Continuing with the questions or comments received after our
ten-part series regarding the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith papyri:
Comment #4: “Since
reading your posts, I looked up some images of Egyptian priests and found they
were not all the same. So why are some Egyptian priests bald, others with a
side lock of hair, and others with full heads of hair?” Amelia.
Response: This is one of those questions that may different answers, but from what I know, there were three styles of hair or
hairless priests. The first, the sem, or high priest, was bald, though
occasionally (dependent upon the temple one served), they had a sidelock of
hair, also a style seen among some young boys dedicated to temple service. The
sem is sometimes represented erroneously with hair. All priests were bald. Many
of them in the higher orders wore masks of gods, such as the Anubis mask of the
jackal head, which which most people are familiar. On occasion, some priests
wore wigs, but not too often, again depending upon the temple they served, and
possibly the role they were enacting in the different rituals involved. All the
lower orders of priests in all temples were bald and wore nothing upon their
heads. As Paul writes of the Christian church, there were deacons, teachers,
priests, high priests, etc., and so it was among the Egyptian priests, i.e.,
they had different levels or orders and each order had its own
responsibilities, with the higher orders performing or in charge of the rituals
others performed.
Comment #5: “Why do you have such a different take on the
Egyptian funery scene or whatever you want to call it in Abraham than the
Egyptologists who have interpreted it?” Layla.
Response: Egyptologists, who have spent years and careers
studying Egyptian hieroglyphics, rituals and legends, tend to do so from an
academic or layman’s point of view when it comes to religion. Few professional
people in archaeology, anthropology and linguistics, have a deep background in
religion, that is the religion of God that has a priesthood, modern day
revelation, and prophets/leaders with authority. Consequently, they view
matters from one view, I view them from another. In addition, I am not a school
trained and educated Egyptologist, therefore, my views are not conditioned or
predicated by a strict observance of Egyptology and its academic background.
As an example, the story told in Facsimile 1 and 3 of the
Sumerian king that takes
up the challenge and tries to make a ritual offering of Abraham as the
well-known substitute king (Abraham 1:18 and Facsimile 1). Abraham's miraculous
delivery converts the king, who petitions Abraham for his priesthood and offers
his own honors in exchange—such is the burden of many legends and of Facsimile
3; he also covets Abraham's wife in hopes of establishing a priestly line in
the true succession. This follows the original story of Egyptus, daughter of
Ham who was just man who walked with God (Moses 8:27), who settled in Egypt and
named her first son Pharaoh, a devout and honorable man who erroneously claimed
the priesthood through Noah, but could not hold the Priesthood because of his lineage through
his grandmother’s Cananite lineage, Ham’s wife (Abraham 1:27), duplicated the true
priesthood and ran his kingdom by the practices of the priesthood, though he
had no authority. These are matters Egyptologist either don't know or don't consider as a background for interpretation, etc.
Comment
#5: “The drawn knife in the priest’s hand
in the drawing in the Book of Mormon is out of character for an Egyptian funery
scene, and shows Joseph Smith simply added it incorrectly” Matteo.
The final vignette image with the raised knife showing; Right: The present
fragment of Facsimile 1 in the possession of the LDS Church showing parts have
been broken off over time
Response: First, John Gee in his article
"Eyewitness, Hearsay and Physical Evidence" in the Richard Lloyd
Anderson Festschrift, notes that the journal of William Appleby in 1841 states:
"There are likewise representations of an Altar erected, with a man bound
and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand…” Second, there are
also descriptions of scenes from the papyri that are not published and the
knife is depicted in the hand of Figure 3, Facsimile 1. Third, Henry Caswell
(who was a non-Mormon and hostile to Joseph Smith, and by his own admission who
was looking for any evidence to say anything bad against him) visited Nauvoo in
1842, and said that “one vignette contained the figure of a man lying on a
table, accompanied by a man standing by him with a drawn knife.” Sixth,
Charlotte Haven, in 1843, said that there was a man with a knife in the
vignette known as Facsimile 1.
Of course, the
existence of the knife has been doubted by many because it doesn't conform with
what numerous other Egyptian papyri would lead us to expect. However, there were many
eye witnesses in Joseph Smith's day that said the knife was on Facsimile No. 1.
The fact that the original today, which has obviously been damaged, shows no knife because of a
lacuna—a gap—that has been broken off, has
not only been refuted by numerous eye witnesses, but it also refutes the
Egyptologists' other false claim, that the papyri we have today are in pretty
much the same shape as they were in Joseph Smith's day. That has been shown to
be untrue. Obviously, the damage seen in the original today occurred after
Joseph Smith’s time.
Comment #6: “Despite all your effort to cloud the issue with your several posts on
the so-called Abraham papyri, the fact still remains that the Facsimiles shown
in the Book do not match what modern Egyptologists claim it does” Tobias M.
Response: Since my ten posts on the
subject didn’t alter your thinking or satisfy your mind, I’ll just quote Henry
Eyring, father of Henry B. Eyring, who authored, co-authored, or edited 23
scientific books and journals, and authored more than 600 scientific articles,
and a renowned and award-winning chemist, wrote in Reflections of a Scientist, p 46: “An example of what I am talking
about is the recent discovery of the papyrus scrolls from which Joseph Smith
was presumed to have translated the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great
Price. Modern scholars, looking at the scrolls, found nothing they considered
to be similar to that book. I remarked at the time that such a finding didn't
bother me in the least. God doesn't need a crib sheet in the form of a papyrus
scroll to reveal Abraham's thoughts and words to Joseph Smith, with any degree
of precision He considers necessary for His purposes. If the only function of
the scrolls was to awaken the Prophet to the idea of receiving such
inspiration, they would have fulfilled their purpose.”
Comment #7: “Even
after reading your several posts on the Book of Abraham, I’m still reading from
experts that claim your Church has all of the original papyri” Leandro
Response: Nothing more can be stated about this than
that Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a
hypocephalus (Facsimile 2), and of these original materials, only a handful of
fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri
remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. One look at the fragments now held
by the Church show that they are simply fragments of a larger scroll. Critics
who claim that the Church has all, or a majority, of the papyri possessed by
Joseph Smith are simply mistaken.
(See the next post,
“Comments and Question about the Book of Abraham – Part III,” for more of the
comments received about our previously posted ten-part series on the Book of
Abraham papyri)
No comments:
Post a Comment