KerryShirts

Members
  • Posts

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KerryShirts

  1. Eh, perhaps. But with most of the differences being vowels, it's not a big deal. There were no vowels in Semitic languages......
  2. Ah that's O.K., I wrote it with many Freemasons in mind. It is applicable to everyone as I already noted. GRIN!
  3. Oh I thought it was going to help, but I guess it doesn't. Oops!
  4. My Word I’m “Bad”! No, Really… MY Word Can Make Me “Bad” Kerry A. Shirts, MM, 32°, RAM CM, RAM Ritualist/Education Officer of Eagle Rock Lodge # 19 Idaho Falls, Idaho December 18, 2010 I owe the entire impetus to this exegetical research paper to a nifty book I own by George H. Guthrie, J. Scott Duvall, Biblical Greek Exegesis, Zondervan Publishing, 1998. Their idea and research is simplified in order to teach a student how to use a concordance, lexicon, and Bible dictionaries and commentaries, so their research is not meant to be as in-depth as I am going to go into. Their approach was delightful and I will expand on it. It is a message for all of us, no matter what our stations in life, Freemasons, Jews, Christians, etc. I have especially Freemasons in mind, but the application of this practical and interesting advice from one of the volumes of our Sacred Law, the Bible, is useable and seriously necessary for everyone of any walk in life to “get in your gut,” so to speak. It is important to realize that words change meaning through time. Words also can have both a central meaning as well as peripheral meanings.[1] Kenneth Wuest put it quite accurately: “Some English words have changed their meaning in the 300 years since the Authorized Version was translated. Since this version still remains the most widely used translation of the Scriptures, there is need of bringing that particular part of the translation up to date. Then again, a student of the English Bible often interprets a word according to its current usage in ordinary conversation instead of in its more specialized meaning. Again, in the case of synonyms, one English word may be the translation of four Greek words, each having a shade of meaning slightly different from the other. This added light is denied the student of the English Bible. Consequently, while he may not arrive at an erroneous interpretation of the passage where the particular word occurs, yet he does not have as accurate and clear an interpretation of it as he might have. Or again, a Greek word may have a very rich content of meaning which would demand a few sentences if not a paragraph to bring out. But in a translation like the A.V., where the translation is held down to a minimum of words, it is impossible to bring out this richness of meaning. A knowledge of the Greek word is of help here. Then, there are some words dealing with the theology of the N.T., or its doctrines, which are not understood by the English reader, but where a knowledge of the Greek word and its usage is of great help.”[2] While reading Gutherie and Duvall’s analysis of a Biblical word, it dawned on me that this would make a nice little piece of research to do in greater depth than they did for a practical way to live our lives. The Greek word they suggested (with some very interesting ideas) was the adjective σαπρός, (sapros) which in its lexical semantic range of meanings essentially boiled down to meaning “bad.” Allow me to elaborate a bit on this. The word σαπρός is first found during a discussion of Jesus’ teachings of judging and finding out how to tell the good from the bad in the Gospel of Matthew. Alan Hugh M’Neile noted in his commentary on Matthew that Jesus sought to make his sayings balanced and alternated synonyms such as ἀγαθὸν (agathon – “good”) with καλοὺς (kalous –“good” or “beautiful”) and σαπρὸν (sapron – “bad”) with πονηροὺς (ponerous – “evil or bad”), thus his entire phrase is balanced and poignant, hence directly to the point, as Jesus was wont to do in his teachings. His statement reads thus: Matt 7:17 οὕτως πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ σαπρὸν δένδρον καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖ. 18 οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν οὐδὲ δένδρον σαπρὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖν. “So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.” “The saying must be balanced by instances in which the Lord saw the possibilities of good in bad people. Here, as in xii. 33 ff., he deals with the principle that evil as such cannot produce good; cf. Job xiv. 4. σαπρός is not ‘rotten,’ for a rotten tree would produce no fruit of any kind, but ‘worthless.’”[3] Gutherie and Duvall noted that the Greek lexicon [the BAGD] establishes that σαπρός has two meanings listed. Something to do with spoiled fish (Matt 13:48), of decayed trees (Matt 7:17-18; 12:33), of rotten fruits (Matt 12:33; Luke 6:43). The other meaning is a figurative meaning of bad, evil, or unwholesome (Ephesians 4:29).[4] At Matthew 12 this teaching is even more powerfully presented within the context of some enemies of Jesus accusing him of casting out demons by the Father of demons.[5] The Greek is Βεελζεβοὺλ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων – Beelzeboul archonti[6] ton daimonion – “Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.” Jesus’ response to this is to show how illogical their thinking was. He used the natural world, as well as the idea that if “Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself” - ἐφʼ ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσθη – then his kingdom cannot stand. One cannot be against oneself. After a few more examples Jesus gets to the example of the tree. He proclaims a direct command for his enemies to be logical and coherent at Matthew 12:33: Ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον καλὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καλόν, ἢ ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον σαπρὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ σαπρόν· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.” A good tree will not bring forth bad fruit. “Matthew perhaps saw a link in the thought that the Lord, being a ‘good tree,’ could not produce the ‘bad fruit’ of alliance with Beelzebub.”[7] If Jesus was casting out demons by Satan’s power, his remark on the strong man is appropriate as well. He obviously had defeated the strong man first (Satan), if he was using Satan to cast out Satan’s own army. Or as James E. Talmage put it “Christ had attacked the stronghold of Satan, had driven his evil spirits from the human tabernacles of which they had unwarrantably taken possession; how could Christ have done this had He first not subdued the ‘strong man’ the master of the devils, Satan himself?”[8] A good tree will not produce bad fruit, anymore than a bad tree will produce good fruit. This analogy from the natural world draws upon the Old Testament in interesting ways, as “fruit imagery was applied to the physical labor of an individual (Ps 109:11; 128:2), but most often it applied to moral acts (Proverbs 1:31; 11:30; Isaiah 3:10; 32:16-17; Jeremiah 6:19). It could also be applied to speech (Proverbs 12:14; 13:2; 18:21; Hosea 14:2). It was also used as a theme of judgment in the Vineyard of Israel, such as in Isaiah 5:1-7 and Ezekiel 17:9.[9] It is Jesus’ next teaching that I want to focus on however. It is profoundly relevant to us today even 2,000 years after it was spoken to another group of people from another time and place. “How can ye being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak shall they give an account thereof in the day of judgment.” (Matthew 12:34-37) Words matter! Why? “The nature or heart of a man determines his speech and action. Given the tree, the fruit follows – verse 33. Judge; pronounce; call both tree and fruit good or evil; they must both be of one kind, in fact and in thought.”[10] M. R. Vincent said the Greek ἐκβάλλει (ekballei) – “to bring forth” in Matthew 12:35 is feeble. “The word means to throw or fling out. The good or evil things come forth out of the treasure of the heart (34). ‘Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.’ The issues of the heart are thrown out, as if under pressure of the abundance within.”[11] The world renowned Biblical Archaeologist William F. Albright, and his colleague C.S. Mann noted that the Syriac text of the New Testament for the concept of “idle words” used the words “mella battala. In both Aramaic and later Hebrew the words from the stem btl mean both ‘lazy’ and ‘hurtful.’ Excuses about hasty judgment, speaking on the spur of the moment, cannot be accept when the subject matter is as serious as good and evil. The sayings look back to the accusation that Jesus was involved in an alliance with Satan.”[12] Jesus equates saying bad words with having a bad heart, analogously to a bad tree which brings forth bad fruit. The Greek σαπρός is seen at Matthew 7:17; Matthew7:18; Matthew 12:33, while at Matthew 13:48 σαπρός is used of bad fish which are thrown away as opposed to good fish which are kept. At Luke 6:43 we read “there is no good tree which produces bad fruit… nor a bad tree which produces good fruit.” σαπρός semantic meaning in all contexts has to do with that which is bad, rotten, decayed; having no value (Mt 7:17, 18; 12:33(2×); 13:48; Luke 6:43(2×)+); 2. harmful, unwholesome (NIV, NASB), corrupt words or speech (KJV, NKJV, ASV), evil talk (RSV, NRSV), foul word or language (NJB, NAB) offensive talk (REB), bad language (NEB), (Eph 4:29)[13] At Ephesians 4:29 σαπρός is translated as “unwholesome” – “let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth.” In relation to the other instances where it has been translated as “bad” in reference to trees and fishes, Gutherie, Duvall have a timely note – “the strong contrast within the verse (unwholesome words vs. words that edify and give grace) should take precedence over the literal meaning in the metaphors and parables of Jesus – rotten or bad fish, fruit, and trees.”[14] Lets take a closer look at Ephesians 4:29 which turns out to be intriguingly instructive for our purposes here, that of learning to bridle our tongues, along with our passions. πᾶς λόγος σαπρὸς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω, ἀλλὰ εἴ τις ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας, ἵνα δῷ χάριν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν. (KJV) “Let no evil talk come corrupt communication proceed out of your mouths, mouth, but only what that which is useful for building up, as there is need, so good to the use of edifying, that your words it may give minister grace to those who hear unto the hearers.” Kenneth Wuest notes that “the Greek order is, “every word that is corrupt, out of your mouth let it not proceed.” Expositors says: “pas (πας) (every) … mē (μη) (no), the well-known Hebraistic form, the negative attaching itself to the verb, means ‘non-utterance’—let that be for every word.” The word “communication” is logos (λογος), “a word,” here in the sense of “a saying, utterance, speech.” “Corrupt” is sapros (σαπρος), “rotten, worn out, unfit for use, worthless, bad.” Paul goes on; “Every word that is corrupt, out of your mouth let it not be proceeding, but whatever is good, suitable for the use of edification with respect to the need, and this, in order that it may impart grace to those who are hearing.” “Grace” is charis (χαρις), the NEW TESTAMENT word for God’s grace in salvation. Here it refers to the spiritual blessings and benefits that will accrue to the hearers from the gracious words of the speaker.”[15] The Greek ἐκ-πορευέσθω is in the imperative mood -πορεύομαι go out,[16] the mood which Gerald Stevens teaches “is timeless, a mood of command.”[17] This is more of a demand upon us, rather than a gentleman’s polite request. And here at Ephesians 4:29, our word σαπρος can mean “rotten or worn out and unfit for use, and then worthless, bad... here it does not seem to mean filthy, but, as the following clause ἀγαθὸς etc., suggests, bad, profitless, of no good to anyone. Some, however, give it the more specific sense = foul, as including scurrilous and unbecoming utterance.”[18] Ellicott reminds us that, of course, “the exact shade of meaning will always be best determined by the context. ”[19] And this context shows us that the Greek adjective πᾶς is the nominative singular for the word “all” or “every. ” πᾶς modifies the nominative noun λόγος which here means a word such as in speech or a statement. The syntactic force of λόγος is that it is the subject of this sentence. And, logically, and obviously we know that λόγος is modified by the nominative adjective σαπρὸς meaning “rotten” or “worthless. ” So this is about every single rotten or worthless word going out of our mouths (στόματος – stomatos).[20] Markus Barth showed that the ancient Hebrew and perhaps Phoenician expression was “pass your lips, ” and the Homeric expression “escape from the hedge of the teeth. ”[21] Yet this is not the entire meaning in our verse. Paul also indicates that it is necessary and desireable for us to “build up” our fellow humans. The Greek noun in the accusative, οἰκοδομή (oikodomē), means building (Matt 24:1; Mark 13:1, 2; Eph 2:21); 2. construction, build up (1 Corinthians 3:9; Ephesians 4:12; 1 Timothy 1:4 v.r.); 3. making more able, a building up, edification, strengthening (Romans 14:19; 15:2; 1 Corinthians 3:9; 14:3, 5, 12, 26; 2 Corinthians 5:1; 10:8; 12:19; 13:10; Ephesians 4:16, 29)[22] I think the ethical and moral situation described in this little study of a couple Greek words and concepts is profoundly informative for us to practice, not only in our words, but specifically and strongly in our hearts first. Another scripture can parallel this one. “Colossians 3:8 shows that people whose hearts have been changed by Christ should exhibit new behavior, including new habits of speech, especially in relation to one another. When Paul prohibits the three categories of evil speech in Ephesians 5:4 – obscenity, foolish talk, and coarse joking – he may be further defining what he meant by unwholesome talk in 4:29. But the immediate context of 4:29 – the contrast between speech that builds up and speech that tears down – suggests that here he is referring to speech that damages relationships in the Christian community. This goes beyond obscene speech to destructive speech.”[23] Words can destroy empires, states, cities, and lives. They can also build these up as well. “One of the most overlooked emphases in the Pauline letters is his exhortation concerning the spirituality of ordinary human speech. In Ephesians 4:25 – 5:20 and a parallel passage in Colossians 3:5-17, we find the strongest possible language – both negative and positive – exhorting believers to give heed to their speech.”[24] As Freemasons we all ought to be able to agree with this aspect of one of our Volumes of Sacred Law, and begin practicing and continue implementing these important exhortations in our lives, and in our mouths. Endnotes 1. Eugene A. Nida, Johannes P. Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, Scholars Press, Society of Biblical Literature, 1992: 11. 2. Wuest, Kenneth S. (1997, c1984). Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English reader (Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament: p.9-10). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 3. Alan Hugh M’Neile, The Gospel According to Matthew: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices, Macmillan & Co., 1957: 95, note 18. 4. George H. Gutherie, J. Scott Duvall, Biblical Greek Exegesis, Zondervan, 1998: 131. 5. Rudolf Bultmann showed that Matthew was the Gospel writer who attributed the Pharisees as being Jesus’ enemy on this occasion. Mark never identified who the opposition was, in his History of the Synoptic Tradition, Hendrickson Publishing, 1963: 52. 6. Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990-c1993). Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (1:167-168). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans comments on “Archon” are interesting. “In Matt 20:25 ἄρχοντες applies to earthly lordship in general (material, though not verbatim, parallel in Mark 10:42; Luke 22:25), whereas in Romans 13:3 it refers to the ruling authorities in the sense of Hellenistic-Roman administrative language and in Acts 16:19—there only in the New Testament—to municipal officials. In Acts 4:26, in a prayer from Ps 2:1f., “the kings of the earth” are exegetically interpreted in a pre-Lukan sense to refer to Herod Antipas and οἱ ἄρχοντες to Pilate (cf. Acts 4:27–30). In the Synoptic Gospels and Acts persons in special positions are usually designated as ἄρχων: e.g., the judge in Luke 12:58, a member of the Sanhedrin in Luke 23:13, the high priest in Acts 23:5. As the ἄρχων of the people (Acts 7:27, 35) Moses attains typological significance in Lukan theology in connection with the Christ-event (cf. Luke 2:38; 24:21; Acts 3:15; 5:31). A comparison of the Synoptics shows that ἀρχισυνάγωγος (president of the synagogue) is used interchangeably with ἄρχων (cf. e.g., Mark 5:22 par. Matt 9:18; Luke 8:41; Mark 5:38 par. Matt 9:23). This may result from the fact that in Diaspora Judaism both offices, though clearly distinguishable, could be held by the same person. More likely, however, is an imprecise knowledge of the more detailed function of the ἄρχων, as is shown also by the Lukan designation as ἄρχοντες (pl.) of Jewish “rulers,” who are, among other things, only members of the Sanhedrin. Although when an individual ἄρχων is mentioned weight is surely given to the meeting of the person with Jesus (cf. Luke 18:18, where, unlike Mark 10:17/Matt 19:16, the “rich young man” is thus designated), still pl. ἄρχοντες is also used in the Lukan writings to refer to the responsibility of the Jewish leadership as a whole for the death of Jesus (cf. Luke 14:1; 23:13, 35; 24:20; Acts 3:17; 4:5, 8; 13:27. In John 3:1; 7:26, 48; 12:42 ἄρχων / ἄρχοντες denotes individual members or several members of the Sanhedrin who, in contrast to “the Jews” and “the Pharisees,” are open in their attitude toward the message of Jesus. 7. M’Neile, Ibid., p. 179, note 33-35. 8. James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Deseret Book, 1948: 268. 9. G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, editors, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, Baker Academic, 2007: 298. 10. Alexander Balmain Bruce, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, (The Synoptic Gospels), Wm. B. Eerdmans, 5 vols., reprint, 1976, Vol 1:190, note 33-35. 11. M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, MacDonald Publishing, 2nd ed., 1888: 47. 12. William F. Albright, C.S. Mann, The Anchor Bible, Matthew, Doubleday, 1971: 157. 13. Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLG 4911, #2). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 14. Gutherie, Duvall, Ibid., p. 133. 15. Wuest, K. S. (1997, c1984). Wuest's word studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English reader (Eph 4:29). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 16. Zerwick, M., & Grosvenor, M. (1974). A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (587). Rome: Biblical Institute Press. 17. Gerald L. Stevens, New Testament Greek, University Press of America, 1994: 361. 18. W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 3, Wm B. Eerdmans, reprint, 1976: 347, note on verse 29. 19. Charles J. Ellicott, Ellicott’s Commentaries Critical and Grammatical on The Epistles of St. Paul With Revised Translations, James Family Publishing, reprint, 1978: “Ephesians,” p. 113. 20. Lukaszewski, A. L. (2006; 2006). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament: Expansions and Annotations (Eph 4:29). Logos Research Systems, Inc. 21. Markus Barth, The Anchor Bible, Ephesians, Doubleday, 1974: Vol. 2: 518. 22. Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLG 3869, #3). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 23. Gutherie, Duvall, Ibid., p. 138. 24. Gutherie, Duvall, Ibid., p. 140.
  5. Ahhhhh, in that case then DO IT! LOL!
  6. There is just no way you are going to teach all that in one lesson is there? Wow.....you must talk fast - GRIN!
  7. For an interesting short analysis of the original background to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, Margaret Barker has this to offer. Intriguing to say the least! http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf
  8. I also think the word "servant" is a decent one, because that is what the Son came to do is serve. I think the Jewish-Christians of this era were putting it all together concerning the Messiah, and as Rameumptom noted the tie with the OT prophecy Suffering Servant was a good one. There is an astoniishing enormous amount of materials on the Suffering Servant. I once began doing some research on it, and was very quickly overwhelmed. I think I shall continue on with it however.
  9. Heh...... I am not sure if or how it is evolving away from the croc. I know they use one symbol to mean many different things, and sometimes many symbols are used to mean just one thing. The Egyptian logic is just not ours........I shall have to check. Thanks for your ideas.
  10. Yes, in many cases, he really is outdated, without question. But, a judicious use of him is fine. I just don't rely on him for the last word is all. Hey I was using him because he was an Egyptologist. Funny how when he wasn't thinking of Joseph Smith, he taught that the four sos of Horus were the four quarters of the earth. But when Joseph's name was mentioned, he immediately launched into his diatribe of "Everything is idiotic about his translation!" LOL!
  11. Here is a paper I researched and wrote this weekend. Hope you all enjoy the ideas..... They were really interesting to find! The further value of this was I discovered (yet again) that Nibley's use of his sources are very, VERY good, as I have many of them and used them in this. What About the Crocodile in Facsimile Number One of the Book of Abraham? By Kerry A. Shirts April 11, 2010 Every now and then, we see or hear a critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints say that Joseph Smith got nothing right in his explanations for the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. They do not realize that the explanations of Joseph Smith are not translations, literally rendered, but explain what the function of the figures are for. He described what the story is with the various figures. True he did not translate the crocodile in Facsimile #1 as “Sobek,” but does that mean he was wrong to identify it as “The idolatrous god of Pharaoh?” When we look at what the Egyptologists and ancient Egyptians taught about Sobek, we are in for a real surprise. It just so happens that Sobek literally is “the idolatrous god of Pharaoh!” Lets consider the Egyptian evidence. James P. Allen, Curator of Egyptian Art at the Metropolitan Museum of art in New York and Research Associate and Lecturer in Egyptology at Yale University since 1986, shows the crocodile in the “sign list” when it is the determinative, signifies “aggression.” As a doubled sign, the ideologram is “jty” which, interestingly enough, means “sovereign.”[1] Sovereign, according to the “Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology,” comes from the 14th century Old French “so(u)vereinete” meaning “(supreme) ruler.” The old Roman word related to this was “superamus,” from “super,” which means what is above, “on top of,” “force,” “a very high degree,” “highest,” “in excess,” etc.[2] Alan Gardner also demonstrated that the crocodile as determinative, can mean “greedy,” “angry,” “to lust after,” “ voracious spirit,” “aggression,” and shows the doubling of the crocodile determinative to mean “sovereign,” as does Allen.[3] Sebek/Sobek is a god, not just some tame animal pet, or a mere impliment to make clothes out of.[4] Raymond O. Faulkner showed examples where the crocodile in Egyptian words also acts like an intransitive verb, meaning “be savage,” and “to be oppressive to.” As a transitive verb, it means “attack,” “aggressive,” and “anger.”[5] Interestingly, E. A. W. Budge noted that Sobek is also a sacred crocodile, and in fact, also “the Sun-god,” though he puts a question mark after it.[6] This hint is fascinatingly discussed in the Egyptological literature which I will now get to. Budge taught “that the crocodile, Ibis, dog-headed ape, and fish of various kinds were venerated in Egypt… they were not, however, venerated in dynastic times as animals, but as the abodes of gods… many nations have regarded animals as symbols of gods and divine powers…”[7] They were “worshipped devoutly as a result of abject fear…”[8] Herodotus noted some in Egypt reverence the crocodile, while others do not. Thebes was one place that felt the strongest sanctity toward the crocodile.[9] Herodotus also tells us that it was from Thebes that the two oracles by the women were established in the lands of Greece and Libya. Two black doves flew from Thebes, one of which landed at Dodona in Greece talking in a human voice and told them where it landed was to be an oracle of Zeus, which was interpreted as a command from heaven. The other one was established in Libyan where the oracle of Ammon was established.[10] John A. Wilson, one of the Egyptologists who translated the Joseph Smith Papyri in 1968, after it was given back to the church in 1967, by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, declared that the sun god Re was not simply a solar disc, but “had a personality as a god.” He enlarged himself when he “loaned himself to other gods… thus he was both Re and Amun-Re, the creator god at Heliopolis. He was Re-Harahte, that is, Re-Horus-of-the-horizon, as the youthful god on the eastern horizon. At various localities he became Montu-Re, a falcon god, Sobek-Re, a crocodile god, and Khnum-Re, a ram god. He became Amun-Re, King of the gods, as the imperial god of Thebes.”[11] The Egyptologist Erik Hornung indicates that Neith was mother to both Sobek and Re, hence her title “Mother of the gods.”[12] So we have established very clearly that the crocodile is one of the Egyptian gods. But can he actually have been “the idolatrous god of Pharaoh” as Joseph Smith said? Absolutely! It is important to keep in mind that contradictions from our point of view were simply not understood as such in the ancient Egyptian mind. The crocodile “could symbolize not only death and destruction but also solar-oriented life and regeneration, as both appear to be true aspects of the creature’s existence – for despite its fearsome nature, this animal faces the morning sun as though in adoration and hunts the fish which were the mythological enemies of the sun god.”[13] It is interesting too, that “hostile creatures such as the crocodile and hippopotamus are also sometimes represented at very small scale in order to diminish their magical influence.”[14] This is precisely what we find in the Book of Abraham facsimile #1. Adolf Erman discussed the combining of the gods of the ancient Egyptians, as when Re or Amun or Horus combined with other gods, such as the crocodile.[15] Sobek, we learn further, was also regarded as a creator.[16] And this brings us to one of the most important aspect for Sobek in this study. The deceased, in some ceremonies, are also identified with Sobek, becoming Sobek![17] As with Sobek, so with Re, the deceased proclaims in the Coffin Texts, “I have become the essence of Re.”[18] Interestingly, Sobek also becomes Re. Hans Bonnet informs us that “Schon in den Pyramidtexten (507-510) klingt die Gleichung mit dem aufsteigenden Sonnengott an. Trotzdem geht es nicht etwa auf sie zuruck, wenn man seit dem Mittel Reich den Suchos als Suchos-Re mit dem Sonnengotte verschmilzt.”[19] That is, Suchos (the Greek name for Sobek) merges with Re very early on in the Pyramid Texts. So how does this, though, make Sobek “the idolatrous god of Pharoah”? Because not only did the Ptolemies reverence the crocodile as their ancestor, (als ihren Vorfahren verehren), but “Suchos nimmt also den Konigsgott in sich auf.” “Sobek absorbs the god of the king into himself.”[20] The king, of course, in Egypt, is Pharaoh. On a particular crocodile statue it states that Sobek is a unique friend of Sobek.[21] The Egyptologist Alan Gardner demonstrated that the kings and queens of the XVII dynasty bore the name “Sebekemsat (Sobk is his protection), and this proves that “the crocodile-god was still thought of as somehow connected with the monarchy.”[22] In the earlier XIII dynasty, Gardner noted several kings bore the name “Sbk-htp – Sebkhotep.”[23] The Amherst Papyri “from the Fayyum depicts the crocodile not as Pharaoh but as the god of Pharaoh. According to Bonnet, the submission of Pharaoh to the crocodile down to the latest times is attested by the association of the crocodile with the royal image on the monuments and in annals.”[24] With Sobek absorbing the god of the king into himself, Bonnet says this is why “hymns of praise to the king and his crown can be addressed directly to Sobek – that is, the croc is the god of Pharaoh.”[25] And Suchos is often referred to as a “living image” of Re, in other words, the Ka of Re, the spirit of the sun god Himself! And this agreement (Einigung) with Re for the understanding of Sobek has always remained fundamental (grundlegend).[26] Sobek has strong ties with Horus the Behdetite, who was Re’s son, which title actually means “He of Crocodilopolis, an epithet of Horus as a crocodile.”[27] In the myth of Horus of Edfu, the dramatic ritual of the play has the king designated as “son of the Victorious Horus,” a ritual re-enactment of when Horus defeated his enemies, the king taking the earthly counterpart of “his divine prototype.” Blackman and Fairman describe the entire process at the end with “the king is stated to be triumphant over his enemies along with Horus the Behdet, Hathor, and Thoth…the King is thus, so to speak, the Alpha and Omega of the whole performance.”[28] Gardner showed how the winged sun disc “represented the king’s actual person… proclaiming its identity with the falcon Horus…the epithet ‘great god’ applied to the Winged Disk at all periods, but it is noteworthy that these words are employed of the living king from the fourth dynasty onwards.” He described that Winged Sun Disk as “a depiction, admittedly highly figurative and syncretistic, of the king himself…Winged Disk and name of the king are so inextricably interconnected and blended that we cannot but regard the symbol as an image of the king himself, though simultaneously also of Re’ and of Horus, all three united into a trinity of solar and kingly dominion.”[29] It is precisely this fusion of Sobek with the Sun Disk which makes the croc the “idolatrous god of Pharaoh”! Bonnet demonstrated that in antiquity this identity with the rising sun-god explains why the Egyptians popularly called Sobek the “living image” of Re’, and in fact, Sobek, along with Pharoah, finally ends up as nothing less than the Universal God. “So wachst Suchos mehr und mehr zum Allgott auf.”[30] Joachim Spiegel showed that not only was the king combined (identifiziert) himself with Horus and Seth, but also with the falcon of heaven (Himmelsfalken), but during the resurrection rites the king was also united with Sobek, who was his “idolatrous god,” “Daneben bevorzugt das Ritual die Gleichsetzung [equated with] des Konigs mit Sobek.” [31] Alexander Piankoff summed up the entire purpose of the Her-Ouben Papyrus ritual scenes to teach that death is not the final reality of our existence, but the mysteries and rituals prove that though the sun is swallowed every night by a gigantic snake or crocodile, the dead are reborn as the sun is itself – “pouvait etre sur de renaitre apres la mort comme le soleil lui-meme.”[32] This was one reason that the Egyptians “adored the sacred crocodile,” - “adorant le crocodile sacre.”[33] Sobek, being the “idolatrous god of Pharaoh” was the crocodile, united with the sun-god Re’ and with Re’s son Horus the Behdetite, symbolized by the winged sun disk, which united Lower and Upper Egypt, and encompassed all political and religious power.[34] He goes on his royal progress through the kingdom defeating the enemies of his father, and “embraces (snsn) the images at each of his shrines along the way, revealing his nature as ‘the idolatrous god of Pharaoh.’”[35] The Greeks, Bonnet informs us, “stellen den Suchos schlechthin als Helios mit Strahlenkranz dar und geben ihm ein krokodil als attribute in die Hand,” they made Suchos as Helios with a halo, a crocodile in his hands as his attribute.”[36] Bonnet indicated that from the 12th to 17th dynasties, the kings “bevorzugen Namen, die ein Bekenntnis zu Suchos enthalten,” That is “prefer names that contain a commitment to Suchos.” Nibley preferred the translation of the German word “Bekenntnis” as “homage,” hence “homage to the crocodile,” which is, after all, what commitment, a declaration of peace, a profession of one’s faith, etc., (reading “bekenntnis” in various contexts of German usage) is.[37] Bonnet showed the overall influence of Sobek “noch weiter spannt sich der Kreis der Gottheiten, die Suchos an sich zieht,” – “who further spans the range of deities which attracted Suchos himself.”[38] Sobek, as “idolatrous god of Pharaoh,” not only was given the image of a crocodile, but of the falcon, the ram with horns, the sun, and other attributes, which reflected the human kingly Pharaonic range of his kingdom as well. This makes perfectly good sense, because the deity who becomes a “universal deity,” is, of course, going to be the “god of Pharaoh,” for the simple reason that that is what Pharaoh wanted to rule, the entire world. Egyptologically, Joseph Smith’s description of the crocodile in facsimile #1 is absolutely precise. Endnotes 1. James P. Allen, “Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs,” Cambridge University Press, 2001: 433, #3 in the sign list under “Reptiles, Amphibians, and their Parts.” 2. “The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology,” edited by C. T. Onions, Oxford University, Clarendon Press, reprint, 1983:848, 886. 3. Sir Alan Gardner, “Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs,” 3rd edition, revised, Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1994:475, p. 550 in the Egyptian-English Vocabulary; 582, 585, 589, 592. 4. Mark Collier, Bill Manley, “How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs,” University of California Press, 1998: 27. 5. Raymond O. Faulkner, “A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian,” Oxford University Press, reprint, 1964:7. 6. E. A. W. Budge, “An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary,” 2 Vols., Dover, reprint, 1978: Vol. 1, p. cxviii, under “amphibia (reptiles), #7. 7. E. A. W. Budge, “The Gods of the Egyptians,” Dover, 2 Vols., 1969: Vol. 1:2. 8. Budge, “Ibid.,” Vol. 2:354. 9. Herodotus, “The Histories,” translated by Aubrey de Selincourt, Penguin Books, reprint, 1983: Book 2:68, (p.156). 10. Herodotus, “Histories,” Book 2:55, (p. 151). 11. John A. Wilson, “Egypt: The Nature of the Universe,” in “Before Philosophy: The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man,” Penguin Books, reprint, 1964: 58. 12. Erik Hornung, “Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many,” translated from the German by John Baines, Cornell University Press, first paperback, 1996: 147. 13. Richard H. Wilkinson, “Symbol & Magic in Egyptian Art,” Thames & Hudson, 1994: 8. 14. Wilkinson, “Ibid.,” p. 44. Cf. the interesting discussion in Jeremy Naydler, “Temple of the Cosmos: The Ancient Egyptian Experience of the Sacred,” Inner Traditions, 1996: 244-247. 15. Adolf Erman, “Life in Ancient Egypt,” Dover, 1971:45. 16. Rosemary Clark, “The Sacred Tradition in Ancient Egypt,” Llewellyn Publications, 2004:89. 17. E. A. W. Budge, “Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection,” Dover, 1973, 2 Vols., Vol. 1:127, where we read “…the deceased is made out to be the lord of the great celestial stream… but he only becomes so by being identified with Sebek, the Crocodile god, the son of Neith.” 18. Raymond O. Faulkner, “The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts,” Aris & Phillips, 3 vols., re-issued, 1994: Vol. 1:Spell 317, p. 242. 19. Hans Bonnet, “Reallexikon der Agyptischen Religionsgeschichte,” Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1952: 757. 20. Bonnet, “Ibid.,” p. 756. 21. Hugh Nibley, “An Approach to the Book of Abraham,” Deseret Book/FARMS, Neal A. Maxwell Institute, 2009: 248. 22. Alan Gardner, “Egypt of the Pharaohs,” Oxford University Press, paperback, 1964: 151. 23. Gardner, “Egyptian Grammar,” p. 74. 24. Nibley, “Approach to the Book of Abraham,” p. 248. 25. Nibley, “Ibid.,” p. 248. 26. Bonnet, “Ibid.,” p. 757. 27. Hugh Nibley, “The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment,” Deseret/FARMS, 2nd edition, 2005:349. 28. A. M. Blackman, H. W. Fairman, “The Myth of Horus of Edfu – II,” in “Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,” 27-30 (1941-1944): 37. 29. Alan Gardner, “Horus the Behdetite,” in “Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,” 27-30 (1941-1944):49-51. 30. Bonnet, “Ibid.,” p. 759. 31. Joachim Spiegel, “Das Auferstehungritual der Unaspyramide,” in “Annales du Service des Antiquites de L’Egypte,” 53 (MCMLV): 434. 32. Alexander Piankoff, “Les Deux Papyrus Mythologiques de Her-Ouben au Musee du Caire,” in “Annales du Service des Antiquites de L’Egypte,” 49 (MCMXLIV): 144. 33. A. Piankoff, “Ibid.,” p. 130. 34. See Kurt Sethe, “Urgeschichte und Alteste Religion der Agypter,” Leipzig, 1930: 128-133. 35. Hugh Nibley, “The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” p. 349. 36. Bonnet, “Reallexikon,” p. 757. 37. Hugh Nibley, “Approach to the Book of Abraham,” p. 248. 38. Bonnet, “Reallexikon,” p. 758.
  12. Heh......isn't THAT the truth! I suspect it's a legend about why he was putting it off. I suspect he just kept finding more.
  13. It's fascinating that Jackson cannot figure out Nibley's context, and so says there is no methodology or context, yet Nibley himself explained that context. It suggests that Jackson didn't have the intellectual capacity for comprehending Nibley. It's like a flea taking on the blue whale giant of pretending he comprehends the giant. Nibley said many times, and even in his famous interview with Louis Midgley (who knew Nibley far better and more intimately than Jackson) he explained his methodology as patternism, exactly as tyhe Cambridge scholars looked at things. Jackson couldn't comprehend it because he only dealt in mostly LDS literature while Nibley mastered (with over 13 languages none the less!) the world's views as well. Jackson is way out of his league trying to critique something he himself is incapable of bringing forth. One only has to read *anything* from Jackson's pen, and compare it with Nibley's writings to see the flea and the blue whale in intellectual stature, ability and power. Jackson's fluff and pablum of repeating the same old, same old for decades obviously cannot fathom the cosmological scope of Nibley's godly comprehension. And besides.....for critics against Nibley who pretend they love and accept what Jackson wrote as being accurate and true of Nibley, does that mean you accept what else Jackson has written about Mormonism and the Gospel? No? Then why accept his meager offering against Nibley, unless it suits your purposes? But then again, you are more than welcome to welcome the flea. The blue whale has not been injured, not even in the least.
  14. Barter Town: Well as you can see, some FARMS scholars have since questioned the value of his work. Kerry: Is that why they actually put together the *ENTIRE* collected works of Hugh Nibley (19 vols thus far), and CONTINUE to lecture in the FARMS lectures THIS ENTIRE MONTH OF MARCH 2010 about his great insights, abilities, talents, phenomenal knowledge, incredible work? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! Dude you are losing credibility very FAST with uninformed comments like this. Man get serious or shut up already. Show me just ONE of the scholars who have contributed to the FAMRS Hugh Nibley collection prject who says what you attribute to them, JUST NAME *****ONE***** is all I am asking. I know all of them, and am in communication with all of them, so I actually do know better than this.
  15. Just a Guy: I've read very little Nibley, but from what I've read Jackson appears to be spot-on. Kerry: I have read absolutely ***EVERYTHING*** Nibley published, numerous times over, and I think Jackson is wrong, and professionally jealous. Nothing he writes has near the caliber and quality of Nibley's materials. Jackson shot himself in the foot with his obviously jealous response to Nibley's materials. Why take Jackson's uninformed opinions about Nibley instead of say, Jack Welch's or Daniel C. Peterson's, or Neal A. Maxwell's, or John Gee's, or Michael Dennis Rhodes, or William Hamblin's, or David B. Honey's, or Gordon C. Thommason's opinions into account?!
  16. Barter town: Sorry, but I have to question the intellectual honesty of someone who proclaimed Mark Hofmann's forgery of the Anthon transcript as authentic. Any other scholar of ancient manuscripts would have known it was a fraud within minutes. The fact the Nibley hailed it as "absolutely translatable" and "as good a test as we'll ever get of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon" seriously undermines his credibility and objectivity as a scholar. Like I said, he was an apologist first and foremost. Kerry: Your bias gives you away. There were a LOT of people both LDS and non-LDS who were taken in by Hofman, but is this proof of "intellectual dishonesty"?! And I have never read or seen where Nibley says about the Hofman forgeries what you attribute to him saying. So you have a source I can read that from? Thank you. If it's the Tanners or Wesley Walters, or other blatant anti-Mormons, don't bother. Their own biases have destroyed them, as has their own intellectual dishonesty.
  17. Nibley's methodology was NOT flawed. That is simply silly. He used the exact same methodology as all scholars in his day used, and are *still* using. It is sour grapes to say otherwise. I have several HUNDRED of his sources, and Nibley was not intellectually dishonest. That is a lie. Sure he made mistakes, but intellectually dishonest he absolutely was not such. And his peers absolutely respected him. At his 85th birthday the Festschrift for him had numerous non-LD scholars who were thrilled to participate in celebrating his life, James H. Charlesworth, Frank Moore Cross, Jr., Jacob Neusner, Cyrus Gordon, Jacob Milgrom, Raphael Patai, etc. Did everyone agree with him? Heavens no, I still don't in some areas, but to then say he is intellectually dishonest and not respected? Good grief, that is blatantly false. I have read absolutely *everything* the man ever published (and some he didn't too), several times, and I have always found him stimulating and exciting interesting and informative reading.
  18. My videos won't be nearly a good as his book however.......
  19. O.K., one nifty insight (amongst thousands in his book(s)) that I will share quickly...... his sacred geometry of the hypocephalus is simply one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen with the Book of Abraham facsimiles. Sacred geometry is a serious study of mine, and this was just revelatory from beginning to end! One thing that he does which is pure delightful is SHOW how and why our hypocephalus (as opposed to all the others) is separated in the compartments that it is, and why it has the horizontals the way it does, in an odd thirds arrangement. It is because of the way the golden rectangle perfectly fits on the hypocephalus right alongside and next to the golden spiral all IN ONE geometric figure. It makes the goose bumps show up on my arms! Truly DELIGHTFUL! Fully illustrated on pages 606 and 607, and 608. With the explanations also.
  20. I'll add that it is, of all the books Nibley ever wrote, my favorite. He brings in Alchemy, Hermeticism, Kabbalah, Free Masonry, the Tabula Smaragdina (parallels to the hypocephalus are absolutely STUNNING!) many ascension literatures, Sacred Geometry, and ALL in *favorable* lights!!! No joke, this was unlike much of his other themes wherein he downplayed things in order to elevate something else. In this book, IT IS ALL GOOD. Absolutely stunning. This is the wake up call to we LDS to broaden our views, open our minds, and get more serious about learning far more than in our own tradition and culture. It really is vintage Nibley with a vengeance. He is saying HEY LDS, don't you think it is time to take others serious instead of only ourselves and our view of truth and religion? I really believe he takes the roof off the house with this astonishing book. Only Nibley could have pulled this off. Now if we will just take the clue and run with it. We don't do very well with the clue that Joseph Smith gave us about learning the Biblical languages, perhaps Nibley can nudge us a bit more? We appear to be sleep walking through an awful lot, and all this stuff is prophesied to come forth. To the critics Nibley is simply destroying your objections. Course, you won't agree with me on this, but he is anyway. Wow are we *all* behind or what?! None of us can claim knowledge now if we ignore this. Well, I mean we can claim it, but those who read it and get it will see the hollowness of such an claim. Trust me, you WANT to read this, friend and foe alike.
  21. Just received my copy yesterday.... just finished reading this 650 page magnum opus tonight..... utterly ***INCREDIBLY*** stellar, interesting, and simply breath taking to read.........I will be producing many a video on this lil baby......... If you DON'T purchase this text, you cheat yourselves. THANK YOU Michael D. Rhodes for spending 4 years of your life making sure this magnificent publication did not become obscure. It's a feather in your cap.
  22. Welcome back Kabalist. I have lots to post, but lots to do first, so I am kinda in the background for the moment.
  23. WELCOME BACK! Hang in there man, we are looking forward to your ideas. We are praying you heal well and fast....
  24. Any sign of thekabalist yet? He has intriguing ideas, and I am enjoying them.
  25. Heh...... yeah it's a faith proposition. I just happen to believe that it is a faith proposition with a lot of evidence, and more coming out all the time.....it's enjoyable to think on these things is all. I also enjoy sharing ideas. Videos are a rather fun way to do so......