What Are The Main Arguments Against The Book Of Abraham

[DBMormon]

Hey Everyone, 

I am hoping to provide as sucinctly as possible the main criticisms against the translation or th BOA as scripture so that I can then address possible answers to how various scholars resolve those issues within Mormonism while leading with faith.  In a sense provide a buffet of answers where people can decidefor themselves the best answer available.

 

I am hoping for around 5 main arguments and hoping they can be worded in a paragraph or less.  (If more explanation is needed then so be it)

 

Be as concise as possible and please be serious.  I am not neccessarily loking for the resolution here rather just what are seen as the main arguments against it.  

 

 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

The main argument against is that the facsimiles do not translate directly from the egyptian to the Book of Abraham as had been assumed in the past.

 

The solution is that the Book of Abraham is no more a direct translation of the documents than the Book of Moses is a direct translation of the original Genesis.  It is a revelatory document.

[Buckeye]

I found this video to be very helpful in understanding the background facts and the arguments:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FAFVVv_os

 

Note that the video is not faith-promoting, but I did not find it unfair or hostile to believers either.

[Buckeye]

For me, the most difficult aspect is that the most faith-promoting argument I have heard (catalyst theory) directly conflicts with the story told by Joseph and his scribes. Joseph certainly thought he was translating in a traditional sense. If I discard his testimony that the translation was literal, that may help to save the BOA as still containing valuable information from God, but it comes at the cost of killing off any historical or tangible reality. 

 

It's kind of like holding he belief that the BOM is just allegory and there were no real Nephites. Yes, I could still find great value in such an account, but it would be of much less value than an account of real witnesses of the resurrected Christ. The same holds true if we view modern apostle's "special witnesses of Christ" as being an office rather than an actual event. Yes, I'm glad to have men with this title. But frankly I'd prefer to have witnesses who see and hear as did those in Jerusalem and (possibly) the Americas.

 

A second problem for me (though not a common one so you may want to skip it) is that when the church obtained the fragments that (may) contain the Book of Abraham, it also obtained the scrolls containing the Book of Joseph. Joseph Smith never undertook a translation of the Book of Joseph. But church members believe that our current leaders have the same authority and power as Joseph Smith (we were told that over and over during the last conference). So why is there no effort by the current leadership to continue Joseph's work and translate the scroll we obtained in the 1960s? Unfortunately, the clearest conclusion I can draw is that we only give lip service to the notion of modern prophets, seers and revelators. We don't actually expect them to do any seeing, revealing, or prophesying. 

[Tarski]

You may as well put some time into it. 

 

Try reading carefully what Robert Ritner has written about the topic.

Then read the church essay:

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham

and/or any other apologetic maybe By Gee or Kerry Muhlestein,

 

Then read the response by Dr. Ritner:

  http://signaturebooks.com/2014/08/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/

 

If it isn't clear to you at that point you probably should debate the topic with critics and apologists.

Eventually it will be clear unless your prejudices are insurmountable.

 

[Gervin]

Eventually it will be clear unless your prejudices are insurmountable.

 

good example of an ad hominem argument

[Nevo]

For me, the most difficult aspect is that the most faith-promoting argument I have heard (catalyst theory) directly conflicts with the story told by Joseph and his scribes. Joseph certainly thought he was translating in a traditional sense.

 

According to scribe Warren Parrish, Joseph "claimed to receive [the translation] by direct inspiration from Heaven" (Warren Parrish letter to the editor, Painesville [Ohio] Republican [15 Feb. 1838]: 3). That doesn't sound to me like Joseph thought he was translating in a traditional sense.

 

If I discard his testimony that the translation was literal, that may help to save the BOA as still containing valuable information from God, but it comes at the cost of killing off any historical or tangible reality.

 

Not at all. The Book of Abraham can still be an actual writing of Abraham if the catalyst theory is true. Receiving a text by divine inspiration does not rule out historicity.

[stemelbow]

According to scribe Warren Parrish, Joseph "claimed to receive [the translation] by direct inspiration from Heaven" (Warren Parrish letter to the editor, Painesville [Ohio] Republican [15 Feb. 1838]: 3). That doesn't sound to me like Joseph thought he was translating in a traditional sense.

I had a good mind to cfr this point of his, but your response will suffice for my tastes.

 

Not at all. The Book of Abraham can still be an actual writing of Abraham if the catalyst theory is true. Receiving a text by divine inspiration does not rule out historicity.

Could it also be that the BoA was not a writing of Abraham and yet still represent scripture? I think I read that in Bokovoy's latest book as a possibility and perhaps even the possibility, in his mind.

Edited October 6, 2014 by stemelbow

[Rivers]

Here are five that I can think of off the top of my head right now:

 

 

1. The surviving fragments we have are not the Book of Abraham.

 

2. Joseph Smith's commentary on the facsimiles are not in in accordance with the interpretations of  trained Egyptologists.

 

3. There are alleged historical inaccuracies, such as the origin of Egypt, described in the text. 

 

4. The astronomy is all wrong.

 

5. The text seems to provide a doctrinal basis for the priesthood and temple ban.

[Rivers]

For me, the most difficult aspect is that the most faith-promoting argument I have heard (catalyst theory) directly conflicts with the story told by Joseph and his scribes. Joseph certainly thought he was translating in a traditional sense. If I discard his testimony that the translation was literal, that may help to save the BOA as still containing valuable information from God, but it comes at the cost of killing off any historical or tangible reality. 

 

I feel that the catalyst view fits very well with the historical record.

 

In the case of the Book of Mormon, Joseph didn't even look at the plates. He translated by revelation while looking into the seer stones.  The plates acted as a catalyst.

 

With the Book of Moses, Joseph had no ancient manuscripts at all.  He translated by revelation with the KJV bible acting as a catalyst.

 

The Kinderhook plates were a complete fraud yet they still acted as a catalyst for Joseph to come up with something.

 

I think the same thing happened with the Book of Abraham.  

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

"IF the catalyst theory is true."

 

Why can't the church leaders know. Why do we have to be left in the dark about an explanation regarding the source of our scripture. Can the holy spirit not reveal the truth of all things. Will God not give to man liberally who ask in faith? Why can't the church leaders provide an answer on this?

[ttribe]

good example of an ad hominem argument

 

"ad hominem"? For that quote?

 

Edited October 6, 2014 by ttribe

[Freedom]

"IF the catalyst theory is true."

 

Why can't the church leaders know. Why do we have to be left in the dark about an explanation regarding the source of our scripture. Can the holy spirit not reveal the truth of all things. Will God not give to man liberally who ask in faith? Why can't the church leaders provide an answer on this?

Why would he? Why would this be important? You would have to have to provide clear evidence that knowing how the book came to be is more important than revealing the cure to cancer, or how to stop terrorism, or when earthquakes will occur. Joseph did not tell us why because he felt it was not important. God wants us to accept the book at face value and go him in prayer for a confirming witness of the spirit. There is no end to the demands we could put forward. Why has God not explained how the earth came to be, or explain where the Nephites lives, or how the great flood actually took place. Need I go on?

[volgadon]

I had a good mind to cfr this point of his, but your response will suffice for my tastes.

 

A CFR is a little silly when a reference has already been provided.

[volgadon]

Here are five that I can think of off the top of my head right now:

 

 

1. The surviving fragments we have are not the Book of Abraham.

 

2. Joseph Smith's commentary on the facsimiles are not in in accordance with the interpretations of  trained Egyptologists.

 

3. There are alleged historical inaccuracies, such as the origin of Egypt, described in the text. 

 

4. The astronomy is all wrong.

 

5. The text seems to provide a doctrinal basis for the priesthood and temple ban.

 

Excellent list.

[strappinglad]

And yet , the PoGP including the BoA , just " feels" like scripture to me, more modern ,if you will, than Genesis. Do I wish that Emma et al had been more careful with the mummies and papyruses( papyri ? ) Sure, just like I would have preferred to still have the first 116 pages of the BoM .

[theplains]

So why is there no effort by the current leadership to continue Joseph's work and translate the scroll we obtained in the 1960s? Unfortunately, the clearest conclusion I can draw is that we only give lip service to the notion of modern prophets, seers and revelators. We don't actually expect them to do any seeing, revealing, or prophesying. 

 

I believe the the LDS leadership learned a major lesson with the Kinderhook Plates. They do

not have the power to translate or interpret ancient records ... whether they are discovered in

New York state or any other country.  I doubt that they are even in possession of the so-called 

interpreters.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Tarski]

good example of an ad hominem argument

How so? First of all, what I said indicates nothing about which way the conclusion could go. It was phrased in a fairly neutral manner (which showed admirable restraint since I do in fact think it is a slam dunk).

Second, an ad hominem argument is when one tries to use an irrelevent reference to the character of a person as a logical step in a deductive argument. I did no such thing. In fact, I made no argument toward one concusion or another. I didn't even mildly  insult anyone. I simply indicated my opinion that educating oneself on the topic by reading a cross section of the prominant arguments made by informed people would be enough to allow one to come to a conclusion.

So what gives man?

[stemelbow]

A CFR is a little silly when a reference has already been provided.

I wasn't challenging Nevo's point, if that's what you are suggesting. I was agreeing with his post.

I didn't see a reference for this: "For me, the most difficult aspect is that the most faith-promoting argument I have heard (catalyst theory) directly conflicts with the story told by Joseph and his scribes. Joseph certainly thought he was translating in a traditional sense."

[HappyJackWagon]

 

HappyJackWagon, on 06 Oct 2014 - 5:14 PM, said:

"IF the catalyst theory is true."

 

Why can't the church leaders know. Why do we have to be left in the dark about an explanation regarding the source of our scripture. Can the holy spirit not reveal the truth of all things. Will God not give to man liberally who ask in faith? Why can't the church leaders provide an answer on this?

Freedom:

Why would he? Why would this be important? You would have to have to provide clear evidence that knowing how the book came to be is more important than revealing the cure to cancer, or how to stop terrorism, or when earthquakes will occur. Joseph did not tell us why because he felt it was not important. God wants us to accept the book at face value and go him in prayer for a confirming witness of the spirit. There is no end to the demands we could put forward. Why has God not explained how the earth came to be, or explain where the Nephites lives, or how the great flood actually took place. Need I go on?

 

So it is unimportant how we receive our scripture? As this issue is a problem for many in the church and therefore likely a concern for the brethren because of the impact the question is having, I think asking would be a logical step. You bring up some great questions. Why not get answers for those while we're at it? If we ask we shall receive, right? Do we really believe our prophets can get important answers or not?

[theplains]

So it is unimportant how we receive our scripture? As this issue is a problem for many in the church and therefore likely a concern for the brethren because of the impact the question is having, I think asking would be a logical step.

 

I think that when the POGP was received as scripture by the former LDS Apostles, it was

believed and taught to the church membership that it was a 'translation'.  But now it seems

the LDS Church is shifting to 'interpretation'  instead.   If the Book of Mormon as a whole

ever becomes an 'allegory', then the historical aspect of it may go down the tubes. And

by doing so, the latter church apostleship will be saying to the former apostles that you were

all wrong.

 

Regards,

Jim

[stemelbow]

I think that when the POGP was received as scripture by the former LDS Apostles, it was

believed and taught to the church membership that it was a 'translation'.  But now it seems

the LDS Church is shifting to 'interpretation'  instead.   If the Book of Mormon as a whole

ever becomes an 'allegory', then the historical aspect of it may go down the tubes. And

by doing so, the latter church apostleship will be saying to the former apostles that you were

all wrong.

 

Regards,

Jim

Clearly saying former apostles were wrong would be a breath of fresh air though, compared to pretending that the things that were taught and said just never were or demanding that that which was clearly said was not ever said.

Edited October 7, 2014 by stemelbow

[Buckeye]

I wasn't challenging Nevo's point, if that's what you are suggesting. I was agreeing with his post.

I didn't see a reference for this: "For me, the most difficult aspect is that the most faith-promoting argument I have heard (catalyst theory) directly conflicts with the story told by Joseph and his scribes. Joseph certainly thought he was translating in a traditional sense."

 

I believe this CFR is for me.

 

The following are a few sources that lead me to conclude that Joseph and his scribes believed and taught that Joseph was translating the papyri; he did not view it as a catalyst. Please note that I am not making any argument with this evidence. I frankly admit I am a notice on BOA issues. I am simply responding to the OP which asked for issues that caused members problems.

 

• In the History of the Church Joseph recorded:

On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:

Kirtland, July 6, 1835.

This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters.

Michael H. Chandler, Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies.

(History of the Church 2:235; the certificate can be seen here: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/certificate-from-michael-chandler-6-july-1835)

• The KEP evidence (to me) that Joseph was attempting a real translation.  Here is how the church essay explains it: "His [Joseph's] history reports that, in July 1835, he was “continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”  (https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng)

 

• The facsimiles canonized in the PoGP evidence (to me) that Joseph was attempting a real translation.

 

• The church essay quotes WW Phelps as follows: "Phelps apparently viewed Joseph Smith as uniquely capable of understanding the Egyptian characters: “As no one could translate these writings,” he told his wife, “they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were.”"

[stemelbow]

I believe this CFR is for me.

 

The following are a few sources that lead me to conclude that Joseph and his scribes believed and taught that Joseph was translating the papyri; he did not view it as a catalyst. Please note that I am not making any argument with this evidence. I frankly admit I am a notice on BOA issues. I am simply responding to the OP which asked for issues that caused members problems.

• In the History of the Church Joseph recorded:

On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:

Kirtland, July 6, 1835.

This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters.

Michael H. Chandler, Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies.

(History of the Church 2:235; the certificate can be seen here: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/certificate-from-michael-chandler-6-july-1835)

• The KEP evidence (to me) that Joseph was attempting a real translation.  Here is how the church essay explains it: "His [Joseph's] history reports that, in July 1835, he was “continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”  (https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng)

• The facsimiles canonized in the PoGP evidence (to me) that Joseph was attempting a real translation.

• The church essay quotes WW Phelps as follows: "Phelps apparently viewed Joseph Smith as uniquely capable of understanding the Egyptian characters: “As no one could translate these writings,” he told his wife, “they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were.”"

Hey buckeye.

I hear ya. I said I was thinking of cfr-ing your claim, but I felt Nevo's response was just as if not moreso appropriate. I'm not sure the above constitutes that JS thought he was literally translating, although I'm not wholly in disagreement with your view either. What is your take of the Warren Parish quote in light of all of this?

[Buckeye]

Hey buckeye.

I hear ya. I said I was thinking of cfr-ing your claim, but I felt Nevo's response was just as if not moreso appropriate. I'm not sure the above constitutes that JS thought he was literally translating, although I'm not wholly in disagreement with your view either. What is your take of the Warren Parish quote in light of all of this?

 

I view the Parrish quote as referring to how Joseph translated, not what.  That Joseph thought he was translating through inspiration from heaven does not alter the record that he also thought he was translating the actual papyri. 

 

That's exactly what the Chandler certificate indicates. Joseph said he gave Chandler a translation of the papyri. Chander certified the translation (of "the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession") was correct.  I can't see any other reasonable view. Joseph never presented the objects as catalyst. And none of his contemporaries took that view either.