Shulem, One of the King’s Principal Waiters

  • Formats:
  • PDF
  • ePub
  • MOBI
  • Kindle store
  • NOOK store
  • MP3 Audio
  • Print now
  • Order Print Copy

Abstract: Shulem is mentioned once in the Book of Abraham. All we are told about him is his name and title. Using onomastics, the study of names, and the study of titles, we can find out more about Shulem than would at first appear. The form of Shulem’s name is attested only at two times: the time period of Abraham and the time period of the Joseph Smith papyri. (Shulem thus constitutes a Book of Abraham bullseye.) If Joseph Smith had gotten the name from his environment, the name would have been Shillem.

Buried in the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham is the statement that one of the figures represents “Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters” (Book of Abraham, Facsimile 3, figure 5). There are a number of things we can say about this figure.

The first is the name Shulem. The name itself is widely attested in Semitic languages. The name is a hypocoristic form of the name meaning that it normally appears with a divine name attached but the divine name is omitted. The name1 first appears in Old Akkadian in the Sargonic Period (2334-2154 bc)2 with a hypocoristic form as Salimmu,3 and without a hypocoristic form as Salim-au,4 Salim beli,5 and Salim Šamaš.6 In Eblaite, the form of the name used is the hypocoristic Sulum.7 During the Ur III Period (2112-2004 bc),8 the forms Šalim beli,9 Šalim-MI,10 and Šalim-illum1111 are attested. In the Old Assyrian Period (1900-1814 bc)12 the hypocoristic form is not found, but the forms Šalim-Adad,13 Šalim-aum,14 Šalim Aššur,15 Šalim beli,16 Šalum aum,17 and Šalum-Aššur18 are. The name is not popular during the Old Babylonian period (1894-1595 bc),19 but it still occurs, appearing, for example, in its hypocoristic form as both Salimu,20 and Sulum,21 and in non-hypocoristic forms as Šalim Anum,22 Šalim-Ašar,23 Šalim belu,24 Šalim-kaluma,25 Šalim-kinum,26 and Šalim pali-Šamaš.27 The name appears in Middle Babylonian texts (1595-1155 bc)28 in two forms: in the hypocoristic form, Šulum,29 and with a divine name attached Šullim-Adad.30 Contemporarily [Page 384]at Ugarit, the name is attested both as a hypocoristic form Šlmy,31 and in non-hypocoristic form Šlmym.32

In Neo-Assyrian times (1132-627 bc),33 the name still survived as Šullumu,34 but it also survived in an alternate forms. The hypocoristic forms were Šullumâ,35 Šulmi,36 Šulmu,37 and Šulmû for men,38 and Šulmitu for women.39 Neo-Assyrian non-hypocoristic forms include Šulmu-aḫḫe,40 Šulmu-aḫḫešu,41 Šulmu-ai,42 Šulmu-au’a,43 Šulmu-Aia,44 Šulmu-Aššur,45 Šulmu-beli,46 Šulmu-beli-lamur,47 Šulmu-beli lašme,48 Šulmu-birati,49 Šulmu-ereš,50 Šulmu-ilani,51 Šulmu-ili,52 Šulmu-iqiša,53 Šulmu-Issar,54 Šulmu-lamur,55 Šulmu-lušeri,56 Šulmu-mat-Aššur,57 Šulmu mati,58 Šulmu-Sin,59 and Šulmu-šarri60 for men, and Šulmu-abiša for women.61 In Neo-Babylonian times (625-539 bc),62 the name is attested both in hypocoristic forms, like Šullumu,63 and non-hypocoristic forms like Simil-bel,64 Šulum-ai,65 Šullumaya,66 and Šulum-(ana)-Babili.67

In Hebrew, the name is attested in a number of forms. There are two hypocoristic forms, Šillēm (kjv: Shillem; LXX: Συλλημ and Σελλημ),68 and Šelomî (kjv: Shelomi),69 and the non-hypocoristic forms Šelumîʾēl (kjv: Shelumiel),70 Šelemyâ (kjv: Shelemiah),71 and Šelemyāhû (kjv: Shelemiah).72

So the name is Semitic, though the form of the name varies across time and place. The form in the Book of Abraham is closest to the second millennium forms and the third century Alexandria form found in the Septuagint, matching the time periods of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyri, respectively.

Not only does the vocalization of Shulem match Abraham’s day, the social situation of that day is informative as well. Egyptian interest in the Levantine littoral had increased in the last few reigns of the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, mainly those of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III.73 This included military incursions as far north as Ullaza74 as well as military campaigns further south in the area that is now Israel.75 That empire seems to have disappeared by the end of the Twelfth Dynasty.

The Twelfth Dynasty was succeeded by the Thirteenth Dynasty in the Nile valley and the Fourteenth Dynasty in the Nile delta. The Fourteenth Dynasty was “a local dynasty of Asiatic origin in the north eastern Delta” who are notable for “kings with foreign, mostly West Semitic, names.”76 “The names of the royal house and of the treasurers of the Fourteenth Dynasty are mainly of foreign origin, though there are a few Egyptian names among them.”77 While some have argued that the Fourteenth Dynasty “ruled in the Delta contemporary with the Thirteenth Dynasty,”78 others argue that “some overlap between the [Page 385]14th and 13th Dynasties does seem probable, but the evidence suggests that this occurred toward the end of Dynasty Thirteen rather than at its beginning.”79 The exact extent of Fourteenth Dynasty territory is in doubt “due to the scarcity of monuments, the complete lack of contemporary documents from this dynasty, and the fact that the Delta, archaeologically speaking, is extremely poorly documented as regards to this period (with the notable exception of Tell el-Dab‘a).”80 Four reasons have been suggested for this lack of documentation: (1) the lack of available stone in the Delta, (2) Canaanite tradition may have avoided making monuments, (3) deliberate destruction of monuments during the New Kingdom, (4) lack of excavation in the Delta, since only three of twenty-nine sites with Second Intermediate Period material have been excavated.81 The Second Intermediate Period levels are generally below the water table in the Delta. It does not help that “scholarly controversies concerning the absolute dates of Middle Kingdom-Second Intermediate Period archaeological deposits both in Egypt and the Levant attest to the problematic nature” of dating archaeological deposits from the time period.82

Whether one dates the arrival of the Fourteenth Dynasty toward the beginning or the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty, there would have been a dynastic change during Abraham’s life, with rulers of a different dynasty in Egypt at the time of his visit than had been in charge during his attempted sacrifice.

Early in the Thirteenth Dynasty (in the reign of Sobekhotep III), we have an account of various servants in the vizier’s household who were transferred.83 “The main item is a fragmentary list of ninety-five servants, of whom at least forty-five are of Asiatic origin.”84 Many of the Asiatics have Northwest Semitic names,85 but many of them have been given Egyptian names “copied or built on the names of their masters,” in this case, the vizier Resseneb, or his father, the vizier Akhu.86 Since “all eight of the Asiatic children and at least five of their elders have Egyptian names,”87 one can conclude that “the Semitic names borne by most of the adults of our group suggest that they, at least, were relatively recent importations.”88 Since those with Egyptian names were named after the owners, it suggests also that the owners, or someone in their families, may have given the names to the children.

Shulem’s title is “king’s principal waiter” which seems like a different translation of the title wdpw “butler”89 or “cupbearer,”90 or wb “butler.”91 There are a number of variations on the title from the Egyptian Middle Kingdom. These include wdpw iry i “butler and keeper of the crescent,”92 [Page 386]wdpw n t iwf “butler of the meat-pantry,”93 wdpw n t mw “butler of the water-pantry,”94 wdpw n ꜥt ḥꜣm “butler of the catch-pantry,”95 wdpw n ꜥt ḥnqt “butler of the beer-pantry,”96 wdpw n ꜥt stpt “butler of the meat-pantry,”97 wdpw n ꜥt t “butler of the bread-pantry,”98 wdpw n ꜥt di “butler of the provisions-pantry,”99 wdpw n ꜥwt “butler of the pantries,”100 wdpw n pr-ḥḏ “butler of the treasury,”101 wdpw n pr-ḏt “butler of the estate,”102 wdpw n ḥrt “butler of the tomb,”103 wdpw n ḥqꜣ “butler of the ruler,”104 wdpw nty “cupbearer of the outer palace,”105 wdpw n tmty “butler of the sealer,”106 wdpw n tmty-bity “butler of the royal seal-bearer,”107 and wdpw kfꜣ-rꜣ “trustworthy butler.”108 The range of titles show that the butler primarily dealt with foodstuffs.

Of these titles, the closest to “king’s principal waiter” is wdpw n ḥqꜣ “butler of the ruler.” This title is attested once, on a Twelfth Dynasty stele from Abydos in the Musée de Marseille dating to late in the reign of Amenemhet III;109 the title is borne by a man named Pepy, who seems to be the son of Senuseretseneb-Sobekhotep.110 It is important to recognize that the butler of the ruler did not own the stele, his father who was a tmw ẖry-ꜥ n imy-rꜣ ḫtmt “sealer and assistant to the overseer of the treasury”111 did. Generally, owners of stele are only very high government officials; a high government official might be able to afford a stele, but a butler might not. During the time when Abraham visited Egypt, probably the Fourteenth Dynasty, personal monuments are even rarer.112 Therefore we should neither expect the title or those who held it to appear much in the archaeological or historical record. It also indicates that the title is not a very high ranking one.

Another possibility is the wdpw nty “the cupbearer of the outer palace.” The outer palace (nty) was “the sector for state affairs, in opposition to the private quarters of the palace.”113 The cupbearers of the outer palace served as “intermediaries” who supplied the palace.114 Conceptually, the palace consisted of “the main palace building(s), divided into two principal sections, the official quarters at the front (nty) and private quarters at the back. Around these would stand the storerooms and general servicing quarters (šnꜥ).”115

In a ritual context, the most likely candidate is the wdpw iry iꜥḥ “butler and keeper of the moon”116 or “cupbearer, keeper of the crescent”117 because he was “the cupbearer of the king in the context of sacred ceremonies.”118 The title seems to be used “as a designation for the cupbearer who had to bring food to the king himself.”119 This title “first appears in the reign of Amenemhat III.”120 One of the holders of the title [Page 387]claims that he was “one truly known to the king, his beloved, pure of arm in the sight (?) of Horus, when he offers the vital sustenance of the king, overseer of stores.”121

One of the duties of the wdpw “butler” or “cupbearer” was to convey orders for goods from the palace to the scribes in the outer court who would write it down to be delivered to those who would provide the supplies.122 The cupbearer would also “have brought the food from the preparation room to the place of eating.”123 In later times, the butler or cupbearer was an attendant on royal family members along with bodyguards.124

Another possibility is that the term “waiter” represents the Egyptian title wbꜣ, since “the wbꜣ ‘foodbearer’ seems to have represented the same function [as the wdpw ‘cupbearer’], perhaps lower status or less formal expression.”125 The title wbꜣ is also translated “butler.”126 Besides the generic term, there existed more specific titles, including wbꜣ n it-nṯr “butler of the god’s father,”127 wbꜣ n ꜥt ḥnqt “butler of the beer-pantry,”128 and wbꜣ n šnꜥw “butler of a storehouse.”129

The precise form of the title, wbꜣ or wdpw or variants, is not determinable at this point. There are a number of possibilities which give a general indication of position and function of the principal waiter.

So from Shulem’s name and title and we can surmise the following: From the form of his name, we know that Shulem lived during the late Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period. Shulem was not a native Egyptian. He was probably a first generation immigrant. He served in the court of a Fourteenth Dynasty ruler, who was probably not a native Egyptian either. If we had the entire translation of the Book of Abraham, we might be able to see how Shulem might have fit into the story or know more about him.

Endnotes

1. For a general discussion see, Johann Jakob Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung (Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968), 121, 316, 369.

2. A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 335-36.

3. Louvre AO 11130 8, in I. J. Gelb, Sargonic Texts in the Louvre Museum (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 10.

4. CUNES 49-09-107 4, in Lucio Milano and Aage Westenholz, The “Šuilisu Archive” and Other Sargonic Texts in Akkadian (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2015), 132.

5. E.g. CUNES 49-09-015 15, in Milano and Westenholz, The “Šuilisu Archive” and Other Sargonic Texts in Akkadian, 80.

6. E.g. CUNES 49-13-086 r 5, in Milano and Westenholz, The “Šuilisu Archive” and Other Sargonic Texts in Akkadian, 59.

7. Giovanni Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla: An Empire Inscribed in Clay (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 219, 221.

8. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 336.

9. P. J. Watson, Catalogue of Cuneiform Tables in Birmingham City Museum, Volume 2: Neo-Sumerian Texts from Umma and Other Sites (Warminster, UK: Aris & Phillips, 1993), 49; Marcel Sigrist, Neo Sumerian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum, AUCT I (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1984), 13; Marcel Sigrist, Neo-Sumerian Accounts Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum, AUCT II (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1988), 2:12.

10. Sigrist, Neo-Sumerian Account Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum, 13.

11. Watson, Neo-Sumerian Texts from Umma and Other Sites, 49.

12. Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1976), 41.

13. Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Aššur-nādā Archive (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2002), 242.

14. Larsen, The Aššur-nādā Archive, 242; W. C. Gwaltney, Jr., The Pennsylvania Old Assyrian Texts (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1983), 143.

15. Ibid..

16. Larsen, The Aššur-nādā Archive, 242.

17. Metin Ichisar, Les archives cappadociennes de Marchand Imdilum (Paris: WEditions ADPF., 1981), 442.

18. Ichisar, Les archives cappadociennes de Marchand Imdilum, 442.

19. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 337.

20. Marcel Sigrist, Old Babylonian Texts in the Horn Archaeological Museum, AUCT V (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003) 120.

21. ARM 7:215, Jean Bottéro, Textes économiques et administratifs (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1957), 106-7 in; ARM 24:259, in Philippe Talon, Textes administratifs des salles y et z du palis de Mari (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), 175.

22. Maurice Birot, Jean-Robert Kupper, and Olivier Rouault, Répertoire analytique (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1979), 190.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Stephanie Dalley, Old Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum mainly from Larsa, Sippir, Kish, and Lagaba (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), 51.

26. Samuel I. Feigin, Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-iluna (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979), 56.

27. Birot, Kupper, and Rouault, Répertoire analytique, 190.

28. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 337-38.

29. CUNES 52-13-179 iii 4, in Wilfred van Soldt, Middle Babylonian Texts in The Cornell University Collections: 1. The Later Kings (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2015), 512.

30. CUNES 52-13-157 4, in van Soldt, Middle Babylonian Texts in The Cornell University Collections, 489.

31. Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, 2nd ed. (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2015), 2:810.

32. Ibid..

33. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 345-46.

34. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2011), 3/II:1269

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid., 3/II:1270.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid., 3/II:1269-70.

40. Ibid., 3/II:1270-72.

41. Ibid., 3/II:1272.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid., 3/II:1272-74.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid., 3/II:1274-75.

49. Ibid., 3/II:1275.

50. Ibid., 3/II:1275-76.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid., 3/II:1276-77.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid., 3/II:1277.

60. Ibid., 3/II:1277-80.

61. Ibid., 3/II:1270.

62. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 340.

63. Heather D. Baker, The Archive of the Nappāu Family (Vienna: Instituts für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, 2004), 371; Steven W. Cole, The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1996), 124; MMA 86.11.72 and 86.11.297, in Ira Spar and Michael Jursa, The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts from the Fourth to the First Millennium B.C. (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2014), 17, 19.

64. MMA 86.11.68, 86.11.226, and 86.11.88m in Spar and Jursa, The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts, 38, 47, 57.

65. MMA x.706.2, in 86.11.88m in Spar and Jursa, The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts, 48.

66. Baker, The Archive of the Nappāu Family, 371.

67. Ibid.

68. Genesis 46:24; Numbers 26:49; Arad Ostraca 35 and 44, F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, J. J. M. Roberts, C. L. Seow, R. E. Whitaker, Hebrew Inscriptions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 65, 76; Lachish Ostracon 3, in Dobbs-Allsopp, Roberts, Seow, Whitaker, Hebrew Inscriptions, 309; Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2001), 1540.

69. Numbers 34:27; Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1541.

70. Numbers 1:6; 2:12; 7:36, 41; 10:19; Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1541.

71. Jeremiah 37:3, 13; Ezra 10:39; Nehemiah 3:30; 13:13; Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1541-42.

72. 1 Chronicles 26:14; Ezra 10:41; Jeremiah 36:14, 26; 38:1; Tel Ira Ostracon 1, in Dobbs-Allsopp, Roberts, Seow, Whitaker, Hebrew Inscriptions, 197; Lachish Ostracon 9, in Dobbs-Allsopp, Roberts, Seow, Whitaker, Hebrew Inscriptions, 327; Horvat Uza Ostracon 4, in Dobbs-Allsopp, Roberts, Seow, Whitaker, Hebrew Inscriptions, 536; Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1542.

73. John Gee, “Overlooked Evidence for Sesostris III’s Foreign Policy,” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 41 (2004): 23-31.

74. James P. Allen, “The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur: Preliminary Report,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 352 (2008): 29-39.

75. John Garstang, El-Arabah (London: EEF, 1901), pls. IV-V.

76. K. S. B. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1880-1550 B.C. (Copenhagen: The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies, 1997), 94.

77. K. S. B. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1880-1550 B.C. (Copenhagen: The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Easter Studies, 1997), 99; cf. Daphna Ben-Tor, Susan J. Allen, and James P. Allen, “Seals and Kings,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 315 (1999): 51.

78. Ibid., 94.

79. Ben-Tor, Allen, and Allen, “Seals and Kings,” 66.

80. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, 103.

81. Ibid., 116-17.

82. Ben-Tor, Allen, and Allen, “Seals and Kings,” 53.

83. William C. Hays, A Papyrus of The Late Middle Kingdom In the Brooklyn Museum (New York: The Brooklyn Museum, 1955); Stephen Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom (New Malden, UK: Sia Publishing, 1990), 127-54. For the origin of the servants in the vizier’s household, see Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, 148-49.

84. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, 147.

85. Hays, A Papyrus of The Late Middle Kingdom In the Brooklyn Museum, 92, 99.

86. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, 148.

87. Hays, A Papyrus of The Late Middle Kingdom In the Brooklyn Museum, 93.

88. Ibid., 99.

89. William A. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1982), 90-91.

90. Stephen Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom (New Malden, UK: Sia Publishing, 1990), 36.

91. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom, 84-85.

92. Ibid., 91; a more recent translation is provided in Stephen Quirke, Titles and bureaux of Egypt 1850-1700 BC (London: Golden House Publications, 2004), 35.

93. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom, 91.

94. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom, 91.

95. Ibid.

96. Ibid.

97. Ibid., see also the comment in Henry George Fischer, Egyptian Titles of the Middle Kingdom: A Supplement to Wm. Ward’s Index (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1985), 63.

98. Ibid.

99. Ibid.

100. Ibid.

101. Ibid., 92.

102. Ibid.

103. Ibid.

104. Ibid.

105. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, 36.

106. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom, 92.

107. Ibid.

108. Ibid.

109. Detlef Franke, Persondaten aus dem Mittleren Reich (20.-16. Jahrhundert v. Chr.) (Wiesbaden, Germany: Otto Harrassowitz, 1984), 310.

110. Marseille stele 22, in Gaston Maspero, “Monuments égyptiens de musée de Marseille,” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 13 (1890): 114.

111. For the individual, see Franke, Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich, 310. For the title, see Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom, 139.

112. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, 359-83 lists only king Nehsy as being attested by anything other than scarab-seals and the Turin King List. If royal monuments are so rare as to be almost non-existent, we should expect private monuments to be even rarer.

113. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, 37.

114 Ibid., 38.

115 Ibid., 39.

116. Ibid., 91.

117. Quirke, Titles and bureaux of Egypt, 35.

118. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, 195.

119. Quirke, Titles and bureaux of Egypt, 35.

120. Ibid.

121. Ibid., Egyptian omitted.

121. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, 102-4.

122. Quirke, Titles and bureaux of Egypt, 66.

123. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Later Middle Kingdom, 99 n. 7.

124. Quirke, Titles and bureaux of Egypt, 66.

125. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom, 84-85.

126. Ibid., 85.

127. Ibid.

128. Ibid.

129. Ibid.

8 thoughts on “Shulem, One of the King’s Principal Waiters

  1. In the name of scholarship! The origination of Shulem was already covered (better) in Richard Hawker’s Poor Man’s Concordance and Dictionary, in print for Joseph Smith to use at least by 1828 in the copy I checked.

    The Song of Solomon is comically on point, as usual:

    Song. 6: 13
    13 Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee. What will ye see in the Shulamite?

  2. Where should I start with this?

    (1) Do you mean ROBERT Hawker?

    (2) His book may have been available, but neither Harvard, nor Yale, nor Columbia have a copy. Before you make this assertion, you need to show that Joseph Smith had access to a copy and read it. Just as you, in theory, could have consulted any of the books that I cited, but chances are you have never heard of them, so Joseph Smith would have to have actually read the book rather than just lived in a time when the book existed.

    (3) Fortunately, thanks to the internet, we can actually look at the passage in question from the book:

    “Shulamite”
    “This name is given to the church in the Songs of Solomon, Song vi. 13. It hath been variously accounted for. Some have supposed that it is in consequence of her marriage with Solomon, and bearing therefore his name for Shulamite is the feminine, as Solomon is the masculine, both being derived from Shalem, peace. And if so there is a great beauty in it as ir relates to Christ and his church, for if Jesus be the Shalem, the peace of his people, His spouse hat peace in him and his blood and righteousness. We have a beautiful instance of the same kind, and from the authority of the Holy Ghose, Jer. xxiii. 6, with Jer. xxxiii. 16, where, in the first of these chapters Jesus is called by Jehovah’s appointment the Lord of righteousness, and in the second the church, by the same authority, as one bearing the name of her husband, is called the same.
    But beside these considerations there is a great propriety in calling the church Shulamite, for Shulem Salem is the same as Jeru-salem; and this is the mother of the church, Gal. iv. 26. Hence Melchizedec is said to have been King of Salem, king of peace, Heb. vii. 2. What a sweet thought! Our Jesus, our Melchizedec, the King of Salem, and all his people are in this sense Shulamites; for they are “fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,” Ephes. ii. 19, &c.”
    “And it is very blessed yet farther to trace the propriety of the name in reference to the church’s connection and interest with her Lord; for she is a Shulamite indeed in the peace and perfection of beauty put upon her, by the comeliness and perfection of Jesus. Hence when the daughters of Jerusalem, smitten with a view of her loveliness in Christ, call upon her, it is to return, that they may look upon her beauty, “Return, return, O Shulamite! return, return, that we may look upon thee.” So struck were they with her righteousness in Jesus, Song vi. 4.”

    (4) As far as “the originination [sic] of Shulem”, I do not find this terribly impressive. If this were his source, then he obviously (a) took liberties with the spelling, (b) turned the name from referring to an abstraction to a person, (c) changed the name from a woman’s to a man’s, (d) had the name refer to a waiter rather than the Church, (e) in short changed almost everything the entry that supposedly was his source.

    (5) At the same time, Joseph changed all this material to something that matched something out of Abraham’s time and place.

    (6) Thank you for providing what Joseph Smith’s contemporaries said about the subject. I think you may have proved that whatever else can be said of this line from the Book of Abraham, it was not produced out of Joseph Smith’s environment.

  3. You wrote, “If Joseph Smith had gotten the name from his environment, the name would have been Shillem” (instead of Shulem). However, I showed you that the precise word Shulem was available in his environment. You are flipping over your hypothesis on me, and saying that I must prove that Joseph Smith read a specific book. But it is the opposite, to prove your hypothesis you really must show that he did not read the book, or any other books like it, and that nobody else who influenced him did either. I showed it was possible to find it in his environment, which is counter to your hypothesis. Your argument was to prove that was impossible to find it in his environment, which I showed is conflicted by the evidence.

    You say that if I was correct, Joseph Smith “took liberties with the spelling” but on the contrary, the bottom of p. 854 of Hawker uses the same spelling as Joseph Smith. So I found an exact match. But in all of your 129 references, you did not find anything but a “vocalization of Shulem match” as you call it, or words that sound similar. I did fine, finding Joseph’s exact spelling in at least one reference book. By the way, Shulam in Jasher is a vocalization” of Shulem, and Jasher is a book Joseph probably could get. If you are concluding it is a “bullseye” to find a vocalization match (similar words) in ancient texts, you can certainly admit that it is a “bullseye” to find an equivalent vocalization match in the Book of Jasher, which was noted by Joseph Smith in 1840 and referenced by him in 1842.

    But since I found the exact spelling, your statement is incorrect at the outset when you assert: “The form of Shulem’s name is attested only at two times: the time period of Abraham and the time period of the Joseph Smith papyri.” I admire your research on the word Shulem, but the project needs further study, and the assertions need to be softened.

    • “But it is the opposite, to prove your hypothesis you really must show that he did not read the book, or any other books like it, and that nobody else who influenced him did either.”

      No. The burden of proof is not on Gee to show that Joseph Smith didn’t read something (which is inherently impossible, since you cannot prove a negative).

      If you are going to assert that Joseph Smith got the name Shulem from this or that book, the burden of proof is on you, the one making the positive claim, to demonstrate such.

      More to the point, this is much like the issue with Nahom in 1 Nephi. It’s not just a name. It’s the name, but it’s also the time, the place, and the context. All of this works for the Book of Abraham in the late Middle Kingdom and 2nd Intermediate Period. Hardly any of this works in Joseph Smith’s 19th century environment. Gee’s hypothesis therefore has stronger explanatory power, and is to be preferred.

      “Shulam in Jasher is a vocalization” of Shulem, and Jasher is a book Joseph probably could get.”

      It’s actually “Shulamite” in Jasher, and it is the same thing as what’s referenced in the Song of Solomon.

      So we’re back to square one.

  4. No, there is no burden on me, as I have no hypothesis about where Joseph Smith got the name Shulem. Our author here, however, is saying Joseph could not have gotten it from his environment, which you are correct cannot be proved. As you say, it is “inherently impossible” for Gee to prove this. Thank you.

    • “No, there is no burden on me, as I have no hypothesis about where Joseph Smith got the name Shulem.”

      I think your assertion that Hawker provides a “better” explanation of Shulem, and that Joseph Smith had access to Hawker’s book, at least implied that you have a hypothesis. If not, then you’re correct. No burden of proof falls upon you.

      I agree with Dr. Gee however, in that the entry on “Shulamite” is not an impressive explanation for the name Shulem in the Book of Abraham. However, the origin of the name Shulem is only part of John Gee’s argument. While the origin of the name may continue to be debated, hopefully we can agree that Gee’s explanation and documentation of the different forms of the Egyptian “wdpw” offers some valuable insight into the title of one of the king’s principal waiters.

      Thanks for all your research Dr. Gee.

  5. According to David H. Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 48: “The fallacy of the presumptive proof consists in advancing a proposition and shifting the burden of proof or disproof to others.”

    Fischer goes on to explain (p. 49): “There is a burden of responsibility which rests squarely upon [the individual advancing a proposition], and not on his quibbling critics, to advance specific propositions which come closer to the core.”

    So far, the argument seems to have run this way:

    (1) Gee advances a set of specific propositions that relate to the individual named Shulem in the Book of Abraham that account for the specific spelling of the name, its use at the time of Abraham, and the nature of his position.

    (2) Hajicek claims that “the origination [sic] of Shulem was already covered (better)” in a book purportedly available to Joseph Smith. He advances this proposition without supplying the passage or any sort of context for this statement and providing a mistaken reference to the source.

    (3) Gee quotes the source and notes that nothing in the source matches the use to which it is put in the Book of Abraham. Gee also notes that Hajicek provided no argument that Joseph Smith had ever seen that source.

    (4) Hajicek claims that the burden of proof is on Gee, who provided evidence and argumentation, rather than Hajicek who is allowed simply to make assertions.

    Hajicek appears, on the face of it, to provide a classic example of the fallacy of presumptive proof.

    Context does matter. In cases of borrowing, it is not just the name but the context in which the name occurs. Hawker uses Shulem as the name of a place or an abstraction, not a person. If it is simply a version of the name, I already noted the biblical versions of the name in my article. Unlike Hawker’s book, or the Book of Jasher, we not only know that Joseph Smith had access to a Bible, we know he owned one, and was even known to have read from it. Occam’s razor would favor Joseph Smith getting something from reading his Bible (which we know he did) than from reading other books which he may or may not have even heard of.

    If Mr. Hijacek wishes to actually make a case using evidence and arguments, he is free to do so. Right now, he seems to wish to rest his case on a logical fallacy, and he is free to do that as well.

Add Comment

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

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged.

*