Book Of Abraham Translation (A Courteous Question)

[cinepro]

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.

CFR that Joseph Smith used anything other than the seer stone (or nothing at all) to dictate the existing text of the Book of Mormon.

[Darren10]

+ PAX

Idem.

(I think that's right).

Edited September 12, 2012 by Darren10

[cinepro]

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.

I'm not sure if you just phrased it poorly, but if Joseph did really know Egyptian, then he wouldn't have needed to be a prophet, seer and revelator. He could have just translated it.

It's the fact that he didn't know how to read Egyptian that makes him a prophet, seer and revelation.

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.

I've never heard that theory suggested, so kudos on introducing a new possibility into the discussion. I kind of like it.

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's actually a good summary of some of the arguments made to support the book, and the problems with them.

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 worst mistake you can make when discussing the Book of Abraham is to try and use "common sense" as a baseline. There are many good and interesting arguments for the Book of Abraham, but I've yet to see one that relies on "common sense".

As for what "LDS Church" teaches, you would have to look in official Church publications such as the Ensign, talks given by Church leaders, and Church-published curriculum.

This article from the Ensign takes a pretty traditional approach to the origin of the book:

The Book of Abraham: A Most Remarkable Book

The Prophet Joseph Smith was then inspired to raise money to purchase Chandler’s mummies and the accompanying papyri even though he did not know exactly what the writings would disclose. Kirtland Saints contributed the funds for the purchase. The price was $2,400—not an inconsequential sum considering that the temple was under construction, but the faith of members who knew the Prophet and his works led them to help.⁹

After the purchase, the Prophet Joseph began to translate some of the papyri with the assistance of scribes W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery. (Warren Parish was later called and employed as scribe.) This is what the Prophet recorded in his personal history: “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. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.”¹⁰

Frankly, that version of events makes almost no sense if the papyri didn't actually contain the "writings of Abraham".

[cinepro]

Here's how the Institute Manual explains the papyri not dating to the time of Abraham:

How Did the Church Obtain the Book of Abraham?

On 3 July 1835 a man named Michael Chandler brought four Egyptian mummies and several papyrus scrolls of ancient Egyptian writings to Kirtland, Ohio. The mummies and papyri had been discovered in Egypt several years earlier by Antonio Lebolo. Kirtland was one of many stops in the eastern United States for Chandler’s mummy exhibition. Chandler was offering the mummies and rolls of papyrus for sale and, at the urging of the Prophet Joseph Smith, several members of the Church donated money to purchase them. In a statement dated 5 July 1835, Joseph Smith, declaring the importance of these ancient Egyptian writings, recorded: “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. … Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth” (History of the Church, 2:236).

How Did the Prophet Translate the Ancient Writings?

The Prophet Joseph Smith never communicated his method of translating these records. As with all other scriptures, a testimony of the truthfulness of these writings is primarily a matter of faith. The greatest evidence of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power.

Why Did the Prophet Joseph Smith Say He Translated the Writings of Abraham When the Manuscripts Do Not Date to Abraham’s Time?

In 1966 eleven fragments of papyri once possessed by the Prophet Joseph Smith were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. They were given to the Church and have been analyzed by scholars who date them between about 100 B.C.and A.D. 100. A common objection to the authenticity of the book of Abraham is that the manuscripts are not old enough to have been written by Abraham, who lived almost two thousand years before Christ. Joseph Smith never claimed that the papyri were autographic (written by Abraham himself), nor that they dated from the time of Abraham. It is common to refer to an author’s works as “his” writings, whether he penned them himself, dictated them to others, or others copied his writings later.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know why this question bothers people.

How many Muslims are there in the world who believe in the Quran and take it as scripture? Where did THAT come from?

For that matter who really wrote the Bible? No one has a clue- just theories.

The compilation of the Qur'an spanned several decades and forms an important part of early Islamic history. Muslims believe it began in the year 610 when Gabriel (Arabic: جبريل, Jibrīl or جبرائيل Jibrāʾīl) appeared to prophet Muhammad in the cave Hira near Mecca, reciting to him the first verses of the Sura Iqra (al-`Alaq), thus beginning the revelation of the Qur'an. Throughout his life, Muhammad continued to have revelations until before his death in 632.^[1] Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike disagree on whether the Prophet compiled the Qur'an during his lifetime or if this task began with the first caliph Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (632-634). Once the Qur'an was compiled, due to the unanimity of the sources, Muslims agree that the Qur'an we see today was canonized by Uthman ibn Affan (653-656). Upon the canonization of the Qur'an, Uthman had the other codices that existed at the time destroyed and burnt. Due to this, it has become difficult for scholars to look at the different codices from before the canonization because no manuscripts remain and all that is left is varying accounts from different historians. Even though Uthman canonized the Qur'an during his reign in 653-656, variations still remained in the Qur'an, which can be seen in the early manuscripts of the Umayyad and Abbasid Dynasties.^[2]

Due to varying historical documents, controversy is seen amongst scholars as to whether the Uthmanic codex we have before us today is authentic and complete. Most Muslim scholars believe the Uthmanic Qur'an is what was revealed to the Prophet in its entirety, while others believe verses were removed and other codices of the Qur'an are more absolute.^[3]

Some scholars debate the validity of the collection of the Qur'an as a whole. It is questioned as to whether the Qur'an ever existed in its entirety during Muhammad’s or Uthman’s time. Traditionalist scholars accept much of early Muslim literature, albeit with a grain of salt, while skeptics reject this literature in its entirety.^[4] Both these views are generally opposed by Muslim academia. The text of the Qur'an used today is taken from one of the seven variant readings chosen by Ibn Mujahid (he reported there were fourteen) in the 10th century and published as the Royal Cairo edition by King Fuad of Egypt in 1924.^[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran

I hope no one will shoot me for quoting wikipedia about the Koran. We are kind of used to having our religious feelings hurt. If not, Utah would be a war zone especially during Conference.

[cinepro]

I don't know why this question bothers people.

How many Muslims are there in the world who believe in the Quran and take it as scripture? Where did THAT come from?

For that matter who really wrote the Bible? No one has a clue- just theories.

The problem is that there is a "story" for where the Book of Abraham came from and how we got it, and that story just doesn't hold up.

There may be good explanations for why the story doesn't hold up, but it's still a problem.

[mfbukowski]

The problem is that there is a "story" for where the Book of Abraham came from and how we got it, and that story just doesn't hold up.

There may be good explanations for why the story doesn't hold up, but it's still a problem.

What's wrong with the institute manual explanation?

[CA Steve]

What's wrong with the institute manual explanation?

It does not address many of the issues such as the KEP, restoration and interpretation of the Facsimiles, accounts that describe the papyri as being from the time of Abraham, Book of Joseph and so on. IOW a member who runs into critical accounts of those issues would be totally unprepared if all he knows is what the Institute manual teaches.