Book Of Abraham Translation (A Courteous Question)

[MiserereNobis]

Greetings,

I'd like to preface my questions by saying that I am sincere in asking these questions and in no way mean this as a "gotcha," expose, or anything else negative. I am simply looking to understand how you as individuals and/or the LDS church has resolved an issue.

The issue is, of course, the apparent discrepancy between Joseph Smith's translation of the papyrus and contemporary Egyptologists' translation. The two appear to have absolute nothing in common. I've read very little of the LDS response to this which is why I am asking. The way I see it, the options are as follows:

1) Joseph Smith really didn't know ancient Egyptian. This, of course, causes some serious problems with his designation as a prophet, seer, and revelator, as well as the canonical status of the Book of Abraham.

2) Contemporary Egyptologists really don't know ancient Egyptian. This seems very hard to accept, given the long amount of time their understanding has been used to translate an immense volume of writings, all of which seem to be internally consistent, which would make it seem as if they actually do know the language.

3) I was told this was Hugh Nibley's solution: Joseph Smith translated the actual Book of Abraham, but it was not on the papyrus that he was looking at. God used the papyrus as a medium to bring out the actual Book of Abraham, which was somewhere else. This, to me, seems like a very ad-hoc solution. It also means that Joseph Smith was wrong concerning the things he said about the papyrus and the fact that images from the papyrus are also included in the canonical Pearl of Great Price. Under this option, those images are not from the Book of Abraham, but from the papyrus that God used as an intermediary for the Book of Abraham. But the images in the Pearl of Great Price contain translations that are likewise refuted by contemporary Egyptologists.

Common sense seems to point to #1 as the most sensible solution, but as I have been trying to convince Ahab in another thread, common sense isn't always right

Does the LDS church have an official response to this? What do you think about this individually?

I hope I have been courteous in the presentation of my question. Thank you!

[Freedom]

The church has no official response because there is no official record of how the translation process occurred. We know that Joseph Smith did not need the gold plates to translate the book of mormon so it stands to reason that he did not require the writtings of Abraham to produce the Book of Abraham. Of course, since we do not have the origional documents other than a small fragement it is all conjecture. But a 4th solution is obviously availble

The scrolls did contain the writings of Abraham but these scrolls were destroyed in the great Chicago fire of 1871. There is no need for Joseph to know ancient Egyptian since the translation occurred through divine guidance and not with a English/Ancient Egyptian dictionary.

I might add, since we do not know how the book was produced, debating the translation is rather pointless and is a convenient distraction from the center of the story which is the content of the book itself. This is what the critics avoid because they cannot explain away its remarkable nature.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Freedom

[USU78]

Are you quite sure you have the right papyrus?

Are you quite sure the BoA was translated from a papyrus?

Are you quite sure you know what JSJr means when he says "translate"?

[mapman]

This topic has been talked about a lot on this board, so it might interest you to search for previous discussions. As far as I'm aware the church hasn't made any statements about the papyrus. I think that everyone agrees that the papyrus that we have contains the Book of Abraham. A lot of the papyrus was destroyed in a fire, so we don't know what was on that. My opinion is that people have misunderstood Joseph when he talked about translation. I think you can make a good case that Joseph Smith used the word differently than we do these days.

[RobertAC]

The story of how the Book of Abraham came about is one that has facsinated me for some time. I will look on the other threads to read the discussion. As a related question, if a believer says/believes "I believe that the Book of Abraham is divinely inspired, but that it was not a literal translation of the papyrus brought to Joseph Smith, and it may not be an historically accurate account" would that be considered a "heresy?"

[MiserereNobis]

We know that Joseph Smith did not need the gold plates to translate the book of mormon

Really? I had never heard this. I thought he translated it looking through the Urim and Thummim with his scribe (I can't remember his name) sitting at the desk next to him with a screen or curtain or something separating the two so that the scribe could not see it. You seem to be implying that he didn't use the actual physical gold plates. Am I understanding you correctly?

Of course, since we do not have the origional documents other than a small fragement it is all conjecture.

Ok, but the fragments that remain, including the images in the Pearl of Great Price, are translatable by contemporary Egpytologists, right? And nothing in their translation of those fragments/images match the Book of Abraham.

I might add, since we do not know how the book was produced, debating the translation is rather pointless and is a convenient distraction from the center of the story which is the content of the book itself. This is what the critics avoid because they cannot explain away its remarkable nature.

I'm not trying to distract from the content of the book itself. However, if a book purports to be a translation, I think it is fair game to ask about that translation, not a pointless debate.

[CA Steve]

I would suggest that for a current apologetic response to many of your question you start with this paper by John Gee. http://maxwellinstit...20&num=1&id=699

[MiserereNobis]

Are you quite sure you have the right papyrus?

Ok, perhaps the fragments remaining are not the right papyrus. But what about the images in the Pearl of Great Price?

Are you quite sure the BoA was translated from a papyrus?

Isn't that what Joseph Smith said he did? This is not a rhetorical question -- I was under the impression that he bought the mummies, found the papyrus, and declared it to be the Book of Abraham, and then translated it. Am I mistaken? Perhaps I should go dust off the History of the Church and read up.

Are you quite sure you know what JSJr means when he says "translate"?

I assume he meant rendering the meaning of a text from one language to another. Did he mean something else?

[MiserereNobis]

I would suggest that for a current apologetic response to many of your question you start with this paper by John Gee. http://maxwellinstit...20&num=1&id=699

Thank you. I will definitely read over it. No need to make everyone repeat things, unless they want to, of course

[Calm]

The UandT was not used like glasses where the plates were seen through them and somehow the writing altered to English. While there is some debate on exactly what was going on, David Whitmer IIRC stated that Joseph saw the words written on the stone itself.

add-on: when Joseph translated John (it's found in the D&C, can't remember the actual verses referred to), there was nothing physical in his possession that was the source of his translation.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[USU78]

I would suggest that for a current apologetic response to many of your question you start with this paper by John Gee. http://maxwellinstit...20&num=1&id=699

QFT

[Freedom]

Really? I had never heard this. I thought he translated it looking through the Urim and Thummim with his scribe (I can't remember his name) sitting at the desk next to him with a screen or curtain or something separating the two so that the scribe could not see it. You seem to be implying that he didn't use the actual physical gold plates. Am I understanding you correctly?

He used a stone in a hat for some, the Urim and Thummim for some, but for much of it, he didn't have anything at all. As he progressed in his ability he required less physical assistance. But even if he did use the Urim and Thummim, this would also mean that the book was unecessary since this served as a conduit for revelation and did not function as a ancient bilingual dictionary.

Ok, but the fragments that remain, including the images in the Pearl of Great Price, are translatable by contemporary Egpytologists, right? And nothing in their translation of those fragments/images match the Book of Abraham.

Yes, but they represent a tiny fraction of the original documents.

I'm not trying to distract from the content of the book itself. However, if a book purports to be a translation, I think it is fair game to ask about that translation, not a pointless debate.

It is pointless since we know absolutely nothing about it so any conclusions we draw are conjecture. If you examined the content, you may find the discussion about how it came to be as irrelevant. To me it is like receiving the original 10 commandments and then, rather than examining the artifact, spending countless hours debating how they arrived at your door step.

[altersteve]

Really? I had never heard this. I thought he translated it looking through the Urim and Thummim with his scribe (I can't remember his name) sitting at the desk next to him with a screen or curtain or something separating the two so that the scribe could not see it. You seem to be implying that he didn't use the actual physical gold plates. Am I understanding you correctly?

He didn't always use the plates. Sometimes they weren't even in the room.

Ok, but the fragments that remain, including the images in the Pearl of Great Price, are translatable by contemporary Egpytologists, right? And nothing in their translation of those fragments/images match the Book of Abraham.

The modern, traditional understanding of those images does not match the Book of Abraham, but Egyptian was a very complex and symbolic language, and many of the symbols could mean many different things. Some of the parallels with Joseph Smith's interpretation and authentically ancient Egyptian concepts are pretty amazing.

http://en.fairmormon...pyri/Facsimiles

http://www.jefflinds...Q_Abraham.shtml

http://www.jefflinds..._Abraham2.shtml

http://www.jefflinds...DSFAQ/boa.shtml

The fact is that this is a very complex issue, much more complex than our critics would have their readers think.

Edited September 12, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

I assume he meant rendering the meaning of a text from one language to another. Did he mean something else?

That was the main idea, but it probably wasn't that simple. The JST is referred to as a "translation," but he didn't really "translate" it from anything. So when he used the word "translation," he probably didn't mean exactly what we would immediately think he meant.

[mapman]

One of my professors made a comment about Joseph Smith and translation that I thought was interesting. He pointed out that when Joseph translated the Book of Mormon the only language he was familiar with was English and had no experience translating things. As his only experience with translating was through a very unconventional method that didn't even require him to understand the other language, we can't expect him to understand the process of translation the same way as everyone else.

I would add that "translate" was often used in a broader sense during Joseph's lifetime. Here's how the 1828 Webster's dictionary defined the term:

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death. By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death. Heb. 16.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change. Happy is your grace, That can translate the stubbornness of fortune Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

Here's the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions (I put the dates of the example usages of the word in brackets instead of copying them):

Ia. To bear, convey, or remove from one person, place or condition to another; to transfer, transport; spec. to remove a bishop from one see to another, or a bishop's seat from one place to another, and, in Scotland, a minister from one pastoral charge to another; also, to remove the dead body or remains of a saint, or, by extension, a hero or great man, from one place to another. [Examples from 1300-1904]

b. To carry or convey to heaven without death; also, in later use, said of the death of the righteous. [Examples from 1382-1904]

c. To remove the seat of (a disease) from one person, or part of the body, to another. Nowrare or Obs. [Examples from 1732-1826]

d. To move (a body) from one point or place to another without rotation.

IIa. To turn from one language into another; ‘to change into another language retaining the sense’ (Johnson); to render; also, to express in other words, to paraphrase. (The chief current sense.) [Examples from 1300]

b. To practise translation; to make a version from one language or form of words into another; also intr. for pass., of a language, speech, or writing: To bear or admit of translation. [Examples from 1440-1831]

c. To use in a metaphorical or transferred sense, obs.

d. To use (genetic information in messenger RNA) to determine the amino-acid sequence of a protein during its synthesis; also with the RNA as obj.

e. To interpret, explain; to expound the significance of (conduct, gestures, etc.); also, to express (one thing) in terms of another. [Examples from 1604-1903]

III1. To change in form, appearance, or substance; to transmute; to transform, alter; spec. in industrial use: of a tailor, to renovate, turn, or cut down (a garment); of a cobbler, to make new boots from the remains of (old ones). [Examples from 1386-1905]

2. To re-transmit (a telegraphic message) by means of an automatic repeater.

3. To transport with the strength of some feeling; to enrapture, entrance. arch. [Examples from 1643-1899]

IVa. To result in, to be converted into, to manifest itself as.

So we cannot assume to know what he meant just by looking at the word he used. We must put things into context. How did he use "translate" in other situations?

• The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift of God with seer stones. the plates didn't need to be present (or at least not all the time) and he needed no knowledge of the original language. There is an ongoing debate on whether the translation was a literal or loose translation, or even if it was expanded during the translation (you can search the board for many discussions of this topic). Personally, I think that there is evidence that portions were fairly literal and that other passages have been expanded.
  
• In D and C 7 there is a translation of a manuscript made by John using a seer stone. The manuscript was certainly nowhere near Joseph if it was still existent at all. Joseph obviously had no understanding of its original language.
  
• The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (Joseph usually referred to it as the New Translation) was a translation of the King James Version that expanded the text (sometimes adding lengthy passages), harmonized contradictions, and fixed doctrinal errors.
  
• Joseph Smith studied Hebrew and presumably would have translated in his lessons in a conventional manner, though he used some Hebrew words, like Elohim and Bereʾšyt, to expound on theological ideas in sermons (he also used Hebrew words in the Book of Abraham to do the same thing).
  
• There's the Kirtland Egyptian Papers which are connected to the Book of Abraham and have something to do with Egyptian. I don't know what he was doing with these, but it is obviously not intended to be a translation in the conventional manner
  

For me, these things make it seem unlikely that the Book of Abraham is a translation in the conventional sense of the word.

Edited September 12, 2012 by mapman

[BCSpace]

Given the ancient Egyptians' propensity to change or erase history they didn't like, I propose the possibility that since the facsimile, as reported in the BoA, represent an embarrasing moment for the ruling religion (the rescue of Abraham) and a foreign religion, the interpretations were changed such that by the time of the papyrus we have, they mean something entirely different. As for other text translated, we obviously don't have all of it with all that implies such as the replacement of text to match the new interpretation and/or the fact that the actual BoA text is still there.

[cesc101]

Personally I feel since JSjr isn't here give a detailed account of how he "got" the BoA, both sides of the argument will go on forever.

But I take pride in the fact that the content has strengthen my faith in JSjr as a Prophet of Restoration (a fact critics tend to shy away from).

[cesc101]

Are you quite sure you have the right papyrus?

I thought history has the saints referring to the papyrus being "long"?

Last I checked, critics make reference to about a 2ft length papyrus,

Is 2ft same as "long" to critics?

[Calm]

Personally I feel since JSjr isn't here give a detailed account of how he "got" the BoA, both sides of the argument will go on forever.

But I take pride in the fact that the content has strengthen my faith in JSjr as a Prophet of Restoration (a fact critics tend to shy away from).

Well said.

[zerinus]

The issue is, of course, the apparent discrepancy between Joseph Smith's translation of the papyrus and contemporary Egyptologists' translation. The two appear to have absolute nothing in common. I've read very little of the LDS response to this which is why I am asking.

This is a question that everyone will have to answer for himself, since the Church does not have an official answer---beyond affirming its belief that it is inspired scripture. Everyone who answers it will be his own answer, which is why they are likely to differ from each other. The answer that I give will also be mine, and will be personal to me.

The way I see it, the options are as follows:

1) Joseph Smith really didn't know ancient Egyptian. This, of course, causes some serious problems with his designation as a prophet, seer, and revelator, as well as the canonical status of the Book of Abraham.

Well, Joseph Smith definitely didn't know ancient Egyptian, nor did he claim to know. He said he translated them by the gift and power of God. I think what you are trying to say is that his claim to possess the gift was bogus. I of course disagree.

2) Contemporary Egyptologists really don't know ancient Egyptian. This seems very hard to accept, given the long amount of time their understanding has been used to translate an immense volume of writings, all of which seem to be internally consistent, which would make it seem as if they actually do know the language.

There may be some element of truth in this. Contemporary Egyptologists may have deciphered the language, but not the esoteric language of the mysteries which may have been a kind of language within a language, like a cipher hidden within a plain text. The images in particular may have had such an esoteric, hidden meanings. But that is a conjecture on my part. It is not something that I am basing my faith on.

3) I was told this was Hugh Nibley's solution: Joseph Smith translated the actual Book of Abraham, but it was not on the papyrus that he was looking at. God used the papyrus as a medium to bring out the actual Book of Abraham, which was somewhere else. This, to me, seems like a very ad-hoc solution. It also means that Joseph Smith was wrong concerning the things he said about the papyrus and the fact that images from the papyrus are also included in the canonical Pearl of Great Price. Under this option, those images are not from the Book of Abraham, but from the papyrus that God used as an intermediary for the Book of Abraham. But the images in the Pearl of Great Price contain translations that are likewise refuted by contemporary Egyptologists.

That is a conjecture by Hugh Nibley which may or may not have a basis in fact. It can be an interesting possibility to consider, but cannot be a basis for belief on the BoA.

Common sense seems to point to #1 as the most sensible solution, but as I have been trying to convince Ahab in another thread, common sense isn't always right

Does the LDS church have an official response to this? What do you think about this individually?

The Church doesn't have an official response to this that I know of; any responses will have to be an individual one. My answer to this is that my belief in the authenticity of the Book of Abraham (like the Book of Mormon and the other revelations that Joseph Smith received) is entirely based on the witness of the Holy Spirit. Just as I have no doubt that the Book of Mormon is true (without evidence to back it up), I have a similar faith in the truth of the Book of Abraham, and likewise in all the other revelations that Joseph Smith received. One of the peculiarities of the Catholic Church is that they believe in "mysteries". In Mormonism too some things are mysteries. We don't have an explanation for them. We just believe them to be true. This is one of those. Hope that answers your question.

I hope I have been courteous in the presentation of my question. Thank you!

Yes you have been! I hope that I have also been able to answer some of your questions.

[zerinus]

The story of how the Book of Abraham came about is one that has facsinated me for some time. I will look on the other threads to read the discussion. As a related question, if a believer says/believes "I believe that the Book of Abraham is divinely inspired, but that it was not a literal translation of the papyrus brought to Joseph Smith, and it may not be an historically accurate account" would that be considered a "heresy?"

I wouldn't say so. I believe that it is a literal translation from an ancient text; but if somebody's faith leads him to another explanation, so be it. As long as they don't rebel or apostatize from the Church, nobody cares what they believe about the Book of Abraham.

[CA Steve]

I thought history has the saints referring to the papyrus being "long"?

Last I checked, critics make reference to about a 2ft length papyrus,

Is 2ft same as "long" to critics?

I believe the lengths of the extant pieces of the Hor scroll add up to about two feet or 60cm +-.

The two critical published responses I know of (Ritner & Cook-Smith) predict an overall scroll length of around 5'-0".

Apologetic estimates have ranged as high as 41'-0". (Gee as cited by Cook & Smith)

There are a couple of measurements that I have seen both side agree with:

1. The length of the first winding is about 10.5 cm (4.13 inches). This portion is existing from Facsimile#1 and can be actually measured by anyone with access to the papyri though the damage to the scroll may allow for some debate as to the actual 2nd winding point. The first point is at the beginning of the papyri.

2. The maximum length of the inner most portion of the papyri is not less that 2.5 cm (.984 inches). This would have been how tightly Facsimile#3 would have been rolled at the end of the scroll. Even if you set this value to 0cm it does not significantly affect the overall predicted length of the scroll.

You can do some basic straight line projections using predicted overall lengths along with maximum and minimum winding lengths to determine the number of windings each result requires. Since there is agreement on the upper and lower winding lengths that would leave most of the debate focused on how the remaining extant winding lengths are determined. Here small differences in measurements at the outer portion of the scroll significantly alter the predicted overall length of the scroll.

Edited September 12, 2012 by CA Steve

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I might suggest doing a search for this topic. Also if you look here

http://www.mormondialogue.org/forum/75-book-of-abraham/

You will find some past disccusions.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/forum/53-school-of-the-pundits/ There are some discussion here too.

Be prepared for a huge amount of reading and info. This is a complex issue.

[Darren10]

The Book of Abraham is absolutely a divine translation from an actualy text which wrote about Abraham. Like the Bible and Book of Mormon, it is the Holy Spirit which testifies of the divine truth within the Book of Abraham.

As for the criticisms of the Book of Abraham, they are plenty and repetitive. I agree with hugh Nibley in that since he LDS never did take a critical look at the Book of Abraham, the controversies which came about around it caught the LDS believers flatfooted. CA Steve in his #7 post linkesd to John Gee. That's an excellent source. altersteve in in his #13 points to FAIR and Jeff Lindsay. Also excellent sources on LDS commentary. I personally found out about the Book of Abraham Project (BOAP) via Lindsay. On of the many outstanding products which has been produced through BOAP is Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham (you'll have to search "criticisms" on BOAP's site to find that link ). This article discusses the parts of existingh fragmants which are part ofthe Book of Abraham, aspect of the Book of Abraham text and overall story which corresponds to known Near Eastern kunderstanding of the world, and this article points out that the original material existing today are NOT the materials used by Joseph Smith when translating the Book of Abraham as Joseph Smith had extensive amounts of Papari to cipher through.

Another excellent essay on the Book of Abraham, also which I found via Jeff Lindsay, is called The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources. This article, written by Kevin L. Barney, makes a very interesting argument of how the papyrus Joseph Smith had in his posession was indeed Egyptian and told of Egyptian funerary services. But at some point it is probable that a Semitic story teller took hold of those writings and rewrote them to tell the story of Abraham. As precedent, Barney cites previous authors who have demonstrated that the Testament of Abraham and the Apocalypse of Abraham were of Egyptian origin in story but reworked to tell a story with Semitic characters and to teach Semitic morals. This would explain why the papary Joseph Smith had would appear to an Egyptologist to tell an Egyptian story but ot a prophet it would tell the reworked story of Abraham.

To strengthen the connection between Egyptian stories and Semitic ones, Barney cites Hugo Gressmann. Frankly, I have found it a bit difficult ot track down biographical information in English on Grassman. What is clear is that he was Lutheran and a noted theologian who made a notable impact on the way the Bible should be studied. Grassman has argued that parts of Psalms were borrowed stories from Egypt as well as the parable of Lazarus.

As pointed out previously, there's precious little as to the origin of the Book of Abraham though some of the explanations of it are fascinating. But, in the end, as with all scripture, it's the Spirit of God which testifies of the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham.

[MiserereNobis]

Thank you all for supplying information and sources to read. I'm very interested to read the apologetics on this matter and I'm grateful that you took the time to save me some research time

+ PAX