Skeptoid: the Book of J-red

(This is part two of my explanation of the Book of Abraham. Of course, part one is also available.)

As discussed previously, the most significant problem with the Book of Abraham is that each of the three Facsimiles found therewith have been translated by Egyptologists—both Latter-day–Saint and otherwise—and the result has been unanimous: Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these writings have absolutely nothing to do with their actual translation. When these hieroglyphs were first authored by our ancient Egyptian cousins, they had nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham or even Judeo-Christianity; they dealt with Egyptian mythology and beliefs, and that’s all there is to it. End of story.

The problem with this thinking is that it overlooks an important, even essential issue: when Joseph Smith Jr. set forth the meaning of these texts, what, exactly, was he interpreting?

Let’s return to the Book itself. The Book of Abraham is a not an Egyptian document. Everyone agrees that the extant fragments of the Joseph Smith Papers are similar to Egyptian documents1. The Book of Abraham itself, however, is most certainly not. Even if one believes the Book to be a fraud, it is not an Egyptian document but a Christian one: it confirms and expands upon the teachings of the Bible, including the role of Christ as Lord and Savior. If we accept that it was written by Abraham (as the Church of Jesus Christ avows), then Abraham was a Christian. If we believe that it was not, it was still written by a Christian. Regardless of which position one takes, it’s a Christian document, not an Egyptian one.

The other point we need to consider is the one I mentioned at the end of my last post: the extant papyri are from the first- to third-century BC. Thus, the writing thereon can be no older than that time period. Is it possible that it was written later? Perhaps, but I think we’d be hard pressed to find anyone that believes this particular writing is significantly newer than the papyrus on which it appears. Regardless of who drew those hieroglyphs, it was not a third-millennium–BC Egyptian; rather, it was a first-to-third–century–BC editor or redactor.

Enter J-red.

“J-red” is the nickname invented by Latter-day Saint scholar Kevin Barney, given to a hypothetical Jew who redacted this particular document. This is the big discovery I referenced yesterday: that this was actually a common practice among early Jews. Apologist Michael R. Ash points out that:

“As an illustration of Semitic recontextualizing of Egyptian material, Barney notes that many biblical scholars believe that an ancient Egyptian book—the Instructions of Amenemope—may have been the source for portions of the biblical book of Proverbs.

“The Testament of Abraham… has several similarities to the… Book of Abraham, [as well as] strong similarities to an Egyptian papyrus related to the Book of the Dead. For example, notes Barney, it is widely recognized that a judgment scene described in the Testament of Abraham was influenced by an Egyptian psychostasy (“soul-weighing”) papyrus. The relationship is so clear, that the author may have been looking at such a pschostasy papyrus when he penned his account. The author of the Abrahamic account, however, transforms the Egyptian symbols to meet Semitic sensibilities. The Egyptian god Osiris, for instance, becomes Abel, while other Egyptian gods become angels.…

“The third example comes from the Book of Luke’s story of the rich man and Lazarus. … Scholars have shown that this story is based on a popular Jewish tale, written in Hebrew, but is ultimately dependent on an Egyptian legend. … In the Egyptian version, however… Osiris plays the part later adapter (by Jews) to Abraham. It seems that the early Jews had no problem adapting the pagan god Osiris to important Judaic figures such as Abel or Abraham.” (Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome, 118.)

So now, let’s return to Joseph Smith Jr.’s explanations of the facsimiles. But this time, let’s completely ignore what how a third-millennium–BC Egyptian would understand them. While it’s certainly interesting stuff, but academic to the matter at hand: we’re not dealing with third-millennium–BC, Egyptian documents; we’re dealing with second-century–BC, Judeo-Christian documents. So how about, just for a moment, we discuss how a second-century–BC Jew would understand them? Mike Ash returns with a few thoughts on Facsimile 1.

“Firstly, Joseph’s ‘Raukeeyang’ is real Hebrew for ‘expanse.’2 According to Hebrew cosmology the firmament was believed to be a solid dome, supported by pillars atop a celestial ocean.” (Ash, 119.)

So let’s see… the Egyptologists assure us that figure 9 is “the sacred crocodile, symbolic of the god Sedet.”3 Last I checked, crocodiles live in the water, and Ash points out that many Egyptologists interpret the diagonal lines as just that. If an ancient Jew were using this document as an illustration for the Book of Abraham, what would that bottom section look like? Chalk one up for Joseph Smith.

Here’s an even better one, though: let’s talk about figure #2. Check out that Wikipedia article again: the Egyptologists claim that it is “Osiris coming to life on his couch, which is in the shape of a lion.” Even ignoring that the lion-couch is completely unique among Sensen scrolls (see footnote #1), which Egyptian god did the Jews use to represent Abraham? Smith two, critics zero.

But wait… there’s more. Now let’s jump over to Facsimile #3. Joseph tells us that figure 1 represents “Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king.” Maybe it’s just me, but that guy doesn’t look a thing like the Abraham on the lion-couch in Facsimile #1. Anyone see a resemblance? Anyone? And yet, when the Egyptologists such as Robert Ritner weighed in on it4, guess who they said it was. Come on, guess. If you said “Osiris,” you go to the head of the class. How did Joseph pull that one out of his butt?

Finally, while we’re here, I’m going to point out what I personally think is the best part of all. I want you to take a good, hard look at Facsimile #3. It’s okay; I’ll wait. As you look at it, ignore Joseph’s interpretation and tell me: where are the women in that picture? This was the bane of my existence for years, the one large, weak chink in my testimony of the Gospel. I actually showed this picture to my then–three-year-old daughter, one time. Even she could pick out the women from the men! Why on Earth would Joseph identify these people, who are obviously female, as “King Pharaoh” and “Prince of Pharaoh”? I mean, come on… of all the charges leveled against Joseph Smith Jr., I don’t think I’ve ever heard “unfamiliarity with the female body” among them. ;-) The answer, dear readers, lies not in the fact that they are female, but rather in which females they are.

Ritner explains that the women in figure 2 represents “Isis the great, the god’s mother,” while the one in figure 4 represents “Maat, mistress of the gods.” So, what relevance to these two figures have? Returning to Wikipedia, we learn that Isis was both wife and sister to Osiris, and was thus equal to him. Further, “As the personification of the throne, she was an important representation of the pharaoh's power, as the pharaoh was depicted as her child, who sat on the throne she provided.”5 In short, the person in figure 1—regardless of his identity—is permitted to be there by the person in figure 2. Score another one for Joseph.

Now, let’s talk about Maat. George Hart’s Egyptian Myths (p.46) tells us that “Pharaohs are often depicted with the emblems of Maat,” so there’s a minor tie-in there. However, there is also a more pertinent connection: while I have, unfortunately, been unable to find a primary source for this assertion, I have found a great many scholars in agreement on this point:

“When a pharaoh died, Maat was lost and the world was flung into chaos; only the coronation of a new pharaoh could restore Maat.”

Since J-red has already represented Pharaoh with the less-common Isis (as opposed to Osiris, who is already being used to represent Abraham), who better to represent the son of Pharaoh than the goddess directly tied to said son’s coronation? Once again, a severely counterintuitive score for the Prophet.

I could go on—literally volumes have been written on this subject—but the bottom line is that, thanks to the date of the document, the door has been opened to reveal a Judeo-Christian perspective on these pseudo-Egyptian documents. No one—least of all, the Latter-day Saints—claim that Joseph’s interpretation lines up with the Egyptian interpretation of his papyri; we just note that when it comes to an interpretation that actually has an iota of scientific relevance, Joseph’s inspired “translation” was dead on—as usual.

---

1. The source documents for the various facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are not, despite claims to the contrary, typical Egyptian documents. As Dr. John Gee (PhD, Egyptology, Yale) points out, “no other known Sensen scroll of Book of the Dead contains a lion-couch vignette as we find with Facsimile 1.” (Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome, 116.) Furthermore, the late Klaus Baer of the University of Chicago assures us: “The 1912 Egyptologists certainly went too far in claiming that Fascimiles 1-3 in PGP were ordinary scenes of which dozens of examples could be found.” Indeed, “Facs[imile] No. 3 is not a judgment scene and exact parallels may be hard to find.” (Personal letter from Klaus Baer to Dr. Hugh Nibley, 13 September 1968.)

2. See John A. Tvedtnes, “Authentic Ancient names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” 2005 FAIR Conference presentation. DVD available from the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research.

3. Wikipedia contains a table of Egyptological explanations of each of the three facsimiles, based on the work of Egyptologists Theodule Deveria, Michael Rhodes, John Gee, Parker, and Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.

4. Ritner, Robert K (July 2003), “ ‘The Breathing Permit of Hôr’ Among the Joseph Smith Papyri,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

5. Wikipedia: Isis; primary sources in endnotes.