The Book of Abraham: From Whence was it Derived?

[_wenglund]

In another Book of Abraham thread Chaps commented:

So either the Book of Abraham came out of the air, or it came from an original now lost.

Do you agree or disagree? If so, why?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

American folk doctrines about the origins of black people (Canaanites weren't black, though), Joseph's ongoing study of the Old Testament, Joseph's own ideas, etc

[_Buffalo]

http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_8.html

Sources of the Book of Abraham

In making the case that Joseph Smith did not use an actual holograph of Abraham as a source for our current, printed version — either in physical form or in revelatory form — it is not necessary to show where he did come up with the book. It's only necessary to provide evidence of the impossibility, or at least the implausibility. However, I would like at this time to look at possible sources for the ideas behind the text (other than Joseph Smith's imagination).

We can group the Book of Abraham into four parts9a:

1. Part One: "Abraham's Autobiographical Introduction", first published in the Times and Seasons, 1 March, 1842.
2. Part Two: "Revision of Genesis 11:29; 12:1-13", first published in the Times and Seasons, 1 March, 1842.
3. Part Three: "The Cosmos, and Spirit Existence," first published in the Times and Seasons, 15 March, 1842.
4. Part Four: "Revision of Genesis 1:1-2:10, 16-25," first published in the Times and Seasons, 15 March, 1842.

Parts two and four, of course, have a clear basis in the King James Version of the Bible. But many of the concepts behind the new doctrines put forth in the Book of Abraham have other possible origins.

LDS author Grant Palmer explains:

In 1835, the year [Joseph Smith] produced the opening chapters of Abraham, his counselor Oliver Cowdery, in the Messenger and Advocate, mentioned Josephus three times in interpreting the pictures from the "Joseph of Egypt" scroll [Dec. 1835]. In the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus wrote about how Noah, who had trouble with his son Ham, "cursed his posterity," whereas the lineage of Abraham and others "escaped that curse." Joseph Smith expanded this original curse (Gen. 9:20-27) to include denial of priesthood ordination to blacks (Abr. 1:21-26). LDS scholar Lester Bush, with these Abraham verses in mind, commented: "Mormon scripture [The Book of Abraham] and the contemporary pro slavery arguments are striking". Josephus further identified Abraham as a resident of Chaldea and "a person of great sagacity" who "began to have higher notions of virtue than others had, and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God." Abraham's preaching was not welcome. They "raised a tumult against him... and by the assistance of God, he came and lived in the land of Canaan. While in Canaan, a land promised to his posterity, Abraham encountered a famine. This brought him and his wife Sarah to Egypt, where he successfully pretended to be his wife's brother. The pharaoh eventually allowed him to "enter into conversation with the most learned among the Egyptians; from which conversation his virtue and reputation became more conspicuous than they had been before. ... He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for before Abram came into Egypt they were unacquainted with those parts of learning..."

This sketch by Josephus, which was available to Joseph Smith [note the signature at the bottom of the page pictured to the right9b], explains why, upon examining Facsimile 1 of the Hor papyrus, Joseph might have assumed that Abraham was being sacrificed for preaching gainst heathen gods but escaped with God's assistance. Viewing the other end of the scroll, Joseph further saw (Facsimile 3) Abraham teaching astronomy in Pharaoh's court just as Josephus's narrative portrays.10

[...]

The astronomical phrases and concepts in the Abraham texts were also common in Joseph Smith's environment. For example, in 1816 Thomas Taylor published a two-volume work called The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato. Volume 2 (pp. 140-146) contains phrases and ideas similar to the astronomical concepts in Abraham 3 and Facsimile No. 2. In these six pages, Taylor calls the planets "governors" and uses the terms "fixed stars and planets" and "grand key." Both works refer to the sun as a planet receiving its light and power from a higher sphere rather than generating its own light through hydrogen-helium fusion (cf. Fac. 2, fig. 5). LDS scholar R. Grant Athay, a research astronomer and director of the University of Colorado Observatory, has written, "At the time that the Book of Abraham was translated ... the energy source of the sun was unknown," and "the concept of one star influencing another was also a common concept of the time."11 Further reflecting nineteenth-century cosmology, Taylor (cf. Abraham 3:4-10) describes the progression of time among the universal bodies. Like Abraham 3:16-19, certain people of Joseph Smith's day also believed in progressive orders of orbs and the intelligences that inhabited them. According to Athay:

They believed that the surface of the sun was solid, and that it was inhabited by human beings. In fact, they believed that it was inhabited by man. They also believed that all the planets in the solar system were inhabited by man, and the moon as well ... [T]he concept of multiple-world systems, multiple dwellings of man ... was a rather common topic of that time.12

Corroborating the fact that this idea of people living on the moon and sun was prevalent within the social structure of the first generation of Latter-day Saints are the following statements.

In 1833, Oliver Cowdery stated:

"It is a pleasing thing to let the mind stretch away and contemplate the vast creations of the Almighty; to see the planets perform their regular revolutions, and observe their exact motions; to view the thousand suns giving light to myriads off globes, moving in their respective orbits, and revolving upon their several axis, all inhabited by intelligent beings..." (The Evening and the Morning Star, Vol. 2 (Dec. 1833): p. 116 - emphasis added)

In a sermon given April 27, 1843 by Hiram Smith on the plurality of gods and worlds, is this comment:

"...every Star that we see is a world and is inhabited the same as this world is peopled. The Sun & Moon is inhabited & the Stars & (Jesus Christ is the light of the Sun, etc.). The Stars are inhabited the same as this Earth. But eny of them are larger then this Earth, & meny that we cannot see without a telliscope are larger then this Earth. They are under the same order as this Earth is undergoing & undergoing the same change." (George Laub Nauvoo Journal, emphasis added)

More specifically, according to Grant Palmer, Joseph Smith owned one particular book that probably greatly influenced his cosmology:

Klaus Hansen, an LDS scholar, has written: "The progressive aspect of Joseph's theology, as well as its cosmology, while in a general way compatible with antebellum thought, bears some remarkable resemblances to Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State, a second edition of which had been published in 1830," Joseph Smith owned a copy of this work, and Oliver Cowdery in December 1836 quoted some lengthy excerpts from it in the Messenger and Advocate [Dec. 1836: 423-25]. Hansen continues:

Some very striking parallels to Smith's theology suggest that the similarities between the two may be more than coincidental. Dick's lengthy book, an ambitious treatise on astronomy and metaphysics, proposed the idea that matter is eternal and indestructible and rejected the notion of a creation ex nihilo. Much of the book dealt with the infinity of the universe, made up of innumberable stars spread out over immeasurable distances. Dick speculated that many of these stars were peopled by "various orders of intelligences" and that these intelligences were "progressive beings" in various stages of evolution toward perfection. In the Book of Abraham, part of which consists of a treatise on astronomy and cosmology, eternal beings of various orders and stages of development likewise populate numerous stars. They, too, are called "intelligences." Dick speculated that "the systems of the universe revolve around a common center... the throne of God." In the Book of Abraham, one star named Kolob "was nearest unto the throne of God." Other stars, in ever diminishing order, were placed in increasing distances from this center.

Hansen observed further that:

According to the Book of Abraham, the patriarch had a knowledge of the times of various planets, "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 order as that upon which thou standest." One revolution of Kolob "was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time according to the reckoning of Kolob." God's time thus conformed perfectly to the laws of Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics."

What we find in Abraham 3 and the official scriptures of the LDS church regarding science reflects a Newtonian world concept. The Catholic church's Ptolemaic cosmology was displaced by the new Copernican and Newtonian world model, just as the nineteenth-century, canonized, Newtonian world view is challenged by Einstein's twentieth-century science. Keith Norman, a Mormon scholar, has written that for the LDS church, "it is no longer possible to pretend there is not conflict." He continues:

Scientific cosmology began its leap forward just when Mormon doctrine was becoming stabilized. The revolution in twentieth-century physics precipitated by Einstein dethroned Newtonian physics as the ultimate explanation of the way the universe works. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics, combined with advances in astronomy, have established a vastly different picture of how the universe began, how it is structured and operates, and the nature of matter and energy. ... This new scientific cosmology pose[s] a serious challenge to the Mormon version of the universe.

Many of the astronomical and cosmological ideas found in both Joseph Smith's environment and in the Book of Abraham have become out of vogue, and some of these Newtonian concepts are scientific relics. The evidence suggests that the Book of Abraham reflects concepts of Joseph Smith's time and place rather than those of an ancient world.13

I recently mentioned to someone that LDS doctrine tends to reflect a Newtonian world view, to which they responded rather scornfully, that I hadn't checked my facts. There was no mention of gravity or any such thing in LDS doctrine or scriptures! While this is true, I had to explain that the Newtonian relics which are important to traditional LDS teachings include a universe that has existed forever, and which physically has no borders (i.e., is infinitely large).

Stephen Hawking, in his classic book A Brief History of Time, summed up Newton's reasoning behind the idea of an "infinite universe", which was generally assumed to be true in Joseph Smith's day.

The Copernican model got rid of Ptolemy's celestial spheres, and with them, the idea that the universe had a natural boundary. Since "fixed stars" did not appear to change their positions apart from a rotation across the sky caused by the earth spinning on its axis, it became natural to suppose that the fixed stars were objects like our sun but very much farther away.

Newton realized that, according to his theory of gravity, the stars should attract each other, so it seemed they could not remain essentially motionless. Would they not all fall together at some point? In a letter in 1691 to Richard Bentley, another leading thinker of his day, Newton argued that this would indeed happen if there were only a finite number of stars distributed over a finite region of space. But he reasoned that if, on the other hand, there were an infinite number of stars, distributed more or less uniformly over infinite space, this would not happen, because there would not be any central point for them to fall to.14

Unfortunately, this idea of an "infinite universe" is simply an impossibility. Stephen Hawkings goes on to explain:

This argument is an instance of the pitfalls that you can encounter in talking about infinity. In an infinite universe, every point can be regarded as the center, because every point has an infinite number of stars on each side of it. The correct approach, it was realized only much later, is to consider the finite situation, in which the stars all fall in on each other, and then to ask how things change if one adds more stars roughly uniformly distributed outside this region. According to Newton's law, the extra stars would make no difference at all to the original ones of average, so the stars would fall in just as fast. We can add as many stars as we like, but they will still always collapse in on themselves. We now know it is impossible to have an infinite static model of the universe in which gravity is always attractive...

Another...difficulty is that in an infinite static universe nearly every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. Thus one would expect that the whole sky would be as bright as the sun, even at night. [The] counterargument was that the light from distant stars would be dimmed by absorption by intervening matter. However, if that happened the intervening matter would eventually heat up until it glowed as brightly as the stars. The only way of avoiding the conclusion that the whole of the night sky should be as bright as the surface of the sun would be to assume that the stars had not been shining forever but had turned on at some finite time in the past. In that case the absorbing matter might not have heated up yet or the light from distant stars might not yet have reached us.15

We also know now that the universe had a beginning. How do we know this? Because the universe is expanding — all stars are moving away from each other, and from their point of origin. If we could trace the paths of the stars backwards, we would find a point in space and time when all that matter was once all together — hence, the beginning of the universe. Today's astronomers estimate that beginning to be about 15 billion years ago.

Abraham, assuming he actually existed (which is currently debated among Bible scholars), was a mortal man, subject to the prevailing social attitudes and understandings of his day. I can accept that. I can accept that he could have recorded flawed astronomical concepts, thinking they were accurate.

But, why on earth would Abraham give us flawed 19th-century astronomical concepts? Why wouldn't he have given us flawed ancient-Babylonian astronomical concepts (or ancient Sumerian concepts, etc.)? If the Book of Abraham was full of flawed ancient astronomical ideas, I could easily accept the Book of Abraham as an ancient document. But, here again, we see ideas that are clearly anachronisms, which point away from Abraham, and right to Joseph Smith.

[_wenglund]

I believe a good starting place for examining this question is to look at the content of the Book of Abraham and determine if it contains information that Joseph Smith was unlikely to have known at the time the Book of Abraham was produced. If it does, then that would suggest that it didn't come out of the air. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Will Schryver]

I agree. And, quite honestly, it doesn’t matter to me which it was. The prevailing belief is that my investigation into the issue of the original length of the scroll of Hor is motivated by a desire to claim that the source text of the Book of Abraham was found on the missing portion. While I believe it is certainly possible, and that the evidence (both historical and forensic) clearly indicates a substantial amount of missing scroll, I have long accepted the alternative possibility that the Egyptian artifacts that came into Joseph Smith’s possession merely served to catalyze the revelation of the Book of Abraham. If there was an Abraham text on the scroll of Hor, I do not believe that Joseph Smith ever understood it, nor that it was consulted in the process of the “translation” he produced—just as he almost certainly never understood the plates of Mormon, nor were they consulted in the process of producing the Book of Mormon. Academic translation was not something Joseph Smith ever did, nor do I believe he was capable of it. That said, I am convinced that he was a bona fide Prophet who produced authentic “translations” of ancient texts into modern English—texts originally written by ancient Nephites, Moses, John, and Abraham.

As I stated in my 2010 FAIR conference address:

The evidence also strongly suggests that the text of the Book of Abraham must have been translated by Joseph Smith in the same way he had produced the text of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the translated parchment of John known as Doctrine & Covenants Section 7: by revelation.

There is no evidence that he attempted any sort of what we would term an “academic translation” of Egyptian papyri. The textual evidence simply will not support such a thesis. The purpose of the Alphabet and Grammar materials was extraneous to the papyri.

[_Buffalo]

I agree. And, quite honestly, it doesn’t matter to me which it was. The prevailing belief is that my investigation into the issue of the original length of the scroll of Hor is motivated by a desire to claim that the source text of the Book of Abraham was found on the missing portion. While I believe it is certainly possible, and that the evidence (both historical and forensic) clearly indicates a substantial amount of missing scroll, I have long accepted the alternative possibility that the Egyptian artifacts that came into Joseph Smith’s possession merely served to catalyze the revelation of the Book of Abraham. If there was an Abraham text on the scroll of Hor, I do not believe that Joseph Smith ever understood it, nor that it was consulted in the process of the “translation” he produced—just as he almost certainly never understood the plates of Mormon, nor were they consulted in the process of producing the Book of Mormon. Academic translation was not something Joseph Smith ever did, nor do I believe he was capable of it. That said, I am convinced that he was a bona fide Prophet who produced authentic “translations” of ancient texts into modern English—texts originally written by ancient Nephites, Moses, John, and Abraham.

Why wasn't he capable of it? What is in the Book of Abraham that is beyond someone like Smith?

[_Themis]

I agree. And, quite honestly, it doesn’t matter to me which it was. The prevailing belief is that my investigation into the issue of the original length of the scroll of Hor is motivated by a desire to claim that the source text of the Book of Abraham was found on the missing portion. While I believe it is certainly possible, and that the evidence (both historical and forensic) clearly indicates a substantial amount of missing scroll, I have long accepted the alternative possibility that the Egyptian artifacts that came into Joseph Smith’s possession merely served to catalyze the revelation of the Book of Abraham. If there was an Abraham text on the scroll of Hor, I do not believe that Joseph Smith ever understood it, nor that it was consulted in the process of the “translation” he produced—just as he almost certainly never understood the plates of Mormon, nor were they consulted in the process of producing the Book of Mormon. Academic translation was not something Joseph Smith ever did, nor do I believe he was capable of it. That said, I am convinced that he was a bona fide Prophet who produced authentic “translations” of ancient texts into modern English—texts originally written by ancient Nephites, Moses, John, and Abraham.

As I stated in my 2010 FAIR conference address:

The evidence also strongly suggests that the text of the Book of Abraham must have been translated by Joseph Smith in the same way he had produced the text of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the translated parchment of John known as Doctrine & Covenants Section 7: by revelation.

There is no evidence that he attempted any sort of what we would term an “academic translation” of Egyptian papyri. The textual evidence simply will not support such a thesis. The purpose of the Alphabet and Grammar materials was extraneous to the papyri.

Interesting that some are ok with the Book of Abraham being a catalyst and having no Abraham text on it, even though Joseph claimed it did. What's more interesting is that these same people are probably quite certain that the Gold plates could not have been anything other then what Joseph said they were. The difference between the two is that we actually have some of the original from one of them. LOL

[_Themis]

I believe a good starting place for examining this question is to look at the content of the Book of Abraham and determine if it contains information that Joseph Smith was unlikely to have known at the time the Book of Abraham was produced. If it does, then that would suggest that it didn't come out of the air. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this is not the best way to look at it, especially when we have so much evidence regarding it, but I can understand why you would want to. :)

What you are suggesting is where most of the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon apologia is being done right now due to either lack of evidence from other sources or to much evidence against from other sources. The problem with looking at the text is deciding what Joseph could or could not have known or guessed. Another big problem is seeing similarities that are significant. I have seen a little to much parallelism going on here, and since we have so much other physical evidence we really do not need to rely on it as much when you have a much more reliable evidence.

[_Will Schryver]

I agree. And, quite honestly, it doesn’t matter to me which it was. The prevailing belief is that my investigation into the issue of the original length of the scroll of Hor is motivated by a desire to claim that the source text of the Book of Abraham was found on the missing portion. While I believe it is certainly possible, and that the evidence (both historical and forensic) clearly indicates a substantial amount of missing scroll, I have long accepted the alternative possibility that the Egyptian artifacts that came into Joseph Smith’s possession merely served to catalyze the revelation of the Book of Abraham. If there was an Abraham text on the scroll of Hor, I do not believe that Joseph Smith ever understood it, nor that it was consulted in the process of the “translation” he produced—just as he almost certainly never understood the plates of Mormon, nor were they consulted in the process of producing the Book of Mormon. Academic translation was not something Joseph Smith ever did, nor do I believe he was capable of it. That said, I am convinced that he was a bona fide Prophet who produced authentic “translations” of ancient texts into modern English—texts originally written by ancient Nephites, Moses, John, and Abraham.

Why wasn't he capable of it? What is in the Book of Abraham that is beyond someone like Smith?

<sigh>

Another non sequitur occasioned by a profound lack of reading comprehension.

[_Themis]

In another Book of Abraham thread Chaps commented:

So either the Book of Abraham came out of the air, or it came from an original now lost.

Do you agree or disagree? If so, why?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think the evidence only support it coming out of thin air. Like I have said before, we already have 3 facsimiles that do not translate into an Abraham story. One of those facsimiles we have on the extant papyri and none of the text with it also not not translates into an Abraham story. It really is unreasonable to think there is some missing text with it on it, when we already know that it is not on what we do have. Now consider how much papyri it would take to write the Abraham story as well as the fact it was not finished or the Joseph part given. How the heck did we get all these pieces of papyri fragments and not one of them show any story of Abram of Joseph. Considering all this there really is almost no chance for this missing papyri theory.

All we are really left with is the most likely that Joseph made it up, or the catalyst theory. I never liked the catalyst theory because it is made up due to Apologetic need having no evidence to support it, and only evidence against it. It would also make God a deceiver.