v. 6 would conflict with his interpretation of the vignette. Then, in the 1840's, he made the crocodile connection. I'm curious as to why he added Korash in the first place, though.

by the way, Shades, if CK doesn't object, I'd suggest moving this thread to his kingdom (the CK) and pinning it. Pinned scholarly discussions in the Celestial Kingdom appear to be the most productive.

Don

You can move it to the CK if you want. I don't know that it's pin-worthy, though.

-CK

[_Jersey Girl]

You posted this on MADB? Good luck!