The Book of Abraham: From Whence was it Derived?

[Guest]

I can see your point were we talking about known fiction. However, unlike the Book of Mormon, the story of Abraham is demonstrably historical, predating Smith by thousands of years. Because it is historical, then determining how or whether Joseph could have written that history when he may not have been privy to certain key detals of the history, isn't the least bit dubious an approach, but a perfectly reasonable issue to pursue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why not be straight forward and present what you think Joseph could not have known and then people can go from there. If it's demonstrable, then demonstrate it.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I can see your point were we talking about known fiction. However, unlike the Book of Mormon, the story of Abraham is demonstrably historical, predating Smith by thousands of years. Because it is historical, then determining how or whether Joseph could have written that history when he may not have been privy to certain key detals of the history, isn't the least bit dubious an approach, but a perfectly reasonable issue to pursue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is nothing that corroborates that it is history. Nothing. And besides the papyri, there is plenty of evidence that it was made up, based loosely on the biblical account and his own imagination. You start with Abraham 1:1, where he refers to himself as Abraham while he was still in the land of the Chaldeans, when he would have been called Abram. And that's just after one verse.

[_Mortal Man]

Whether the explanations Joseph Smith gave for the facsimiles are a simple case of iconotropy, or valid translations of the meaning intended by their original author(s) remains unanswered, but I am inclined to believe that it was the Egyptians who were originally guilty of the iconotropy, in which case Joseph Smith was merely restoring the original meaning of the iconography in question.

Osiris iconography predates Abraham.

[_Kishkumen]

Whether the explanations Joseph Smith gave for the facsimiles are a simple case of iconotropy, or valid translations of the meaning intended by their original author(s) remains unanswered, but I am inclined to believe that it was the Egyptians who were originally guilty of the iconotropy, in which case Joseph Smith was merely restoring the original meaning of the iconography in question.

Osiris iconography predates Abraham.

LOL!!! Me oh my. By all means, Mortal Man, don't trust the facts. Will's faith in the chronological, yea, cosmological primacy of LDS religion is the perfect scholarly defense here. Why, before you know it Will will be submitting such titles as "How the Egyptians got their religion from a man named Adam" to Chronique d'Égypte! I can just see Daniel Peterson and John Gee stroking their chins in pensive-looking approval now.

I recall how convinced scholars were when Gee proclaimed the Old Testament stories historically true at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. This will be another similar coup by their fawning minion Will.

[_Milesius]

Whether the explanations Joseph Smith gave for the facsimiles are a simple case of iconotropy, or valid translations of the meaning intended by their original author(s) remains unanswered, but I am inclined to believe that it was the Egyptians who were originally guilty of the iconotropy, in which case Joseph Smith was merely restoring the original meaning of the iconography in question.

Osiris iconography predates Abraham.

Prexactly. Although, Schryver's vain attempt to impute iconotropy to the Egyptians with respect to their own iconography is bold in a completely detached from reality sort of way, not unlike when Pahoran suggests Tarski is stupid.

[_Kishkumen]

Prexactly. Although, Schryver's vain attempt to impute iconotropy to the Egyptians with respect to their own iconography is bold in a completely detached from reality sort of way...

How uncharacteristically generous and gentle of you, Milesius! I would come right out and say that it is completely bonkers, but you are free to practice your gentility here.

[_wenglund]

There is nothing that corroborates that it is history. Nothing. And besides the papyri, there is plenty of evidence that it was made up, based loosely on the biblical account and his own imagination. You start with Abraham 1:1, where he refers to himself as Abraham while he was still in the land of the Chaldeans, when he would have been called Abram. And that's just after one verse.

This is odd. You claim that there is nothing that corroborates that the Book of Abraham is historical, yet you contradict that claim by suggesting that the Book of Abraham was "based loosely on the biblcal account", which is undoubtably historical--and this even if one assumes that Abraham was a mythical or fictional biblical charactrer.

For additional historical evidence in controvention to your claim, see: Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

There is nothing that corroborates that it is history. Nothing. And besides the papyri, there is plenty of evidence that it was made up, based loosely on the biblical account and his own imagination. You start with Abraham 1:1, where he refers to himself as Abraham while he was still in the land of the Chaldeans, when he would have been called Abram. And that's just after one verse.

This is odd. You claim that there is nothing that corroborates that the Book of Abraham is historical, yet you contradict that claim by suggesting that the Book of Abraham was "based loosely on the biblcal account", which is undoubtably historical--and this even if one assumes that Abraham was a mythical or fictional biblical charactrer.

For additional historical evidence in controvention to your claim, see: Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You really aren't making any sense here, Wade. The point is, and I think this should be obvious, nothing indicates that the Book of Abraham was actually written by Abraham. If you want to classify it as historical fiction, fine. (Depending on whether you accept the historicity of the Bible, it may be historical fiction based on historical fiction.)

Do you have any evidence for it being historical that you would like to present here? I have no intention of buying the book.

[_wenglund]

You really aren't making any sense here, Wade.

Wrong. You are just not grasping the sense.

The point is, and I think this should be obvious, nothing indicates that the Book of Abraham was actually written by Abraham.

No. The point is, the story of Abraham historically predfates Smith by several thousands of years. It was a part of history well before Smith was born. However. only a fraction of the story was available to Smith at the time he produced the Book of Abraham. The question then becomes, where did Smith get the rest of the historical story.

Do you have any evidence for it being historical that you would like to present here? I have no intention of buying the book.

The Bible is historical evidence, but I will see if I can find online bits and pieces of the material contained in the book, and provide links thereto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

The Bible is historical evidence, but I will see if I can find online bits and pieces of the material contained in the book, and provide links thereto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Joseph Smith knew the Bible, Wade.

Please attempt to make an argument.

ETA: please don't just post the links. You need to briefly describe what the argument is. I don't have time for a wild goose chase.