This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“Chaldeans? Egyptus? Pharaoh?”
(CES Letter)
‘Chaldea’ Not Anachronism
The Chaldea tribe did not receive the name Kasdim, which now translates as Chaldea, until after Abraham lived. So why do we see this name in the Book of Abraham?
Why shouldn’t Joseph Smith translate it as “Chaldea?” Why not use a modern name that people are familiar with? After all, that’s what we do with “America.” CES Letter talks about “pre-Columbian America” in another argument, but “America” wasn’t a name before Christopher Columbus! The name America started in 1507. So isn’t “Pre-Columbian America” an anachronism? So, CES Letter themselves understand that it is okay to use a name for a place that was invented later in history.
Chaldea Was A Name In Abraham’s Time – The tribe on the Persian Gulf coast may not have used the name Chaldea for themselves, but the name for the area, Kasdim, still existed. Regardless of when this tribe became part of Babylon, the Babylonians were still using the word Kasdim to refer to the area in Abraham’s time. Regardless when the nation Chaldea was established under Babylon, the “name Chaldea is drawn from the Babylonian name for that area.” The Bible and Book of Abraham simply used the Babylonian name instead of the local name. Due to his origins in Ur, it makes sense that Abraham would use a Babylonian name.
It is not an anachronism, and it makes sense for Abraham to use this name.
‘Egyptus’ Not An Anachronism
In the Book of Abraham, Egyptus is the mother of Egypt’s founder. Is this name correct?
The early name for Egypt was Ht-ka-Ptah, or House of Ptah, which had always been the international name for the Egyptian capitol Memphis. So, if we are talking about the mother of Egypt’s first leader, she ought to be descended from the creation god “Ptah” (S3t-Pth), right? Well, in the original Book of Abraham manuscripts, Egyptus was named Zeptah. Zaptah sounds very close to S3t-Pth, “daughter of Ptah.” So this name is correct. The daughter of Ptah in Egyptian theology is Hathor, who matches with the Virgo star constellation of the first month of the flood season, which makes sense because Zeptah discovered the land underwater. Joseph Smith apparently switched the correct name Zeptah to the Latin name Egyptus, in order to use a word for the land that everyone is already familiar with.
Herakleides recorded that “it was first a woman named Aegyptia who established her son and introduced weaving. Because of her, the Egyptians set up an image of Athena, as Ephorus says in his work on Europa.” Isocrates in Greece said the granddaughter of Zeus (Egyptus was the granddaughter of Noah) was the mother of Egypt’s ruler Busiris. Diodorus said “the Royal line of the Nile family after which the river is named, was formerly called Aegyptos.”
‘Pharaoh’ Not An Anachronism
Pharaoh is a very ancient word that means “great house,” referring to Egypt’s royalty. Archaeologists have not found evidence of of it being used to address the king rather than his “house” or position until 1479 BC. Is Joseph Smith’s use of ‘Pharaoh’ referring to the king of Egypt correct?
Joseph Smith correctly uses the word Pharaoh to refer to the house of royalty rather than the name of a person. In Facsimile 3, Joseph Smith matches the character Isis with “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.” The king’s Golden Name of Horus indeed can be seen of the head of Isis, but notice that Joseph Smith plainly states “Pharaoh” itself is not the king’s name. He is the king of the house of Pharaoh, and you can see his royal name above the Figure’s head.
The use of the name Pharaoh in the Book of Abraham easily fits the context of a royal household rather than singular person. At first, the Book of Abraham talks about the “god of Pharaoh,” “priest of Pharaoh,” the “court of Pharaoh,” all references to the position of Egypt’s rulership–specifically the “house.” This is correct usage for the time. And then in verse twenty, we are told: “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood.” This fits the context we see in early Egypt, of “Pharaoh” referring to the house of Egypt’s rulers.
It is only after Abraham explains all this that he starts talking about Pharaoh as a singular person–“a righteous man,” not of a priesthood lineage, etc. This fits the biblical pattern of refusing to give the name for Egypt’s ruler but just calling them “Pharaoh.” Ancient writers were always trying to erase competitors from history, and the bible’s writers were no different. Scholars say the bible’s writers did this in order to make a statement about those other kings’ utter unimportance compared to the Hebrews, who have God on their side. As a huge competitor with Pharaoh, beginning with the Sed-festival killing attempt, Abraham would certainly behave this way. We certainly see this attitude of unimportance toward Egypt’s royalty in the Book of Abraham, like they were inferior. Abraham avoided using the man’s name by applying the title of the house that he represented, which we see bible authors do as well.
Facsimiles Show Egyptian Rituals Described By Abraham
“Chaldeans? Egyptus? Pharaoh? Abraham refers to the facsimiles in 1:12 and 1:14. These facsimiles did not exist in Abraham’s time as they are 1st century CE pagan Egyptian funerary documents.”
(CES Letter)
CES Letter again repeats their false claim that the Facsimiles are “1st century CE pagan Egyptian funerary documents.” No, the portrayals in the Facsimiles existed long before the 1st century AD, and do show the rituals that Abraham was describing. The Book of Breathings was not the source Joseph Smith used for the Book of Abraham text. He used a fourth scroll that perished in the Chicago fire. CES Letter is wrong, no matter how many times they repeat their claims.
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehood | Chaldea, or in Hebrew Kadsim, is from a Babylonian word that likely existed in Abraham’s time. The portrayals in the facsimiles existed long before the 1st century A.D. |
| Shifting Goalposts | CES Letter talked about “pre-Columbian America,” but “America” wasn’t a name before Christopher Columbus! The name America started in 1507. So by their definition, isn’t that an anachronism? |
| Argument From Ignorances | Just because archaeologists haven’t dug up writings of people in Ur using certain words for Egyptian things doesn’t mean they never did. |
| Etymological Fallacy | Maybe Joseph Smith simply picked modern words for people or places so we can know what he is talking about, like scientists refer to “ancient America.” Both the Bible and Book of Mormon appear to do this. In the Facsimiles as well, we see CES Letter obsess over names and nitpick differences rather than the meanings behind the figures, which is what is important. |
| Circular Argument | The date of the Facsimiles is a different question addressed in a different argument. Why repeat it and make it part of this argument? CES Letter is apparently using the later use of these certain words as evidence that the Book of Abraham source was a 1st century papyrus fragment, which makes no sense logically and is false. |
| Ad Hominem | CES Letter calls it a “Pagan” document. |
| Repetition | “anachronisms… did not exist in Abraham’s time.” Redundant. |
Shifting Contexts – Joseph Smith just can’t win here. He just can’t satisfy Anti-mormons no matter what he does. No matter which language’s name he gives for something, CES Letter is going to shift the goalposts and say it either isn’t right in Egyptian or some other context. CES Letter sticks by their lies.
It’s like a magician making a rabbit disappear. First, they show the empty box, and then they take a rabbit and put it in a new context, the magic disappearing box. CES Letter takes a fragment of parchment that was not the Book of Abraham source material, they say that it is the source but the date shows it was written later and not about Abraham. Then they open the door of the box, but the rabbit is behind a mirror so that it looks as if the box is empty. They say the names or modern inventions even though they are correct for Abraham’s Mesopatamian context. So now it looks like the papyrus fragment was definitely the source but had nothing to do with Abraham. Then they sneak the rabbit out of the back of the box out a secret door. They point out what Joseph Smith “misidentified” in the facsimiles and call the whole thing gibberish. Before we know it, we went from a book of scripture that was translated from a scroll that was burned in the Chicago fire to strictly the Egyptian names of gods in funerary documents, as they appear in the Book of Breathings. Presto! The box is empty!
Big Lie Tactic – Most anti-Mormons agree that the Book of Abraham is the “smoking gun” that disproves Mormonism. But that is just because they assume that the recovered papyri fragments are the source for the Book of Abraham. It is a big lie that compounds with further investigation of the Book of Abraham and leads to other lies. This lie is easier for the CES Letter reader to believe after all those earlier arguments that attached the same narrative about the Book of Mormon.
If Joseph Smith used the same “peep stone” that he used to look for buried treasure to translate the Book of Mormon, doesn’t that make it easier to believe Joseph used a “common funerary document,” as anti-Mormons incorrectly call the fragment, to create the Book of Mormon? CES Letter says in both cases science disproves the claim of prophesy:
“This is a testable claim. Joseph failed the test with the Book of Abraham. He failed the test with the Kinderhook Plates. With this modus operandi and track record, I’m now supposed to believe that Joseph has the credibility of translating the keystone Book of Mormon? With a rock in a hat?”
(CES Letter)
Creating Superstition – CES Letter reinforces their narrative that Mormons need science to validate every single detail of their faith. We must find a written parchment in the land of Ur that shows they used the name “Pharaoh.” CES Letter frames the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as a “model” that has no evidence for it–an easy trick for them to play when it comes to ancient history as they discount every piece of evidence as coincidence, forged, or unfounded.
This kind of narrative led the crusaders to seek out physical objects from the holy land to validate the bible, pieces of the cross or the cup of Jesus Christ. It always leads to superstition, because no amount of science can prove without reasonable doubt that a historical object is what it purports to be. The Shroud of Turin? I mean, there is a mountain of evidence that correlates the Book of Abraham. Since the day of Joseph Smith, ancient book after ancient book has been discovered and translated into English that says the same thing as the Book of Abraham. But no amount of scientific testing would convince the anti-Mormons. Even if the legitimacy of the claim were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, they would pass it off as coincidence.
After all, that’s what they do with the copy of the Facsimile 1 diagram which was discovered by archaeologists with the name “Abraham” under it. Anti-Mormons reply, “well that doesn’t really say ‘Abraham.’ Just a name very similar to Abraham.” Yeah, uh huh.
Actually, I think it would be detrimental to Mormonism if undeniable evidence were found, because it would shift our narrative away from matters of faith toward unspiritual confirmation of a historical event from physical evidence. And that’s what CES Letter is trying to do. The shift away from faith serves Satan’s intentions because a person who relies on superstition is not practicing personal agency, but being total reliant on others for his beliefs and actions.
CES Letter can get away with this Big Lie claim because it is the consensus among so many people that Abraham did not write this book, and because it takes so long to explain the evidence. It is like claiming that the Library of Alexandria never really existed because we have no physical evidence today, apart from some alleged ancient tales. An archaeologist can give plenty of convincing evidence, but it would take hours.
Joseph Smith said we must seek truth wherever it may be, and reject superstition: “Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft. …Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”(Teachings of Joseph Smith)
Contradiction Strategy – In the previous arguments, CES Letter nit-picked words to portray contradictions in the Book of Mormon. It is funny that in this argument we are not allowed to call a place by a name prior to that name being invented. No more “ancient America,” no more “Pre-Columbian America” even though CES Letter says that phrase themselves!
Naturally, following their modus operandi, CES Letter doesn’t bother backing up their argument. It just is. This is how CES Letter works. They give a few bits of incorrect leading evidence; the reader connects to dots in their mind; and CES Letter pushes it to a sweeping generalization. If there were any evidence for the Book of Abraham, why did Abraham use names that were in effect yet? Um, maybe because Joseph Smith put those words?! Is there some law that a person translating a record isn’t allowed to update names? People are much more likely to believe CES Letter‘s narrative because they connected the dots out on their own, subconsciously. They are also more likely to believe the evidences for that deduction, which in this case are falsehoods.
‘Common Era’ Instead of A.D. – Notice that instead of “1st century AD,” CES Letter says “1st century CE.” CE stands for “common area,” and was created by atheist scientists because they didn’t want to date things according to the death of Jesus Christ–they wanted to distance science from Christianity. So this is a subtle circular fallacy by CES Letter, as it implies the ‘scientific way’ of dating events is superior to the Christian way… even though CE is exactly the same thing as AD.
CES Letter uses fake science–or in this case ridiculous logic–to point out an inconsistency regarding LDS belief, and then presents science as the superior alternative source for truth. CES Letter uses the contradiction strategy by narrowing a physical issue down to a binary context: either this recovered papyri fragment talks about Pharaoh and Egyptus, or the Book of Abraham was made up. No other choices. They then appeal to “science” and deconstruct the outdated Mormon belief.
Anti-Mormons typically present evidence for their binary context as self-evident and irrefutable, with no need for further explanation, and then they rapidly move on to other attacks that bolster the constrained definition. The purpose is not really to discuss names in the Book of Abraham, which would actually be an interesting discussion, but to shift the narrative from faith to binary science, and quickly move on to more effective attacks to strengthen this narrative.
Invalidate Ancient Scripture – I don’t think there is anything wrong with exploring and critically investigating physical evidence, such as the recovered papyri from Joseph Smith’s Egyptian collection that have survived. It is an exciting opportunity. The danger is when minds use faulty logic and leap to wild, simplistic conclusions.There is a smart and vibrant group of LDS scholars investigating the evidence and making great discoveries, which will increase what we learn from the Book of Abraham. They are careful not to become superstitious and search for holy grails to confirm their faith. They do not replace faith with a dependence on only what we can see.
The Anti-Mormon substitute for religious scripture is the national-standard science textbook that jumps to wild politically correct conclusions and requires revising every year. It is the Bill Nye Science show that one day teaches kids that chromosomes determine your sex identity, rather than eternal spirit nature, and then the next day erases that segment from Netflix and teaches kids that sex identity is totally fluid. For followers of Satan, truth is only the narrative, and the narrative changes however it needs to in order to support the ideology in new circumstances.
How did Joseph Smith know all about Egypt before the Rosetta Stone unlocked the mysteries of Egyptian language? How did he know about Abraham? The Book of Abraham is miraculous. There are many parallel themes and stories with other ancient Abraham sources, recently-discovered documents that Joseph Smith could not have known about. The doctrine rings true, as it teaches the eternal principles of God and our salvation, and it brings us closer to our Savior Jesus Christ.Complete answers to CES Letter questions about Mormons: