Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

Robert F. Smith · March 17, 2017

11 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I would be interested to see a list of all the non-LDS Egyptiologists that accept Joseph Smith's translations of the BoA as correct or legitimate.

I don't know of any who take that position, but (as I said) most have never even heard of the BofA, and too few have ever examined it. In my own study (cited above for you), I cite some positive opinions of earlier non-Mormon scholars, even though they reject if overall -- and attribute Joseph's correct identifications to mere coincidence or luck. Do you have any interest in such coincidences? Turns out that Joseph has a very high score in correctly identifying items in the facsimiles. How could that happen?

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know of any who take that position, but (as I said) most have never even heard of the BofA, and too few have ever examined it. In my own study (cited above for you), I cite some positive opinions of earlier non-Mormon scholars, even though they reject if overall -- and attribute Joseph's correct identifications to mere coincidence or luck. Do you have any interest in such coincidences? Turns out that Joseph has a very high score in correctly identifying items in the facsimiles. How could that happen?

I think the ones that have examined it do not accept it as a credible translation; and I think that would be the case if 100 Egyptologists were to examin it.

If you look at facsimile # 1, for example, it is not a "high score," but the opposite really -- a complete failure, IMO.

“To sum up, then, these three fac-similes of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price' depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization.”

- James H. Breasted, Ph. D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago; quoted in F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator, 1912, pp. 26-27

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the Goddess [in Facsimile No. 1] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.”

- Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology, printed in Joseph Smith Jun. As a Translator, by F.S. Spaulding, p. 8

Robert F. Smith · March 17, 2017

41 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think the ones that have examined it do not accept it as a credible translation; and I think that would be the case if 100 Egyptologists were to examin it.

If you look at facsimile # 1, for example, it is not a "high score," but the opposite really -- a complete failure, IMO.

.............................................................

You might want to read my own study, in which I cite some of the early opinions -- which you avoid mentioning here, perhaps because they are positive. However, those early opinions are really outdated now, and we should depend upon modern Egyptology. The late John A. Wilson, a very prominent non-Mormon Egyptologist who studied the BofA, stated that those early opinions which you quote were no more than "indignant snorts." He had no respect for their ungentlemanly behavior, and you should not dignify their partisan nonsense.

Your wild speculation about what a hundred Egyptologists might say is completely out of place here. You should base your arguments on hard evidence.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

bcuzbcuz · March 17, 2017

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I guess "some people apparently just don't know or realize how much Abraham influenced ancient Egyptians and their culture."

I'd be happy if anyone can find the word "Kolob" on any papyrus from anytime between 2000 BC and 300BC. It would be even better if any of those word usages talks about stars or worlds. Otherwise a word without reference doesn't mean very much

bcuzbcuz · March 17, 2017

12 hours ago, Ahab said:

Reverse engineering? Is that what you call it when God tells us through one of his prophets about something that happened in ancient history?

LDS believe that through a testimony from God to us that we can know about things from the past, or for the present, or future. And in this case that God has told us that Abraham taught some ancient Egyptians what God told him in the past. Some of which he wrote, and which they in turn also wrote down. Things like ancient Egyptian funerary texts, like in the Book of Abraham.

So yes, based on a testimony from God to us, God has told us that the ancient Egyptians didn't learn all that they knew on their own. God told Abraham some things and he shared some of those things with some ancient Egyptians, which is how those ancient Egyptians learned some of what they knew.

Are you getting the idea, yet?

We're not forced to play your game of following events in time linearly, from the past to the future, because God can tell us through his prophets things that happened in the past, today.

And you can take it for whatever it is worth to you, personally.

Once again you avoid answering to my call for any evidence from coffin texts or funerary texts to back up the idea that Abraham was a major influence in the Book of Dead spells. You have opinions but are rather (completely) short on evidence.

I'm not forcing anyone to play the game of following events in time linearly. Events do happen in that order. Interpretattions can be wound around an event in whatever order one wishes. But wishful thinking doesn't change the order that actually happened.

Once again, please provide some evidence that Abraham influenced Egyptians views on the afterlife, from his time of 2000 BC up to the Coptic age.

dberrie2000 · March 17, 2017

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Abraham 1:12 references facsimile # 1:

"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."

Hi Oua:

How are you relating this --to the claim the LDS Church is admitting the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri? Where do we find the above passage the Book of Abraham text--in the extant papyri? Where do we find the LDS Church admitting the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri?

dberrie2000 · March 17, 2017

Just now, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Oua:

How are you relating this --to the claim the LDS Church is admitting the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri? Where do we find the above passage of the Book of Abraham text--in the extant papyri? Where do we find the LDS Church admitting the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri?

dberrie2000 · March 17, 2017

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Also, within the text are archronisms that shouldn't belong in the BoA:

"The Book of Abraham

The Book of Abraham ("BoA") is Joseph Smith's translation of some Egyptian papyrus scrolls that came into his possession in 1835. He stated that one of the scrolls was written by the biblical Abraham "by his own hand." Smith's translation is now accepted as scripture by the LDS church, as part of its Pearl of Great Price. Smith also produced an "Egyptian Grammar" based on his translation.

Modern scholars of ancient Egyptian have also translated the scrolls, and they agree unanimously that the scrolls, which are now in the possession of the Mormon church, are genuine, but they are common Egyptian funeral scrolls, entirely pagan in nature, having nothing to do with Abraham, and from a period 2000 years later than Abraham. The "Grammar" has been said by Egyptologists to prove that Smith had no notion of the Egyptian language. It is pure fantasy: he made it up. (For details, see the links here.)

But even if we did not have the actual papyrus and the testimony of the Egyptologists, proving that it is a hoax, we could recognize the Book of Abraham as such because of the linguistic anachronisms in the text of Smith's "translation." In considering the material below, remember that Abraham supposedly lived somewhere between 2100 and 1700 B.C., according to most Bible chronologists.

I found the following linguistic anachronisms by my own careful reading of the text of the BoA and by researching the words in standard reference works. After I had completed my research I discovered that Stephen E. Thompson had already covered the same ground in his article "Egyptology and the Book of Abraham" in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 28:1:143, Spring 1995. I was gratified to see that my conclusions were confirmed by Thompson, who is a professional Egyptologist.

"Pharaoh"

The BoA uses the word "Pharaoh" as the name of rulers of Egypt (Abr 1:6, 20, 26) and says that the meaning of the word (1:20) is "king by royal blood." The first ruler named "Pharaoh" is identified as a great-grandson of Noah (Abr 1:25).

The linguistic problem is that the word "pharaoh" originally meant "great house." It did not become a title for the king until the beginning of the New Kingdom (18th Dynasty), which began about 1567 B.C. That usage is unknown in Palestine until after 1000 B.C. According to Funk & Wagnall's New Standard Bible Dictionary, article "Pharaoh": "It is certain that in Abraham's time the kings of Egypt were not as yet called Pharaohs." At no time in Egypt was the word used as the actual name of any king. Of course, Genesis has the same anachronism (12:15), but no one has claimed that Genesis was written by Abraham or a contemporary of Abraham.

"Chaldea"

Abraham, according to the BoA, lived in the "land of the Chaldeans" (1:1) which was governed by Pharaoh (1:8-20). A place of sacrifice there had an Egyptian name, "Potiphar's Hill" (1:20).

There are multiple anachronisms here.

"Chaldeans" do not appear in history until the 12th century B.C., quite a few centuries after Abraham lived. The earliest mention of them in historical records is in the 9th century B.C., in Assyrian records. It was not until 721 B.C. that they established themselves, by seizing the throne of Babylon, ultimately establishing a Chaldean dynasty in Babylonia, which ruled from 625 to 539 B.C. It is only afterthis that the term "Chaldea" or "land of the Chaldees" came to be used for "Babylon".

This anachronism also occurs in Genesis (11:31), but, as noted above, no one has claimed that Genesis was written by Abraham or a contemporary of Abraham.

There is no historical evidence that Egypt controlled any part of Mesopotamia at any time when Abraham might have lived. Thus, it is a gross error to claim that Egyptian sacrifices were taking place in "Chaldea" at a sacrificial place with an Egyptian name.

"Egyptus"

The BoA says that "Egyptus" was the wife of Ham (the son of Noah) and the mother of Pharaoh who established the first government of Egypt. (Abr 1:23). The name "Egyptus" is obviously intended to be the source of the name of the country. But here is the linguistic problem: the name "Egypt" is not Egyptian, but Greek ('Aigyptos'), and thus was not used for the name of the country until the Greeks had contact with it, long after Abraham's time.

The Greek name is a corruption of an Egyptian name for the capital city of Memphis, 'Hat-kaptah'. Perhaps the real name of Ham's wife was Hat-kaptah? No, because Abr 1:23 says that "Egypt" is a "Chaldean" word (see previous section on "Chaldea"), and it means "forbidden".

The Hebrew word for Egypt and the Egyptians is 'Mizraim,' which adds to the confusion, because the Bible says that Mizraim was a son of Ham (Gen 10:6, 13) and the ancestor not of the Egyptians, but of the Philistines.

"Kolob" and "Kokaubeam"

"Kokob" and "Kokaubeam" appear at Abr 3:13, and are interpreted respectively as "star" and "stars". These are genuine Hebrew words. "Shinehah" in the same passage, meaning "the sun" is probably based on the Hebrew word for "year" ("shanah"). "Olea" for the moon is a word invented by Smith. "Kolob" (Abr 3), which is supposed to be the "star" nearest to the throne of God, is perhaps intended to be the Hebrew word 'keleb' ("dog") and may refer to the star Sirius, nicknamed the "Dog Star" (Alpha Canis Majoris), the brightest star in the northern-hemisphere sky.

Do these Hebrew words provide weighty evidence in defense of the Book of Abraham? Hardly. At the time Smith was producing the Book of Abraham he was also intently studying Hebrew with a private tutor.

Here, too, Joseph Smith was perhaps trying to be too clever: Abraham lived at a time long before the Hebrew language had even developed. According to the article "Hamito-Semitic Languages" in The Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macr 8:592, Hebrew did not develop until the 13th century BC. Thus, Abraham could not possibly have spoken Hebrew, since (if he existed at all) he lived about 2000 BC."

http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#BOA

Hi Oua:

How are you relating that to the claim the LDS are admitting the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri?

dberrie2000 · March 17, 2017

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

In my original post I referenced the following:

"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."

1. You can't claim it was a translation based on the fragments/facsimiles we do have, IMO.

Then what is the basis of claiming the LDS Church is admitting the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri?

2. If these are copies of copies of copies of Abraham's writings somehow, you can't claim it was written by the "hand of Abraham."

I have a copy of the US Constitution hanging on my wall. Are you claiming that Constitution was not written by the framers and signers of the Constitution?

No reference to the fragments we do have being dated third century B.C.E., with no reference of Abraham.

But that only lends to the possibility the source for the Book of Abraham text came from something other than the extant papyri.

Again--how does any of this evidence the LDS Church is claiming the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri?

CV75 · March 17, 2017

11 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

So you still refuse to answer the question.

I thought it was a rhetorical question to refute Ritner’s flakiness in his bias in his hypothesis and conclusions, but it was irrelevant to that point. But if asked, I would not presume to know precisely how many. You say at least 13—so what?

HappyJackWagon · March 17, 2017

14 hours ago, JulieM said:

No, it does not. Joseph misidentified Osiris (Egyptian God) as being Abraham. He was also wrong about identities of the other figures in the facsimile.

Thanks for carrying on with this while I was offline!

HappyJackWagon · March 17, 2017

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

The figure can be used to represent either Abraham or Osiris or anyone else who is or was teaching ancient Egyptians with the pharoah's approval. The drawing is flexible in that way. And since Joseph knew Abraham taught some ancient Egyptians with the pharaoh's approval back then, Joseph was correct in putting Abraham in that position.

Would you like to say anything else that is wrong now?

You are illustrating very well how unreasonable it is to discount evidence and scholarship in carrying on discussions like this. There is no convincing you, and that's fine, but you should retract your comments since you are unable to prove they are anything other than your personal, ill-informed opinion.

notHagoth7 · March 17, 2017

22 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are kidding, right?

I imagine he isn't.

Just as most people underestimate the impact of Abraham's great-grandson Joseph on Egypt.

And the likes of Moses.

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7
add Exodus/Joseph link

JulieM · March 17, 2017

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are illustrating very well how unreasonable it is to discount evidence and scholarship in carrying on discussions like this. There is no convincing you, and that's fine, but you should retract your comments since you are unable to prove they are anything other than your personal, ill-informed opinion.

I agree. He won't properly respond to any CFRs asked for and then is insulting and flippant in any response he does provide. Very poor form, IMO.

JulieM · March 17, 2017

27 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

I imagine he isn't.

Just as most people underestimate the impact of Abraham's great-grandson Joseph on Egypt.

And the likes of Moses.

So do you also believe that the standard funerary texts and facsimiles originated with Abraham?

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

2 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

Then what is the basis of claiming the LDS Church is admitting the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri?

I have a copy of the US Constitution hanging on my wall. Are you claiming that Constitution was not written by the framers and signers of the Constitution?

But that only lends to the possibility the source for the Book of Abraham text came from something other than the extant papyri.

Again--how does any of this evidence the LDS Church is claiming the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri?

The Missing Papyrus Theory, IMO, is very weak and has been discussed here:

"The Missing Papyrus theory fails. Some apologists argue that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This argument fails for multiple reasons, including:

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

c. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham (by measuring the length of the scrolls' windings, the length of the scroll has been established - https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf).

d. The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles."

Your comparison to the US Constitution is flawed. We have the original copy of the Constitution, which was signed in 1787. The copies we have today match the original version. Now, the BoA for example, does not match any of the existing papyrus fragments we have today. In fact, the fragments are from thousands of years after Abraham lived and don't even mention his name. I see no strong argument at this point to suggest that there is a set of lost papyri that might account for the flaws in the BoA. Even if they were to find some additional papyrus fragments, do you really think they would match Joseph Smith's translation at this point? Based on what we DO have today, I see no other way but to call the BoA a complete fraud and failed translation (no offense please but that is my opinion).

Edited March 17, 2017 by Ouagadougou

notHagoth7 · March 17, 2017

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So do you also believe that the standard funerary texts and facsimiles originated with Abraham?

Standard funerary texts? Dunno. Haven't read them.

Facsimiles? Yep. (Many religions/myths/traditions are fractals, derivations, and shattered fragments of earlier reality/revelation.)

“And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge.”

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

JulieM · March 17, 2017

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Once again you avoid answering to my call for any evidence from coffin texts or funerary texts to back up the idea that Abraham was a major influence in the Book of Dead spells. You have opinions but are rather (completely) short on evidence.

I'm not forcing anyone to play the game of following events in time linearly. Events do happen in that order. Interpretattions can be wound around an event in whatever order one wishes. But wishful thinking doesn't change the order that actually happened.

Once again, please provide some evidence that Abraham influenced Egyptians views on the afterlife, from his time of 2000 BC up to the Coptic age.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any references from Ahab. Three of us have now asked for them. According to him, it was "personal revelation".

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I thought it was a rhetorical question to refute Ritner’s flakiness in his bias in his hypothesis and conclusions, but it was irrelevant to that point. But if asked, I would not presume to know precisely how many. You say at least 13—so what?

And if we were to get the opinions of the top 100 Egyptologists today, are they all wrong and flakes as well? Imagine that -- the top Egyptology scholars' examination is just "irrelevant" ("so what?") to you and means nothing...

This is called cognitive dissonance...

People can believe in the BoA, but don't tell the world it is a valid translation because most of what JS translated is pure nonsense. Just look at the church's essay:

"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."

JulieM · March 17, 2017

2 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Facsimiles? Yep. (Many religions/myths/traditions are fractals, derivations, and shattered fragments of earlier reality/revelation.)

CFR that the facsimiles originated with Abraham.

notHagoth7 · March 17, 2017

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So do you also believe that the standard funerary texts and facsimiles originated with Abraham?

Do you have reasonable cause to question whether Abram/Abraham (and his sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons) actually walked the earth?

JulieM · March 17, 2017

Just now, notHagoth7 said:

Do you have reasonable cause to question whether Abram/Abraham (and his sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons) actually walked the earth?

Please respond to the CFR above to back up your claim regarding the facsimiles.

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'd be happy if anyone can find the word "Kolob" on any papyrus from anytime between 2000 BC and 300BC. It would be even better if any of those word usages talks about stars or worlds. Otherwise a word without reference doesn't mean very much

Yep. This is yet another anachronism in the BoA. Look at the usage of the word pharaoh, for example:

"The BoA uses the word "Pharaoh" as the name of rulers of Egypt (Abr 1:6, 20, 26) and says that the meaning of the word (1:20) is "king by royal blood." The first ruler named "Pharaoh" is identified as a great-grandson of Noah (Abr 1:25).

The linguistic problem is that the word "pharaoh" originally meant "great house." It did not become a title for the king until the beginning of the New Kingdom (18th Dynasty), which began about 1567 B.C. That usage is unknown in Palestine until after 1000 B.C. According to Funk & Wagnall's New Standard Bible Dictionary, article "Pharaoh": "It is certain that in Abraham's time the kings of Egypt were not as yet called Pharaohs." At no time in Egypt was the word used as the actual name of any king. Of course, Genesis has the same anachronism (12:15), but no one has claimed that Genesis was written by Abraham or a contemporary of Abraham."

If the BoA came from the hand of Abraham, how would Abraham know of such a word (as a title for a king) that didn't originate for thousands of years later?

http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#PHARAOH

notHagoth7 · March 17, 2017

51 minutes ago, JulieM said:

CFR that the facsimiles originated with Abraham.

Um...not what I said. Move goalposts much?

Your original question:

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

So do you...believe that the ...facsimiles originated with Abraham?

My response: Yep.

So if you really wanna CFR for my statement of belief, while I'm amused by such a demand, here it is.

And once again, if that somehow helps any.

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

Ouagadougou · March 17, 2017

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to read my own study, in which I cite some of the early opinions -- which you avoid mentioning here, perhaps because they are positive. However, those early opinions are really outdated now, and we should depend upon modern Egyptology. The late John A. Wilson, a very prominent non-Mormon Egyptologist who studied the BofA, stated that those early opinions which you quote were no more than "indignant snorts." He had no respect for their ungentlemanly behavior, and you should not dignify their partisan nonsense.

Your wild speculation about what a hundred Egyptologists might say is completely out of place here. You should base your arguments on hard evidence.

I will take a look at your own study and read it.

Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

Recommended Posts

“And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring﻿ passed out of all knowledge.”

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content

“And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge.”