|
Tag: Redirect target changed |
| (23 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
| | #REDIRECT[[Assessment of Claimed Anachronisms in the Book of Abraham#"By His Own Hand, Upon Papyrus"]] |
| {{Resource Title|Was the Book of Abraham written by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus"?}}
| |
| {{BofAPortal}}
| |
| <onlyinclude>
| |
| == ==
| |
| {{Criticism label}}
| |
| | |
| The fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri date to after the Abrahamic period.
| |
| *Why does the Book of Abraham state that it was written by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus?"
| |
| | |
| <noinclude>{{CriticalSources}}</noinclude>
| |
| | |
| == ==
| |
| {{ChurchResponseBar
| |
| |link=https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham
| |
| |title=Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham
| |
| |publication=Gospel Topics on LDS.org
| |
| |date=8 July 2014
| |
| |summary=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.<br>....<br>Joseph Smith, or perhaps an assistant at the Nauvoo print shop, introduced the published translation by saying that the records were “written by his [Abraham’s] own hand, upon papyrus.” The phrase can be understood to mean that Abraham is the author and not the literal copyist.
| |
| }}
| |
| | |
| == ==
| |
| {{Conclusion label}}
| |
| | |
| == ==
| |
| {{QA label}}
| |
| {{:Question: Why does the Book of Abraham state that it was written by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus" if the papyri date to after the Abrahamic period?}}
| |
| | |
| | |
| {{:Question: Is the phrase "by his own hand upon papyrus" an Egyptian title?}}
| |
| | |
| ====Option #2: “By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus” as a 19th Century Redaction====
| |
| | |
| If Nibley is incorrect in suggesting that the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” was a part of the original title of the ancient text, then it follows that the phrase is a 19th century redaction by either Joseph Smith, or the two scribes in whose handwriting the documents are written in, viz., W. W. Phelps and Willard Richards, respectively. This is bolstered, as mentioned earlier, by the addition of the phrase “and found in the catacombs of Egypt” that appear in KEPA 1. It is obvious from the historical data that Joseph Smith and the early brethren considered the scroll of Horos to be the source of the Book of Abraham (though not, as is argued by the critics, necessarily the Book of Breathings text). It seems likely that the early brethren, when working with the papyrus, would have assumed a holographic nature of the papyrus. In other words, they would have thought that Abraham himself physically wrote on the papyrus in their possession. As Michael Ash explained, “it seems reasonable to conclude that Joseph may have believed that Abraham himself, with pen in hand, wrote the very words that he was translating... Joseph, by way of revelation, saw that the papyri contained scriptural teachings of Abraham and it would have been natural, therefore, to assume that Abraham wrote the papyri.”<ref> Michael Ash, “Book of Abraham 201: Papyri, Revelation, and Modern Egyptology”, presented at the 2006 FAIR Conference. {{link|url=http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-book-of-abraham-201-papyri-revelation-and-modern-egyptology}}. </ref>
| |
| | |
| The late Luke Wilson, of the decidedly anti-Mormon Institute for Religious Research, came to similar conclusions, albeit for more polemical purposes against the Latter-day Saints. After making his case that Joseph Smith claimed to be translating a holographic Book of Abraham, Wilson concludes that “the weight of evidence from the testimony of Joseph Smith and his contemporaries is clearly” in favor of such.<ref>Luke Wilson, “Did Joseph Smith claim His Abraham Papyrus was an Autograph?”, (Grand Rapids: Institute for Religious Research, 2006), 12. It is not within the scope of this paper to attempt an engagement or refutation of Wilson’s main arguments. Needless to say, Wilson (p. 12) himself admits that “the nature of the evidence presented in this paper is circumstantial and inferential on a number of points.”</ref>
| |
| | |
| If these claims are correct,<ref>This is by no means the consensus view. Several LDS apologists and scholars have likewise tackled this issue, and have come to different conclusions than Ash and Wilson. Ben McGuire, writing for FAIR, has critiqued Wilson on a number of points, including the assertions made by Wilson that Joseph Smith assumed a holographic nature of the text. See Ben McGuire, “Responding to Errors in an Anti-Mormon Film: “The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating a Remarkable Mormon Claim” (Redding: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2002). {{pdflink|url=http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/LBOA.pdf}}.</ref> then it would explain why Joseph Smith and his associates included the phrase “by his own hand upon papyrus” in the caption of the manuscript of the text. They would have thought just that, namely, that Abraham himself penned the text that Joseph Smith was translating. In this case then, the phrase “by his own hand” would therefore be interpreted in the most literal sense possible.
| |
| | |
| Furthermore, if in fact the phrase is a 19th century redaction, then the Book of Abraham itself wouldnʼt be claiming an autographical nature. Such would be an assumption about the Book of Abraham by the 19th century brethren, who inserted the phrase. Based on no evidence within the text itself can the critics decry the Book of Abraham as claiming a holographic nature.
| |
| | |
| ====A Question of Assumptions====
| |
| | |
| But is it troubling that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries may have assumed an autographical nature of the text? This depends on oneʼs
| |
| assumptions. If one is inclined towards a fundamentalist assumption (which is also a presentist assumption) about Prophets, or that Prophets must be 100% right 100% of the time or else they are not Prophets at all, then one could cite this as evidence of Joseph Smithʼs fraud. If one believes that Prophets must always be right lest they compromise their prophetic calling, then this is problematic for Joseph Smith.
| |
| | |
| However, in order to establish that Joseph Smithʼs prophetic abilities are hampered or called into question by this possible assumption of his, one must first cite evidence that Joseph Smithʼs understanding of the nature of the papyrus (namely, whether or not it dated to the time of Abraham) came from revelatory or divine means. Only then can one question Joseph Smith. It would be folly to criticize Joseph the Prophet when merely Joseph the speculator or Joseph the assumer was speaking. If the Prophet Joseph Smith never claimed on a prophetic or revelatory basis to know if the papyri was a holograph of Abraham, then one cannot attack him for a position he never took.
| |
| | |
| If on the other hand the Prophet did base his belief on a holographic nature of the papyri on purely human speculation or thought, then it only necessitates that the Prophet had a mistaken speculation. As Michael Ash has demonstrated at length, Prophets, especially those of the LDS tradition, have never claimed infallibility. If one acknowledges the fact that Joseph Smith never himself claimed infallibility or omniscience, and does not carry such a fundamentalist assumption about the nature of Prophets, then this is all much ado about nothing. Returning to Ash’s article once again:
| |
| | |
| Now this issue is very similar to that of Book of Mormon geography. It is very likely that Joseph Smith believed in a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography--it made sense to his understanding of the world around him. Such a misinformed belief or most likely misinformed belief, according to modern scholarship, makes him no less a prophet. It simply provides us with an example of how Joseph, like any other human, tried to understand new information according to his current knowledge. So, likewise, with the Abrahamic papyri.<ref>Ash, "Book of Abraham 201."</ref>
| |
| | |
| Furthermore, Joseph Smith’s own assumptions or thoughts about whether or not the papyri was holographic in nature is independent of the actual authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Regardless of what Joseph Smith or others may have thought as per the nature of the text (if it be holographic or not) such has no implications for what the text itself actually claims or whether Joseph Smith was able to actually translate such by the gift and power of God.
| |
| | |
| Thus, the whole question revolves more around one’s assumptions about Prophets than the actual Book of Abraham.
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| <videoflash>ouvZoEfLQoI</videoflash>
| |
| | |
| </onlyinclude>
| |
| == ==
| |
| {{Endnotes label}}
| |
| | |
| <references/>
| |
| | |
| {{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
| |
| | |
| [[es:El Libro de Abraham/"fue escrito de su propia mano en papiro"]]
| |
| [[fr:Book of Abraham/By his own hand]]
| |
| [[pt:O Livro de Abraão/Por sua própria mão]]
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Book of Abraham]]
| |
| [[Category:Letter to a CES Director]]
| |
