There are 5 thoughts on “Framing the Book of Abraham: Presumptions and Paradigms”.

  1. There is a sketch online about what survived in facsimile 2. In the published version things were added for example figure 3.
    What was added seems to have come from another piece of papyri that Smith possessed. See bottom right hand corner.

    Examining Tamas Mekis’ book The Hypocephals:an Ancient Egyptian Funerary Amulet p.37 all examples display a figure in a boat with a scarab (insect). Do you possess pictures of examples that display a similiar figure to what Smith added?

  2. This is a powerful review. Thank you. Vogel’s work has serious problems, not surprising given the assumptions he has brought and striven to adhere to in writing his book.

  3. Smoot makes some excellent observations about the secondary nature of some words inserted into Abraham 1:12,14, even if his figure 1 photo (Ab2 folio 1a) is rather faint and obscure.

    At the same time, Smoot fails to make a very important point, from Abr 1:13, which cannot refer to an Egyptian altar (or lion couch) at all: “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans.” Even if facsimile 1 was intended to be an illustration of the action and altar in 1:12-14, facsimile 1 from the Hor Papyrus could only be a substitute for the original, non-Egyptian illustration. The Jewish tradent in Greco-Roman Egypt merely inserted Egyptian fac 1 to cover for a long missing Chaldean illustration of some sort.

    • Hello have you read The Hypocephalus:an an Ancient Egyptian Funerary Amulet? (Tamas Mekis). Royal Skousen seems to have a different idea on the value of Smith’s interpretations. In Mekis’ book the figure that Smith files in incorrectly has a scarab. figure 3. Would figure 7 really be a dove but should be Nehebkau?

      • While most hypocephali have a serpent in Fac. 2:7’s position, there are examples of hypocephali with birds and animals in the same place and performing the same function.[1] For example, a Roman cartonnage with Coffin Text in the British Museum even has a serpent depicted with falcon-head, four legs & wings.[2] In any case, in Coffin Texts contemporary with Abraham, the Nḥb-k3w is a nˁw-serpent — a taker away of power and a bestower of powers, with authority from the Great Ennead of Atum, i.e., the Divine Council,[3] very much like the Holy Ghost. Note especially the -k3 element of Nḥb-k3 in Fac. 2:7, k3 having been translated variously as “ghost, phantom; spirit, soul; essence; personality; fortune; fate; will (of king); kingship; goodwill; genius; guardian spirit; power; double; hyper-physical vital force.”[4]

        [1] Nibley, BYU Studies, 9:94; Millennial Star, 120:101; Tanner & Tanner, CASE, III:10, Example 2.
        [2] Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 66, plate XXIV, British Museum 29585.
        [3] Shorter, “The God Nehebkau,” JEA, 21 (1935):46-47.
        [4] Wilson, Culture of Ancient Egypt, 86,299 n. 27; Zandee, Death as an Enemy, 184; Gardiner, JEA, 36:7 n. 2; Greven, Ka in Theologie und Königskult des alten Reiches, reviewed by Faulkner, JEA, 41:141; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (1940), 130; Albright, VESO, 26, 61, and XVII.C, citing ZÄS, 48:152-159; 54:56-64; JEA, 5:64; Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 170.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged. Individual authors are given the option to disallow commenting or end commenting after a certain period at their discretion.

Close this window

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This