Dr. Robert Ritner has passed away

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Why did he not translate the writing? 

I'm not sure there is information available sufficient to formulate a meaningful and substantive response to this question.

5 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Why does the figure 22 23 have multiple heads in most examples of hypocephalus? 

Per this article, there are approximately 100 known hypocephali that have been preserved. 

Per this article, the usual depiction of the seated deity, Re-Atum (the multi-headed figure in Figure 22-23) has him with four ram's heads.  However, there is at least one other hypocephalus ("PSBA, 1897, plate II") that has two heads represented (same link).

5 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Why does the scarab not appear in figure 3 ?  

Seems like this is well outside the wheelhouse of the average neophyte.  Do you have any thoughts/evidence/analysis?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tweed1944]

Your examples prove my point. Unless I need glasses all display multiple heads not two heads looking in opposite direction. Also the scarab appears in them all. Do you also notice that in this section of the examples there are two registers instead of one?  Smith would not have been aware of this as from the sketch it seems it was broken away. Also is figure 7  really a dove?  See Tamis Mekis  on page 275 of thi paper.     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fc7q4KNlr01H7J4xr7HnU_yL8ACaQC08kAoEkVt3DDc/edit

If you question Dr Mekis' standing here is a recent comment in an email inquiry

Dear Noel,

Clark Shaver came to view our hypocephali several years ago.  (I believe I may have taken the photo that appears on his amazon page https://www.amazon.com/Clark-D.-Shaver/e/B08X1RQJMB?ref_=dbs_p_pbk_r00_abau_000000 )He seems to be a professor in the field of electronics engineering, not an Egyptologist. I got the sense that his interest in the hypocephali was based on his religious affiliation rather than Egyptological studies.  I have never seen the publication and nothing further turns up in the OEB under his name.  Tamás Mekis, on the other hand, has published widely in Egyptological publications on hypocephali. I believe his work is well regarded.

Cheers,

Jen

 

Jennifer Houser Wegner, PhD

Associate Curator, Egyptian Section

Penn Museum

3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104

T: 215.898.4049 😄 215.459.7074

jhouser@sas.upenn.edu

www.penn.museum | @pennmuseum

[JustAnAustralian]

Deleted

Edited August 5, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Your examples prove my point.

I'm not sure what your point is.

2 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Unless I need glasses all display multiple heads not two heads looking in opposite direction.

Two heads are not "multiple"?

And what do we know about "PSBA, 1897, plate II"?

2 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Also the scarab appears in them all.

"All" of the approximately 100 extant hypocephali?  Any possible sampling problem with that?  Quoth Wikipedia:

Quote

No two hypocephali are the same, and there are just over 100 known samples of them.

If "{n}o two hypocephali are the same," and if at least one other hypocephalus has a two-headed depiction of Atum, then . . . what is your point?  Even Jeremy Runnells (!!!) hedges his bets on this point ("While two ram-heads aren't unheard of...").

Also, what are your thoughts about the Turin hypocephalus (2333)?  Here's a pic (from this website) :

How many ram's heads do you see in there?  

And how many baboons?

Also, how do you account for hypocephali that have no depiction of a seated, four-ram's-heads-on-on-neck figure being adored by babooms?  Such as "British Museum 37907":

Seems like there is quite a bit of variation in these.

Two galleries of hypocephali:

https://thebookofabraham.blogspot.com/2010/07/collection-of-hypocephali.html

http://nowscape.com/mormon/hypocephalus/Hypocephalus_Gallery.htm

I'm way out of my wheelhouse on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 5, 2021 by smac97

[Tweed1944]

 Mekis " The figure of the multi-headed god in the middle clearly represents Amum, with the twob tall plumes and uraei. Originally there were two gods, Originaly there were two gods, one behind the other, the first to look ahead, the other to look back. Seeminly during the turn of the 4th -3rd centuries the two gods were united, and fromm that point onward the deity was depicted as a man with two or occassionally four heads possibly expressing the myterious being of Amun" p. 271 Mekis. 

 

[Tweed1944]

 Figure  3 possibly copid from this?  See bottom right corner.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-87zHvKQxp8XKlhrkl_xaDCsESUbc5VapxQ3Q9Dge0E/edit

[OGHoosier]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

“Written by his own hand” variation argument then?

That's pretty much my position on it. I view "written by his own hand" as a title or subscript and not necessarily indicative of holographic status. As for the facsimile restoration, given my own experiences with revelation and how the human brain works I don't consider it particularly likely that God suspended a perfect hypocephalus in Joseph's mind's eye while he sketched out each figure and dash. He probably gave him something closer to "put a boat with a guy on it there." Of course Joseph's experiences with revelation were rather different than mine, but the models of scriptural interpretation which I find most persuasive are those where God allows some prophetic latitude in expression, and I doubt it would be much different when it comes to scriptures with pictures. 

And that's assuming that we're even looking at a rendition of ancient thought. I still think that we are, not least because the Facsimiles appear irregular  but I accept Kevin Bafney's Semitic Redactor thesis and I gotta admit he has a point when he says that, as long as we're talking redaction of Egyptian images for Judeo-Christian religious ends, then why stop at Ptolemaic Egypt? What makes that more valid than 1830s prophetic America?

11 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Why did he not translate the writing?  Why does the figure 22 23 have multiple heads in most examples of hypocephalus?  Why does the scarab not appear in figure 3 ?  

He didn't translate the writing because presumably he didn't see it as relevant. 

Now, I find your wording for the second question to be intriguing. You yourself say "most", which implies "not all." If you already have counterexamples from ancient Egypt where multiple heads are not used, then why do you make such hay about it? We don't have that many hypocephali samples out there, the vast majority being lost, so the fact that such deviation is expressed in our sample size indicates that it was not unheard of and is in no way a smoking gun. 

Furthermore, details like that only matter if you presume that the null hypothesis is "God suspended a perfect image of the hypocephalus in Joseph's mind for him to etch out in precision detail." That's not the null hypothesis.  

[OGHoosier]

15 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

 Mekis " The figure of the multi-headed god in the middle clearly represents Amum, with the twob tall plumes and uraei. Originally there were two gods, Originaly there were two gods, one behind the other, the first to look ahead, the other to look back. Seeminly during the turn of the 4th -3rd centuries the two gods were united, and fromm that point onward the deity was depicted as a man with two or occassionally four heads possibly expressing the myterious being of Amun" p. 271 Mekis. 

 

Doesn't your own quote imply that four heads is not a universal rule of hypocephali construction?

Edited August 5, 2021 by OGHoosier
Edited out the youthful irreverence

[Tweed1944]

 Sine it was broken away we have no way of knowing for sure. The sketch shows it must have broken away. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f7YMm6IGxfQwsGFW2S9jdkDmF881LzpRMIHERp4Sbbg/edit

FIgure 3 is definately wrong. And then there is the "dove" Figure 7  "who offers the wedjet-eye to the sitting deity before him. .. the god and the offering of the wedjet -eye represents that power which is necessary for the rebirth of the deceased...  Nehabkau is identified wuth the Atum-serpent... On certan hypocephali Nehebkau is represented as a falcon-headed -snake offering the wedjet-eye." p.275  

 

"

[Tweed1944]

On 8/6/2021 at 8:13 AM, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what your point is.

Two heads are not "multiple"?

And what do we know about "PSBA, 1897, plate II"?

"All" of the approximately 100 extant hypocephali?  Any possible sampling problem with that?  Quoth Wikipedia:

If "{n}o two hypocephali are the same," and if at least one other hypocephalus has a two-headed depiction of Atum, then . . . what is your point?  Even Jeremy Runnells (!!!) hedges his bets on this point ("While two ram-heads aren't unheard of...").

Also, what are your thoughts about the Turin hypocephalus (2333)?  Here's a pic (from this website) :

How many ram's heads do you see in there?  

And how many baboons?

Also, how do you account for hypocephali that have no depiction of a seated, four-ram's-heads-on-on-neck figure being adored by babooms?  Such as "British Museum 37907":

Seems like there is quite a bit of variation in these.

Two galleries of hypocephali:

https://thebookofabraham.blogspot.com/2010/07/collection-of-hypocephali.html

http://nowscape.com/mormon/hypocephalus/Hypocephalus_Gallery.htm

I'm way out of my wheelhouse on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems Royal Skousen seems to argue rhat the Facsimiles are extracanoical and maybe dropped. The electronic version has the fas right at the end

https://humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/royal-skousen-J2019.pdf

The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a
translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by
inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two
inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified
as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the
accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other
portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment
on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the
facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered
extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the
original text of the book."

 

[Tweed1944]

See this site also  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Hypocephalus

Whoever updated it seems to agree with my comments or I agree with them

[blueglass]

Ritner published “The Breathing Permit of Hôr” Among The Joseph Smith Papyri, July 2003

• Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62(3):161-180

Have BYU egyptologists ever had anything publish with regards to the joseph smith papryi in the JNES or other peer-reviewed journal? 

Reviewing his CV I found this interesting one, John Gee, “The Structure of Lamp Divination,” Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies, CNI Publications 27 (Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies, 2002), 207-18.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

It seems Royal Skousen seems to argue rhat the Facsimiles are extracanoical and maybe dropped. The electronic version has the fas right at the end

https://humanities.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/royal-skousen-J2019.pdf

The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the original text of the book."

I place quite a bit of stock in Skousen's textual analysis.  Thanks for this.

This paragraph is preceded by an asterisk ("*"), which per the first page denotes "in progress."  The paper is dated January 17, 2019.  I wonder if there have been any developments since then.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: Jeff Lindsay has some thoughts/observations on Skousen's assessment here.

Edited August 31, 2021 by smac97

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

Ritner published “The Breathing Permit of Hôr” Among The Joseph Smith Papyri, July 2003

• Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62(3):161-180

Have BYU egyptologists ever had anything publish with regards to the joseph smith papryi in the JNES or other peer-reviewed journal? 

Reviewing his CV I found this interesting one, John Gee, “The Structure of Lamp Divination,” Acts of the Seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies, CNI Publications 27 (Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies, 2002), 207-18.

As far as I have been able to tell very little, if any BoA apologists research has been through real peer review and  been published in refereed journals.  This includes Skousen's work.  

[blueglass]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

As far as I have been able to tell very little, if any BoA apologists research has been through real peer review and  been published in refereed journals.  This includes Skousen's work.  

This I see as a huge problem - when BYU scholars have a hard time getting other demoticists to buy in to the unique translations and meaning they have for the facsimiles and papyri owned by the church.  If other egyptologists won't take their work seriously, then I think we need future book of abraham work to entirely abandon egyptological connections and to transfer this research to the creative writing department.  In this sense the writing on the papyri could have been written in anything devanagari, cambodian, etc. and the subject of the writing could have been the song of solomon, or instructions on how to assemble a bath house and properly give massage therapy to the king and Joseph Smith's translation would have been the same. 

[Kevin Christensen]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

As far as I have been able to tell very little, if any BoA apologists research has been through real peer review and  been published in refereed journals.  This includes Skousen's work.  

"Have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees believed on him?"  (John 7:48)

There is an important difference between appealing to authority, and, more specifically to authories who just happen to be ideologically committed to unbelief and skepticism, and exploring the evidence at hand, and watching the ongoing conversations over the years.   Choosing referees for Journals means choosing which community's assumptions, rules, methods, and standards of solution are used, in service of which community.   If you were being taken to court, would you want to be tried by a group of people who had no interest in seriously exploring or defending your position, because, "Why bother?  Everyone knows there is nothing to see here."  Would you call that objectivity?  Or would you think, perhaps, it would not be such a bad thing to have someone with not only good credentials, but also inclined to believe you, arguing your case?

Journals exist to serve communities who share the basic assumptions that define that community that publishes them.  

There are now several LDS scholars who have the credentials to make reasonable assessments for the LDS community, and they have been published for those who wish to be informed.  John Gee, for instance is widely published in the journals, and occassionally publishes on the Joseph Smith papyrus and the Book of Abraham.  And every now and then, we have informed amateurs making interesting observations that generations of credentialed scholars have overlooked.  See Tim Barker's "Under the Head" presentation at FAIR  in 2020 for an important example of this. Did Ritner, (or any other critic of Joseph Smith) in his comments on Facsimile 2 and the interpretations thereon, and the significance for claims that Joseph Smith thought that the Hor Book of Breathings was an Abraham autograph and mistakenly or fraudulently translated it, anywhere notice what Tim Barker noticed?  Does that make a difference in whether we approach outside scholars and skeptics as the only trusted and true judges of the validity of our faith?    

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads

And for the record, I have been published in peer reviewed publications many times. One from Oxford University Press.   Getting published in a journal is only the first part of peer review.  The next part continues in discussion of what appears in the journals.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Tweed1944]

If Skousen's view was adopted that would make a lot of work by apologists and criics redundant?  Just when I am waiting for a parcel in the mail to arrive with a book from Egyptologist Tamis Mekis on the hypocephalus. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Tweed1944 said:

If Skousen's view was adopted that would make a lot of work by apologists and criics redundant? 

"Redundant?"  I'm not sure.  "Moot?"  Mostly, yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

On 8/31/2021 at 2:39 PM, blueglass said:

This I see as a huge problem - when BYU scholars have a hard time getting other demoticists to buy in to the unique translations and meaning they have for the facsimiles and papyri owned by the church.  If other egyptologists won't take their work seriously, then I think we need future book of abraham work to entirely abandon egyptological connections and to transfer this research to the creative writing department.  In this sense the writing on the papyri could have been written in anything devanagari, cambodian, etc. and the subject of the writing could have been the song of solomon, or instructions on how to assemble a bath house and properly give massage therapy to the king and Joseph Smith's translation would have been the same. 

I highly doubt a series of articles on the prophetic provenance of the Joseph Smith translations would be of interest to an Egyptological journal. Why is this? Because the information they have to convey would not advance the study of Egyptology. There's nothing new to be gained here. Everything apologists have written on the subject has been sourced from other Egyptological works discussing the several meanings of the symbols involved. There's no new data relevant to Egyptology to be derived from looking at the JSP - it's relevance is purely theological, in which case an Egyptology journal is probably not an appropriate place. 

[sunstoned]

On 8/31/2021 at 3:15 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

"Have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees believed on him?"  (John 7:48)

There is an important difference between appealing to authority, and, more specifically to authories who just happen to be ideologically committed to unbelief and skepticism, and exploring the evidence at hand, and watching the ongoing conversations over the years.   Choosing referees for Journals means choosing which community's assumptions, rules, methods, and standards of solution are used, in service of which community.   If you were being taken to court, would you want to be tried by a group of people who had no interest in seriously exploring or defending your position, because, "Why bother?  Everyone knows there is nothing to see here."  Would you call that objectivity?  Or would you think, perhaps, it would not be such a bad thing to have someone with not only good credentials, but also inclined to believe you, arguing your case?

Journals exist to serve communities who share the basic assumptions that define that community that publishes them.  

There are now several LDS scholars who have the credentials to make reasonable assessments for the LDS community, and they have been published for those who wish to be informed.  John Gee, for instance is widely published in the journals, and occassionally publishes on the Joseph Smith papyrus and the Book of Abraham.  And every now and then, we have informed amateurs making interesting observations that generations of credentialed scholars have overlooked.  See Tim Barker's "Under the Head" presentation at FAIR  in 2020 for an important example of this. Did Ritner, (or any other critic of Joseph Smith) in his comments on Facsimile 2 and the interpretations thereon, and the significance for claims that Joseph Smith thought that the Hor Book of Breathings was an Abraham autograph and mistakenly or fraudulently translated it, anywhere notice what Tim Barker noticed?  Does that make a difference in whether we approach outside scholars and skeptics as the only trusted and true judges of the validity of our faith?    

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads

And for the record, I have been published in peer reviewed publications many times. One from Oxford University Press.   Getting published in a journal is only the first part of peer review.  The next part continues in discussion of what appears in the journals.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I appreciate your opinion, but being a Mormon and publishing in a peer reviewed journal is one thing.  Publishing  BoA apologists research in a peer reviewed journal is quite another thing.  I was speaking to the former.  But I think you knew that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 9/1/2021 at 7:15 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Choosing referees for Journals means choosing which community's assumptions, rules, methods, and standards of solution are used, in service of which community.

Indeed.

My favourite experience from nearly five years as an editor at a AAA-rated academic journal: We received a brilliantly ground-breaking piece of scholarship and sent it out for peer review to our usuals in this area of study. Unanimously they derided it and insisted that it should never see the light of day. Concerned that they were merely defending their own positions (which this piece did challenge), we took the matter to the journal's editorial board for discussion. After much toing-and-froing, the board authorised a different list of referees -- all solid scholars, mostly younger, none of them having previously published in this exact area.

Result: unanimous approval and publication. It became one of our most highly cited pieces as well.

You will never hear me advocate for removing the peer review process, but I think we need to understand what it is.

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Indeed.

My favourite experience from nearly five years as an editor at a AAA-rated academic journal: We received a brilliantly ground-breaking piece of scholarship and sent it out for peer review to our usuals in this area of study. Unanimously they derided it and insisted that it should never see the light of day. Concerned that they were merely defending their own positions (which this piece did challenge), we took the matter to the journal's editorial board for discussion. After much toing-and-froing, the board authorised a different list of referees -- all solid scholars, mostly younger, none of them having previously published in this exact area.

Result: unanimous approval and publication. It became one of our most highly cited pieces as well.

You will never hear me advocate for removing the peer review process, but I think we need to understand what it is.

Thanks for giving me yet another reason to mistrust journals.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Thanks for giving me yet another reason to mistrust journals.

Seriously, that wasn't my point. We desperately need them and the research they give us access to! But we shouldn't pretend that the process is anything other than what it is.

The idea that one should find 'Book of Abraham apologist research' in a journal not devoted to (or at least genuinely interested in) Book of Abraham apologist research is ludicrous.

Edited September 3, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

On 8/31/2021 at 2:39 PM, blueglass said:

This I see as a huge problem - when BYU scholars have a hard time getting other demoticists to buy in to the unique translations and meaning they have for the facsimiles and papyri owned by the church.  If other egyptologists won't take their work seriously, then I think we need future book of abraham work to entirely abandon egyptological connections and to transfer this research to the creative writing department.  In this sense the writing on the papyri could have been written in anything devanagari, cambodian, etc. and the subject of the writing could have been the song of solomon, or instructions on how to assemble a bath house and properly give massage therapy to the king and Joseph Smith's translation would have been the same. 

I am coming into this conversation late, but I thought the Gospel Topic Essay on the BoA pretty much sums it up to being more a translation that comes from God not the papyri. 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I am coming into this conversation late, but I thought the Gospel Topic Essay on the BoA pretty much sums it up to being more a translation that comes from God not the papyri. 

"From God not the papyri?"  I'm not sure the essay says that.

Here's a link: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

Some excerpts:

Quote

The book of Abraham was first published in 1842 and was canonized as part of the Pearl of Great Price in 1880. The book originated with Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith translated beginning in 1835.  Many people saw the papyri, but no eyewitness account of the translation survives, making it impossible to reconstruct the process.

And:

Quote

We do know some things about the translation process. The word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages. Joseph Smith claimed no expertise in any language. He readily acknowledged that he was one of the “weak things of the world,” called to speak words sent “from heaven.” Speaking of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Lord said, “You cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.” The same principle can be applied to the book of Abraham. The Lord did not require Joseph Smith to have knowledge of Egyptian. By the gift and power of God, Joseph received knowledge about the life and teachings of Abraham.

And:

Quote

By the time the collection arrived in Kirtland, all but four mummies and several papyrus scrolls had already been sold. A group of Latter-day Saints in Kirtland purchased the remaining artifacts for the Church. After Joseph Smith examined the papyri and commenced “the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics,” his history recounts, “much to our joy [we] found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham.”

And:

Quote

Joseph Smith worked on the translation of the book of Abraham during the summer and fall of 1835, by which time he completed at least the first chapter and part of the second chapter. His journal next speaks of translating the papyri in the spring of 1842, after the Saints had relocated to Nauvoo, Illinois.

And:

Quote

The book of Abraham was the last of Joseph Smith’s translation efforts. In these inspired translations, Joseph Smith did not claim to know the ancient languages of the records he was translating.

And:

Quote

Joseph’s translations took a variety of forms. Some of his translations, like that of the Book of Mormon, utilized ancient documents in his possession. Other times, his translations were not based on any known physical records. Joseph’s translation of portions of the Bible, for example, included restoration of original text, harmonization of contradictions within the Bible itself, and inspired commentary.
...
The relationship of these documents to the book of Abraham is not fully understood. Neither the rules nor the translations in the grammar book correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today. Whatever the role of the grammar book, it appears that Joseph Smith began translating portions of the book of Abraham almost immediately after the purchase of the papyri.

And:

Quote

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. 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.

And:

Quote

Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record[s] and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”

And:

Quote

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

The Church addresses the historical references to the connection between the papyri and the translation, but also allows for the possiblity of that connection being a "catalyst"-style thing.

Thanks,

-Smac