The Book of Abraham: From Whence was it Derived?

[_DrW]

Wade,

I have been following your Book or Abraham apologetics for six tortuous pages. It just makes my head explode. If you would not mind, I would appreciate it if you could simply answer the two questions entered at the conclusion of this post.

It has been established that the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession were (and are) Egyptian funerary texts, including the Hor Book of Breathings.

Mormon scholar Michael D. Rhodes has provided a translation of the Hor Book of Breathings. A comparison of his translation and Joseph Smith's "translation" of a scene from the papyri in Smiths possession is shown below.

Joseph Smith "Translation": "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."

Michael Rhodes Translation: "A seated deity with two (or in most hypocephali, four) ram's heads. He is holding in his hand the symbols of life, dominion and stability...This seated figure represents god as the creator, either Amon-Re or Khnum. When thus depicted with four heads, this god united within himself the attributes of the gods Re (the sun), Shu (light), Geb (the earth), and Osiris (god of the next world and the resurrection), and represented the primeval creative force."

I would think that even this small example of the total inaccuracy Joseph Smith's "translation" skills would give one pause. Kolob? Come on.

Several other good examples of such funerary texts (Book of the Dead, Book of Breathings) exist from the same period and contain the same scenes as shown in the papyri that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated to obtain the Book of Abraham.

Other Egyptologists have provided translations of other examples of these same funerary texts with the same scenes (e.g. depiction of the judgment hall, etc.). In addition to the papyri Joseph Smith claimed to have translated, including the Hor Book of Breathings, this same scene can be found in:
• Book of the Dead for Lady Tamere(t)
• Kerasher Book of Breathings in the British Museum
• Egyptian Stele in Vienna
• Two separate Wall Reliefs in Abydos (which I have seen personally)

The two questions are these:

What is the difference between the papyri used by Joseph Smith and the other extant Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead papyri that would warrant a Book of Abraham translation from one and not the others?

If qualified scholars, including the Mormon Michael Rhodes, all agree that the characters in these scenes do not include Abraham as Joseph Smith claimed, and that, in fact none of these papyri have anything whatsoever to do with Abraham, what is the point of apologists continually claiming that the Book of Abraham is anything but a not very well executed hoax?

[_wenglund]

Anyway, the issue of the names of the four idolotrous gods seems to have run its course. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. So, if you would like, you can move on to address the questions: whether the canoptic jars represent the four quarters of the earth; whether figure 11 of facsimile 1 represents the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians; whether the angled lines below the lion couch in facsimile 1 represent “the firmament over our heads” (fig. 12); and whether the crocodile in Facsimile 1, fig. 9 represents the idolatrous god of Pharaoh. (Again, it isn't sufficinet for you to show that the concepts were biblical. You need to show where it was known in Joseph's day that the heiroglyphic figures represent what Joseph claimed they did, and this in agreement with modern Egyptology.)

I'm not sure there's really a need to discuss these - we have a nice compare and contrast between Joseph's interpretation and the actual meaning here. Do you dispute any of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ab ... mile_No._1

The Wikipedia article doesn't address the source material Dr. Peterson cited and that I linked to, in part because the article is based on Egyptology during the 1860's. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I have been following your Book or Abraham apologetics for six tortuous pages. It just makes my head explode. If you would not mind, I would appreciate it if you could simply answer the two questions entered at the conclusion of this post.

It has been established that the papyri in Joseph Smith's possession were (and are) Egyptian funerary texts, including the Hor Book of Breathings.

Mormon scholar Michael D. Rhodes has provided a translation of the Hor Book of Breathings. A comparison of his translation and Joseph Smith's "translation" of a scene from the papyri in Smiths possession is shown below.

Joseph Smith "Translation": "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."

Michael Rhodes Translation: "A seated deity with two (or in most hypocephali, four) ram's heads. He is holding in his hand the symbols of life, dominion and stability...This seated figure represents god as the creator, either Amon-Re or Khnum. When thus depicted with four heads, this god united within himself the attributes of the gods Re (the sun), Shu (light), Geb (the earth), and Osiris (god of the next world and the resurrection), and represented the primeval creative force."

I would think that even this small example of the total inaccuracy Joseph Smith's "translation" skills would give one pause. Kolob? Come on.

Several other good examples of such funerary texts (Book of the Dead, Book of Breathings) exist from the same period and contain the same scenes as shown in the papyri that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated to obtain the Book of Abraham.

Other Egyptologists have provided translations of other examples of these same funerary texts with the same scenes (e.g. depiction of the judgment hall, etc.). In addition to the papyri Joseph Smith claimed to have translated, including the Hor Book of Breathings, this same scene can be found in:
• Book of the Dead for Lady Tamere(t)
• Kerasher Book of Breathings in the British Museum
• Egyptian Stele in Vienna
• Two separate Wall Reliefs in Abydos (which I have seen personally)

The two questions are these:

What is the difference between the papyri used by Joseph Smith and the other extant Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead papyri that would warrant a Book of Abraham translation from one and not the others?

If qualified scholars, including the Mormon Michael Rhodes, all agree that the characters in these scenes do not include Abraham as Joseph Smith claimed, and that, in fact none of these papyri have anything whatsoever to do with Abraham, what is the point of apologists continually claiming that the Book of Abraham is anything but a not very well executed hoax?

I realize how torturous it is for the critics to engage arguments that run counter to their position, but I am not about to let this dissuade me from pursuing those legitimate lines of reasoning--with the stated intent of addressing questions like yours once my lines of reasoning have been completed. As it is, I have bearly scratched the surface, and I am still waiting for Buffalo to catch up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

I realize how torturous it is for the critics to engage arguments that run counter to their position, but I am not about to let this dissuade me from pursuing those legitimate lines of reasoning--with the stated intent of addressing questions like yours once my lines of reasoning have been completed. As it is, I have bearly scratched the surface, and I am still waiting for Buffalo to catch up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've been waiting five days for a response from you. But you're waiting for ME to catch up? :D

[_Buffalo]

The Wikipedia article doesn't address the source material Dr. Peterson cited and that I linked to, in part because the article is based on Egyptology during the 1860's. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Which contemporary, credible Egyptologist's translation agrees with Joseph Smith's?

[_Kevin Graham]

Here is what one respected Egyptologist had to say, and he is LDS no less:

In the preceding I have argued that (1) Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original, funerary, context; (2) anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was translated from a text written by Abraham himself; and (3) what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible. If one accepts that Joseph Smith was using the facsimiles in a fashion which was not consonant with their original purpose, it does not make sense to then insist that "the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." I see no evidence that Joseph Smith had a correct conception of "Egyptian religious practices" or that a knowledge of such was essential to the production of the Book of Abraham.

Stephen Thompson received his Bachelors of Arts in Near Eastern Studies from Brigham Young University in 1984. He received his Masters of Arts and his Doctor of Philosophy in Egyptology from Brown University in 1988 and 1991, respectively.

[_Buffalo]

Here is what one respected Egyptologist had to say, and he is LDS no less:

In the preceding I have argued that (1) Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original, funerary, context; (2) anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was translated from a text written by Abraham himself; and (3) what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible. If one accepts that Joseph Smith was using the facsimiles in a fashion which was not consonant with their original purpose, it does not make sense to then insist that "the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." I see no evidence that Joseph Smith had a correct conception of "Egyptian religious practices" or that a knowledge of such was essential to the production of the Book of Abraham.

Stephen Thompson received his Bachelors of Arts in Near Eastern Studies from Brigham Young University in 1984. He received his Masters of Arts and his Doctor of Philosophy in Egyptology from Brown University in 1988 and 1991, respectively.

Thanks Kevin.

Wade, the ball's in your court.

[_Themis]

Thanks Kevin.

Wade, the ball's in your court.

It's not going to happen. One of the interesting things he said earlier was that he has faith in DCP. I would view this as putting faith in fair and farms that what they say is accurate and true. While this is not a surprise, the open minded tend to try and be skeptical of their own side as well. This is how I have approached the issues and was disappointed to see that what they say was far lass accurate then I had hoped. Wade like many apologists rely on fair and farms for answers and then post them here as though this is enough.

Your statement below is correct. I remember reading up on this as well and seeing that they didn't actually have any real Gods of the ancient world. Unfortunately this is a stable of apologia.

I hadn't read that the first time, but going through it now, it appears that Shirts is only able to make the names work by cobbling together parts of words from different languages. You could literally make sense of any made up name using that methodology. Furthermore, those aren't the names of the gods portrayed in the papyrus. They are Qebehsenuf, Duamutef, Hapy and Imsety. Joseph got them all wrong.

[_Buffalo]

It's not going to happen. One of the interesting things he said earlier was that he has faith in DCP. I would view this as putting faith in fair and farms that what they say is accurate and true. While this is not a surprise, the open minded tend to try and be skeptical of their own side as well. This is how I have approached the issues and was disappointed to see that what they say was far lass accurate then I had hoped. Wade like many apologists rely on fair and farms for answers and then post them here as though this is enough.

Wade's deliberate intellectual incuriosity, to me, at least, speaks of doctrinal insecurity.

[_wenglund]

Which contemporary, credible Egyptologist's translation agrees with Joseph Smith's?

See the linked articles I have referenced several times.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-