It has been said that the Book of Abraham is the "K-2" of Mopologetic issues: a text that is so difficult to defend that only the bravest--or foolhardiest?--will attempt it. It is the topic that the endlessly beleaguered John Gee has devoted his life's work to, and it was his Book of Abraham apologetics that cost him his mentor/mentee relationship with Robert Ritner, who (allegedly) dropped Gee as a doctoral candidate after learning that Gee intended to use his degree to engage in Mopologetics.
And the battles over the Book of Abraham have been endless: with Gee apparently deliberately doctoring photos in order to make it seem as if "two inks" were used on the so-called Kirtland Egyptian Papers; to Daniel Peterson and John Gee being "called on the carpet" for publishing derogatory material about the Joseph Smith Papers Project in "Interpreter"; to arguments over the length of the papyri, and so on.
Given that, you'd be right to wonder: What's new about this issue of BYU Studies? To be honest, not a whole lot, though I was struck by how "toned down" the whole issue seems to be. The text just doesn't have the usual Mopologetic "prickliness," and in fact, it almost seems as if the Mopologists are beginning to acquiesce a bit to what they used to call "anti-Mormon" arguments. But the issue also suffers from some of the usual tribalism and a typical distrust of views that don't fit with the Mopologetic orthodoxy.
Perhaps most interesting is that the authors all seem to be pushing what has long been called the "catalyst theory"--i.e., the idea that Joseph Smith did not attempt to "translate" the papyri in any meaningful sense, but, rather, the papyri merely served as a kind of "inspiration" (or "catalyst") that inspired him to come up with the text of the Book of Abraham. The most significant stumbling block to that argument are the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which appear to show Smith and his scribes engaged in an attempt to actually translate the Egyptian papyri. In "The 'Kirtland Egyptian Papers' and the Book of Abraham," Gee et al. write:
There is no reference here to, e.g., Brent Metcalfe's work, but the language has been toned down considerably. By way of comparison, take a look at Gee's language from his "Interpreter" blog post, entitled "Prolegomena to a Study of the Egyptian Alphabet Documents in the Joseph Smith Papers":The Egyptian-language documents among the Kirtland Egyptian Papers can be plausibly viewed as a sincere but misguided attempt by those involved to understand the Egyptian language in conjunction with the divinely revealed translation of the Book of Abraham.
[...]
Because of this, some have attempted to use the Egyptian-language documents to cast doubt on Joseph Smith’s prophetic inspiration or the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. These efforts, however, are highly questionable for a number of reasons and generally demonstrate an exercise in religious polemics rather than critical scholarship.
It was this article that landed Gee and DCP in hot water with the Brethren, and resulted in edits to the piece and a "sit down" meeting in which they were (allegedly) taken to task. Regardless of what actually happened, it would appear that the criticism was taken to heart; though Hauglid and Jensen and cited rather extensively in the BYU Studies issue, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to accuse them of being "apostates" or "anti-Mormons." One wonders just how much Gee had to bite his tongue during the writing of the articles.Gee wrote:There are three basic theories about the original source text from which the Book of Abraham was translated. One is that Joseph Smith translated the text of the Book of Abraham from the papyri fragments we now have. Few members of the Church believe this theory, but it is pushed by anti-Mormons.
Meanwhile, in the article, "The Relationship between the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyri," the authors again address the theory that Joseph Smith was actually attempting to translate from the papyri:
Rather humorously, the "other scholars" mentioned in the final sentence appear to be limited to the self-same authors (i.e., Gee, Muhlestein, Smoot, and Thompson) who are editing this journal. Something similar can be observed as the authors address Gee's rather implausible argument that the Book of Abraham came from a missing fragment of papyri:The proponents of this theory maintain that Joseph Smith either pretended to translate or mistakenly thought he was translating the Book of Abraham from the surviving fragments of the Hor Book of Breathings (P. Joseph Smith I, XI+X).3 The two main pieces of evidence cited by proponents of this theory are (1) the hieratic Egyptian characters from the Book of Breathings (P. Joseph Smith XI) that appear in the margins of the early Book of Abraham manuscripts and (2) the proximity of the original vignette for Facsimile 1 at the beginning of the Hor Book of Breathings and the apparent reference to this illustration in the Book of Abraham text claiming it is “at the commencement of this record” (Abr. 1:12, 14).4 At first glance, these two pieces of evidence may appear persuasive, but other scholars have disputed their explanatory power in connecting the English text of the Book of Abraham to the text in the surviving fragments.
If "This theory has gained traction" beyond Gee and those within his Mopologetic "circle," it is news to me. I'd be interested to know who is in any way convinced by this argument.This theory has gained traction as scholars have looked more closely at nineteenth-century eyewitness descriptions of the papyrus believed to be the source of the Book of Abraham. “The nineteenth-century eyewitnesses, both Mormon and non-Mormon, favorable and hostile to the Church, agree that the Book of Abraham was translated from a long roll of papyrus that was still a long roll in the 1840s and 1850s. The current fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri, however, were all mounted on heavy paper and placed in glass frames in 1837. None of them can be the long roll described in the 1840s and 1850s. So these fragments are specifically not the source of the Book of Abraham according to the eyewitnesses.”
In any case, there is a lot to unpack here, and I'm sure our resident Book of Abraham experts--such as Shulem and Philo Sofee--will have a field day with this material. Very interesting to see the Mopologists apparently backpedaling, though. I assume it won't be long until they wholeheartedly embrace the Catalyst Theory and begin pretending that ideas like Gee's "super-long scroll" or Schryver's "cipher" hypothesis never existed.
