The Bible and the Book of Mormon

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Book of Abraham Special Section Uppsala 1987-1988 Conference of Egyptology

Uppsala 1987-1988 Conference of Egyptology

E-mail Print PDF
User Rating: / 0

The Uppsala Egyptological Conference and Notes on the Book of Abraham

Research/Review by Kerry A. Shirts

The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians: Cognitive Structures and Popular Expressions,

Proceedings of Symposia in Uppsala and Bergen 1987 and 1988

Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Boreas

Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 20

BYU Library Catalogue Number - BL 2445.R38x 1989

Edited by Gertie Englund

Uppsala 1989

The Uppsala Conference of Egyptology was a significant event that is too little-known in my opinion. What I will do in this paper is gather my thoughts and musings of what four different papers presented in their findings of Ancient Egyptian thought, and why I find it significant in light of the Egyptological aspects of the Book of Abraham and the facsimiles therein. There is much here that is useful for the layman in things Egyptian as well as in the Book of Abraham and the significant explanations the Prophet Joseph Smith gave the various figures. The four papers I will muse over, though not necessarily in this order are:

1. Gertie Englund - "Gods as a Frame of Reference: On Thinking and Concepts of Thought in Ancient Egypt," pp. 7-27 (Cited as "Gods")

2. Lana Troy - "The Ennead: The Collective Goddess: A Commentary on Textual Personification," pp. 59-68 (Cited as "Ennead")

3. Ragnhild Bjerre Finnestad - "The Pharaoh and the 'Democratization' of Post-mortem Life," pp. 89-93 (Cited as "Pharaoh")

4. Jorgen Podemann Sorensen - "Divine Access: The So-called Democratization of Egyptian Funerary Literature as a Socio-cultural Process," pp. 109-123 (Cited as "Divine Access")

When we compare the various hypocephali we note variations of themes, some differences as well as similarities. The one thing about the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus that I always thought about was why the prophet included two Wedjat Eyes in Figure 3, the upper right handed figure in the hypocephalus. John Gee's excellent analysis of the Wedjat Eyes never says why there are two of these figures, though he does note that there are two of these in figure 3. Why they are there has never been explained yet by LDS scholars, so far as I know.[1] As I finished Lana Troy's article on the Ennead I sat bolt upright in astonishment as I may very well have found an answer to this anomaly, which, so far as I understand, two of these Wedjat Eyes are in no other hypocephali together with the boat[s] in the upper right hand quadrant of hypocephali. More significant still, the supposed original hypocephalus that Joseph Smith had, as found in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, also does not have either Wedjat Eye in the upper right hand quadrant nor the boat![2] That Joseph Smith includes two of these figures perhaps demonstrates, stronger than any of us have before supposed, that Joseph Smith was restoring this hypocephalus in a far more literal way according to ancient Egyptian thought.

Lana Troy notes that the Ennead, that is the group of nine deities " also a combination of eight plus one, the eight of chaos and the one of creation. It is thus the perfect representative for the total diversity of the cosmos."[3] She further notes that the Ennead is the Egyptian term Psdt meaning nine, but also "is used as if it was the name of one or more goddesses... the term Psdt 'the nine', grammatically feminine, is treated as a feminine deity."[4] What leads us into the two Wedjat Eyes of Joseph Smith's hypocephalus figure 3 is her comment that "the duality of the Ennead has been related primarily to that of the two sisters Isis and Nephthys."[5] Troy notes the interesting Egyptian play on words with Psdt meaning "nine" and the word Psd meaning "to shine."This word Psdt is many of the various goddesses, whether as sister, or the daughter of Atum, etc. she is the solar daughter, the eye of the god. A Coffin Text notes that "He judges them-so says she, the Great Eye of Horus, the Great Ennead."[6] So this female duality of the Ennead being associated with the Wedjat Eye has a perfect parallel with the two Wedjat Eyes in figure No. 3 in the Joseph Smith hypocephalus. What clinched it in my mind was Troy's statement that the association is rounded out as a reference to the Ennead as bark. "Boat imagery belongs to the same sphere as that of the solar eye... thus the Ennead is places in a feminine role in these texts: as consort, mother, sister and daughter of the god....the relationship between psd 'nine' and psd 'shine' is evident. It is acknowledged both in the use of the sun determinative... read as 'she who shines,' Psdt has a direct reference to the role of the feminine deity as the solar disc. The step between Psdt 'she who shines' and Nhw 'the golden one', epithet of Hathor is not far. (for more on Hathor and the significance for the Book of Abraham click here) With this juxtaposition, incorporation of the Psdt into the complex of goddesses associated with role of solar daughter and bearer of the young god is almost given."[7] This is precisely what we find in our hypocephalus, namely, the ship with the two Wedjat Eyes, "the duality of feminine elements," which very well could represent the solar daughter of the god, as the hieroglyph in this figure translates as "The Ship of the God." This to me, was a very exciting discovery and confirmation of the idea of why two Wedjat Eyes were included. So I kept looking wondering if there was more items like this to find. There was.

Troy had emphasized the number nine as such an important number, as a plurality and council of gods no less, that it all the sudden dawned on me that the Joseph Smith hypocephalus had nine divisions in it as well. Even as a coincidence, the symbolism as a total diversity of cosmological significance is not, any more than the group of the gods being important both in ancient Egyptian thought as well as in the Book of Abraham itself where it talks of the gods in plural. "The Heliopolitan Ennead...consists of the plurality of the gods,"[8] which is important because the Joseph Smith hypocephalus has the word Heliopolis on the rim more than on any other hypocephali, exactly as with the Wedjat Eye, which appears four times. For further significance of Heliopolis, click here

In light of what we learned about hastiness in judging Egyptian thought and especially in scholarly interpretations from the Spaulding panel of scholars against Joseph Smith in 1912, I found the comments of Gertie Englund to be particularly appropriate. In fact, the attitude displayed is the only one we can take after all. This is pertinent for critics to begin to grasp as they have usually tried to show that it is quite a simple thing to refute Joseph Smith's interpretations of Egyptian materials because we know what the Egyptians were all about and Joseph Smith missed the mark.

The actual scholarly attitude, up to 1989 at least, is simply this, that "The essence of Egyptian religion is not easy to grasp."[9] Hugh Nibley has noted that one of the panel of scholars against Joseph Smith in the 1912 affair was exactly to hasty and determined to conclude that we, in fact, know exactly all about the ancient Egyptians. S.A.B. Mercer was known to have claimed such gaffes as the Egyptians only displayed muddled thinking, which Rudolf Anthes noted that "we should rather acknowledge the fact that we are not yet equal to the Pyramid Texts, although they represent excellent manuscripts." Anthes further noted that it is not the Egyptians but ourselves who are ignorant. Nibley notes that Anthes is one of the growing group of scholars who believes it is necessary to take the Egyptians and their thought seriously.[10] Englund notes that the Egyptologist Eric Hornung agrees that because of the ancient Egyptian concepts of plurality of gods as well as the single High God, that "we are facing a different logic, a different structure of thought, and that logic would have to be called 'eine mehrwertige Logik.'"[11] Englund further notes that in building research models for our own understanding of the ancient Egyptian thought, and especially when dealing with foreign materials like the Egyptian we have to realize that "the mythic expression of thinking is no longer ours and we don't understand it."[12] Klaus Baer also acknowledged that in dealing with the plurality of gods, yet the singularity of god all in one (a significant Pearl of Great Price phenomenon! for further information click here) "The difficulties are largely of our own creation, when we insist on comparing and reconciling statemtns that belong to different contexts and relfeclt different approaches to the divine. Modern thought is not exempt from this illogicality."[13] John Wilson has noted that "it is fairly easy to translate the Book of the Dead, and the renderings of two practiced Egyptologists will agree very well. It is another matter to understand the terms, allusions, and psychology of another religion."[14] John Anthony West, however, as of 1993, has demonstrated that Egyptologists, when dealing with translating ancient Egyptian texts, have often contradicted each others' translations and in fact, have missed the meanings altogether.[15] Gardiner noted that with the ancient Egyptians, "In matters of religion logic played no great part, and the assimilation or duplication of deities doubtless added a mystic charm to their theology."[16] Again, James H. Breasted, who, in 1912, was one of the Egyptologists who claimed Joseph Smith got the Egyptian aspects in the Pearl of Great Price all wrong, has now been shown to be incorrect in his evolutionary optimism of ancient Egyptian thought.[17] So with the very basis of the criticism against Joseph Smith having itself been shown to be incorrect, we believe the door of possibilities is still open. We are still not done with learning information which very well could have direct implications for the Pearl of Great Price. Egyptologists today recognize we simply do not have the final word on Egyptian thought. That is encouraging. One very clear reason that I believe directly reflects various criticisms against the Book of Abraham as well as scholarly LDS approaches is Troy's comment that "what to us may appear contradictory is, when examined in a larger context, the expression of a congruent line of reasoning based on a well developed system of categorization. The examination and its application to our various objects of study is one approach toward achieving a holistic view of ancient Egyptian thought."[18] That is precisely Hugh Nibley's approach over the last 30 years, with his noting the big picture is what the critics have been ignoring, while criticizing the LDS scholars for trying to see just this holistic approach to the ancient Egyptians.[19]

Another idea I thought quite attractive was the emphasis on the cosmological teachings of the ancient Egyptians. That was their first concern and "foremost interest" according to Englund.[20] And what was it that was directly tied to these teachings? The temple functions. The Egyptians used the concept of Maat, because the experience of life, order, harmony, and balance was fragile and impermanent. "Life is composed of constructive and destructive forces. Life must be carefully looked after in order to subsist. The care was the task of the House of Life and of the temples as a whole."[21] This is interesting because involved with the temple was a function which the Book of Abraham hypocephalus also performs. The House of Life itself was the symbol of the microcosm, and the aim was "to keep the world in balance through a series of symbolic acts where mankind and gods met in exchange of gifts...there was a symbolic play enacted and repeated daily in the temples in order to maintain and support the constructive forces of life."[22]

The Egyptian ritual texts gave divine access in three ways.

1. Officiating in the temple ritual

2. Imitating the mythical roles or by identification with a god.

3. By religious knowledge

The idea is considering a person worshipping god face to face, according to Sorensen. "The deceased is said to know the god, his name, or some mythological feature of the god."[23] And more, the temples anciently functioned "as a sort of power center where the energies were connected and directed."[24] This is precisely how the Book of Abraham sets it up and from the Egyptian context, we have the facsimiles No. 1 with the angel of the Lord represented, No. 2, as a cosmic diagram of the universe with the gods and their various roles and functions, and No. 3 with Abraham on the throne of Pharaoh teaching the principles of astronomy, that is cosmic knowledge, as the Egyptians were after. In the original Egyptian context, No. 3 is Osiris sitting on his throne, with the dead viewing him. Either way, it is established principles of ancient Egyptian thought and captured in the Book of Abraham, with Abraham having the cosmic journey and seeing god, and taking on the mythical role of the god so far as that goes.

Finnestad's thesis plays right into this line of thought as well. To the Egyptians, to resume the cosmic life after death was a divine capacity and early in Egyptian religion the king only had this capacity, the king "who was ntrj and, like the gods, could transform himself into new cosmic forms and continue to live..."[25] Perhaps another function of the hypocephalus I would venture to speculate. The various forms of the gods are certainly manifest therein. On this same angle there is something else that is significant. With the cyclically regenerating world of the Egyptians, involved directly in the cosmos, the idea is "about the capacity to merge with the divine power of life inherent in all being and which enables the pharaoh to transform himself into other cosmic forms of life after death. Expressed in the mythological language of the Pyramid Texts it is about the state of having 'eaten' the gods of the Egyptian world."[26] Eaten the Gods? What is this? I was stunned as a particularly important image rang true here. The sacrament. And most interesting for Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles, the Wedjat Eye is directly considered to be a sacramental motif!

The Wedjat-Eye, as sacramental motif, as everything good, sound, true, and beautiful, as the god's secret, sacred and powerful name, offers all greatness as a god has to its possessor. "Sovereignty," full light, "an assurance of a cyclic renewal of life."[27] The Wedjat-Eye is "filled" whatever that means, but it is filled on the 6th day, and by Thoth, the scribe, who is described as not only filling the eye, but fixing it, putting its various parts back together since it was tore apart. The supplying it with its missing parts, completing it, gathering and fixing it, giving it a restoration of wholeness, Moller notes, is paralleled with the dismemberment of Osiris and the supplement of the lost limb of Osiris, being resurrected again into wholeness, completeness, vitality.[28]

The filling of the eye on the 6th day is done in Heliopolis, where, we read an inscription saying that "Osiris wakes from his slumber [of death] he flies upward as the Phoenix and takes his place in heaven, and repeats his shape (moon) with Atum..."[29] This filling concept at Heliopolis is considered to hark back to some astronomical observation. We know the eye was filled with 6 parts, following Junker.[30] Bonnet noted that Horus in offering his eye to his father helped his father, Osiris gain a new life (resurrection)with the eye.[31] What especially caught our eye was Bonnet noting that the Wedjat Eyes were given as the hands were stretched out to receive the offering.[32] Lynn M. Hilton noted that the hand was stretched out in cup form in the ancient Egyptian temples, which were expected to be filled. And John Tvedtnes had demonstrated that the Hebrew word "consecrate" literally meant "to fill the hand," of the ordained priests! Most interesting, after citing numerous examples from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc., it was noted that "the open hand is to be filled with sacramental items," as well as perhaps a shining stone as noted in Revelations 2:17; D & C 130:11.[33] For the full Hilton article click here.

This is Abrahamic principles as taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith throughout, i.e. consecration of the sacrament, everything good, whole, true, and beautiful, restoration of lands, bodies, love, dignity, etc. Light, truth, revelation. The symbols are absolutely perfect for depicting these areas of the Abrahamic Covenant as well. All because of his faithfulness, Abraham becomes the ideal for all mankind. In fact, we believe Abraham, as one of the true Zaddik, portrays the love needed and having to fullfill the commandments of God, no matter how difficult. The value of a commandment to be fulfilled hangs from the fundamental attitude of the person, such an attitude of love, as Abraham had is or should be our goal.[34] When confronted with literally the impossible, the birth of his son in old age, as well as showing him the stars and saying so shall his seed be, we read "And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness (Zedaqah, Gen. 15:6) It was love unto belief that Abraham was given both the trials and the triumphs, the promises, and their fulfillment that proved him so worthy of being father of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Sacrament motifs are also prominant with the Eye of Horus as we have noted above. The Coffin Texts are replete with this motif. Spell 939 says "my bread is the Eye, my beer is the Eye." Spell 863 says "If N be hungry, Nekhbet will be hungry; if N be thirsty, Nekhbet will be thirsty," and it ends with mentioning the Eye of Horus as the cure. Spell 936 says your thirst and hunger are satisfied with the consumption of the Eye of Horus. Spell 1013 says "I live on bread of white emmer washed down with zizyphus-beer...I testify concerning the Eye of Horus to him." The giving of the Eye of Horus is a very prominant theme, and picture presentations demonstrate this, not only in hypocephali, but Lanzone also depicts this event, with a baboon presenting a Wedjat-eye to a god in his boat.[35]

It is noteworthy to realize that Abraham was given the sacrament in his famous meeting with Melchizedek. Robert J. Matthews has noted its significance.

"When returning from the battle of the kings (Gen. 14 KJV) Abraham met Melchizedek, who gave him bread and wine. The particular treatment given this episode in the New Translation almost suggests a prefigurement of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, for the bread and wine are blessed separately."[36] The sacrament is certainly in line with keeping our minds pointed toward the covenant that God has offered, and the depiction of it as the Wedjat-Eye is precisely in line with this thought. In fact, the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus indicates the Wedjat Eye four times, more than any other hypocephali.

Kurt Sethe noted that "Wie bei uns im Abendmahl Brot und Wein Leib und Blut Christi darstellen sollen, so ist es das, Auge der Horus, das der Priester dem Gotte oder der Göttin darbietet, wenn er ihnen Wein, Weihrauch, Brot, Früchte oder was sonst opfert." In other words, as the bread and wine should represent the body and blood of Christ, to us, likewise, the Eye of Horus, that the priest offers the god or goddess, if he offers them, the wine, incense, bread, fruits, or something else.[37] Troy notes that "Maat also functions, as does the eye, as the offering par excellence."[38] I would dare say a nifty fit.

In the Egyptian Book of the Dead we also find this prominant sacramental theme. In the Introductory hymn to the Sun-god Re, we read "may my name be called out, may it be found at the board of offerings; may there be given to me loaves in the Presence...May there be given to me bread from the House of Cool Water and a table of offerings from Heliopolis..."[39] We learn that this is important for the dead to have. "Let there be given to him bread and beer which have been issued in the Presence of Osiris, and he will be for ever like the Followers of Horus."[40] Another statement directly ties the sacramental motif to the sacred eye; "Your bread is the Sacred Eye, your beer is the Sacred Eye; what goes forth at the voice for you upon earth is the Sacred Eye."[41] We further read that the perfected souls are drawn near to the House of Osiris, and that the officiating person is addressed thusly: "O you who give bread and beer to the perfected souls in the House of Osiris, may you give bread and beer at all seasons to the soul of N, who is vindicated with all the gods of the Thinite nome, and who is vindicated with you."[42] Klaus Baer, one of the Egyptologists to work on the Joseph Smith Papyri noted that to be vindicated or as the Joseph Smith Papyri puts it, "justified" means to become an Osiris![43] In Spell 68, the spell for going out into the day, we read "You shall live on bread of white emmer and beer of red barley of Hapi in the pure place."[44] And again, "offering shall be made to me of food by my son of my body, you shall give invocation-offerings of bread and beer, incense and unguent, and all things good and pure whereon a god lives...and there shall be given to him bread and beer and a portion of meat from upon the altar of Osiris.[45] On another occassion the dead is asked, "What will you live on?" Wherein the dead responds, "I will live and have power through bread. Where will you eat it? say the gods and spirits to me. I will have power and I will ear it under the branches of the tree of Hathor my mistress, who made offerings of bread, beer, and corn in Heliopolis."[46]

But there is one more tie-in that has to do directly with Facsimile No. 1 in the Book of Abraham that is simply too good to miss.

Critics have noted time and again that we Mormons are fools for submitting to Joseph Smith's bogus claims that Facsimile No. 1 is Abraham, because every Egyptologist notes that it is Osiris, and the contradiction cannot be reconciled, Joseph Smith blew it. So I find it very, very interesting what the Uppsala Conference came out with. What was the aim of the Osirian mummification rites? Quite simple. "The ritual aims at bestowing the fate of Osiris on the dead man. The Osirian person incorporates both the pharaoh and the father and belongs to all those who carry the name of this god."[47] The way Englund puts it is "the dead identifies himself with gods and entities in order to show and prove the insight he has reached, the position he has attained, and the powers he disposes over."[48] The royal divine access was the type identified by Egyptologists as "identification with Osiris."[49] The Coffin Texts have as an example of the type of divine access as "the deceased is identified with Osiris."[50] He has access to the god, and is a god, because of his knowledge:

You shall not hinder the King when he crosses to him

(i.e., the father of the primeval gods) at the horizon,

for the King knows him and knows his name.[51]

Later developments in the ancient Egyptian religious systems eventually included the private individual in allowing them divine access. The public are then also "identified with Osiris."[52] We read:

The spirit is (destined) for heaven, the corpse for the earth, What

men receive when they are buried is a thousand of bread, a thousand

of beer on the offering-table of Khentamenthes. [Osiris][53]

So Joseph Smith was not incorrect to note that there was a human figure on the lion-couch, since in Egyptian religious terms, this person, by being involved in the very rituals of Egyptian religion was Osiris. This is clearly confirmed again, by none other than Klaus Baer who noted that it was after 2200 B.C. that the private individuals began to claim the privaledges of the royalty. Those specific privaledges Baer notes was "The deceased person who has been 'justified' in the judgment of the dead and lives again in a blessed existence in the Netherworld is like Osiris and therefore accounting to the Egyptian way of thought is Osiris."[54] So whether Abraham or Osiris, it is correct! The Egyptians as already noted simply did not think in exclusionary terms as we moderns do. Because A is A it cannot be B. But to the Egyptian A can also be B, and we need to begin to understand this. Joseph Smith does things the Egyptian way it appears. The Book of the Dead indicates that the dead, on reciting certain spells and acquiring the attributes of the various gods, the ears of Wepwawet, the hair of Nun, the lips of Anubis, etc., the dead claims simply "I am Osiris."[55] As J. Gwyn Griffiths has noted, on taking on the various characteristics of the gods, " general the divine limbs which are specially suitable have been chosen and that the result is the permanent survival of the deceased; thou hast not perished. If these divine physical properties have thus been assumed, it may be confidently inferred that it is meant to imply the divinization of a mortal man."[56] Spell 42 of the Book of the Dead ticks off the characteristic physical features of the gods the mortal acquires. In fact, the dead says "May it be done to me in like manner, for I am Osiris."[57] The dead says to the gods, "I know your name, I know your names, you gods, you lords of the realm of the dead, for I am one of you."[58] For further information on Abraham being Osiris and a refutation of the critics click here and also here

There are a lot of lessons to learn from the Uppsala Conference of Egyptology. As I read it, I, of course, had the Book of Abraham in mind to see if any updated Egyptological thinking shed any light on the problems and issues of the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham. I believe it did. I think as time moves on there will be many things we see in a different light that will make us shake our heads in wonder as how could we have been so in the dark for so long? It behooves both the LDS and the critics to begin broadening our reading and familiarizing ourselves with the Egyptologists and their materials, as well as familiarize ourselves with the ancient Egyptian thought processes. I find them very clearly involved in the Book of Abraham, as its involvement with ancient Egypt is noted.


1. John Gee, "Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," in Ensign, July, 1992, p. 61. Gee does note some important symbolic meanings of the Wedjat Eye which are important in light of Joseph Smith's explanations, but hasn't explained why there are two of them associated with the boat figure. Michael D. Rhoades, "The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus...Seventeen Years Later," FARMS RHO 94, 1994, p. 9 describes what the Wedjat Eye means but does not discuss why Joseph Smith's hypocephalus is the only one which utilizes two of these. Cf. his earlier study, "A Translation and Commentary of the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus," in BYU Studies, 17(Spring 1977): 267, 271. Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Deseret Book, 1976, p. 221f, notes that it is inevitable to realize that the two eyes of Horus refer to the sun and moon, which may be a part of the answer as to why Joseph Smith included two Wedjats. Nibley's book Abraham in Egypt, Deseret Book, 1981, pp. 31-36 discusses the hypocephalus in relation to the Shield of Achilles, but doesn't discuss the Wedjat Eyes. James R. Harris, The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham, A Study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, Payson Utah, 1990, pp. 66f discuss what the Wedjat Eye symbolizes, but doesn't discuss why there is two in figure 3. Hugh Nibley, "The Three Facsimiles From the Book of Abraham," FARMS, (no date) pp. 34-37 has an interesting discussion of the Wedjat, but no explanation as to why the two eyes. His article "Approach to Facsimile No. 2," talk given May 17, 1985 in the FARMS Archives, duscusses the phi ratio and golden section from ancient mathematics, as well as Alexander the Great and Sheshonk, but not the Wedjat Eyes.

2. Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham, Deseret Book, 1969, p. 317 for illustration of incomplete hypocephalus; Ed Ashment, "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham," in Sunstone, Vol. 4, Nos. 5,6, December, 1979, plate 4, p. 39 shows this section missing. Interestingly, Ashment claims that Joseph Smith merely stole the ship from the papyri the Prophet had possession of, which does have two Wedjat Eyes, see Ashments' illustration 33, p. 47. James R. Harris has disputed this in his study, "The Book of Abraham Facsimiles," in Millet/Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture: The Pearl of Great Price, Randall Book Co., 1985, p. 273. Hugh Nibley, "As Things Stand at the Moment," in BYU Studies, 9/1 (Autumn 1968), discusses the incomplete hypocephlus and includes it on p. 88, but nowhere discusses why two Wedjats.

3. Troy, "Ennead,"p. 59.

4. Troy, "Ennead," p. 61.

5. Troy, "Ennead," p. 63.

6. Troy, "Ennead," p. 65.

7. Troy, "Ennead," p. 66.

8. Troy, "Ennead," p. 60.

9. Englund, "Gods," p. 7.

10. Hugh Nibley, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price," in Improvement Era, June 1969.

11. Englund, "Gods," p. 7.

12. Englund, "Gods," p. 9.

13. Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hor: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham," in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, p. 117.

14. John Wilson, "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri," in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, p. 71.

15. John Anthony West, Serpent in the Sky, Quest Editions, 1993, pp. 137-145.

16. Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford University Press, 1964, p. 130.

17. Jorgen Podemann Sorensen, "Divine Access," p. 109.

18. Troy, "Ennead," p. 68.

19. Hugh Nibley, "Taking Stock," in Improvement Era, May, 1970.

20. Englund, "Gods," p. 8.

21. Englund, "Gods," p. 23.

22. Englund, "Gods," p. 24. This temple theme is quite prominant in the LDS scholarly literature, namely Truman G. Madsen, ed., The Temple in Antiquity, BYU Religious Studies Center, 1984; Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, Deseret Book, 1976; Don E. Norton, ed., Temple and Cosmos, Collected works of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 12, Deseret/FARMS, 1992; Donald W. Parry, ed., Temples of the Ancient World, Deseret Book/FARMS, 1994; Eugene Seaich, Ancient Texts and Mormonism: Discovering the Roots of the Eternal Gospel in Ancient Israel and the Primitive Church, 2nd Revised and Enlarged edition, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1995, pp. 649-999.

23. Sorensen, "Divine Access," p. 110.

24. Englund, "Gods," p. 24.

25. Ragnhild Bjerre Finnestad, "Pharaoh," p. 89.

26. Finnestad, "Pharaoh," p. 90. On the king taking various cosmic forms, see Raymond Faulkner, "The King and the Star-Religion in the Pyramid Texts," in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 25, 1966.

27. Hans Goedicke, "The Bright Eye of Horus: Pyr Spell 204," in Gegengabe Festschrift für Emma Brunner-Traut, Tübingen, 1992, pp. 97-102.

28. Georg Möller, "Die Zeichen für die Bruchteile des Hohlmaßes und das Uzatauge," in Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache, 1910, p. 100f.

29. H. Junker, "Die sechs Teile des Horusauges und der sechste Tag," in Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, 1910, p. 104.

30. Junker, Ibid., p. 106.

31. Bonnet, Reallexikon der Ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte, p. 315.

32. Bonnet, Reallexikon der Ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte, p. 856.

33. Lynn and Hope Hilton, article reprinted in Discovering Lehi, pp. 175-181, quotes on pp. 179f.

34. R. Mach, Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch, E.J. Brill, 1957, p. 20.

35. Lanzone's Dizinario Mitalogia Egizia, 1881, #1,2, Tav. XXXVIII.

36. Robert J. Matthews, Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary, BYU Press, 1975, p. 382. See also Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols., Deseret Book, 1981, Vol.4, p.52f. The Sacrament is also strongly indicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls specifically in "The Rle of the Community," see Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, E.J. Brill, 1994, p. 127. Also when Abraham meets Melchizedek in the plain, we are told specifically that "Melchizedek ... brought out food and drink for Abram..." Martinez, Ibid., p. 236.

37. Kurt Sethe, Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Ägypter, Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, Leipzig, 1930, p. 103.

38. Troy, "Ennead," p. 67.

39. Raymond Faulkner's translation of The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, Carol Andrews, ed., University of Texas Press, 1993, p. 27.

40. Ibid., p. 28.

41. Ibid., p. 33.

42. Ibid., p. 35.

43. Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hor: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham," in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, p. 117, footntoe 24.

44. Faulkner translation, Ibid., p. 70.

45. Ibid., p. 72f.

46. Ibid., p. 80.

47. Finnestad, "Pharaoh," p. 91.

48. Englund, "Gods," p. 21.

49. Sorensen, "Divine Access," p. 113.

50. Sorensen, "Divine Access," p. 114.

51. Sorensen, "Divine Access," p. 111.

52. Sorensen, "Divine Access," p. 117. Cf. J. Gwyn Griffiths, "Motivation in Early Egyptian Syncretism," in Studies in Egyptian Religion: Dedicated to Professor Jan Zandee, M. Heerma van Voss, ed., Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1982, pp. 48, 52, 53, 54 where we read the ultimate goal is the divinization of a human being!

53. Griffiths, "Motivation," p. 48. Note the sacramental motif again with the Egyptian Christ figure of Osiris, the killed and resurrected god.

54. Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hor: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham," in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, p. 117, footnote # 24.

55. Raymond Faulkner's translation, Loc Cit., p. 56.

56. J. Gwyn Griffiths, "Motivation," in above note 52, p. 54.

57. Faulkner translation, Ibid., p. 64.

58. Ibid., p. 79.

Last Updated on Monday, 17 May 2010 13:03  

site info

Members : 12886
Content : 381
Web Links : 6
Content View Hits : 740271

Who is online

We have 30 guests online

Adam's progenitors

Massimo Franceschini Adam's progenitors?

Secret paradise

Massimo Franceschini Secret Paradise

Hidden truths in the Bible. Volume 1

Hidden truths in the Bible. Volume 1