Why was the Book of Abraham written in Egyptian and not in Greek?

[Gadianton]

Well I would argue that because Chandler was dealing in Egyptian antiquity

You only know Chandler was dealing in Egyptian antiquity, and it is only significant, after the fact. What other things were going on around this time that he could have selected as the next fraud?

[Markk]

Well I would argue that because Chandler was dealing in Egyptian antiquity

You only know Chandler was dealing in Egyptian antiquity, and it is only significant, after the fact. What other things were going on around this time that he could have selected as the next fraud?

Well I don't think his cons run consecutively. In my opinion they would be concurrent in that it is who he was. It was his nature, from his money digging up until his death. I don't know if you have ever been to jail or prison, I doubt it, or worked in prison ministry, or know a habitual con...but it is their nature, it is who they are. Always looking for a angle, a free ride, and a sucker, looking for weaknesses in others.

I doubt if his "con" with the Book of Abraham was even completed before he died, who knows were he was going with it, maybe he didn't know. We know he bought the Papyri and mummies in part with church funds and charged people to see it, his mother also did so after Joseph Smith was dead. Your guess is as good as mine.

One thing I like about Fawn Brodie's book, whether intended or not, is that it shows how he was always one step ahead in his "cons" and how he would use revelations for them going, and how to get out of them when they went south.

As far as other things...well between 1835 and 1842...he had a lot of "cons," at least in my opinion. For both money and sex. I mean it is not like he had a job...his life is like Ozzie Nelson's of Ozzie and Harriet...what did they do for a living? Who paid for his mansion? How did he put beans on the table? He had horses and a carriage, who paid for those? Again, what was his job, Gad?

How about telling a family they will have eternal life if they give their daughter to them in marriage, and then the daughter get a lot of church owned land? Is that a con?

Being a con person is not like Paul Newman and Robert Redford in The Sting, it is who a person is by nature.

[Kishkumen]

And that is Okay and fair...but I'll go with Occam on this one. Greek could be read, Egyptian was a mystery and was just being tacked in Europe and no one here had a clue about it.

All your points are interesting, and who knows maybe you are right, but I just don't believe Joseph was that calculated, his mind was always, always, racing. I don't believe he was that proactive, but 100% reactionary...which is why he used revelations as either a means of obtaining something or getting himself out of trouble. I honestly believe, and admit I could never prove it, that Joseph had ADHD and just rolled with it.

I believe he thought that he could interpret the glyphs any way he wanted and in his mind knew or thought no one could correct him...and in a great sense he was correct, it was not until what 1919 or so that the folks cried BS on the Book of Abraham...it was certainly after his murder.

Peace Kish.

Hey, Markk-

Yes, this is a good point. It was definitely to Smith’s advantage that few people existed who could actually read some Egyptian. Of course, the mummies came to him. The advertisement on the side of Chandler’s wagon identified them as coming from the time of the Patriarchs. This really cuts in favor of both our points, in my opinion. So, while I definitely see the convenience factor, I think he was drawn into this by his established reputation as a translator of Egyptian stuff on Biblical topics.

[drumdude]

we know that Joseph was interested in languages. He studied Greek, Hebrew, and German in a secular manner. Therefore, we can easily believe that he attempted to translate the Kinderhook plates without assuming prophetic powers, which powers consequently remain credible.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... Translator

It’s becoming Mormon belief that Joseph has two distinct modes of translation: secular and divine. If he had come across scrolls in Greek then he would have been able to at least make a halfway decent attempt at a real translation.

Not bad for a completely illiterate farm boy.

[Markk]

Hey, Markk-

Yes, this is a good point. It was definitely to Smith’s advantage that few people existed who could actually read some Egyptian. Of course, the mummies came to him. The advertisement on the side of Chandler’s wagon identified them as coming from the time of the Patriarchs. This really cuts in favor of both our points, in my opinion. So, while I definitely see the convenience factor, I think he was drawn into this by his established reputation as a translator of Egyptian stuff on Biblical topics.

I agree, and we need to inject that because no one could read Egyptian in his day, especially in New England, it allowed the KEP project. It was in my opinion part of his con, again con meaning always looking for an angle. It would have been interesting to see where he would have went with this if he was not murdered...The Book of Joseph?

[Fence Sitter]

fence sitter, I thought the idea was the book was written by Abraham who lived well before Greek had significant presence in Egypt. (Kishkumen, if that simple jump to a conclusion is wrong, please advise me.) Kishkumen has interesting observations about an Egyptian instead of a Canaanite family language being the vehicle of choice. I find myself a bit unsure precisely what language Abraham spoke and what writing system he would have known.

But there is the memorable explanation Nibley provided in the Improvement Era some fifty years ago. Abraham wrote his book in Egyptian with a secret code which made it look like an Egyptian funeral document but when the code is understood it become the book of Abraham. This was copied over and over by scribes unaware of the secret message they were handing down to be delivered to America in a later time. This holds the whole problem together very nicely, doesn't it?

Ok I confess that the article I am remembering was my first awareness of the case of the church receiving back the original papyrus and the study of these important documents. I had already fallen into disbelief at the time and could only see Nibley's proposal as bizarre, comic. To stretch that far, the problem must be really bad.

Hi Huckelberry,

Yes, the idea by believers is that Abrham wrote something in some language that somehow was preserved for nearly 1600± years, then was written down in Egyptian and buried in Egypt about 200 BCE, discovered 2000± years later, went to Italy, then New York, then to various cities in the Eastern United States before finally ending up in Kirtland at the end of June in 1835. Now to make this already implausible event even more unbelievable, this happens twice with separate scrolls. Remember that Smith also proclaimed the other scroll to be the writings of Joseph. The scroll that purportedly contained the writings of Joseph was buried in Egypt with a different mummy in a different location at least 50 years apart from the Hor scroll, and yet still found its way to Smith at the same time as the Hor scroll. I guess lightning can strike twice in the same spot.

The apologetic defenses for the Book of Abraham are quite varied, and, in many cases contradict one another. For example, John Gee has argued that the Hor scroll, the one most people think Smith used in the production of the Book of Abraham, is missing as much as 40 feet, which is where the text for the Book of Abraham was located. He needs 40 missing feet because that is what it would take to record the current Book of Abraham on papyri in hieratic text. In reality it is only missing about 2 feet. We know this about the Hor scroll for a variety of reasons, including the fact that these kinds of funerary documents were used during a specific time, place and were all similar in length, about 5'-0", because they had a consistent content. And, at the same time, Gee has argued that there was a third scroll that Smith had, now missing and presumably destroyed in the Chicago Museum fire, that was much longer than either the Hor or Ta-Sherit-Min scrolls. This missing scroll had the Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham. So, he wants it both ways, the Book of Abraham was located on the missing portions of the Hor scroll and it is located on the missing third scroll that he has made up. I would love for someone to ask him which one he thinks contains the Book of Abraham and why? It also should come as no surprise that he has argued that a large portion of the Ta-Sherit-Min scroll is missing because he knows that is where the "Stick Of Joseph" would have to be. What are the chances that nearly 200 years later every piece of scroll that purportedly contained the Book of Abraham and the Stick of Joseph are missing? Funny how things that didn't exist in the first place are easily shown to be "missing".

As far as Abraham writing in some secret Egyptian code and it somehow being accurately copied and transmitted down 1600 years later to 200 BCE then buried, well that is just nonsense that really does not deserve a response. It shows how desperate apologetics can be. In any case, the Hor scroll was a "Book of Breathing Made by Isis, a relatively common funerary composition that replaced the Book of the Dead in Thebes, Egypt and surrounding areas during the Greco Roman period (332 BCE to 284 CE)." When it was used, as well as its contents are quite well known and while no two copies are identical, they all are very similar, which also tells us how long the scroll should be when parts are missing. Since it did not come into use until 1300 years after Abraham, it is impossible for the text to contain some secret code since Abraham could not have written it.

So, back to my point about the Book of Abraham being in Greek. In order for the original text to have been written by Abraham and transmitted 1600 years it would have to have been copied at least a few times during that period as it is not believable that a single original version was kept by the Egyptian Jews and handed down from the time of Abraham only to be buried with some mid-level Egyptian priest. The entire story does not make sense but at this point one who is defending it would at least have to argue that the Egyptian Jews were keeping copies of this text, handing it down through the centuries and finally, for some reason burying a copy with an Egyptian priest named Horus in about 150 BCE. I argue that if the Egyptian Jews were keeping copies of the Book of Abraham at this time, those copies would have been in Greek as the rest of their religious material was, such as the LXX. In fact, the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek occurred in the third century BCE in Egypt. The Jewish communities in Egypt who had fled the sack of Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE had become fluent in Greek and many no longer read Hebrew, so they needed Greek versions of the Torah to read in their synagogues. Egyptian Jews who were the guardians of a purported Book of Abraham text would have almost certainly translated it into Greek by that time, something Smith would not have known.

The whole thing is made up and the closer one looks at it the more problems occur. That is pretty much what one would expect when trying to take a fictitious event and place it in the real world.

[huckelberry]

As far as Abraham writing in some secret Egyptian code and it somehow being accurately copied and transmitted down 1600 years later to 200 BCE then buried, well that is just nonsense that really does not deserve a response. It shows how desperate apologetics can be. In any case, the Hor scroll was a "Book of Breathing Made by Isis, a relatively common funerary composition that replaced the Book of the Dead in Thebes, Egypt and surrounding areas during the Greco Roman period (332 BCE to 284 CE)." When it was used, as well as its contents are quite well known and while no two copies are identical, they all are very similar, which also tells us how long the scroll should be when parts are missing. Since it did not come into use until 1300 years after Abraham, it is impossible for the text to contain some secret code since Abraham could not have written it.

So, back to my point about the Book of Abraham being in Greek. In order for the original text to have been written by Abraham and transmitted 1600 years it would have to have been copied at least a few times during that period as it is not believable that a single original version was kept by the Egyptian Jews and handed down from the time of Abraham only to be buried with some mid-level Egyptian priest. The entire story does not make sense but at this point one who is defending it would at least have to argue that the Egyptian Jews were keeping copies of this text, handing it down through the centuries and finally, for some reason burying a copy with an Egyptian priest named Horus in about 150 BCE. I argue that if the Egyptian Jews were keeping copies of the Book of Abraham at this time, those copies would have been in Greek as the rest of their religious material was, such as the LXX. In fact, the first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek occurred in the third century BCE in Egypt. The Jewish communities in Egypt who had fled the sack of Jerusalem in the sixth century BCE had become fluent in Greek and many no longer read Hebrew, so they needed Greek versions of the Torah to read in their synagogues. Egyptian Jews who were the guardians of a purported Book of Abraham text would have almost certainly translated it into Greek by that time, something Smith would not have known.

The whole thing is made up and the closer one looks at it the more problems occur. That is pretty much what one would expect when trying to take a fictitious event and place it in the real world.

Fence Sitter, this is a good clarification of your point about Greek being the expected language. I think you make a pretty solid argument. The secret code idea is bizarre enough not to expect much counter argument but you point out an objective detail showing why it could not work, that is the text itself being new at a time much later than Abraham. There would be no chain of document copying connecting the document to Abraham's time. I am not a Nibley student but long ago read a book or two of his. I remember checking footnotes and thinking he stretched connections and implications in rather imaginative ways. He may have just enjoyed the code idea as fitting his taste.

So the last line of defense for the idea of ancient Jewish authors is a miraculous removal of the texts from this world so that they remain hidden. (Perhaps too sacred for public analysis?)

Perhaps your observation about Greek is the salient reply.

[Markk]

So, back to my point about the Book of Abraham being in Greek. In order for the original text to have been written by Abraham and transmitted 1600 years it would have to have been copied at least a few times during that period as it is not believable that a single original version was kept by the Egyptian Jews and handed down from the time of Abraham only to be buried with some mid-level Egyptian priest.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember reading or hearing (Dr. Ritner?) stating that the Egyptain language and script changed so much over the time period of Abraham, to the period when the papyrus was written, that it would have to have many, many, copies just to keep the translation straight. There are several periods in Egyptian history, and I assume evolution of languages and script within those periods, at least I would gather so by my limited knowledge of the subject.

I would think that over the 1600 years a new copy would need to be updated at least every century or so, if not sooner, just to keep it close. Asking a person to translate something they can't read only happened in 19th century New York.

[Fence Sitter]

I would think that over the 1600 years a new copy would need to be updated at least every century or so, if not sooner, just to keep it close. Asking a person to translate something they can't read only happened in 19th century New York.

Actually, it didn't even happen in New York then either. It was another story made up by Smith and Harris. In an 1844 letter from Charles Anthon to a Reverend William E. Vibbert, Anthon states:

Rev. and Deor [sic]
Sir
The Mormon story is a complete falsehood. A person called upon me many years ago and showed me a pretended transcript of a page of the Golden Bible, desiring me at the same time to favor him with a translation. It required but a single glance to perceive that the whole affair was a sheer and very clumsy imposition. the paper contained in one or two parallel columns rude imitations of Hebrew and Greek characters together with various delineations of sun, moon, stars, &c. The man who handed me the scrawl had previously taken it to Dr. Mitchell and had been referred by that gentleman to me. He stated that he was about to engage in the affair of the Golden Book and (if / my memory serve me right) intended to sell his farm and appropriate the proceeds to the publication of the volume. I told him very frankly that the whole matter was a hoax and cautioned him against being cheated out of his property. You will perceive from this what a monstrous lie, the Mormons are uttering when they say that I promised to decipher the piece of writing in question if the original records were brought to me. I told the man at once that he was imposed upon and that the writing was mere trash. What Dr. Mitchell may have said I know not. Of one thing however I am very sure, that I never professed to be acquainted with the vast number of languages of which the Mormons speak and would deserve to be laughed at if I thought that any other language than Gibberish were required to obtain a knowledge of the contents of the paper that was handed to me

[Kishkumen]

Thanks Kishkumen,

I also recommend Scott Trafton's Egypt Land on 19th century Egyptomania and Race.

I do understand why Smith made such a claim. I should have been clearer in my OP. My remarks were directed at those who are still trying to defend Smith's claim that he translated the Book of Abraham from an Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham that was part of the materials he obtained from Chandler. If such a text had been produced around the 1st or 2nd century BCE in Egypt by Jewish scribes, it almost certainly would have been in produced in Greek as that is the language the Jews were using in Egypt at that time for their religious texts. The fact that Smith claimed it was an Egyptian text is just more evidence that it was something he made up in the 19th century, as well as for all the reasons you point out.

Well, those Mopologetic theories are what gets them tied in knots. Obviously Smith saw Abraham writing his account in Egyptian. Now, I am not sure we can be certain that no Jewish scribes knew Egyptian. Maybe some did. What is unbelievable is that there would have been no translations into Greek. Indeed, it is much more likely that such a text, had it existed, would have more Greek copies than Egyptian ones. The truth is, as we know, there was no such text in Hellenistic Egypt being translated or copied by Jewish scribes. The Book of Abraham is a 19th century text. That said, I think it is a 19th century text that is the distant grandchild of that Hellenistic world, and much more so than it is a product of the second millennium BCE's world.