The Real Scoop On The Book Of Abraham

[DBMormon]

The new mormonchallenges.org site has several videos of an "expert" explaining why we should not write off Joseph as a fraud. Personally I see the explanations and I have plenty of room for faith. The problem is many do not see this "expert"'s thoughts as credible and that it misses the real issues.

Could someone who disbelieves the divinity of the Book of Abraham please explain in Layman's terms what the real issues are and why apologetics does not address them?

I simply want to better understand this issue but from a place where both sides have a say.

I understand the issue generally but have no more then a surface understanding of the arguments and the response.

[Tacenda]

Maybe it's not likely to work out this way but why do we need to connect what JS has said to the Papyri at all. Maybe we can say he used the Papyri as a vehicle to share the vision?

Also, years ago I received the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri" by Charles M. Larson. I don't know how I got it. It was just there in my house. Not sure if my husband received it or not. It was there on the book shelf or a box, not sure. I always assumed we got it from the church somehow and guess what never even cared to read it! During my faith crisis I threw some books away or gave away and this was one of them. I'd had always thought it was put out by the church, little did I know it was anti or something like it. How in the world did we get this book? Anyone have the same experience and sorry if I've derailed, you could PM me!

Edited February 21, 2013 by Tacenda

[JohnShultz]

I am a believer in the Book of Abraham historicity, but not the usual apologetics that explain it. The problem with the apologetics boils down to the missing papyrus theory and the scribes-did-it theory, both started by Hugh Nibley. The missing papyrus theory states that the Egyptian original for the Book of Abraham is still missing, and the scribes-did-it theory states that the Prophet's scribes are responsible for the contents of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, not the prophet. It has become a creed or an article of faith of 99% of apologists to insist on these two theories. However, each of these theories dodge the issues rather than explain them. I am convinced that the Prophet Joseph is absolutely responsible for the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Other people have other "faithful" takes on it, such as this one, that do not rely on Nibley's evasion tactic theories, such as this one:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwHwcTq1P2eINFB5UFdXRzd4S2s/edit?pli=1

Until apologists choose to actually address the evidence at hand rather than arguing around it, their theories will not be considered even the least bit credible by the critics as being even acceptable answers to their criticisms.

[DBMormon]

what is the evidence that must be responded to?

[JohnShultz]

Here is the core evidence manifested by the work of critics. Any acceptable apologetic for the Book of Abraham must concede these points and do these things:

(1) Joseph Smith is absolutely responsible for everything in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

(2) The Kirtland Egyptian Papers show Joseph Smith's translation efforts on the Sensen Papyrus, which is the Egyptian Original for Abrahamic material that Joseph Smith translated in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, just as the explanations for the Facsimiles show Abrahamic translations of those facsimiles.

(3) Joseph Smith's translations are not standard Egyptological Translations (not even in the Facsimile explanations either), so it must be explained what they are, and not dodge them. And that explanation must still uphold logic and reason.

(4) Mormons must TAKE OWNERSHIP of Joseph Smith's translation of the Sensen Papyrus in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, just as much as they own the Facsimile explanations. They must defend them, not dodge around them.

[ALarson]

I find it confusing too and I feel that apologists have addressed most issues fairly well, but I think there are still major problems explaining the facsimiles (especially number 3). No one really seems to come up with a good explanation as to why Joseph Smith got these so wrong. Joseph was very specific in identifying the exact Egyptian characters in the facsimiles and they are all wrong.

It also still states in the preface to the Book of Abraham:

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

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

.

And there are numerous statements made by Joseph Smith and other contemporaries regarding this. Here's just one by Wilford Woodruff:

Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the

Book of Abraham

which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God." (

Diary of Wilford Woodruff

, entry of February 19, 1842, LDS archives; also in Jay M. Todd,

The Saga of the Book of Abraham

(Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1969), p. 221

We now know the papyri was not written by the hand of Abraham (the dates are completely off too for that).

But, I think the facsimiles are a huge problem to explain away.

Edited February 21, 2013 by ALarson

[volgadon]

I find it confusing too and I feel that apologists have addressed most issues fairly well, but I think there are still major problems explaining the facsimiles (especially number 3). No one really seems to come up with a good explanation as to why Joseph Smith got these so wrong. Joseph was very specific in identifying the exact Egyptian characters in the facsimiles and they are all wrong.

It also still states in the preface to the Book of Abraham:

And there are numerous statements made by Joseph Smith and other contemporaries regarding this. Here's just one by Wilford Woodruff:

We now know the papyri was not written by the hand of Abraham (the dates are completely off too for that).

But, I think the facsimiles are a huge problem to explain away.

That is actually not problematic in the least bit.

[ALarson]

That is actually not problematic in the least bit.

Sure it is. Why did Joseph get all the characters wrong? There's no dispute that they are wrong.

I know it may not be a problem for many (you included and I respect that), but believe me, it's a huge problem for many too.

Edited February 21, 2013 by ALarson

[JohnShultz]

Sure it is. Why did Joseph get all the characters wrong? There's no dispute that they are wrong.

I know it may not be a problem for many (you included and I respect that), but believe me, it's a huge problem for many too.

Actually, the fact is, there is no dispute that they are not Egyptological translations. That doesn't make them "wrong." Critics have only established that the translations are not Egyptological. Any acceptable apologetic approach must only concede that they are not Egyptological, while at the same time, showing how they can be RIGHT.

[Fifth Columnist]

Could someone who disbelieves the divinity of the Book of Abraham please explain in Layman's terms what the real issues are and why apologetics does not address them?

Put simply, critics believe the evidence indicates that Joseph Smith thought he was translating some ancient papyrus that contained the Book of Abraham when it was really just a common Egyptian funeral text.

I think the best example of the critics argument is found in the facsimiles. Joseph Smith said certain writing on the facsimile means certain things and it doesn't. Also, Joseph Smith "restored" the text on facsimile 2 in a clumsy and incoherent manner. Apologists have argued that a couple of Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles could be correct, but haven't responded to most of the critics arguments.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Fifth Columnist

[volgadon]

Sure it is.

It really isn't problematic, it is a formula denoting authorship.

[volgadon]

Actually, the fact is, there is no dispute that they are not Egyptological translations. That doesn't make them "wrong." Critics have only established that the translations are not Egyptological. Any acceptable apologetic approach must only concede that they are not Egyptological, while at the same time, showing how they can be RIGHT.

Precisely.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm sure I've missed the boat on the explanations so help me out.

Abraham Chapter 1 vs 12 says:

12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

So why is Abraham referring us to a drawing that is included at the beginning of the extant papyrus which is written much later for a different purpose? The KEP papers translation (as I understand it) starts at the beginning of the extant papyrus. The simplest (I know it doesn't make it right) explanation is that Joseph Smith thought that the beginning of the extant papyrus was the book of Abraham. Combine this with the fact that the fascimiles are not translated correctly in most instances, it makes a pretty solid argument against the authenticity of the whole thing.

To me it doesn't matter. I love the book of Abraham and feel it is an inspired text. I'll let others battle out whether or not it comes from the papyrus.

Edited February 21, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JohnShultz]

I'm sure I've missed the boat on the explanations so help me out.

Abraham Chapter 1 vs 12 says:

So why is Abraham referring us to a drawing that is included at the beginning of the extant papyrus which is written much later for a different purpose? The KEP papers translation (as I understand it) starts at the beginning of the extant papyrus. The simplest (I know it doesn't make it right) explanation is that Joseph Smith thought that the beginning of the extant papyrus was the book of Abraham. Combine this with the fact that the fascimiles are not translated correctly in most instances, it makes a pretty solid argument against the authenticity of the whole thing.

To me it doesn't matter. I love the book of Abraham and feel it is an inspired text. I'll let others battle out whether or not it comes from the papyrus.

Look at the document I gave a link to above, and then you may have an answer.

[Fifth Columnist]

If someone claims to be a prophet who can translate ancient languages then fails to correctly translate a document written in an ancient, then that person is not really a prophet. It's pretty simple.

[ALarson]

It really isn't problematic, it is a formula denoting authorship.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If that works for you, that's great. It does not work for me and never will. But I do still love to read the Book of Abraham and that's what is important to me.

[guerreiro9]

Here is the core evidence manifested by the work of critics. Any acceptable apologetic for the Book of Abraham must concede these points and do these things:

(1) Joseph Smith is absolutely responsible for everything in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

Perhaps you didn't mean to phrase it in this way, but your statement comes across as "Any acceptable apologetic argument must concede the points I want them to concede and agree with the opinions I believe to be true"

Is that really what you are saying?

-guerreiro9

[cdowis]

I am a believer in the Book of Abraham historicity, but not the usual apologetics that explain it. The problem with the apologetics boils down to the missing papyrus theory and the scribes-did-it theory, both started by Hugh Nibley. The missing papyrus theory states that the Egyptian original for the Book of Abraham is still missing, and the scribes-did-it theory states that the Prophet's scribes are responsible for the contents of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, not the prophet. It has become a creed or an article of faith of 99% of apologists to insist on these two theories.

The 1% third theory is the mnemonic theory-- that the BOD is a memory device which contains the BOA text. It was passed on without a knowledge of the underlying text, and the KEP is the "translation" model, showing how one word represents phrases in the BOA. This was proposed in the '70's by Tvednes and wrote a couple of articles on this.

I am the only apologist that holds to that theory and you will find little discussion on that theory.

[wenglund]

Part of the problem with the BoA issue is that it is multi-faceted and complex and continually evolving. The arguments raised years ago are not so much the same that are being raised today.

Another part of the problem is relatively uninformed people taking what little information they have been exposed to (oft selectively), and jumping unwarrantably to hard-and-fast conclusions. A good example of this is JohnSchultz' post #5.

From what I see, the debate is far from over, and has become increasingly more open the more we learn of the past.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 21, 2013 by wenglund

[JohnShultz]

If someone claims to be a prophet who can translate ancient languages then fails to correctly translate a document written in an ancient, then that person is not really a prophet. It's pretty simple.

Correct translation, according to what paradigm and expectations of translation? Again, its already established that they are not egyptological, and the paradigm and expectations of the critics demand that that is an open and shut case. Since apologists contend that Joseph Smith was not making an egyptological translation to begin with, then the only open and shut case is that the critics are applying the incorrect paradigm and have the wrong expectations, and it is anything but being that simple. In other words, once the actual correct paradigm and expectations are discovered, then the prophet is vindicated, and the critics fall on their face for being overconfident and dismissive. In fact, a wrong paradigm and the wrong expectations will in the end be the stumbling block that led them to reject the truth. And they will be eternally regretful for it.

[ALarson]

DBMormon,

In other words, confusion reigns when it comes to all the different explanations and theories surrounding the Book of Abraham.

It is a problem for the church, plain and simple. It probably always will be. You really just need to read arguments pro and con for each theory and make up your own mind. That's what everyone has had to do if they want to look into it.

I still enjoy reading the Book of Abraham but none of the apologists have explained away what are obvious problems for me regarding Joseph Smith's translation and his actual words describing the papyri.

[volgadon]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If that works for you, that's great. It does not work for me and never will. But I do still love to read the Book of Abraham and that's what is important to me.

It probably works for me because it is one of the commonest ways to denote authorship in Hebrew, and I've been using it and similar phrases since childhood.

[JohnShultz]

The 1% third theory is the mnemonic theory-- that the BOD is a memory device which contains the BOA text. It was passed on without a knowledge of the underlying text, and the KEP is the "translation" model, showing how one word represents phrases in the BOA. This was proposed in the '70's by Tvednes and wrote a couple of articles on this.

I am the only apologist that holds to that theory and you will find little discussion on that theory.

You should have a look at the document that I gave you a link to above. It is not the mnemonic/supercryptogram theory. It has some things in common with it, but I believe it actually overcomes the weaknesses of that theory, while giving a more solid explanation for the current state of knowledge on the subject.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Part of the problem with the BoA issue is that it is multi-faceted and complex and continually evolving. The arguments raised years ago are not the same that are being raised today.

Another part of the problem is relatively uninformed people taking what little information they have been exposed to, and jumping unwarrantably to hard-and-fast conclusion. A good example of this is JohnSchultz' post #5.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you have a good link that summarizes the accepted apolgetic response? I've looked through the fairmormon site and see multiple theories advanced including the missing papyri theory. I just don't understand how if the Book of Abraham was on another scroll or later in the same scroll that Facsimile 1 would be at the beginning. And why would Facsimile 3 refer to Hor?

Again, I don't really care as I like the Book of Abraham as is. I just haven't read an apologetic explanation using the missing papyrus theory that answered all my questions.

[Freedom]

I have read a lot of material produced by all sides and I am left confused. Of course, I am confused by string theory but this does not cause me to reject physics as a discipline. BoA is very complex and understanding the arguments requires a degree of expertise that I do not poses. I was thinking just last night, while watching some of the videos from Mormon Challenges to start this very topic so thanks for starting it. Can I suggest that we start with questions around facsimile #3?