Book Of Abraham Critiques: Requesting Your Opinion

[Robert F. Smith]

Or maybe....just maybe those anachronisms were put there by Joseph Smith cuz Joseph didn't know when he wrote the BoM...that they would become anachronism as science advanced beyond the basic understanding and false assumptions that Joseph put in his book.

I thought we were discussing the BofA, but I suppose the same basic question arises with the BofM as well, if you prefer, Johnnie Cakes.

Perhaps you could provide several examples of the anachronisms that Joseph supposedly put in the BofM because he didn't know that, as science advanced, his backward understanding and false assumptions would become clear. Should be easy for you to give some valid examples.

On the other hand, the opposite is actually true, and the BofM now appears more authentic than ever precisely due to advances in the scientific understanding of the ancient world. Several examples are rather striking:

(1) When published in 1830, no known civilization in the New World was known to have the huge population, advanced writing system, and technical capacity of the Book of Mormon peoples. Since then, it has become apparent not only that such cultures existed in Mesoamerica, but that the archeological & chronological sequences there match those of the Book of Mormon.

(2) Archeology and history now make it certain that Lehi could not have left Jerusalem before 597 B.C. (first year of Zedekiah), nor could Jesus have been born later than early 4 B.C. (death of Herod the Great), meaning that only 591 solar years are available to fit the prophecy that Jesus would be born 600 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. A problem, until one recognizes that the Mesoamerican Long Count used 360-day years, which fits the time length perfectly.

(3) It made no sense in Joseph's day for both the Brass Plates and the BofM to have been written in Egyptian. There was no precedent for it biblically, and why would Israelites be engaged in professional Egyptian scribal work? Today we know that Israelite scribes used Egyptian professionally (numerous ostraca and weights in Israel have Egyptian markings), even though we don't know how or why Lehi & Nephi were trained in Egyptian.

(4) It is also not clear how the partial weights & measures system in Alma 11 came to be promulgated by Mosiah II, but we can see that several of the names of individual weights and their actual weight ratios fit what we now know of the Judean adaptation of the Egyptian system.

(5) Several words and names of foreign origin in the BofM have etymologies which match the definitions given in the text, including clever word-play. The great William F. Albright even declared that a couple of BofM names were clearly Egyptian. How is that possible?

I could go on, but please note that a so-called "anachronism" can be a double-edged sword. Be careful.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have to agree with this to some extent. If the BOA was received by revelation and Joseph made a mistake with the words Egyptus, Chaldea, etc., what other words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books did he possibly get wrong? Also, why wouldn't God correct a mistake that Joseph had made? Perhaps it really was to try the Saints' faith, but I just have a hard time accepting that for some reason.

You keep saying that Egyptus and Chaldea are anachronisms. Perhaps you are simply repeating what someone else has written or told you, but I would like to know how these are anachronisms, because they don't appear to be anachronistic to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

Clearly this is the most reasonable explanation. But religion necessarily calls for reason to sometimes take a back seat to faith or at least to the as-of-yet-undiscovered factors that could play into reason.

The problem is (as I point out below), Johnnie Cakes has it backward, making his explanation the most unreasonable.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well I hate to do so, but frankly I disagree.

I think that scientific evidence has nothing to do with religious matters and those who believe it does have an epistemological misunderstanding of these issues.

....................................................

That is a good start, Mark, into understanding why it is so difficult to know anything about the ultimate concerns of religion, or to know an unknowable object such as God. Humans are certainly out of their depth in attempting to define concepts such as revelation or inspiration, or in trying to acquire absolute knowledge about historical events. We construct the latter as best we can, and should realize that the rest is guesswork. Individual testimonies of the truth are very personal, and non-transferrable.

However, most of modern civilization is built on the notion that we can achieve some positive knowledge, which can then be challenged and updated. The correspondence theory of truth is very much with us, whether we employ it in crime scene investigations (which may result in formal charges and sentencing) or in archeological excavations. One attempts to coherently reconstruct events so as to explain how things seem to have been in the recent or far distant past.

Anachronisms are things which just don't seem to fit in with a past era. The favorite example which Gerald & Sandra Tanner liked to use was the one where Shakespeare has a clock strike three in a time and place where clocks had not yet been invented (Julius Caesar act 2, scene 1, line 192).

In telling his story, however, Shakespeare is an excellent example of someone transmitting a story about a real person in history and introducing an anachronism into that story. Both the Bible and the Book of Abraham were transmitted by many editors, translators, and redactors through time. Just as Shakespeare's clock does not prove that Caesar did not actually exist, so such anachronisms are merely amusing and not dispositive.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

For mfbukowski:

I guess my confusion about your position, then, is that I read Abraham differently. When I read it, Abraham seems to be concerned with many worldly things, like astronomy for example. But perhaps you don't see that as something worldly? How exactly would you define worldly things? Is your position that religious things are not to be taken literally? When you read about Nephi and Lehi in the BOM is your position that they are just religious truths and not physical beings that once lived on this earth and did the things the BOM says they did?

You state, "Like all other propositions, religious beliefs have nothing to do with some abstract "reality" we cannot see or feel- they are judged by how they function in our lives in giving our lives meaning and peace." What do you mean by religious beliefs? Aren't many if not all religious beliefs based on things which ourselves or others at one time saw or felt? (Sorry for so many questions, your position fascinates me and I would love to have further insight into it.)

When you focus on the realia in the Bible or BofA, then you don't have to distance yourself philosophically. You can ask hard questions. Since you mention astronomy in the BofA, for example, what does it mean to say in fac 2:1 that "celestial time [at the residence of God] signifies one day to a cubit"? Did people in Mesopotamia use the cubit as a celestial time measure in Abraham's day? Abraham came from Mesopotamia and is depicted by Abr fac 3:end as "reasoning on the principles of astronomy." Anything anachronistic in any of that? Well, in Egypt and even in the later Hebrew Bible, no such usage of the cubit is known. However, in Mesopotamia the cubit was certainly used as a celestial time measure. This is merely one example of accurate information in the BofA.

[Johnnie Cake]

Then you are not alone are you? Most of us have had that experience but are still active believers.

I hope ure not thinking that that is why I'm no longer LDS? Because some bishop had me repeat the prayer 4 times...That would be silly

[Robert F. Smith]

I'd have to disagree to some extent. Joseph did translate the BOM word by word according to many accounts. These accounts indicate that Joseph would look into his at at a stone sitting in his hat and the words would appear one by one which he would then dictate (the plates would be in another room or somewhere else many times). So it's not too far fetched to believe that IF he received the BOA by revelation that he may have received the BOA by dictation from God as well (but I think the evidence that he received it by revelation and not translation from the papyri is sorely lacking).

Johnnie Cake said:

I would just like to pin this down for the sake of discussion...So the translation process was not translation as we might interperate the word (according toERayR) in that Joseph would translate a Nephite or Egyptian word into English...instead God would reveal broad concepts to Joseph and he would then put these broad concept into words taht he waqs familor with...or copied them from books he was familor with rather than dictate the broad concepts...but he did not translate a word TO word translation...and we know this why? (Yea I know the papyri and G. Plates weren't used)

And in the probably case that I've gotten it wrong...could you please jsut share with us the translation process as it happened? (more specific than the by the power of God PLZ)

Joseph read phrases off of his seerstone placed in the bottom of his hat, with his face in the hat to prevent light from interfering. His scribe sat at the same table right across from Joseph.

The long and careful research on the original manuscript of the BofM by Royal Skousen indicates that Joseph read 8 - 10 word phrases off the stone to his scribe, the scribe would write that and read it back. If correct the phrase would disappear from the stone and a new phrase would appear. I have often compared this process to reading an LED screen.

[ERayR]

I would just like to pin this down for the sake of discussion...So the translation process was not translation as we might interperate the word (according toERayR) in that Joseph would translate a Nephite or Egyptian word into English...instead God would reveal broad concepts to Joseph and he would then put these broad concept into words taht he waqs familor with...or copied them from books he was familor with rather than dictate the broad concepts...but he did not translate a word TO word translation...and we know this why? (Yea I know the papyri and G. Plates weren't used)

And in the probably case that I've gotten it wrong...could you please jsut share with us the translation process as it happened? (more specific than the by the power of God PLZ)

I was in a hurry when I read through the last time so all of your post didn't register. Upon rereading I found that you had attributed things to me that I did not write. I do not appreciate that kind of disingenuousness.

[ERayR]

I hope ure not thinking that that is why I'm no longer LDS? Because some bishop had me repeat the prayer 4 times...That would be silly

Yup it surely would be.

[rodheadlee]

I would just like to pin this down for the sake of discussion...So the translation process was not translation as we might interperate the word (according toERayR) in that Joseph would translate a Nephite or Egyptian word into English

Have you ever tried doing a simple translation from Spanish to English? If not, I suggest you try it. It will be an eye opener. Many words have multiple meanings depending on the context and some words have no direct translation.

[volgadon]

I'll look forward to it.

Done.

[volgadon]

When I read it, Abraham seems to be concerned with many worldly things, like astronomy for example.

Not at all a "wordly thing" in Antiquity. What God does is recontextualise it for Abraham, revealing the true principles of celestial government, including Abraham's own role, and where it all fits into the cosmic drama.

[TruthSeeker2013]

I thought we were discussing the BofA, but I suppose the same basic question arises with the BofM as well, if you prefer, Johnnie Cakes.

Perhaps you could provide several examples of the anachronisms that Joseph supposedly put in the BofM because he didn't know that, as science advanced, his backward understanding and false assumptions would become clear. Should be easy for you to give some valid examples.

On the other hand, the opposite is actually true, and the BofM now appears more authentic than ever precisely due to advances in the scientific understanding of the ancient world. Several examples are rather striking:

(1) When published in 1830, no known civilization in the New World was known to have the huge population, advanced writing system, and technical capacity of the Book of Mormon peoples. Since then, it has become apparent not only that such cultures existed in Mesoamerica, but that the archeological & chronological sequences there match those of the Book of Mormon.

(2) Archeology and history now make it certain that Lehi could not have left Jerusalem before 597 B.C. (first year of Zedekiah), nor could Jesus have been born later than early 4 B.C. (death of Herod the Great), meaning that only 591 solar years are available to fit the prophecy that Jesus would be born 600 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. A problem, until one recognizes that the Mesoamerican Long Count used 360-day years, which fits the time length perfectly.

(3) It made no sense in Joseph's day for both the Brass Plates and the BofM to have been written in Egyptian. There was no precedent for it biblically, and why would Israelites be engaged in professional Egyptian scribal work? Today we know that Israelite scribes used Egyptian professionally (numerous ostraca and weights in Israel have Egyptian markings), even though we don't know how or why Lehi & Nephi were trained in Egyptian.

(4) It is also not clear how the partial weights & measures system in Alma 11 came to be promulgated by Mosiah II, but we can see that several of the names of individual weights and their actual weight ratios fit what we now know of the Judean adaptation of the Egyptian system.

(5) Several words and names of foreign origin in the BofM have etymologies which match the definitions given in the text, including clever word-play. The great William F. Albright even declared that a couple of BofM names were clearly Egyptian. How is that possible?

I could go on, but please note that a so-called "anachronism" can be a double-edged sword. Be careful.

I think you have it backwards there. Anachronisms are not a two edged sword. There should be zero anachronisms in an accurate document, even if the rest of the document is entirely correct. As soon as one anachronism is discovered is raises a red flag about the authenticity of the document's claims. It doesn't matter that the BOA got a lot right if it contains unexplainable anachronisms. The anachronisms must be accounted for (by either showing they are not anachronisms, showing they were added after Abraham wrote his words, etc.).

[TruthSeeker2013]

That is a good start, Mark, into understanding why it is so difficult to know anything about the ultimate concerns of religion, or to know an unknowable object such as God. Humans are certainly out of their depth in attempting to define concepts such as revelation or inspiration, or in trying to acquire absolute knowledge about historical events. We construct the latter as best we can, and should realize that the rest is guesswork. Individual testimonies of the truth are very personal, and non-transferrable.

However, most of modern civilization is built on the notion that we can achieve some positive knowledge, which can then be challenged and updated. The correspondence theory of truth is very much with us, whether we employ it in crime scene investigations (which may result in formal charges and sentencing) or in archeological excavations. One attempts to coherently reconstruct events so as to explain how things seem to have been in the recent or far distant past.

Anachronisms are things which just don't seem to fit in with a past era. The favorite example which Gerald & Sandra Tanner liked to use was the one where Shakespeare has a clock strike three in a time and place where clocks had not yet been invented (Julius Caesar act 2, scene 1, line 192).

In telling his story, however, Shakespeare is an excellent example of someone transmitting a story about a real person in history and introducing an anachronism into that story. Both the Bible and the Book of Abraham were transmitted by many editors, translators, and redactors through time. Just as Shakespeare's clock does not prove that Caesar did not actually exist, so such anachronisms are merely amusing and not dispositive.

Your last paragraph is where the issue lies. I 100% agree that IF the Book of Abraham was "transmitted by many editors, translators, and redactors through time" then the anachronisms are indeed merely amusing. However, some members take the position that the BOA came directly from God through revelation. That makes the anachronisms a real issue.

[Kevin Christensen]

I think you have it backwards there. Anachronisms are not a two edged sword. There should be zero anachronisms in an accurate document, even if the rest of the document is entirely correct. As soon as one anachronism is discovered is raises a red flag about the authenticity of the document's claims. It doesn't matter that the BOA got a lot right if it contains unexplainable anachronisms. The anachronisms must be accounted for (by either showing they are not anachronisms, showing they were added after Abraham wrote his words, etc.).

Can you spot the anachronism here? (Hint: figure out when candles were invented). What are the implications for Matthew? What are the implications for the historicity of Jesus? For the New Testament? For the Bible? What are the implications for the concept of "translation"?

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

How do you know when you've spotted an anachronism without perfect knowledge of the culture that produced the document? How do you know when an apparent anachronism in a translated document is an artifact of a good translation and when it is an indicator of forgery?

A translated document has the purpose of conveying an original meaning across time and language and culture. Such notions as literal and word-for-word often clash with the goal of conveying meaning.

And a comprehensive explanation of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham involves, of necessity, a consideration of successful correlations, not just using open issues as though they were pins that pop a balloon. Nibley talked about the necessity to providea comprehensive explanation, including how an author manages to get so many things right. That would include discussion like that in John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, "HIstorical Plausibility of the Book of Abraham: A Case Study" in Hoskisson, ed., HIstoricity and the Latter-day Sant Scriptures, (Religious Studies Center, Provo, 2001).

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[omni]

Why is it that every critic is a clairvoyant that knows exactly what Joseph Smith and every prophet since was thinking every moment of every day of their lives?

Who needs to be clairvoyant when you have statements like these from canonized scripture or from Joseph himself. The BoA itself says this:

"A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Or from Joseph's diary:

".. with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. -- a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

Anybody with an ounce of intellectual honesty has to admit that the church has always taught from Joseph until at least 1967 when the papyri were rediscovered that the BoA was a direct translation of the papyri and not a catalyst as some are trying to propose. So if they were used as a catalyst why is it that the apologists know this, but Joseph and subsequent prophets did not?

Edited May 18, 2013 by omni

[TruthSeeker2013]

Who needs to be clairvoyant when you have statements like these from canonized scripture or from Joseph himself. The BoA itself says this:

"A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Or from Joseph's diary:

".. with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. -- a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

Anybody with an ounce of intellectual honesty has to admit that the church has always taught from Joseph until at least 1967 when the papyri were rediscovered that the BoA was a direct translation of the papyri and not a catalyst as some are trying to propose. So if they were used as a catalyst why is it that the apologists know this, but Joseph and subsequent prophets did not?

Yes. My feeling exactly.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Can you spot the anachronism here? (Hint: figure out when candles were invented). What are the implications for Matthew? What are the implications for the historicity of Jesus? For the New Testament? For the Bible? What are the implications for the concept of "translation"?

How do you know when you've spotted an anachronism without perfect knowledge of the culture that produced the document? How do you know when an apparent anachronism in a translated document is an artifact of a good translation and when it is an indicator of forgery?

A translated document has the purpose of conveying an original meaning across time and language and culture. Such notions as literal and word-for-word often clash with the goal of conveying meaning.

And a comprehensive explanation of the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham involves, of necessity, a consideration of successful correlations, not just using open issues as though they were pins that pop a balloon. Nibley talked about the necessity to providea comprehensive explanation, including how an author manages to get so many things right. That would include discussion like that in John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, "HIstorical Plausibility of the Book of Abraham: A Case Study" in Hoskisson, ed., HIstoricity and the Latter-day Sant Scriptures, (Religious Studies Center, Provo, 2001).

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

The Bible is a completely different issue. We know that the Bible was retranslated and recopied many times and thus the existence of anachronisms is in no way suprising. My point is that the existence of anachronisms in the Book of Abraham suggest that, LIKE OUR PRESENT DAY BIBLE, it is not a direct revelation from God because God wouldn't reveal anachronisms to Joseph. That's the critic's argument at least. I'm playing Devil's advocate at the moment as I'm still seeking out the truth myself.

Edited May 18, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[mfbukowski]

However, most of modern civilization is built on the notion that we can achieve some positive knowledge, which can then be challenged and updated. The correspondence theory of truth is very much with us, whether we employ it in crime scene investigations (which may result in formal charges and sentencing) or in archeological excavations. One attempts to coherently reconstruct events so as to explain how things seem to have been in the recent or far distant past.

Of course, but this has nothing to do with the correspondence theory of truth.

[ERayR]

Who needs to be clairvoyant when you have statements like these from canonized scripture or from Joseph himself. The BoA itself says this:

"A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Or from Joseph's diary:

".. with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. -- a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236).

Anybody with an ounce of intellectual honesty has to admit that the church has always taught from Joseph until at least 1967 when the papyri were rediscovered that the BoA was a direct translation of the papyri and not a catalyst as some are trying to propose. So if they were used as a catalyst why is it that the apologists know this, but Joseph and subsequent prophets did not?

Again you are proclaiming that you know that the fragments found were the ones used and that the "experts" know exactly how to translate them. I am not an Egyptologist, nor do I play one on TV. However, I have come to understand that the critics are not either.

Anybody with an ounce of intellectual honesty has to admit that the critics were premature in declaring victory and your position is not nearly as good as you try to make it. Before you start touting your intellectual honesty you should spend some more serious research on current material.

[ERayR]

Yes. My feeling exactly.

Good perhaps you to ought to form a mutual admiration society.

[Kevin Christensen]

The Bible is a completely different issue. We know that the Bible was retranslated and recopied many times and thus the existence of anachronisms is in no way suprising. My point is that the existence of anachronisms in the Book of Abraham suggest that, LIKE OUR PRESENT DAY BIBLE, it is not a direct revelation from God because God wouldn't reveal anachronisms to Joseph. That's the critic's argument at least. I'm playing Devil's advocate at the moment as I'm still seeking out the truth myself.

Joseph Smith said that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand, that he speaks to people according to their understanding, in their own language. The reasonableness and the pragmatic practicality of his view is demonstrated in the alternative: that God does not adapt himself to human capacity, that he does not speak to human understanding, and that he makes no efforts to reach us in our language and culture. The only way for Joseph Smith to perfectly convey an ancient text to modern readers would be to provide the ancient text without the modern language, that is, to transmit a text but not translate it. We do have the Anthon transcript. What meaning do you get from them?

And regarding the premise of what a direct revelation ought to look like, what evidence is there for the validity of the premise? It's easy for critics and devil's advocates to frame an argument in terms of what God would hypothetically do in such cases. But do you have any evidence that God ever does anything any differently? Where is an example of a competing divinely inspired translation that demonstrates how God works that we can directly compare with Joseph Smith's productions?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited May 20, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[omni]

Again you are proclaiming that you know that the fragments found were the ones used and that the "experts" know exactly how to translate them. I am not an Egyptologist, nor do I play one on TV. However, I have come to understand that the critics are not either.

Anybody with an ounce of intellectual honesty has to admit that the critics were premature in declaring victory and your position is not nearly as good as you try to make it. Before you start touting your intellectual honesty you should spend some more serious research on current material.

Well since the papyri discovered in 1967 contained the translation notes of Joseph's scribes on them and on the back of the structural paper (which the papyri were glued to) it contained a map of the Kirtland area and temple architectural drawings, I think it's safe to presume these were the same ones Joseph used.

I too am not an egyptologist (nor do I play one on TV) but John Gee's mentor Robert Ritner is and this is what he has to say about it:

link to site containing temple information deleted by mod

In fact you won't find any non-LDS egyptologist who agrees with the BoA translation.

As far as that last bit goes, you may want to start following your own advise. Now if someone could show me how to use the darn MultiQuote function I could make my responses a bit more coherent.

If you question posters' honesty you will not be around long enough to use it.

[Calm]

Multiquote is to respond to more than one post at a time. You just keep clicking on it and then when you are done, click on the reply box and it will post all the posts you want to reply to at once.

If you want to break up a post to reply to it, 'cut'' out anything you don't want to have in the first quote, then paste after the first quote the entire rest of the quote that you 'cut, then divide up the rest by capturing each section and clicking on the quote balloon for each section. Once all the quote is divided, then respond in between each of the quotes. Delete any part you don't want to respond to.

[omni]

Well since the papyri discovered in 1967 contained the translation notes of Joseph's scribes on them and on the back of the structural paper (which the papyri were glued to) it contained a map of the Kirtland area and temple architectural drawings, I think it's safe to presume these were the same ones Joseph used.

I too am not an egyptologist (nor do I play one on TV) but John Gee's mentor Robert Ritner is and this is what he has to say about it:

link to site containing temple information deleted by mod

In fact you won't find any non-LDS egyptologist who agrees with the BoA translation.

As far as that last bit goes, you may want to start following your own advise. Now if someone could show me how to use the darn MultiQuote function I could make my responses a bit more coherent.

If you question posters' honesty you will not be around long enough to use it.

Sorry, I didn't realize there was temple content on the link. Just for clarification about the second part, I never did question ErayR's honesty, I was referring to the portion where he said I needed to stay up on current material.

Edited May 19, 2013 by omni