Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[Ouagadougou]

Hello all!  

According to the church's essay on the Book of Abraham, it says the following:

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

The preface of the Book of Abraham contains the following description:

"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."

If the church admits that the current fragments we have are from funerary texts and do not mention Abraham's name, then how can it still consider the Book of Abraham as "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?"

Based on the papyrus fragments we have today, wouldn't the correct/honest description be something like? 

"Writings of a funerary text for Horus (dated third century B.C.E.) that Joseph Smith channeled to be the words of Abraham."

People can believe in the Book of Abraham if they want (I personally do not), but you can't claim that the existing evidence we do have was written by Abraham; that is misleading, IMO.  

The church recently made a change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.  Could it not do the same with the preface to the Book of Abraham?  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!  

According to the church's essay on the Book of Abraham, it says the following:

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

The preface of the Book of Abraham contains the following description:

"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."

If the church admits that the current fragments we have are from funerary texts and do not mention Abraham's name, then how can it still consider the Book of Abraham as "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?"

Based on the papyrus fragments we have today, wouldn't the correct/honest description be something like? 

"Writings of a funerary text for Horus (dated third century B.C.E.) that Joseph Smith channeled to be the words of Abraham."

People can believe in the Book of Abraham if they want (I personally do not), but you can't claim that the existing evidence we do have was written by Abraham; that is misleading, IMO.  

The church recently made a change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.  Could it not do the same with the preface to the Book of Abraham?  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

 

Do we have all of the papyrus that Joseph Smith had?

[Ouagadougou]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do we have all of the papyrus that Joseph Smith had?

Nope.  But as I stated:  

Based on the papyrus fragments we have today, wouldn't the correct/honest description be something like? 

"Writings of a funerary text for Horus (dated third century B.C.E.) that Joseph Smith channeled to be the words of Abraham."

Even if some of the fragments that were a funerary text were used, they should be listed in the preface as well, IMO.  

There is no mention whatsoever in the preface that some of the fragments (ones we have today) -- which are a funerary text dated third century B.C.E. -- were used as a source material/reference for channeling the Book of Abraham. If the fragments we DO have today were used, then they should be referenced.  Give Horus the credit he deserves...😀 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

Nope.  But as I stated:  

Based on the papyrus fragments we have today, wouldn't the correct/honest description be something like? 

"Writings of a funerary text for Horus (dated third century B.C.E.) that Joseph Smith channeled to be the words of Abraham."

Even if some of the fragments that were a funerary text were used, they should be listed in the preface as well, IMO.  

Your change would make the assumption that the fragments that are missing are similar to the fragments we have today.  Your change would be made based on incomplete evidence.  Why not just take Joseph Smith at his word?

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Your change would make the assumption that the fragments that are missing are similar to the fragments we have today.  Your change would be made based on incomplete evidence.  Why not just take Joseph Smith at his word?

If the fragments we have today were used (in addition to others that haven't been found), then they should be referenced as such.  You can't take Joseph Smith's word because:

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

 

 

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If the fragments we have today were used (in addition to others that haven't been found), then they should be referenced as such.  You can't take Joseph Smith's word because:

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

 

 

Do we know that the fragments that we have today are what was used?  Or was the translation limited to the portion that is now missing? 

[Ahab]

37 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The preface of the Book of Abraham contains the following description:

"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."

Notice that there is a period between those 2 sentences. Not a comma, with something like "which are" between them.

So that book as we have it is (a translation of) both "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus" AND (a translation of) some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt".

Don't you understand English? 

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Notice that there is a period between those 2 sentences. Not a comma, with something like "which are" between them.

So that book as we have it is (a translation of) both "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus" AND (a translation of) some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt".

Don't you understand English? 

I think your interpretation of what you've quoted from the OP is a bit strained.  I think any reasonable person reading the preface would understand that the ancient records from Egypt and the writings of Abraham while in Egypt are one and the same. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by ksfisher

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

The church recently made a change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.  Could it not do the same with the preface to the Book of Abraham?  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

 

It's a tricky situation, because there are probably a lot of people in Salt Lake who consider the preface written by Joseph Smith (or under his direction), and part of the canon, so changing it would be very, very sensitive.  It's not just a chapter heading or footnote that was tacked on much later.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-early-1842/2

 

It's probably considered on par with the "Joseph Smith - History" in the Pearl of Great Price.  When we find something written in the history that doesn't correlate with our modern understanding, then we face a choice: do we bring our modern understanding in line with the claim made in the history, or do we alter the history to bring it in line with our modern understanding (including just ignoring or excising it)?

Obviously, the ideal solution is to find a way to correlate them both through creativity and persuasion, but if that doesn't happen, then a choice must be made.

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by cinepro

[Ahab]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I think your interpretation of what you've quoted from the OP is a bit strained.  I think any reasonable person reading the preface would understand that the ancient records from Egypt and the writings of Abraham While in Egypt are one and the same. 

So you think it's reasonable to infer a comma and some other words like "which are" between those sentences even though there is no comma or words like that between them.

I think it's a common mistake to make that kind of inference or assumption, but that it would be better to realize that there is no comma or words like that between those 2 sentences.

And I also think you owe me a rep point.

 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And I also think you owe me a rep point.

 

For what?

[The Nehor]

If we changed it critics would be screaming that we were trying to hide what Joseph Smith said.

I think they would be happy if we put in the preface:

"The lying charlatan Joe Smith wrote some random trash about Abraham while looking at Egyptian funerary texts. Here is the colorful story he came up with."

I imagine members might object to that preface and since they are the ones reading it regularly I think we should give them a say too.

[Ouagadougou]

31 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do we know that the fragments that we have today are what was used?  Or was the translation limited to the portion that is now missing? 

Yes, facsimile 1, which is a failed translation, IMO.

The church essay states:

"The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.26

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

Egyptologist Dr. Robert Ritner of the University of Chicago has said the following in his response to the church's essay:

"In addition, Facsimile 1 is specifically referenced in the text of the Book of Abraham (1:12): “that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.” That initial representation is Fig. 4 of Facsimile 1: “The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and the Pharaoh.” Further links appear in Abraham 1:13-14, which describe the bedstead “altar” and foreign gods (actually canopic jars) in Facsimile 1, Figs. 5-9. From these clear internal references, the LDS church is wrong to question whether the vignette/ facsimile “and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning.” It is simply unacceptable to argue, as the new LDS posting does, that Facsimile 1 may not be relevant since “it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.” The Abraham text states clearly that the representation was not at some distance, but “at the commencement of this record.” There is only one such representation included by Smith “at the commencement” of the Book of Abraham. If he actually knew what he was doing, surely he would have copied the correct illustration (which is keyed perfectly — and repeatedly— to the text)."

"There can be no reasonable dispute that Smith linked the image of Facsimile 1 to the Egyptian papyrus that he —in his own words— “translated.” As the original papyrus of Facsimile 1 has survived and is in fact the “Breathing Permit” of an Egyptian priest Hôr, the Hôr papyrus is without question the text that Smith used for his translation that produced the Book of Abraham. The same conclusion is proved by Facsimile 3, a now- lost section of the same papyrus that contains the name of the priest Hôr, mistranslated by Joseph Smith as “Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.” From Smith’s words here, it is undeniable that he thought he was translating the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in the normal meaning of the word “translate,” just as one would translate Greek or Hebrew characters."

"With the Book of Abraham now confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith, the LDS Church may well devote some reflection to the status of the text. The former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since 2001 renamed Community of Christ, avoids this issue by treating the Book of Abraham as speculative writing by Smith, not as a document of historical truth. In this decision they are clearly correct. Despite its inauthenticity as a genuine historical narrative, the Book of Abraham remains a valuable witness to early American religious history and to the recourse to ancient texts as sources of modern religious faith and speculation. The book still has its uses and significance, but not for the ancient world of Egypt and Abraham."

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham final.pdf

[The Nehor]

Yet I can tell you the text of the Book of Abraham is divine and historically accurate (as far as any document can be anyways).

[phaedrus ut]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Do we have all of the papyrus that Joseph Smith had?

That's a question without a possible answer.  We can evaluate the known extant papyrus and related documents.  Those include the 11 fragments known as the Joseph Smith Papyri, facsimiles 1,2,&3, the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language and the other Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  Many of these include direct english translations of Egyptian characters including Facsimile 3, the EAG, the Princess Katumin translation and others. 

This isn't like the parable of blind men touching different parts of an elephant.  We can see the elephant from the front, back and one side and have concluded it's an elephant.  It makes no sense to argue there might be something written under the elephants feet that would result in a different conclusion.  

Phaedrus 

 

[Ouagadougou]

31 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Notice that there is a period between those 2 sentences. Not a comma, with something like "which are" between them.

So that book as we have it is (a translation of) both "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus" AND (a translation of) some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt".

Don't you understand English? 

It's good to know that you think funerary texts are such a great source of inspiration, but the preface still doesn't mention what those ancient texts are today (even though we know they have nothing to do with Abraham).  

Also, my understanding of English has allowed me to come to the conclusion that there was no translation, since it was a failed translation on Joseph Smith's part.  So perhaps they should change it to:

"an attempted but failed translation, which was used to channel non-existing writings of Abraham." 

[Ouagadougou]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yet I can tell you the text of the Book of Abraham is divine and historically accurate (as far as any document can be anyways).

Historically accurate?  

Please expound 😀

[Ouagadougou]

4 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

That's a question without a possible answer.  We can evaluate the known extant papyrus and related documents.  Those include the 11 fragments known as the Joseph Smith Papyri, facsimiles 1,2,&3, the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language and the other Kirtland Egyptian Papers.  Many of these include direct english translations of Egyptian characters including Facsimile 3, the EAG, the Princess Katumin translation and others. 

This isn't like the parable of blind men touching different parts of an elephant.  We can see the elephant from the front, back and one side and have concluded it's an elephant.  It makes no sense to argue there might be something written under the elephants feet that would result in a different conclusion.  

Phaedrus 

 

But from the fragments we DO have, it was a failed translation, IMO.  And a funerary text was used, not the writings of Abraham.  

[Ouagadougou]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If we changed it critics would be screaming that we were trying to hide what Joseph Smith said.

You can call me a critic of the BoA...and I wouldn't say that if they changed it...

[Ouagadougou]

40 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think your interpretation of what you've quoted from the OP is a bit strained.  I think any reasonable person reading the preface would understand that the ancient records from Egypt and the writings of Abraham while in Egypt are one and the same. 

And instead of focusing on on the subject, he thinks that I don't understand English. 😀

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Also, my understanding of English has allowed me to come to the conclusion that there was no translation, since it was a failed translation on Joseph Smith's part.  So perhaps they should change it to:

"an attempted but failed translation, which was used to channel non-existing writings of Abraham." 

But that is not a proper understanding of English and that statement you would prefer is misleading.

Oh well. Thank you for your  $0.02

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Historically accurate?  

Please expound 😀

God told me. Hope that clears that up.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

You can call me a critic of the BoA...and I wouldn't say that if they changed it...

I can tell you about people who would. Instead of attacking on the preface being wrong they would claim it was sanitized and that we are seeking to hide our history.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Obviously, the ideal solution is to find a way to correlate them both through creativity and persuasion, but if that doesn't happen, then a choice must be made.

I agree with everything in your post except your ideal solution.  I think the ideal solution would be for the church to change the canon and in the process to have a thoughtful conversation about how scripture comes to be, how difficult it is to determine what is inspired by God and what is inspired by culture and what may perhaps have elements of both.  I would love it if we could articulate what it means to have continuing revelation in our modern church including these concepts of line upon line learning, instead of being stuck in a similar position that other Christian churches were stuck in when Joseph first started the Mormon movement.  We've now become the same as those other churches with our own creeds to a large extent. 

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the ideal solution would be for the church to change the canon and in the process to have a thoughtful conversation about how scripture comes to be, how difficult it is to determine what is inspired by God and what is inspired by culture and what may perhaps have elements of both.  I would love it if we could articulate what it means to have continuing revelation in our modern church including these concepts of line upon line learning, instead of being stuck in a similar position that other Christian churches were stuck in when Joseph first started the Mormon movement.

I'm getting the additional memos.

Why aren't you?