Problems With the Book of Abraham


Recommended Posts

It's been awhile since I have been able to really study the Mormon church again in depth. While I remain very impressed, even baffled, by some of the Book of Mormon evidences, certain aspects of the Mormon faith seem suspect to me (if they didn't, I would already be a Mormon!).

One of the biggest problems I see is with the Book of Abraham. I have read the Jeff Lindsay and FAIR Mormon responses to the criticisms of the Book of Abraham, and while many of those arguments make sense, it still seems very hard to believe that Smith accurately translated the papyri (whichever ones they are) when the first picture seems to be referenced in the text and does NOT appear to be accurately translated.

What are your thoughts on the Book of Abraham? Any good evidence (that's at least somewhat easy to suggest) to support your claims?

As I have said on these forums before, I try to be as fair as I can possibly be and I truly am genuinely interested in learning more.

Thanks in advance!

Justin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest problems I see is with the Book of Abraham. I have read the Jeff Lindsay and FAIR Mormon responses to the criticisms of the Book of Abraham, and while many of those arguments make sense, it still seems very hard to believe that Smith accurately translated the papyri (whichever ones they are) when the first picture seems to be referenced in the text and does NOT appear to be accurately translated.

What are your thoughts on the Book of Abraham? Any good evidence (that's at least somewhat easy to suggest) to support your claims?

As I have said on these forums before, I try to be as fair as I can possibly be and I truly am genuinely interested in learning more.

Thanks in advance!

Justin

Here are my thoughts:

So what if Joseph didn't translate it accurately? Either he was a prophet and inspired of God or he wasn't. It will, ultimately, come down to that and nothing more. You will either gain a testimony of Joseph Smith and believe that what he produced is of God or you will not. It cannot and will not ever be proven in this life. God would not have it so. For that would remove the need for us to rely on prayer and faith. And these are the means whereby He would have us return to Him.

There is only (I reiterate in bold, only) one way you will ever know the Book of Abraham is true or not. Get on your knees and beg God for the answer. If you do, He will answer, for He has promised us again and again that He would.

James 1:5

Matthew 7:7

Moroni 10:3-5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are my thoughts:

So what if Joseph didn't translate it accurately? Either he was a prophet and inspired of God or he wasn't. It will, ultimately, come down to that and nothing more. You will either gain a testimony of Joseph Smith and believe that what he produced is of God or you will not. It cannot and will not ever be proven in this life. God would not have it so. For that would remove the need for us to rely on prayer and faith. And these are the means whereby He would have us return to Him.

There is only (I reiterate in bold, only) one way you will ever know the Book of Abraham is true or not. Get on your knees and beg God for the answer. If you do, He will answer, for He has promised us again and again that He would.

James 1:5

Matthew 7:7

Moroni 10:3-5

That's totally fair...but the problem with this reasoning is...How do you know when you receive a true testimony and not simply an emotion that makes you FEEL like it's a true testimony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's totally fair...but the problem with this reasoning is...How do you know when you receive a true testimony and not simply an emotion that makes you FEEL like it's a true testimony?

Well now, isn't that just the question, isn't it? :) I still struggle with it to an extent. And it it hard to explain even when you know. But this much I can promise from personal experience. When you know, you KNOW! Feeling the spirit is not just emotion. It is more than that. Much more. But to explain it is practically impossible.

There is a story given by Boyd K. Packer that you might find useful to read in response to this question. See here.

The bottom line, however, is that the spirit does, indeed, speak to us through our hearts and our minds. And it can be a challenge to distinguish the communications of the spirit from our own thoughts and feelings. This is also what faith is. Trusting in something that you believe without absolute proof, and thereby acting upon it.

I can promise you this (though my promise means nothing, but since it is the same promise the Lord has given, and His promise means everything) if you humbly seek to know then He will make it known unto you.

Read the Book of Mormon. Read the Book of Abraham. You don't even have to complete them. Just read some. Think about the words. Then pray about it. Pray sincerely. Put your whole heart and mind into it and open up your heart to accept whatever answer the Lord gives you, be it positive or negative. If you don't find out immediately, keep praying. Read some more, come back to prayer again, etc... If you show the Lord your willingness and desire to know, He will make it known unto you. And it will be incredible. You will know that it is not just a feeling. The peace and power of it may stun you, frankly. You will know that these books are true and the words of God.

I know they're true and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet because I have done as I suggest you do. Because I know they are true, I can read proofs and theories and evidences without fear. Problems are interesting, but they do not sway me. Positive evidences are awesome, but they are not the reason I know.

Edited by church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now, isn't that just the question, isn't it? :) I still struggle with it to an extent. And it it hard to explain even when you know. But this much I can promise from personal experience. When you know, you KNOW! Feeling the spirit is not just emotion. It is more than that. Much more. But to explain it is practically impossible.

There is a story given by Boyd K. Packer that you might find useful to read in response to this question. See here.

The bottom line, however, is that the spirit does, indeed, speak to us through our hearts and our minds. And it can be a challenge to distinguish the communications of the spirit from our own thoughts and feelings. This is also what faith is. Trusting in something that you believe without absolute proof, and thereby acting upon it.

I can promise you this (though my promise means nothing, but since it is the same promise the Lord has given, and His promise means everything) if you humbly seek to know then He will make it known unto you.

Read the Book of Mormon. Read the Book of Abraham. You don't even have to complete them. Just read some. Think about the words. Then pray about it. Pray sincerely. Put your whole heart and mind into it and open up your heart to accept whatever answer the Lord gives you, be it positive or negative. If you don't find out immediately, keep praying. Read some more, come back to prayer again, etc... If you show the Lord your willingness and desire to know, He will make it known unto you. And it will be incredible. You will know that it is not just a feeling. The peace and power of it may stun you, frankly. You will know that these books are true and the words of God.

I know they're true and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet because I have done as I suggest you do. Because I know they are true, I can read proofs and theories and evidences without fear. Problems are interesting, but they do not sway me. Positive evidences are awesome, but they are not the reason I know.

Thank you so much for your advice. I will, as I have promised, give it a fair shot and try what you have suggested.

God bless.

Justin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure other sources such as those listed are far more in depth and better than what I have to say here. I also must say that Mr. church is right about operating on faith... even with countless "proofs" there will also always be countless rebuttals and vice versa, leaving us to operate on faith. Pray about it diligently.

I have found "A Study Guide To The Facsimiles Of The Book Of Abraham," by Allen Fletcher to be a very useful read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are these. Although we now have a portion of the papyri, we don't have the full set of documents, and secondly, we don't know the nature of the translation process. Smith produced translations two ways.

The Book of Mormon was translated using "interpreters" also called the urim and thummim, and apparently seer stones. The process is not entirely clear and seems to have evolved into a more fluid process once Smith got the hang of how to translate.

The Book of Moses and other JST translations came to Smith through the mind, and possibly using seer stones, but certainly not from original manuscripts or transcribed from existing documents. They were "translated" by reading the existing text and inspiration flowed. They are not, to my understanding, literal translations. They are not scholarly corrections to the text to make them fit the original authors thoughts and text. They are meant to clarify and expand on the original message.

Most people assume the Book of Abraham was a variant of the Book of Mormon translation, but I believe it was more akin to the second process. The only difference was that funeral Egyptian scrolls acted as the catalyst for the prophetic writings to flow, rather than the Bible.

So, if Smith can be a prophetic scribe for the Book of Moses using nothing more than the Book of Genesis, why not also create the Book of Abraham from funeral scrolls.

Now, he may have believed his visions were a direct translation, and certainly early church leaders and members felt it was a literal translation, and so you may want to debate why Smith or others believed that. Regardless, that doesn't change the prophetic calling of Smith or the truth that flowed from his inspired texts.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been awhile since I have been able to really study the Mormon church again in depth. While I remain very impressed, even baffled, by some of the Book of Mormon evidences, certain aspects of the Mormon faith seem suspect to me (if they didn't, I would already be a Mormon!).

One of the biggest problems I see is with the Book of Abraham. I have read the Jeff Lindsay and FAIR Mormon responses to the criticisms of the Book of Abraham, and while many of those arguments make sense, it still seems very hard to believe that Smith accurately translated the papyri (whichever ones they are) when the first picture seems to be referenced in the text and does NOT appear to be accurately translated.

What are your thoughts on the Book of Abraham? Any good evidence (that's at least somewhat easy to suggest) to support your claims?

As I have said on these forums before, I try to be as fair as I can possibly be and I truly am genuinely interested in learning more.

Thanks in advance!

Justin

Currently im in wait mode;

It used to be that JS was about 100% incorrect about the BoA translations Now hes about between 80-90% incorrect according to the experts. At this rate ill have to wait about 200 years supposing our egyptology keeps improving at a somewhat constant rate.

Just a thought here, the majority of our alphabet has been in use for well over a thousand years... Yet how its used and what they represent has evolved and changed during that time.

People trying to get an abraham period message using rosetta stone era symbiology probably isnt going to work too well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently im in wait mode;

It used to be that JS was about 100% incorrect about the BoA translations Now hes about between 80-90% incorrect according to the experts. At this rate ill have to wait about 200 years supposing our egyptology keeps improving at a somewhat constant rate.

Just a thought here, the majority of our alphabet has been in use for well over a thousand years... Yet how its used and what they represent has evolved and changed during that time.

People trying to get an abraham period message using rosetta stone era symbiology probably isnt going to work too well.

wait when did the scrolls change their meaning "only a little"

that's still Anubis and Osiris and Isis on them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wait when did the scrolls change their meaning "only a little"

that's still Anubis and Osiris and Isis on them

It should be, at least according to book of the dead 125 or whatever part the scene is usually thought to be from. Usually in Egyptian practice this is reeneacted out as part of a ritual if I recall right. Quite possibly something Abraham had to go through to be able to commune with the pharaoh. Again this assuming later practices, symbiology and representation is the same or close enough and assuming general Egyptology has been accurate.

However I should note that John Glee did point out that there's some evidence that the 3rd facsimile may not be from the book of the dead.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the first few pages of an excellent article on the subject written by Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein. I've attached the entire document to this post. Actually, the document is too large to post. If anyone is interested I can post it all in sections.

Kerry Muhlestein

ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND OSIRIS-MICHAEL1

THE USE OF BIBLICAL FIGURES IN EGYPTIAN RELIGION, A SURVEY

In the twilight of ancient Egyptian History, Biblical names and figures were used in Egyptian contexts on both papyri and stone. This has long been known by students of ancient Egypt. Some studies have pursued the use of these figures or employed them in attempts to understand other aspects of Egypt.2 However, much remains to be done in coming to understand what these uses can teach us of Egypt and Egyptian religion itself.3 Here a survey of such use is provided, which attempts to answer those questions which must first be addressed if we are to move further in the study of such texts. These questions are 1) Who used these Biblical figures and stories? 2) What figures and stories did they use? 3) Why and how did they use them? 4) When did they use them? 5) How did they learn of them? and 6) When did they learn of them? This study represents an initial phase of answering these questions.

Who used Biblical Figures and Stories?

The bulk of the texts we will examine here come from a few important papyri caches. Many aspects of these papyri are international and intercultural. They come largely from within Egypt, and those that do not were found in the vicinity of Isis temples, which denotes an Egyptian association.4 Most of the extant texts were written in Greek, though a significant number were written in Demotic—a script that most likely was used only by Egyptians themselves.5

There has been some debate as to which culture gave birth to these texts. While they show some similarities with Greek magical culture,6 these similarities are minute when compared with

1 The name ‘Osiris-Michael’ is used in PGM XXIIb.

2 See, for example, J. Johnson, ‘Louvre E3229: A Demotic Magical Text’ in Enchoria 7 (1977), 55–102; J. Gee, ‘Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob’ in FARMS Review 7/1 (1995), 19–84; A.D. Nock, ‘Greek Magical Papyri’ in JEA 15 (1929), 219–235; R.K. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (Chicago, 1993), 2, 4, 88–92, 89–90, 109–110, 182, 240–241.

3 Johnson in Enchoria 7, 97.

4 See Gee, ‘Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob’ in FARMS Review 7/1.

5 A.E. Hanson, ‘Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Arabes, and Ioudaioi in the First Century ad Tax Archive from Philadelphia: P. Mich. Inv. 880 Recto and P. Princ. III 152 Revised’ in J.H. Johnson (ed.), Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond (SAOC 51, Chicago, 1992), 136, has suggested that some Greeks learned Demotic. This is contra the comunis opinio, which is that in the Greco-Roman period demotic was used only by Egyptians; see Gee in FARMS Review 7/1, 42; W. Clarysse, ‘Egyptian Scribes Writing Greek’, CdÉ 68 (1993), 187–188; W.J. Tait, ‘Demotic Literature and Egyptian Society’ in Johnson, Life in a Multi-Cultural Society, 307–10; and E. Bevan, A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty (London, 1927), 84.

6 W.R. Dawson, ‘Anastasi, Sallier, and Harris and Their Papyri’ in JEA 35 (1949), 158–159.

Abraham, Isaac, and Osiris-Michael

247

Egyptian religious texts.7 They follow the basic patterns of the Book of the Dead, and do not demonstrate a notable shift from earlier Egyptian ‘magical’ texts.8 Instead the texts seem to represent another smooth step in the ongoing flow of Egyptian religious texts, with no noticeable break or change.

This is true for the other attestations of Biblical figures in Egyptian contexts, such as funerary stelae. The current study incorporates these kinds of uses that go beyond the Greek Magical Papyri, but does not pretend to be a comprehensive list of such sources. In all cases investigated, the material, historical and geographic context, literary form, and genre are in keeping with an Egyptian context.9

Moreover, while figures from a variety of cultures were employed, the majority of figures are Egyptian, suggesting an Egyptian backbone to the textual history of the manuscripts under study. Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Israelite, Greek, and Egyptian deities and figures are all used.10 The latter three represent the lion’s share of uses. Some texts use primarily Greek figures, and others primarily Israelite. However, Egyptian figures make up the core of the texts.

Additionally, the majority of these texts seem to have been owned by Egyptian priests —especially priests from Thebes. Those texts outside of the Greek Magical Papyri corpus appear to have been composed by Egyptian priests. Furthermore, these texts fit into a chronological continuum: Christian magical texts from Egypt follow them and use the same patterns, only discontinuing the use of Egyptian and Greek gods over time.11 Yet these later texts are clearly Egyptian, and thus support the argument that the earlier texts are also Egyptian in origin.

Taken together, all these evidences lead to the conclusion that these texts are Egyptian in nature. Surely they exhibit the influence of other cultures, but they are essentially Egyptian.

The aforementioned chronological continuum introduces a difficulty in categorizing the texts. The dates and nature of language and figures employed in many texts makes it certain that they represent Egyptian religious ideas. The dates and language of other texts make it easy to identify them as Christian. However, there are a number of texts that cannot be as easily determined; they may represent either Christian Egyptians using typical Egyptian texts, or they might be practitioners of Egyptian religion using these texts at a time when much of Egypt had

7 There is agreement on this among Egyptologists who specialize in this type of literature from this time period. See Johnson in Enchoria 7, 94, 87; J.H. Johnson, ‘The Dialect of the Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden’ in J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente (eds.), Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes (SAOC 39, Chicago, 1976); Gee in FARMS Review 7/1, 35, 43; K. Koch, Gesichchte der ägyptischen Religion (Stuttgart, 1993), 542; R. Ritner, ‘Egyptian Magical Practice under the Roman Empire: The Demotic Spells and their Religious Context’ in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.18.5 (1995), 3333–3379. Contrary views can be found in C. Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic (Cambridge, 1999), 35–36; and F. Graf, Magic in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1997), 5. The most nuanced treatment of this is from J. Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites. The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100–300 ce) (Leiden, 2005). Even in this carefully thought out and constructed discussion (Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites, 22), concludes that at least the portion of the library he studies arose from an Egyptian scribal and priestly tradition and stemmed from ‘an Egyptian temple milieu’.

8 Gee in FARMS Review 7/1, 44. For examples of this, see Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites, 170–182.

9 For more on this, see Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites, 282–284.

10 For more on this, see Nock in JEA 15, 228–229.

11 See M. Meyer, Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (New York, 1994). The most comprehensive treatment on Christianity in Egypt is C.W. Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity: From its Origins to 451 ce (Leiden, 1990).

become Christian. While the study of how Egyptian Christians reused and reinterpreted Egyptian religious practices in their new Christian religion is a very worthy study, it is not within the parameters of this disquisition. Therefore, for this study I have only used texts that are comfortably categorized as Egyptian religious texts.

While we cannot here be detained by a lengthy discussion regarding the use of the term ‘magical’ in connection with such texts,12 I maintain that these texts are essentially religious in nature, and do not represent anything out of the norm for Egyptian religion and religious practice. Thus ‘magical’ is not the most accurate term. However, the majority of texts used in this study are from a corpus long known by the name of ‘Greek Magical Papyri’, and even though I do not feel they are Greek in essence, but are only partially Greek in script and language, and I do not think they are magical in nature, it would be too confusing to refer to them by some other name. The more recent usage of ‘Theban Magical Library’ is closer to accurate, though there is still room for debate as to what is meant by the term ‘magical’. While a better name may be needed, I will use these standard terms for these texts in order to avoid confusion, but do so with the understanding that all the texts discussed in this article represent Egyptian religious texts.

Edited by livy111us
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be, at least according to book of the dead 125 or whatever part the scene is usually thought to be from. Usually in Egyptian practice this is reeneacted out as part of a ritual if I recall right. Quite possibly something Abraham had to go through to be able to commune with the pharaoh. Again this assuming later practices, symbiology and representation is the same or close enough and assuming general Egyptology has been accurate.

However I should note that John Glee did point out that there's some evidence that the 3rd facsimile may not be from the book of the dead.

Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_I.jpg

I meant this one, which shows Anubis resurecting Osiris, got the canobic jars for the dead's organs, Osiris' spirit.

I donno, I trust Egyptology enough that they know how to read the language

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess to add to what church said in the first couple posts.

If God lets you know that Joseph was a Prophet what will you do with that knowledge?

Well first and foremost, deeply think on my belief in God, since I don't believe God speaks to anyone.

I'd be a little mad, I've been told something I can't prove.

You can't prove faith to people, and in a lot of ways you can't disprove it either.

One can't truly prove if Joseph Smith was or wasn't a Prophet, its ultimately a thing of faith.

Proving what the scroll means and the purpose of all the things in it is something I can do, its not a thing of faith, its reading words and understanding a culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph_Smith_Papyrus_I.jpg

I meant this one, which shows Anubis resurecting Osiris, got the canobic jars for the dead's organs, Osiris' spirit.

I donno, I trust Egyptology enough that they know how to read the language

I believe the names for Osiris and Anubis are being inferred in this example from many other Lion-couch resurrection or mummification vignettes in this case.

Except a couple problems, this isn't a resurrection scene (or even a mummification scene)- in lion-couch resurrection scenes the individual is laying on the couch naked (Osiris) with 1 arm outstretched. Or the individual is wrapped in mummy coverings.

this scene is one of a kind as yet as far as I know- the priest (who may be wearing an Anubis mask, as the person who did the fill in work used the horizontal individual's head for the priest) is between the couch and also the horizontal figure is in the act of moving and has both arms outstretched and is also clothed.

Interestingly enough in one of the older temples there is reference to a third type which is a human sacrifice and also in those ones that Bastet or the spirit of bastet comes down to the alter and saves the victim from being sacrificed. I think its the den dedre temple (no idea on how to spell it sorry).

another point of interest, is that in the Leiden Papyrus I 384 (PGM xii), Abrahams name appears in greek right under a lion-couch mummification scene.

Another angle that really hasn't been researched is the ancient jewish angle- this may have been influenced by them or done by them and so it may be more accurate from using their adoption of ancient Egyptian motifs (ancient Egyptian symbiology shows up in many places in the genesis section of the old testament) that is used in representing God in some form or another. (and I do think its stated that this one is supposedly to have come from Abraham so that would probably be a good area to research)

4thly just something I'd like to get out of the way; is that our current Egyptology nowhere near complete or perfect and is still quite evolving. Nor are all the experts in complete agreement.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well first and foremost, deeply think on my belief in God, since I don't believe God speaks to anyone.

I'd be a little mad, I've been told something I can't prove.

You can't prove faith to people, and in a lot of ways you can't disprove it either.

One can't truly prove if Joseph Smith was or wasn't a Prophet, its ultimately a thing of faith.

Proving what the scroll means and the purpose of all the things in it is something I can do, its not a thing of faith, its reading words and understanding a culture.

And your answer to me is the reason why you'll never get an answer from God.

Hey I was stubborn too for the longest time, then my prayer finally went from an intellectual curiosity to a 'I'll do what you want me to do, just let me know' and I received much more than a feeling. I got a personal reply from God -- poo poo it if you want, but there is no doubt in my mind, and it was not just heartburn(ie a burning in the bosom).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the first few pages of an excellent article on the subject written by Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein. I've attached the entire document to this post. Actually, the document is too large to post. If anyone is interested I can post it all in sections.

Kerry Muhlestein

ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND OSIRIS-MICHAEL1

THE USE OF BIBLICAL FIGURES IN EGYPTIAN RELIGION, A SURVEY

In the twilight of ancient Egyptian History, Biblical names and figures were used in Egyptian contexts on both papyri and stone. This has long been known by students of ancient Egypt. Some studies have pursued the use of these figures or employed them in attempts to understand other aspects of Egypt.2 However, much remains to be done in coming to understand what these uses can teach us of Egypt and Egyptian religion itself.3 Here a survey of such use is provided, which attempts to answer those questions which must first be addressed if we are to move further in the study of such texts. These questions are 1) Who used these Biblical figures and stories? 2) What figures and stories did they use? 3) Why and how did they use them? 4) When did they use them? 5) How did they learn of them? and 6) When did they learn of them? This study represents an initial phase of answering these questions.

Who used Biblical Figures and Stories?

The bulk of the texts we will examine here come from a few important papyri caches. Many aspects of these papyri are international and intercultural. They come largely from within Egypt, and those that do not were found in the vicinity of Isis temples, which denotes an Egyptian association.4 Most of the extant texts were written in Greek, though a significant number were written in Demotic—a script that most likely was used only by Egyptians themselves.5

There has been some debate as to which culture gave birth to these texts. While they show some similarities with Greek magical culture,6 these similarities are minute when compared with

1 The name ‘Osiris-Michael’ is used in PGM XXIIb.

2 See, for example, J. Johnson, ‘Louvre E3229: A Demotic Magical Text’ in Enchoria 7 (1977), 55–102; J. Gee, ‘Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob’ in FARMS Review 7/1 (1995), 19–84; A.D. Nock, ‘Greek Magical Papyri’ in JEA 15 (1929), 219–235; R.K. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice (Chicago, 1993), 2, 4, 88–92, 89–90, 109–110, 182, 240–241.

3 Johnson in Enchoria 7, 97.

4 See Gee, ‘Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob’ in FARMS Review 7/1.

5 A.E. Hanson, ‘Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Arabes, and Ioudaioi in the First Century ad Tax Archive from Philadelphia: P. Mich. Inv. 880 Recto and P. Princ. III 152 Revised’ in J.H. Johnson (ed.), Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond (SAOC 51, Chicago, 1992), 136, has suggested that some Greeks learned Demotic. This is contra the comunis opinio, which is that in the Greco-Roman period demotic was used only by Egyptians; see Gee in FARMS Review 7/1, 42; W. Clarysse, ‘Egyptian Scribes Writing Greek’, CdÉ 68 (1993), 187–188; W.J. Tait, ‘Demotic Literature and Egyptian Society’ in Johnson, Life in a Multi-Cultural Society, 307–10; and E. Bevan, A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty (London, 1927), 84.

6 W.R. Dawson, ‘Anastasi, Sallier, and Harris and Their Papyri’ in JEA 35 (1949), 158–159.

Abraham, Isaac, and Osiris-Michael

247

Egyptian religious texts.7 They follow the basic patterns of the Book of the Dead, and do not demonstrate a notable shift from earlier Egyptian ‘magical’ texts.8 Instead the texts seem to represent another smooth step in the ongoing flow of Egyptian religious texts, with no noticeable break or change.

This is true for the other attestations of Biblical figures in Egyptian contexts, such as funerary stelae. The current study incorporates these kinds of uses that go beyond the Greek Magical Papyri, but does not pretend to be a comprehensive list of such sources. In all cases investigated, the material, historical and geographic context, literary form, and genre are in keeping with an Egyptian context.9

Moreover, while figures from a variety of cultures were employed, the majority of figures are Egyptian, suggesting an Egyptian backbone to the textual history of the manuscripts under study. Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Israelite, Greek, and Egyptian deities and figures are all used.10 The latter three represent the lion’s share of uses. Some texts use primarily Greek figures, and others primarily Israelite. However, Egyptian figures make up the core of the texts.

Additionally, the majority of these texts seem to have been owned by Egyptian priests —especially priests from Thebes. Those texts outside of the Greek Magical Papyri corpus appear to have been composed by Egyptian priests. Furthermore, these texts fit into a chronological continuum: Christian magical texts from Egypt follow them and use the same patterns, only discontinuing the use of Egyptian and Greek gods over time.11 Yet these later texts are clearly Egyptian, and thus support the argument that the earlier texts are also Egyptian in origin.

Taken together, all these evidences lead to the conclusion that these texts are Egyptian in nature. Surely they exhibit the influence of other cultures, but they are essentially Egyptian.

The aforementioned chronological continuum introduces a difficulty in categorizing the texts. The dates and nature of language and figures employed in many texts makes it certain that they represent Egyptian religious ideas. The dates and language of other texts make it easy to identify them as Christian. However, there are a number of texts that cannot be as easily determined; they may represent either Christian Egyptians using typical Egyptian texts, or they might be practitioners of Egyptian religion using these texts at a time when much of Egypt had

7 There is agreement on this among Egyptologists who specialize in this type of literature from this time period. See Johnson in Enchoria 7, 94, 87; J.H. Johnson, ‘The Dialect of the Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden’ in J.H. Johnson and E.F. Wente (eds.), Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes (SAOC 39, Chicago, 1976); Gee in FARMS Review 7/1, 35, 43; K. Koch, Gesichchte der ägyptischen Religion (Stuttgart, 1993), 542; R. Ritner, ‘Egyptian Magical Practice under the Roman Empire: The Demotic Spells and their Religious Context’ in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.18.5 (1995), 3333–3379. Contrary views can be found in C. Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic (Cambridge, 1999), 35–36; and F. Graf, Magic in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1997), 5. The most nuanced treatment of this is from J. Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites. The London-Leiden Magical Manuscripts and Translation in Egyptian Ritual (100–300 ce) (Leiden, 2005). Even in this carefully thought out and constructed discussion (Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites, 22), concludes that at least the portion of the library he studies arose from an Egyptian scribal and priestly tradition and stemmed from ‘an Egyptian temple milieu’.

8 Gee in FARMS Review 7/1, 44. For examples of this, see Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites, 170–182.

9 For more on this, see Dieleman, Priests, Tongues, and Rites, 282–284.

10 For more on this, see Nock in JEA 15, 228–229.

11 See M. Meyer, Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (New York, 1994). The most comprehensive treatment on Christianity in Egypt is C.W. Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity: From its Origins to 451 ce (Leiden, 1990).

become Christian. While the study of how Egyptian Christians reused and reinterpreted Egyptian religious practices in their new Christian religion is a very worthy study, it is not within the parameters of this disquisition. Therefore, for this study I have only used texts that are comfortably categorized as Egyptian religious texts.

While we cannot here be detained by a lengthy discussion regarding the use of the term ‘magical’ in connection with such texts,12 I maintain that these texts are essentially religious in nature, and do not represent anything out of the norm for Egyptian religion and religious practice. Thus ‘magical’ is not the most accurate term. However, the majority of texts used in this study are from a corpus long known by the name of ‘Greek Magical Papyri’, and even though I do not feel they are Greek in essence, but are only partially Greek in script and language, and I do not think they are magical in nature, it would be too confusing to refer to them by some other name. The more recent usage of ‘Theban Magical Library’ is closer to accurate, though there is still room for debate as to what is meant by the term ‘magical’. While a better name may be needed, I will use these standard terms for these texts in order to avoid confusion, but do so with the understanding that all the texts discussed in this article represent Egyptian religious texts.

As much as I would love to see the full thing, i'm not sure if that would violate any copyrights or not. is there a link to it by any chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your answer to me is the reason why you'll never get an answer from God.

Hey I was stubborn too for the longest time, then my prayer finally went from an intellectual curiosity to a 'I'll do what you want me to do, just let me know' and I received much more than a feeling. I got a personal reply from God -- poo poo it if you want, but there is no doubt in my mind, and it was not just heartburn(ie a burning in the bosom).

Yeah but that opens up an issue, if one doesn't believe in something, saying an empty prayer is pointless.

You can't just snap your finger and believe in something completely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but that opens up an issue, if one doesn't believe in something, saying an empty prayer is pointless.

You can't just snap your finger and believe in something completely different.

This is true. It requires great humility, faith, and intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but that opens up an issue, if one doesn't believe in something, saying an empty prayer is pointless.

You can't just snap your finger and believe in something completely different.

When I was investigating the Church my prayers started out a "God if you are really out there......" nothing wrong with that if you really want to know AND are willing to do something about it if He answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share