FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Joseph Smith Papyri
This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.
In July 1835, Joseph Smith purchased a collection of papyri and mummies that had been discovered in Egypt and brought to the United States. Joseph Smith stated that one of the rolls contained, "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, purportedly written by his own hand, upon papyrus" (see History of the Church 2:235, 236, 348–351), and he commenced a translation of the papyri.
The translated text and facsimiles of three drawings were published in the early 1840s in serial fashion in the LDS newspaper Times and Seasons. The entire work was published in 1852 in England as part of The Pearl of Great Price, which was later canonized as part of LDS scripture.
The original papyri were thought to have been completely destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. However, fragments of them, including Facsimile number 1, were discovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, and given to the Church of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Criticism
Critics of the Book of Abraham attack it from several directions. This article will address these major criticisms:
- The Egyptian papyri Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham have been found and translated, and they don't match the text of the Book of Abraham. They are instead a collection of Egyptian funerary documents known as the Book of Breathings.
- The Joseph Smith papyri date to about the 2nd century, B.C. Latter-day Saints, however (including, perhaps, Joseph Smith), have claimed that the papyri were written by Abraham who lived about 2,000 years earlier.
- Joseph drew in missing parts of Facsimile 1. Egyptologists do not recognize the parts he "restored". According to non-LDS Egyptologists, other Egyptian lion-couch vignettes do not depict a bald priest holding a knife. In typical Egyptian lion-couch scenes, the figure on the couch is Osiris, rather than Abraham (as claimed by Joseph Smith), and Osiris does not have two hands raised in prayer. According to the critics, the fingers of Abraham's second upraised hand (as depicted by Joseph) is actually the wing-tip of a second hawk (which is typical in Egyptian lion-couch scenes).
- The "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" seems to indicate that Joseph "translated" the characters that followed Facsimile 1 on the Book of Breathings into what we have in the Book of Abraham. As noted above, the Egyptological translations do not match Joseph's translation.
Source(s) of the criticism
- Edward H. Ashment, The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham: A Critical Review, Salt Lake City: Resource Communications, 1993.
- Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992.
- Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Solving the Mystery of the Joseph Smith Papyri," Salt Lake City Messenger 82 (September 1992): 1–12.
Responses
The Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyri
The Church owns various extant (surviving) portions of the original Joseph Smith Papyri (or JSP) from whence, supposedly, Joseph “translated” the Book of Abraham. In Joseph’s day ancient Egyptian could not be read. Today, however, Egyptologists have a relatively good grasp of ancient Egyptian texts, hieroglyphics and lore. Modern critics are quick to note that the extant portions of the JSP are from the common Egyptian funerary texts and seemingly have nothing to do with Abraham. Not only don’t they have anything to do with Abraham, but Joseph’s interpretations of the papyri facsimiles (graphical drawings on the papyri, which can be found in the LDS Book of Abraham), are at odds with modern Egyptologists’ interpretation of the facsimiles.
There is some truth to these claims. It should be noted, however, that in several instances, Joseph did get some of the details correct. This is no small thing considering that neither Joseph, nor any one in his day, could translate Egyptian. For the purposes of this paper, one example will have to suffice.
The Sons of Horus
Facsimile 2 (shown between Chapters 3 and 4 of the Book of Abraham in the LDS Pearl of Great Price), is known as a hypocephalus (“under the head”) and was a small disk-shaped object that was placed under the head of the deceased. The Egyptians “believed it would magically cause the head and body to be enveloped in flames or radiance, thus making the deceased divine.” (Michael D. Rhodes, “The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus… Twenty Years Later,” at http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/JosephSmithHypocephalus.pdf) In this drawing (or vignette), stand four mummy-like figures known — to Egyptologists — as the Sons of Horus. Their images were also on the canopic jars (the jars that stored the internal organs of the deceased) that we see under the lion couch in Joseph Smith’s Facsimile 1. Joseph revealed that these four figures represented “this earth in its four quarters.” According to modern Egyptologists, Joseph Smith is correct. The Sons of Horus “were the gods of the four quarters of the earth and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points.” (Ibid.)
Abrahamic Traditions
Years ago, Dr. Nibley pointed out that the critics generally focus on the Egyptian facsimiles in the Book of Abraham and the papyri but neglect the much richer Abrahamic traditions found in the ancient Near East. (Hugh W. Nibley, “The Unknown Abraham,” The Improvement Era [January 1969], 26) This is really where Joseph shines. Recent research into ancient Abrahamic lore and Jewish traditions preserved in ancient texts, show some surprising parallels to what we find in the text of the Book of Abraham. Some of these parallels are very convincing and imply that Joseph (who likely could not have had access to many of these traditions) actually restored authentic ancient Abrahamic traditions. Some of these parallels include early Jewish traditions about Abraham’s life — details not found in the Bible. (See Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham, eds., John A. Tvedtnes, Brian M. Hauglid, and John Gee [Provo: FARMS, 2001].) Two such ancient documents that show some surprising parallels to our Book of Abraham are the Apocalypse of Abraham (For some of the parallels see Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 8–40; John Gee, William J. Hamblin, and Daniel C. Peterson, “‘And I Saw the Stars’: The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy,” Astronomy Papyrus, and Covenant [Provo: FARMS, 2005], 1–16) and the Testament of Abraham (See Jeff Lindsay, “Could there have been a real Egyptian scroll that actually, literally discussed Abraham?” at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml (accessed 23 September 2005); Michael D. Rhodes, “The Book of Abraham: Divinely Inspired Scriptures,” FARMS Review [1992], 4:1, 120–6; Hugh Nibley, “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham,” Sunstone [December 1979], 49–51; Kerry Shirts, “The Book of the Dead and the Book of Abraham,” at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/egyptian.htm; Hugh W. Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, eds., Gary P. Gillum and Michael P. Lyon [SLC and Provo: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1999]) (the Apocalypse of Abraham dates to about the same time as the Book of Abraham papyri).
Other interesting parallels include ancient names and astronomy. Ancient Egyptian names, for example, that would have been unknown to Joseph Smith, are accurately represented in the Book of Abraham both phonetically as well as in meaning. (See See John A. Tvedtnes, “Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” FAIR; Kerry Shirts, “On the Names of the Four Canopic Jars in Facsimile 1,” at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/onthe.htm) With regards to astronomy, we find that in Joseph Smith’s day “heliocentricity” (as proposed by Copernicus and Newton) was the accepted astronomical view. Nineteenth-century people (including the most brilliant minds of the day) believed that everything evolved around the Sun — therefore the term heliocentric (Greek sun and center). (In the twentieth-first century we generally accept an Einsteinian view of the cosmos.) The Book of Abraham, however, clearly delineates a geocentric view of the universe — or a belief that the Earth (geo) stood at the center, and all things moved according to our planet.
According to ancient geocentric cosmologies and what we read in the Book of Abraham, the heavens (which is defined as the expanse above the earth — no celestial object is mentioned to exist below the earth) was composed of multiple layers or tiers — each tier higher than the previous. Therefore the Sun is in a higher tier than the moon, and the stars are in higher tiers still (see Abraham 3:5, 9, 17; John Gee, William J. Hamblin and Daniel C. Peterson, “‘And I Saw the Stars’: The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy,” Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, eds., John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid [Provo: FARMS, 2005], 5). According to geocentric astronomy, celestial objects have longer time spans (or lengths of “reckoning”) in their relative distance from the earth. “Thus, the length of reckoning of a planet is based on its revolution (and not rotation).” (Ibid., 8.) The higher the celestial object, the greater its length of reckoning (compare to Abraham 3:5). Likewise, in Abraham 3:8–9, we read that “there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still; And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob.”
Ancient geocentric astronomers believed that the stars were “the outer-most celestial sphere, furthest from the earth and nearest to God.” (Ibid., 9.) We find in the Book of Abraham that the star Kolob was the star nearest “the throne of God” (Abraham 3:9). In the ancient, yet recently discovered, Apocalypse of Abraham (which dates from about the same time period as the JSP), we find that God’s throne is said to reside in the eighth firmament (the firmaments, being another term for the varying tiers in the heavens above the Earth). (Ibid.)
The Book of Abraham also reveals that those celestial objects that are highest above the earth, “govern” the objects below them (see Abraham 3:3, 9 and Facsimile 2, fig. 5). This sounds familiar to the beliefs of those who accepted an ancient geocentric cosmology.
Throughout the ancient world the governing role of celestial bodies was conceived in similar terms. God sits on his throne in the highest heaven giving commands, which are passed down by angels through the various regions of heaven, with each region governing or commanding the regions beneath it. (Ibid., 10.)
We find this governing order described in the Apocalypse of Abraham and other ancient sources. All of this makes sense only from an ancient geocentric perspective (such as that believed in Abraham’s day) and makes no sense from a heliocentric perspective (which is what Joseph would have known in his day).
A different and interesting parallel comes from Facsimile 1 (Abraham on the lion couch). According to Egyptologists, this is a typical Egyptian embalming scene and has nothing to do with Abraham or sacrifice. In fact, the critics assure us, Abraham is not a topic of discussion in Egyptian papyri, and there is no connection with Abraham and the embalming lion couch.
Recent discoveries, however, suggests that the Biblical Abraham does appear in some Egyptian papyri that date to the same period as the JSP. In one instance (thus far discovered) Abraham’s name appears to have a connection to an Egyptian lion couch scene. (John Gee, “Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign [July 1992], 60–?; John Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob,” FARMS Review [1995], 7:1, 19–84.)
The stories and worldviews we find in the translated text of our Book of Abraham coincide nicely with what we find from ancient Abrahamic lore.
A Jewish Redactor
Ancient traditions about Abraham provide circumstantial support for the ancient authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Joseph’s “translations” of the Egyptian facsimiles, however, do not (as yet) have the same support from modern Egyptology — despite a number of interesting parallels. There appears to be a noticeable disconnect between what Joseph claimed that the characters in the facsimiles represent, verses what Egyptologists tell us the characters represent. The critics, of course, see this as evidence of Joseph’s fraudulent claims of revelation. There is, however, a likely scenario that explains this disconnect.
It should first be explained that we do not have all the papyri that Joseph Smith had when he translated the Book of Abraham. Some of the papyri were burned in the Chicago fire and it’s possible that other fragments were lost or destroyed elsewhere. Yale-trained Egyptologist, Dr. John Gee, believes that Joseph Smith originally had five papyrus scrolls (one of which was the hypocephalus). (See John Gee, A Guide, 12–13.) Of these five scrolls, only eleven fragments of two scrolls have survived. The “Scroll of Hor” (the Egyptian Book of Breathings) from where we get Facsimile 1 (and most certainly Facsimile 3 — which didn’t survive) is incomplete.
Dr Nibley writes:
We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House. (Hugh W. Nibley, “Phase One,” Dialogue [Summer 1968], 3:2, 101.)
Nothing like this has survived today. Dr. Gee estimates that the Scroll of Hor (likely the putative [supposed] source for the Book of Abraham) may have been ten feet long (See John Gee, A Guide, 12–13) and that in all, Joseph may have had eight times as much papyri as what is currently extant. (John Gee, “Facsimile 3,” lecture given at the FARMS “Book of Abraham Conference” [16 October 1999], personal notes [Michael Ash] of conference talks; see also, John Gee, “The Ancient Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” [Provo: FARMS, 1999], 1.) A number of scholars contend that the reason that the extant papyrus fragments don’t have anything to do with the Book of Abraham is because we don’t have that portion of the papyrus that served as the text from whence Joseph translated the Book of Abraham.
In rebuttal, the critics claim that, since the Scroll of Hor is a typical Book of Breathings scroll, we would know that the entire scroll would not be much longer than the extant portions of the papyrus fragments. Ergo, what we have is virtually all there was of this particular papyrus. And, they contend, we know that this particular scroll is the source for the Book of Abraham, because in Joseph’s translation, Abraham make the following statement:
…that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation [Facsimile 1] at the commencement of this record (Abraham 1:12).
The Egyptians, like the Hebrews, wrote from right to left. And while Joseph didn’t know Egyptian, he was (at this point in his life) studying Hebrew and he may have assumed that the Egyptians wrote in the same direction. At the right end of the scroll (the beginning of the scroll), we find Facsimile 1. It seems logical, therefore, to surmise that Abraham (or the 3rd century B.C. copyist) was claiming that that Facsimile 1 was at the beginning of “this record.” The attempt at backward translation (as evidenced in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers) — which will be discussed shortly — also suggests that Joseph believed that this particular scroll contained the manuscript of Abraham. The critics are probably correct that the Book of Breathings was a fairly typical Egyptian funerary text, and that it is doubtful that it would have included the Book of Abraham.
And while it’s true that the extant portions of the JSP are from the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings and do not, according to Egyptologists, translate to anything like the LDS Book of Abraham, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the translation didn’t derive from Joseph’s papyri. There are other scenarios that are compatible with Joseph’s claims. We know from other sources, for instance, that sometimes scrolls were attached together. To quote Gee:
Some people assume that if the documents [JSP] are funerary they cannot contain anything else. Some Book of the Dead papyri, however, do contain other texts. For example, a fragmentary Eighteenth-Dynasty Book of the Dead in Cairo… contains account texts on the front side (recto) [with the Book of the Dead on the back side]. Papyrus Vandier also has a Book of the Dead on the verso (back side), but the recto contains the story of Meryre, who was sacrificed on an altar (an intriguing similarity to the Book of Abraham). The Book of the Dead of Psenmines… and Pawerem… both contain temple rituals. Both Papyrus Harkness and BM 10507 (demotic funerary papyri) contain several different texts. Just because the preserved sections of the Joseph Smith Papyri are funerary in nature does not mean that they could not have had other texts, either on the verso or on missing sections of the rolls. (John Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” The Disciple As Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds., Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges ([Provo: FARMS, 2000], 192.)
It is therefore possible that the Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings. But why? Why would an important Semitic document be attached to a pagan (Egyptian) funerary text?
Kevin Barney posits that the Book of Abraham material was passed on through the generations from Abraham to Jews of the 2nd century B.C. — or the Ptolemaic period — just as Old Testament scriptures were passed on to later generations. Sometime in the Ptolemaic period, a hypothetical Jewish redactor (editor), whom Barney labels “J-red” attached the Book of Abraham to the Egyptian papyri. Why? Because of the useful symbolism contained on the Egyptian funerary text.
This claim is supported by at least three known ancient Jewish texts. Barney notes that many Biblical scholars believe that an ancient Egyptian book — the Instructions of Amenemope — may have been the source for the biblical book of Proverbs. (Kevin L. Barney, “The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,” Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, eds., John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid [Provo: FARMS, 2005], 115–116.)
The Testament of Abraham (mentioned previously) has several similarities to the LDS Book of Abraham. The book also has strong similarities to an Egyptian papyrus related to the Book of the Dead. For example, notes Barney, it is widely recognized that a judgment scene described in the Testament of Abraham was “influenced by an Egyptian psychostasy (“soul weighing”) papyrus…. It may even be that the author [of the Testament of Abraham] was gazing on such a psychostasy papyrus when he penned his account”
But while there is a clear relationship between the Egyptian psychostasy scene and the judgment scene of the Testament of Abraham, the scene has been transformed to accord with Semitic needs and sensibilities. Osiris [Egyptian god] has become Abel; the Egyptian gods have become angels. Our author looks at the Egyptian illustration, yet sees a situation peopled with Semitic characters. (Ibid., 117–118.)
Note the Osiris-Abel connection as we will return to this below.
The third example comes from the book of Luke’s story of the rich man and Lazarus. In this tale, the beggar Lazarus ate the crumbs that fell from a rich man’s table. When Lazarus died, angels carried him to Abraham’s bosom. When the rich man died, he awoke in Hell but could see — far away — Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. The rich man begged Abraham to send the dead Lazarus to his brothers so that they would repent and not befall the same terrible fate (see Luke 16:19–31).
Scholars have shown that this story is based on a popular Jewish tale, written in Hebrew, but ultimately based on an Egyptian story. In the original Egyptian legend, the names are different (as are some of the general details of the story) but the basic account and moral is the same. In the Egyptian version, however (the version upon which the Hebrew tradition depends), Osiris plays the part later adapted (by Jews) to Abraham. (See Barney, 119–121; Blake T. Ostler, “Abraham: An Egyptian Connection” [FARMS paper, 1981]; and Kerry Shirts, “Abraham, Father of the Faithful, or Osiris, Pagan Egyptian God?” at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/abraham.htm.) It seems that the early Jews had no problem adapting the pagan god Osiris to important Judaic figures such as Abel or Abraham.
Not only do we see, in the Book of Luke, a Jewish adaptation of an Egyptian judgment scene, but we also find some interesting parallels to Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham. In this vignette, Joseph identified the figure lying on the lion couch as Abraham. Egyptologists, however, identify the figure as Osiris. (See Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri [Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992], 102.) Based on an early Judaic adaptation of Facsimile 1, Joseph got it exactly right.
Instead of focusing on how Egyptians of the 2nd century B.C. or 2000 B.C. understood the motifs, Barney convincingly argues that Abraham did not draw the facsimiles (which date nearly two thousand years after Abraham lived) but that these Egyptian vignettes “were either adopted [copied wholesale as the Egyptians drew them] or adapted [altered to more accurately reflect the Semitic perspective] by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the attempt on Abraham’s life and Abraham’s teaching astronomy to the Egyptians.” (Barney, 114.) Barney argues that we should focus our attention on understanding how Jews of the 2nd century B.C. understood the Egyptian graphics.
In Facsimile 1 (the lion couch scene), for instance, under the floor there is a crocodile. Under the crocodile are numerous vertical lines. Joseph interpreted these lines as representing the “pillars of heaven.” Egyptologists, however, tell us that this is incorrect. These lines really signify the palace façade. The etched lines around the crocodile signify, according to Joseph, “Raukeeyang” or “the expanse or firmament over our heads,” or the high “heavens.” Egyptologists, however, tell us that the lines are simply waters in which the crocodile swims. So according to an Egyptian interpretation, Joseph got it all wrong.
What if we compare Joseph’s interpretation to how 2nd century B.C. Jews might have understood the scene? Firstly, Joseph’s “Raukeeyang” is very similar to the Hebrew word for “expanse.” (Barney, 123; see also John A. Tvedtnes, “Authentic Ancient Names and Words in the Book of Abraham and Related Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” FAIR Conference presentation [August 2005].) “In Hebrew cosmology,” writes Barney, the Hebrew “‘firmament’ was believed to be a solid dome, supported by pillars.” Recall the vertical lines in the vignette. This, “in turn was closely associated with the celestial ocean, which it supported.” And remember that in Facsimile 1 it appears that the pillars are under the water in which the crocodile swims.
In the lower half of Facsimile 1, we have [the firmament] …(1) connected with the waters, as with the celestial ocean, (2) appearing to be supported by pillars, and (3) being solid and therefore capable of serving itself as a support, in this case for the lion couch. The bottom half of Facsimile 1 would have looked to J-red very much like a microcosm of the universe (in much the same way that the divine throne chariot of Ezekiel 1–2, which associates the four four-faced fiery living creatures with the [firmament].. above their heads on which God sits enthroned, is a microcosm of the universe). (Barney, 123.)
If we accept a Jewish redactor adapting Egyptian motifs to a Hebrew understanding, we can easily appreciate the possibility that “J-red” attached the Book of Abraham manuscript to the Book of Breathings in order to graphically convey the doctrines portrayed in the manuscript. Barney gives this useful comparison to the Book of Mormon:
The gold plates were untouched by human hands from the time Moroni deposited them in a stone box in the fifth century A.D. until Joseph’s retrieval of the cache in 1827. Prior to that time, however, the records of the Book of Mormon peoples underwent an express redaction process at the hands of Mormon and Moroni. Similarly, the papyrus source for the Book of Abraham sat untouched from the time it was deposited in the tomb during Greco-Roman age until Lebolo retrieved it [about 1820]. Before that time, though, it circulated among people and was subject to normal transmission processes. My hypothetical redactor, J-red, was in essentially the same position with respect to the Book of Abraham as Mormon was with respect to the Book of Mormon. (Barney, 126.)
The date of the Book of Abraham vs. the date of the papyrus
When Joseph Smith attained the papyrus in 1835, he reportedly said that “one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham…” (History of the Church 2:236). According to Joseph’s scribes, this scroll was “written” by Abraham’s “own hand upon papyrus.” (See Michael H. Marquardt, “A Book Note — Hugh Nibley’s Abraham in Egypt” [2000].) It seems reasonable to conclude that Joseph believed that Abraham himself, with pen in hand, wrote the very words that he was translating. The problem is that most modern scholars (including LDS scholars) date the papyri to a few centuries before Christ, whereas Abraham lived about two millennium before Christ. Obviously, Abraham himself could not have penned the papyri.
This issue is very similar to that of Book of Mormon geography. As noted in Chapter 3 (Part I) 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 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 — Joseph, by way of revelation, saw that the papyri contained scriptural teachings of Abraham. It would be natural, therefore, to assume that Abraham wrote the papyri. But, some will ask, how could the teachings of Abraham be present on a document written two thousand years after Abraham lived? As Gee notes, we find the same thing with Biblical manuscripts. There is a major difference, he explains, “between the date of a text [the information contained on the papyri] and the date of a manuscript [the papyri itself].” (John Gee, “A History of the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham,” [Provo: FARMS, 1999], 15.)
The date of a text is the date when the text was written by its author. A text can be copied into various manuscripts or translated into other languages, and these manuscripts or translations will have different, later dates than the date of the original text. When we refer to the date of a text, we refer to the date of the original text. For example, the text of the Gospel of Matthew was written in the first century A.D., but the earliest manuscript that we have of Matthew was copied in the third century. (John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri [Provo: FARMS, 2000], 23–24.)
If, for example, I held out my Bible and pointing to 1 Corinthians asked, “Who penned this book?” most people would respond with, “Paul.” My scriptures, however, were printed within the last few decades and the English wording is based on what King James Scholars decided that the ancient biblical manuscripts said. Paul, himself, did not pen my copy of the scriptural book even if he did author the original text. How can we fault Joseph for basically stating the same thing?
Some LDS scholars propose that the original Book of Abraham “text” was written by Abraham and then “passed down through his descendants (the Jews), some of whom took a copy to Egypt where it was copied (after being translated) onto a later manuscript.” (Gee, A Guide, 28.) Such a proposal makes a lot of sense since we recognize that is the typical provenance of most Biblical documents.
Restoring gaps in the drawings
Examination of the extant papyri fragments reveals that portions of Facsimile 1 (the only facsimile that survived) are damaged. For a number of years, scholars have debated whether the facsimile was damaged before or after Joseph acquired the papyri. It seems that the Book of Breathings scroll (containing Facsimile 1) was marred by a lacuna — a missing portion — that had torn off the scroll. The debate over the date of the lacuna directly relates to the images on Facsimile 1. This vignette — as shown in the LDS Book of Abraham — shows a figure (interpreted as Abraham) lying on a lion couch with arms raised as if attitude of pleading or prayer. The figure standing over Abraham is a bald man (presumably an Egyptian priest) with a knife in one hand — as if he was about to kill Abraham. Flying just above Abraham is a hawk (or falcon) with outstretched wings. The scroll’s lacuna extends over an area which includes the Egyptian priest’s head, the knife, and one of Abraham’s supplicating arms.
Since Facsimile 1 appears to be a fairly typical scene from Egyptian funerary texts, the critics note that other similar Egyptian motifs depict the priest (an embalmer) with the head of Anubis (and Egyptian god) rather than a bald, human head. Other comparable Egyptian embalming scenes do not show the priest holding a knife, they do not show any man pleading or praying, and they generally show two hawks. The critics claim that Joseph Smith drew in the missing parts by adding (incorrectly) those things which we find in the LDS version of this Egyptian scene. What Joseph saw as fingers of Abraham’s outstretched hands, for instance, were actually (according to the critics) the wing-tips of the missing second hawk.
Most LDS scholars believe that the scroll was damaged after Joseph translated the vignette and some evidence seems to support this view. One early Latter-day Saint who saw the papyri in 1841, for instance, described them as containing the scene of an altar with “‘a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it.’” (William I. Appleby Journal, 5 May 1841, ms. 1401 1, pp. 71–72, LDS Church Archives; as quoted in Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence,” 184) Similarly, Reverend Henry Caswall, who visited Nauvoo in April 1842, had a chance to see some of the Egyptian papyri. Caswall, who was hostile to the Saints, described Facsimile 1 as having a “‘man standing by him with a drawn knife.’” (Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842 (London: Rivington, 1842), 23; quoted in Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence,” 186.)
The critics, however, claim that evidence supports a belief that the scroll was already damaged prior to Joseph’s involvement and that Joseph merely sketched in the parts missing in the lacuna. It’s seems apparent, for example, that the lacuna descends several layers into the rolled scroll (the larger tear is at the first — or top — part, and the same outlined tear — only smaller — appears in the lower layers). This suggests that the scroll’s lacuna appeared when the scroll was rolled and therefore prior to Joseph’s acquisition. For the sake of argument, we’ll accept the theory proposed by the critic — that the lacuna was present prior to Joseph making a translation and that Joseph (or some other early leader) “restored” the missing information.
Some considerations: there is at least some evidence that the LDS version has precedence in ancient Egyptian drawings. Some LDS researchers, for instance, have argued that the fingers/wing-tips look significantly more like fingers (according to Egyptian drawings) than hawk wing-tips. A number of scholars have noted that the Egyptians were very specific in how they drew wings and thumbs. (See Kerry A. Shirts, “On Wings & Thumbs & Other Things,” at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/charles.htm; John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, 38.)
It’s also interesting to note that although embalming priests are typically drawn with Anubis heads in Book of Breathing motifs, other Egyptian graphics show that Egyptian priests are represented as bald and that Anubis heads were worn as masks to emulate the gods. (See Kerry A. Shirts, “On Anubis, Masks, and Uniqueness of Facsimile #1 in the Book of Abraham,” at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/rename.htm.) When compared to other Egyptian drawings, some of the Book of Abraham restorations are plausible.
Another consideration: we don’t know that Joseph was the responsible party for sketching in the missing portions of Facsimile 1. It is possible that one of Joseph’s contemporaries “restored” the missing parts, or it is possible that “J-red” or some other Jewish copyist “restored” the parts in order to more closely approximate the details conveyed by the Abrahamic text. It is certainly also possible that Joseph “restored” the missing parts either because they were in the original papyri — as edited by “J-red” — or because Joseph felt that such restorations more accurately reflected the Book of Abraham’s intended use of the graphic as pertaining to the details discussed in the text.
Joseph’s amendments to later editions of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants, and even the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, are all instructive when we compare the graphical alterations in Facsimile 1. In each case, Joseph Smith — by way of revelation, inspiration, or analysis — “restored” or amended scripture to more closely approximate the additional insights he had gleaned by divine revelation.
The Kirtland Egyptian Papers
Among the early manuscripts that have survived from the days of Joseph Smith, we have a number of papers that relate to the Book of Abraham. These pages were written while the Saints lived in Kirtland, Ohio, and were recorded in the general time frame that Joseph was translating the Book of Abraham. They are in the same handwriting of several of Joseph’s scribes. Each paper is divided by a vertical line about one fourth of the paper is to the left of the line. About three fourths of the paper is the right of each line. To the left of the line are Egyptian characters. These are the same characters that follow Facsimile 1 of the Book of Breathings (keeping in mind that Facsimile 1 was virtually the first thing that appears on the right side of this scroll and that Egyptian was read right to left). To the right of the vertical line (on the Kirtland papers) appear to be a “translations” of the Egyptian character on the left.
Initial reaction is the presumption that the so-called Kirtland Egyptian Papers (or KEP) indicate Joseph’s attempt to translate the hieroglyphics from those portions that are still extant. According to most Egyptologists, the “translations” do not accurately reflect the meanings of the hieroglyphics. In some cases, several paragraphs of English text (the English translation of the Book of Abraham) are written in what appears to be an English translation of these Egyptian characters (in some instances, one character seems to yield several sentences of English text). On the surface, it appears that Joseph put the characters on the left and then translated these characters with the translation on the right. As the critics correctly point out, the translations do not match the characters. Egyptologists assure us that there is no relationship between the characters and the text. To the critics, this is proof that Joseph was a false prophet.
There is, however, a likely scenario that is compatible with Joseph’s prophetic claims. Many LDS scholars have claimed that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are an example of a backwards translation. In other words, Joseph translated the Book of Abraham prior to the creation of the KEP and then he, and other early LDS brethren, tried to match the translated text to what they believed were the characters that were used to illicit the translation. In this scenario the KEP was not the product of revelation, but was rather an attempt to “study out” the translation, after-the-fact, in what might have been an experiment to create an Egyptian alphabet. (See Hugh W. Nibley, “The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” BYU Studies [Summer 1971], 11:1, 350–99; also available on-line at http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=121.)
But why would Joseph select the wrong characters (those characters that were from the first scroll — the Book of Breathings) rather than the characters from the appended scroll (the scroll with the Book of Abraham material)? The answer is, as noted above, because Abraham referred the Facsimile (“the representation”) at the beginning of “this record.” To the early Saints, this would have seemed to indicate that the “record” of Abraham was part of the early portion of the scroll and thus they began their backwards translation from this point. In reality, however, “this record” probably referred to the beginning of the combined scrolls (that begins with Facsimile 1) but not the beginning of the Abrahamic text (which would have been appended to the Book of Breathing scroll). (Barney, 127.)
It must be remembered that Joseph could not read Egyptian. He did not “translate” in the normal sense. He translated by the power of God. As noted in Chapter 4 (Part I), it’s possible that Joseph, at times, translated the Book of Mormon while the plates were covered, or perhaps even while the plates were removed from the room.
While I believe that an actual Book of Abraham manuscript was present among (probably as an appendage to) the Book of Breathings, it’s significant to recognize that revelation was the method by which the text was translated. This realization allows for other possibilities. If, for example, the appended Abrahamic scroll was damaged, Joseph would still have been able to “translate” the text. If the appended scroll was partially missing, the “translation” might not have suffered. It’s also possible that Joseph, in the process of creating the KEP, looked at the Egyptian characters and — thinking that they were the Egyptian symbols composed by Abraham — proceeded to “translate” from these characters. In such a scenario the actual Book of Abraham translation could still be based on a real manuscript, but not on what Joseph thought was the manuscript. Whichever scenario, we need not reject Joseph’s prophetic calling. The evidence from antiquity — both in Abrahamic tradition and in the Jewish recontextualization of Egyptian vignettes and dramas — lends support to the claim that Joseph translated (albeit by unconventional means) the Book of Abraham from an authentic ancient source.
Conclusion
When we critically examine the charges against the Book of Abraham in light of what we now know about ancient Jewish traditions and the adaptation of Egyptian iconography, we find that a belief is an ancient Book of Abraham is not only plausible, but believable.
Further reading
FAIR web site
- FAIR Topical Guide: Book of Abraham
External links
- John Gee, "Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob", FARMS Review of Books 7/1 (1995): 19–84
- Kerry Shirts, "Abraham, Father of the Faithful, Or Osiris, Pagan Egyptian God?", Mormonism Researched (accessed 6 October 2005).