Talk:Book of Abraham/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Attempting restructuring again...

Things are getting pretty disorganized, so I started trying to restructure once again to keep things concise - this is a much more difficult task this time around since there is about three times the material. Could use some help...--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - after going over it again, I propose organizing the article as follows (I think that both apologetic and critical perspectives are getting bogged down by trying to put everything in line, and an overall organization of information will make this article much better.)

1. Origin
2. Content
3. Contributions to Mormonism
4. Criticism and Controversy
   1. Early Criticism of the facsimiles
      1. Each facsimile treated comparing J.S. with Egyptologist interpretation
      2. Discussion of lacunae and reconstruction
      3. Apologist perspectives and rebuttals
         1. Thematic parallels, differences etc.
   2. Loss and rediscovery of the papyrus
   3. Alleged mistranslation of the papyri
   4. Apologist perspectives

--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal or change in wording of Kolob qualifier

I am starting this subject to get a consensus opinion on a minor difference of opinion between Descartes1979 and myself. He has insisted on the following wording relating to Kolob: "The Book of Abraham also contains the only reference in Mormon canon to the star Kolob, which Mormons believe is the star closest to where God lives." I maintain that IF the canonical Book of Abraham has been referred to as a "Mormon book" of scripture that the qualifier "which Mormons believe" is somewhat redundant and therefore either inaccurate or unnecessary. I would have NO problems whatsoever to changing the wording to something like "which the book defines as," however, I don't think we even need to go that far. If the Book is referenced at the beginning of the sentence, and the sentence is describing what the book says, then "which Mormons believe" doesn't appear to make sense to me. The difference of opinion has led to back-and-forth reverting which might lead to an edit war if allowed to continue unchecked. I'm not altogether satisfied with the explanations Descartes has given in the edit summary field, and therefore in the last revert I did that eliminated the wording "which Mormons believe," I suggested that further discussion take place on the talk page BEFORE the change is reverted again. I will have no problem backing down if the consensus feels as Descartes does. However, until that time, I think that the wording needs to either stay as is or be altered so that it's not redundant. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't understand your thinking at all. This clause is clearly required to avoid the editing problems that arose before you reverted my edit. Non-mormons come onto pages like this all the time and add words like "supposedly" etc. - the wording I included was very neutral I think - "Mormons believe" does not hold the stigma of a word like "supposedly" or "allegedly". Plus, I think it should be there to give a quick qualifier on what Kolob is - and to make sure that people don't misunderstand it as a star that other faiths, or scientists believe exists. In conclusion, the edit is a perfectly good one, and your vehement opposition seems a little POVish to me. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep changing "The Book of Abraham also contains the only reference in Mormon canon to the star Kolob, which Mormons believe is the star closest to where God lives." to "The Book of Abraham also contains the only reference in Mormon canon to the star Kolob, which is the star closest to where God lives." That's really not acceptable: it put the statement "Kolob is the star closest to where God lives" in Wikipedia's voice, rather than attributing it to those who actually assert it. It seems to me the original sentence is appropriate, accurate, and necessary. It's certainly not redundant. I suppose one might say "The Book of Abraham, the only Mormon scripture to mention "Kolob", says that it is the star "nearest unto the throne of God", that it is the greatest of all stars, and that it rotates around its axis every thousand years." - Juden (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Descartes, you say that this wording is “clearly required.” I fail to see that. I am also not aware of any “editing problems” that arose before I reverted your edit. I’d welcome you showing them to me, because there’s always a chance I may be misunderstanding the situation or the relevancy. I know EXACTLY what happens when “non-Mormons” come on to pages like this. If you look at some of the edits I’ve done, you will see that I have taken care of numerous problems such as this. “Mormons believe” may indeed be NEUTRAL, however, it seems to me to be a poor choice of words because of the fact that it is made somewhat redundant when made in connection with the statement that the Book of Abraham is part of the Mormon canon of scripture. I am in no way advocating the inclusion of qualifiers such as “supposedly” or “allegedly.” These would clearly be POV. I agree there should be a “quick qualifier” defining Kolob, but the choice of words you are advocating doesn’t do that. True, it does define what “Mormons believe” Kolob is, but it DOES NOT define Kolob itself, according to the definition thereof as given in the Book it is making reference to. It merely defines what “Mormons believe” it is defined as, which is NOT what we are trying to achieve here. The specification is made early on in this article that the Book of Abraham is a book that is accepted by Mormon adherents as scripture. So it appears self-evident that a book accepted as Mormon scripture relates to beliefs that are held by Mormons, and therefore the qualifier “Mormons believe” is redundant. Is that clear as mud?

Juden, as I explained above to Descartes, this sentence is redundant as it now stands for the reasons I outlined above. If we want to “attribute [the statement] to those who actually believe it, then it would be best to quote from the book the definition comes from. I refer you to Abraham 3:2-3, 9, which reads: “And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest...And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same border as that upon which thou standest.” I think I would be more in favor of what you suggested rather than what Descartes has let stand in the article. However, I’d fine tune it to something like this: “Kolob, mentioned only in the book of Abraham, is described therein as ‘the greatest of all stars..., the star nearest where God lives. 1,000 years of our time is as one year on Kolob.” That would be my suggestion, perhaps interspersing the scriptures I cited above as well as some others. Descartes’s contention is that we need to qualify what Kolob is, but as I said, the problem with doing that by the current wording is that it only states what Mormons believe it is, not what it ACTUALLY is, according to the book it is defined by.

Now, for both of you: a clarification of my position: I certainly don’t hold your opinions against you. I am not intentionally trying to cause friction or reduce readability or credibility. I know that neither of you has said that’s what I’m trying to do, but I just wanted to get it out into the open in case that’s what you might think. I DO think this issue bears further discussion. Until that time, I will leave it as it now stands so that I don’t get chewed out for it. However, if I have the right to any say about this issue, I think a rewording deserves careful consideration, not outright rejection. I can’t see where a word change or a better choice of qualifiers would damage the credibility or readability of this article, so I urge you to consider what I’ve said before solidly rejecting ANY suggestions of a word change. I would also like to hear other people’s opinions on this issue. I know one or two editors who have contributed to other Mormon articles in the past, and I think I’d like to get their feedback. Of course, if they agree with you, I may be sorry I asked. :) For the moment, I respectfully ask the two of you to consider the wording I have suggested or to tweak it so it sounds better and is more readable. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents for what it is worth. In topics of religion, qualifiers are always important to make it clear that Wikipedia reports facts from reputable sources rather than make claims. Qualifiers - how many are sufficient? Sometimes editors think a belt and suspenders approach is preferable. A rule of thumb is to read the sentence in context of the paragraph. Ask yourself if a reasonable reader would interpret the sentence in question as a fact or would they understand the qualifiers already present in the context of the paragraph are enough. To take sentences out of context of a paragraph is not logical and assumes that readers are not reasonable or intelligent.

Also, it is important that we state what is taught and not what is believed. At times, we extract that individual adherents believe "xyz". We can verify what churches teach, but it is very difficult, if not impossiible, to ascertain what all adherents believe. My advice is to stay away from such statements and always phrase things as what is taught, not believed. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Before we go any further, I hope we all realize this article has many more pressing problems that such a trivial word change. See for example the Apologist perspective section, which is near hopelessly disorganized. The first half of the article is in good shape I think, but after the sections on the facsimiles, a lot of work needs to be done - Which I am picking at as I get time - but lets address the larger issues here rather than nitpick over this little clause that really doesn't matter that much.--Descartes1979 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with what Storm Rider said. I also agree with the wording choice as it currently stands. As far as I'm concerned, the matter for which I started this topic is closed with honor. I hope you will consider it to be the same. Before the conversation about this change is closed, though, I want to say this: The article may indeed have "more pressing problems" than the one herein addressed. To call it "trivial" seems to be an opinion. I don't know how it is for the rest of you, but my philosophy is to help improve WP articles HOWEVER possible, even if it's just clearing up things that in some of my esteemed fellow editors' opinions may indeed be "trivial." I also feel that I should discuss things before unilaterally reverting them, which I failed to do in this matter the first few times. That was my fault, and I apologize. However, I'm not sorry that we had this discussion. To me, the way the article reads now is a lot better than it was. It eliminates what I felt was an inaccurate qualifier while retaining the good things that Storm Rider's point suggested. Because I try to deal with things in accordance with WP procedure as they are brought to my attention, I haven't looked too closely at the other things you mentioned. I am grateful you brought that to my attention, Descartes, and you can rest assured that I will be looking at these things in the future and commenting/editing as I feel it is necessary. Perhaps I was "nitpicking," but as I stated, I happen to feel that it is my duty as a WP editor to discuss and to alter content as I feel it needs it. After all, an inaccurate point on a small scale can be just as damaging to the credibility and readability of an article as a large scale inaccurate point. Small changes and large changes both make a HUGE difference to the quality in WP articles, and it is only a combination of both that contributes the greatest overall result. I think the article has been much improved in accuracy and readability because of the word change effected by this conversation, and I am satisfied. Perhaps I did overreact and was nitpicking and needlessly raising a point that should not have been raised. But it's MY prerogative to do so whenever I feel that ANY article content can be improved or that WP's best interests are not being served. I'm sorry if my raising this issue has caused you, Descartes, to think any the less of me. But I do not hold your previously stated opinion against you, and I certainly hope you don't hold my previously stated opinion against me. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick thought, as far as "WP procedure" is concerned, just realize that the first rule of Wikipedia is to ignore all the rules. I appreciate the wikilove, and look forward to your contributions. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Descartes, I was already fully aware of the "ignore all rules" rule here on WP, but it's always good to have a reminder. Thank you for your kind response to me. I'm afraid I have not always responded on this issue in the manner I should, and I'm grateful for your understanding attitude. No problem about the wikilove. It has been my philosophy since before joining WP that we can disagree without being disagreeable. I hope that I've done that, and I apologize if I have failed. Before closing this particular aspect of discussion, I did want to ask you something, though. Because each editor sees things differently, the things you perceive as the current large problems of this article aren't all that apparent to me. I would welcome your posting of a new topic on this talk page to discuss those problems one by one as a group, or even starting several topics to discuss each problem individually. That way I and the other editors like myself know what particularly it is that you see as problems for this article. That way, whether the problems were taken care of in one or many topics, they would be able to be adequately addressed with insight from all those who watch this article and its discussions. Man, I wish sometimes that WP was set up so that editors could view lists of who watches each article so that invitations could be made for those who are interested to contribute to stuff like this! Oh, well. Guess we'll just have to do the best we can under the current system. I look forward to contributing to each new discussion about how to improve this article. Thanks again for all your work and for helping me to figure out how I can help improve this article. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Current issues with this article

Per Jgstokes above, here are my thoughts on the problems with this article. The biggest problem this article has is that the section regarding apologist perspective is rife with Original Research, Synthesis, and lacks a coherent flow and presentation of ideas. There are a lot of ideas there, but they are haphazardly patched together, and at times it isn't clear what the paragraphs are getting at. I admit some of this is my own fault. After the last round of heavy editing, a lot of restructuring and organization occurred, and portions of the article were categorized together under this heading, and haven't really been cleaned up since then. The second problem this article has is tying in the rediscovery of the Joseph Smith Papyri with the first half of the article. It is of course one of the most important pieces of the article, but since the topic is so complex, it has been hard for me to figure out the best way to tie things in. Perhaps if the apologist section is cleaned up, it will make this second task a bit easier. Finally, I think that quoting Sir Wallis Budge throughout is a bit tenuous because he had no interest in the Book of Abraham, he was an Egyptologist that as far as I can tell didn't even know the BOA existed. To quote him for translating Egyptian characters - while useful, comes close to the line of Original Research and Synthesis. For primary scholarly opinion on the topic, we should stick with the scholars that have studied the papyri and published their thoughts - Ritner, Baer, Deveria, etc. and for the apologist perspective, Nibley and Gee. Budge should be a supporting voice for the translations of characters or opinions with which he would agree.--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The article also has the problem of having apologist arguments presented as objective statements in the Facsimile 2 section. It would be best if Kerry Shirts, John Gee, and Michael Rhodes paragraphs are removed entirely from this section and the reader is presented solely with the Smith/Deveria table as in Facs. 1. The Shirts and Rhodes citations are especially problematic since they are not certified academics in Egyptology.--Vardok (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these issues need to be addressed. I would suggest either removing the parts with OR or Synthesis or a rewrite of the entire section in question. I agree that reputable and relevant references should be provided for reporting of the scholarly perspective on this book. I also think that we should either rewrite or remove apologist arguments that are being presented as objective statements. Again, if a person is qualified in a certain field but has little or no knowledge of one or more aspects in that particular field, it is probably best to steer clear from that type of thing. If either of you have any recommendations, I'd welcome them. I look forward to your suggestions. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jgstokes suggests that the article has a problem with the apologist arguments being presented as objective and I agree but I would also submit that the critical arguments are equally un-objective as well as equally out of date. Knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language and burial texts continues to evolve. There are some excellent, more current, books, like "How to Read Egyptian" by Collier and Manley and "Hieroglyphics the Writings of Ancient Egypt", by Betro, which offer insight into the symbolic meanings of the glyphs, but no one that I am aware of has appraised of the JSP texts from those updated perspectives. For example; The god Min is depicted in the hypocephalus, but Budge and Deveria barely scratch the surface as to the implications of that or how it related to Smith's explanations. How does one tackle that problem without being called to task for injecting "original research"? Implications of Smith's accuracy (pro or con) are directly related to the interpretation and comprehension of the symbolism embedded in the glyphs and illustrations. Heiroglyphic language is not simply phonetic or symbolic, it is a blend of the two. That is why a straight transliteration of the text is not sufficient to reveal the full meaning. 100 years ago Egyptology was in it's infancy, yet the comparative tables in the article are full of 100 year old commentary. To label it Early Criticism is a disingenuous cover for putting forward a critical view. Budge and Devaria are *both* out of date. DWmFrancis (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with some of what you said. Ritner is the leading Egyptologist who has opined on the papyri, as recently as 2000 )if I remember correctly) wrote an article confirming the findings of past Egyptologists with some very minor revisions. The thing that is striking about all Egyptologists who have reviewed the papyri is their near consensus on its interpretation. To say otherwise, as FARMS scholars sometimes allege, is splitting hairs and detracting from the true character of the opinions of all of the Egyptologists who have studied them.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To say that Ancient Egyptian was a combination of phonetic/syllabic characters and "symbolic" characters is not correct at all. Egyptian hieroglyphics were not some mystical "mixed" system. Writing was, and is, a system for representing spoken language in a permament means. Systems that evolved into phonetic/syllabic systems become very stable in their association between sound and symbol. (Taivo (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

Cleanup

This article has needed some major cleanup for a long time, I was able to do some of that tonight. It is a confusing topic - and there was a lot of irrelevant information - which I removed, or off topic information - which I merged to Joseph Smith Papyri. I hope to come back to this article in a few days for more cleanup. I suspect there are more situations like this in the article. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Statements by Egyptologists

Is it really necessary to include such quotations in the middle of the article? Now I know that these people are top of their field academics and such, however when reading their "statements" it comes across to me very rash, critical, harsh and very opinionated, it is making the whole article look like one big attack on the church, and whilst I recongize that criticism is obviously allowed, this page doesn't really give both sides of the coin in relation to the controversy surrounding the topic in itself. There seem to be many academical claims defending the book, which are deliberately ignored by the critics of the church.

Regardless if their claims are verified or not, what is quoted by them in the article is still very much opinion and bias, and this can help explain what I mean. As a history student I understand principally that just because a source is a "source" doesn't mean it doesn't have a point of view, and if you look at the way these statements have been worded it looks very much POV.

I will again signify that the people who have made these "statements" that are quoted in the aritlce are respected academics yes, however they still do have a POV and whilst it does have a particular assetion to fact their point of view and claims have been put in the article as like they are "asserted facts" WP:ASF like there is no possible dispute to what they are saying may not be incorrect. However, that is not the case in relation to the book of Abraham, as other respectable academics have been able to present counter arguments with valid points. Therefore these "statements by egyptologists" can be challenged and shouldn't be placed in the article like the whole thing is set in stone with no dispute against it, when as a matter of fact it isn't.

I understand that this is a very controversial and quite difficult topic on wikipedia, but I feel it is contradicting several pieces of WP:NPOV having such statements included, when what they have said has been legitimately challenged on an academical scale. As a result of this, I would like to propose that the statements are removed and instead added in as citations next to something like "Egyptologists have challenged the content of this book and have claimed it has nothing to do with what was claimed to be translated", rather than including the actual statements itself and presiding that what they are saying is an assertainty, when really there is another side to the argument and thus my issue is that this page doesn't seem to recongize that on a large scale, and presents everything against it as an assserted fact. Routerone (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this is a controversial topic. Rather than doing some blanket change that will be quickly reverted, I suggest you proceed one paragraph at a time and propose your changes here on the talk page. After interested parties have reached a consensus, then insert that paragraph in the article and proceed to the next one. You'll find it a lot easier to get your point across to those who disagree with you if you take that approach. (Taivo (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

The article would not be improved by censoring the views of experts. If anything, at present it is too supportive of the notion that there's a possibility that Smith was "translating" anything other than Egyptian funeral documents. If the experts' quotations seem certain, that's because they were quite certain they knew what they were saying was right: it's not our job to soften up expert opinions. - Juden (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mainstream Egyptologists universally reject Smith's translations. That should be reported clearly and is just NPOV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I think the lead of the article could do with a bit cutting down, reshaping, and re-writing. It appears to be someone excessive in length. To add onto this, it appears to have no set fluency and seems to repeat itself on the views of the apologetics and the Egyptologists twice twice in succession to each other. Routerone (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bloated lede, but there is a logical flow to it. What do you propose we cut down on? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 03:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed

"LDS scholars believe that much of the original papyri is missing, while critics tend to believe that the majority of the papyri have been recovered."

We need a citation for "critics." A citation for "LDS scholars" already exists later in the paragraph. --CABEGOD (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"...These estimates have been disputed by critics. Charles Larson believes that the recovered papyri represent the majority of the original set."

Again, we need a citation here. I suggest revising the paragraph if no citations for "critics" are added. Opinion is fine, as long as it is cited.--CABEGOD (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Parallels Needed

Much like The Book of Moses, we should add parallels to other religious texts. Examples include the Bible, Midrash Rabbah, Tanna debe Eliyahu, the Book of Jasher, The Story of Abraham Our Father, and The Chronicles of Jerahmeel. Some of the events in the Book of Abraham are similar to events in the books I've just listed. What do you think? --CABEGOD 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that has already done this? --Taivo (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a few...just trying to find the best. I'll have something to present in the coming days. --CABEGOD 05:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The wording introducing a list must be non-committal. It should say, "X claims that the following parallels exist between the Book of Abraham and ...". It should not say, "The following are parallels between..." --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do! --CABEGOD 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No thorough Analysis of Defense

The Following was written by John Gee and can be found at http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=975594bf3938b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD:

A lion couch scene appears in Leiden Papyrus I 384 (PGM xii). The outline marks Abraham’s name, written in Greek. (Courtesy of Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.)

There are dozens of references to Abraham in Egyptian texts, some of which have traditionally, been called “magical,” 1 although many scholars are not sure how to distinguish ancient magic from religion. 2 The references occur in five different languages—Demotic, Old Coptic, Coptic, Greek, and Hebrew. Here, we mention six of the references to Abraham, dating to the third century a.d., most of which came from Thebes, the place where the Joseph Smith papyri were found, and were originally acquired by Giovanni d’Anastasi, who sold them to several museums in Europe.

1. The first reference occurs in a chapter on how to make a signet ring. One of the steps is to “bring a white stone” and “write this name upon it … : Abraham, friend of m[an].” 3 (PDMxii 6–20; compare Rev. 2:17; D&C 130:10–11; Abr. 3:1.)

2. The second instance of Abraham’s name occurs in a description of how to use a ring to obtain “success and grace and victory.” As part of his invocation, the petitioner says, “O mighty god, who surpassest all powers, I call upon thee, Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai, Elohim, [six other names], Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, [82 more names].” The first four names are Hebrew for “LORD of hosts, my Lord, God.” (PGMxii 270–321.)

3. The third mention of Abraham comes from the same papyrus as the first two references. It is accompanied by a picture, a lion couch scene similar to the one in facsimile no. 1 of the book of Abraham, but this picture is oriented in reverse. Part of the text, a love charm, reads: “Let Abraham who … I adjure you by … and incinerate so-and-so daughter of so-and-so. Write these words and draw this image on a new papyrus.” Later in the text we read, “I adjure you spirits of the dead, [by] the dead (pharaohs) 4 and the demon Balsamos and the jackal-headed god and the gods who are with him.” (PGMxii 474–95, PDMxii 135–64.)

A few explanations are in order: “Balsamos” is probably Baalshammayim (lord of the heavens), an old Phoenician and Canaanite god whom they believed created the earth. 5 The “jackal-headed god” is most likely Anubis, who usually officiates in lion couch scenes, though he is indistinguishable from his priest, who wears a jackal mask over his head. 6 The “gods who are with him” might be the Sons of Horus, who are often depicted as jars which hold the mummified internal organs of the deceased. (See facsimile no. 1, notes on figures 5 to 8.) The figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman. The idea of incinerating the woman as a punishment in case the woman does not yield to the man who casts the spell is an old Egyptian formula. 7

Although removed from the time of Abraham, about two millennia earlier, elements on this papyrus remind one of the three virgins Abraham wrote of who “were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians.” (Abr. 1:11.)

These first three references all come from the same papyrus. The mention of “Abraham, Isaac, Jacob” assures us that we are dealing with references to the biblical Abraham. Also, these references point to some sort of connection between Abraham and the lion couch, though the exact nature of the connection is obscure.

4. The fourth mention of Abraham is in a papyrus containing many references to Judeo-Christian religion; the same scribe who copied the previous papyrus copied this one, too. A long chapter on using a lamp to get revelation instructs the individual to call out, “O Khopr-Khopri-Khopr, Abraham, the pupil of the wedjat-eye, four-fold Qmr 8, creator of the mouth, who created creation, great verdant creation.” (PDMxiv 228–29.) The name Khopr-Khopri-Khopr is an invocation of the creator, which has parallels in older Egyptian texts, 9 and is possibly related to facsimile no. 2, figure 3. Qmr seems to mean something like “creator, creation, mightier, or one who has power over.” Here, “it is very noteworthy that the Patriarch Abraham is called ‘the apple of the wedjat-eye.’ ” 10 The pupil (or apple) here means not student but rather the “iris and pupil” of the eye. 11 The wedjat-eye was a symbol of perfection, prosperity, preservation, wholeness, completion, health, and resurrection; in Christian times it was the word the Copts used for salvation. It occurs four times in facsimile no. 2 of the book of Abraham (twice in figure 3, and once in figures 5 and 7).

The wedjat-eye is frequently mentioned in a closely related group of chapters from the Egyptian Book of the Dead (162–67) 12 that treat the theme of preserving the dead until the time of the resurrection. One of the items discussed in this set of chapters is the hypocephalus—the general class of documents to which facsimile no. 2 belongs. Other connections also exist between the chapter in this “magical” papyrus and facsimile no. 2. 13

5. The fifth reference to Abraham’s name is linked to a Bible story. (See Genesis, chapter 19.) The chapter in the papyrus places this reference in a love charm (like the third example, above): “The heavens opened and the angels of God descended and destroyed the five cities: Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim and Zoar. When a woman heard the sound she became a salty pillar.” The individual using this charm also calls upon “the great Michael, Souriel, Gabriel, … Istrael [sic], [and] Abraham.” (PGMxxxvi 295–310.)

6. A sixth reference to Abraham in the papyri has the petitioner calling out, “I call upon thee, the creator of earth and bones and all flesh and every spirit and the one who stands upon the sea and shakes the heaven, who separated the light from the darkness [compare Gen. 1:4; Moses 2:4; Abr. 4:4], O great mind, lawful administrator of the universe [see explanation to facsimile no. 2, notes on figures 1, 3 and 7], eternal eye, daimon of daimons, 14 god of gods, the lord of the spirits [compare Abr. 3:22–23], the fixed planet 15 [compare explanation to facsimile no. 2, notes on figure 5], Jehovah [compare Abr. 1:16], hear my voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.19.217 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to this article. Gee is referring to Egyptian texts other than those used by Smith. So what? COGDEN 07:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CoGDEN - this topic is confusing enough - we have to focus like a laser on the relevant points of controversy - not encapsulate the entirety of Egyptology - it will just muddle the entire article up. (It is already in sore need of editing to cut out bloat...).--Descartes1979 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)