Book of Abraham essay now online at LDS.org

[_Sammy Jankins]

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

[Guest]

Kevin G's gonna have some fun with this....

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus.32 Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation.33 According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.34

Footnote 34:

By analogy, the Bible seems to have been a frequent catalyst for Joseph Smith’s revelations about God’s dealings with His ancient covenant people. Joseph’s study of the book of Genesis, for example, prompted revelations about the lives and teachings of Adam, Eve, Moses, and Enoch, found today in the book of Moses.

And what about that inconvenient facsimile 1?

The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.26

None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples.28 Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose.29 Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history. The opposite could also be true: illustrations with no clear connection to Abraham anciently could, by revelation, shed light on the life and teachings of this prophetic figure.

Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.30

On first reading it appears the weakest essay of the lot.
It posits that the reason the Book of Abraham doesn't match the papyrus could be either a) the papyrus was simply a catalyst or b) the scroll is missing with a dollop of c) it's a copy of a copy.

In other words...we haven't got a clue why it doesn't match, but the Church is true so there must be a reason even if we cannot quite put our finger on something that's supportably credible so here's a bunch of stuff that apologists have put forward, pick one that you find believable. Brilliant. What is it the First Presidency does again?

[_Sammy Jankins]

Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.30

Sure if by "assumption" you mean the text of the Book of Abraham...

And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

[_Sammy Jankins]

in the second century B.C.E., wrote that Abraham taught astronomy and other sciences to the Egyptian priests.43 A third-century papyrus from an Egyptian temple library connects Abraham with an illustration similar to facsimile 1 in the book of Abraham.44 A later Egyptian text, discovered in the 20th century, tells how the Pharaoh tried to sacrifice Abraham, only to be foiled when Abraham was delivered by an angel. Later, according to this text, Abraham taught members of the Pharaoh’s court through astronomy.45 All these details are found in the book of Abraham.

How could Joseph Smith have known about Abraham teaching astronomy?!?

Josephus

Given the availability and knowledge of Josephus’ writings in Joseph Smith’s day, it’s wholly unremarkable that his ideas would have been reflected in a contemporary Book of Abraham. In fact, some have argued that Josephus was a source for many ideas and passages of Mormon scripture (see, for example, Joseph Smith and Josephus). I’m not arguing for plagiarism, but it is clear that this “bullseye” is not impressive in the least.

Some of these extrabiblical elements were available in apocryphal books or biblical commentaries in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, but others were confined to nonbiblical traditions inaccessible or unknown to 19th-century Americans.

Why cite the material available to him? He could have just copied it. What is important here is the stuff that he allegedly couldn't have known, deduced or reasonably guessed. The essay makes no effort to make clear which is which.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Because Shulem can't post in Terrestrial:
What is the King's name in facsimile 3? I guess the essay writers hoped you wouldn't notice.

[Guest]

Who wrote this?

But even this evidence of ancient origins, substantial though it may be, cannot prove the truthfulness of the book of Abraham any more than archaeological evidence can prove the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt or the Resurrection of the Son of God.

What? Why shouldn't archeology be able to provide evidence of the exodus? We know they were supposed to have been in Egypt and then have mass migrated out, why wouldn't you be able to show that if it really happened?

[_Brackite]

This Book of Abraham Essay References John Gee a lot.
Here are the References to John Gee:

3. See, for example, Daniel C. Peterson, “News from Antiquity,” Ensign, Jan. 1994, and John Gee, “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, July 1992.

24. John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000), 2. The fragments are known to have been part of the papyri owned by the Church because they were mounted on paper with early Mormon records, which conforms to contemporary descriptions of the display of the papyri.

27. Kerry Muhlestein, “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View,” and Brian M. Hauglid, “Thoughts on the Book of Abraham,” both in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Provo and Salt Lake City, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, and Deseret Book, 2011), 217–58. On the lack of unanimity among Egyptologists, see, for example, John Gee, “A Method for Studying the Facsimiles,” FARMS Review 19, no. 1 (2007): 348–51; and Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2d. ed. (Provo and Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2005), 51–53. For translation of and commentary on the fragments, see Michael D. Rhodes, Books of the Dead Belonging to Tschemmin and Neferirnub: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: Maxwell Institute, 2010); Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002); and Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 34–50.

29. Kevin L. Barney, “The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,” in John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid, eds., Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2005), 107–30.

37. Abraham 1:10; John Gee, “Has Olishem Been Discovered?”, Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scriptures 22, no. 2 (2013): 104–7, available at maxwellinstitute.byu.edu.

39. Kevin L. Barney, “On Elkenah as Canaanite El,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 19, no. 1 (2010): 22–35, available at maxwellinstitute.byu.edu; John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, “Historical Plausibility: The Historicity of the Book of Abraham as a Case Study,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 75.

41. Erik Hornung, “Himmelsvorstellungen,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 7 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowit, 1977–1989), 2:1216. For these and other examples, see Peterson, “News from Antiquity”; Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2009), 115–78; Nibley and Rhodes, One Eternal Round, 236–45; John Gee, “A New Look at the Conception of the Human Being in Ancient Egypt,” in “Being in Ancient Egypt”: Thoughts on Agency, Materiality and Cognition, ed. Rune Nyord and Annette Kjølby (Oxford, U.K.: Archaeopress, 2009), 6–7, 12–13.

43. Excerpts from Eupolemus, in John A. Tvedtnes, Brian M. Hauglid, and John Gee, eds., Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham, Studies in the Book of Abraham, ed. John Gee, vol. 1 (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2001), 8–9. For other references to Abraham teaching astronomy, see, for example, Tvedtnes, Hauglid, and Gee, Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham, 7, 35–43.

44. Excerpts from P. Leiden I 384 (PGM XII), in Tvedtnes, Hauglid, and Gee, Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham, 501–2, 523.

45. John Gee, “An Egyptian View of Abraham,” in Andrew C. Skinner, D. Morgan Davis, and Carl Griffin, eds., Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown (Provo, UT: Maxwell Institute, 2011), 137–56.

46. See E. Douglas Clark, review of Michael E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Abraham (2012), in BYU Studies Quarterly 53:2 (2014): 173-79; Tvedtnes, Hauglid, and Gee, Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham; Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000), 1–73. Some of these extrabiblical elements were available to Joseph Smith through the books of Jasher and Josephus. Joseph Smith was aware of these books, but it is unknown whether he utilized them.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

It posits that the reason the Book of Abraham doesn't match the papyrus could be either a) the papyrus was simply a catalyst or b) the scroll is missing with a dollop of c) it's a copy of a copy.

In other words...we haven't got a clue why it doesn't match, but the Church is true so there must be a reason even if we cannot quite put our finger on something that's supportably credible so here's a bunch of stuff that apologists have put forward, pick one that you find believable. Brilliant. What is it the First Presidency does again?

Does this mean that "written by his own hand, upon papyrus" is dead?

[_Brackite]

From Kevin Graham here:

Gee's argument about scroll length is refuted by both Ritner and by Smith and Cook. https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf

Gee wrote a response but then Cook turned around and refuted that as well: http://institute-re.net/images/article1 ... 03_120.pdf

[_Brackite]

A Nice Review Summary from another Poster here:

Let's review:

-In 2007 Gee produces a first attempt at applying the simple mathematics of Archimedian spirals to rolled papyri; a good idea, but with done with loose technical rigor in the measuring of winding lengths. (Gee's math chops, it turn out, are a bit rough around the edges.)

-In 2010 Smith and Cook show quite specifically how Gee's methodology was flawed and take it to the next step by significantly tightening down the rigor and transparency of the study design, publishing in Dialogue a carefully designed and described study, with public datasets, using measurements taken directly from the papyri in archives.

-Then in 2012 Gee then catastrophically fails to understand even the basics of what Smith and Cook did and embarrasses the MI with his uninformed rebuttal in their journal—which, remarkably, MI apparently never thought to have checked by a reasonably mathematically-literate and intelligent third person, who actually read and understood the Cook-Smith article, in the two years before sending it to publication. [Even I noticed his elementary mistakes after one read through of each article: "Effective thickness" is clearly defined in the paper as the change in total scroll radius with one winding, not papyri thickness; this effective thickness is clearly an endogenous variable produced by the formula, not an exogenous one being plugged in; and the formula is not a different formula, just the same one with different notation. Fail, fail, and FAIL.]

-In Fall in 2012 Cook then points out Gee's fundamental errors in humiliating detail in his published response, vindicating the study, and that's where it stands to this day. Gee has never recovered from it or responded since. As of today nobody has ever refuted the data or methods of Cook-Smith study, whose conclusions currently stand as the definitive word on the maximum possible length of the Horus Book of Breathing scroll.

So if by "up in the air" you mean "still ringing with the finality of rigorous mathematics and a deafening silence from the Maxwell Institute," then I agree with you there.