One of the biggest challenges to my personal testimony of the reality of the Restoration came when I was serving as Bishop years ago. I was exploring one of the issues that had affected some local people in the past, namely, the anti-Mormon attacks on the Book of Abraham. I went to a popular anti-Mormon website and read their pitch against the Book of Abraham. Whoa, what a powerful, clear-cut, rock-solid indictment of the Book of Abraham. How more obvious could the problem be? The papyrus fragments that Joseph translated as the Book of Mormon were found recently, and now scholars can translate them and see that they have no connection to Abraham. The book is a total fraud. Slam dunk. That’s the pitch, anyway.
When I faced that evidence, not yet knowing that the real fraud was in the evidence that was being withheld to make the anti-Mormon case, I was deeply troubled. I was troubled enough to go to the Lord in prayer and explain that while I had a deep testimony of the Book of Mormon and accepted it as scripture, I had to ask what went wrong with the Book of Abraham? Did Joseph just blow it? The response I got was not an answer to my question, but a sense that I needed to put this issue on hold and do more homework, patiently. I know, some of you will say that was a total cop-out and the only ethical thing to do would have been to resign from the Church. But patience was what I needed.
I studied the issue more carefully. While reading a basic book on the history of the Book of Abraham from H. Donl Peterson, I learned that the primary anti-Mormon argument relied on deception, not just a weak argument, but deliberate deception. The authors of the site that had so troubled me surely knew and had been told dozens of times that the tiny collection of fragments found in 1967 was only a small fraction of the scrolls that Joseph had, and that the bulk of the collection had been sold to a museum by Joseph’s widow and eventually shipped to Chicago where they apparently burned in the great fire of 1871. The critics also ought to know that numerous eye-witnesses had described the scrolls Joseph had been translating as the Book of Abraham, and their descriptions don’t accurately match the fragments that were recovered. Mormons scholars and non-LDS scholars both agree that the fragments we have are not the text of the Book of Abraham. The critics desperately need those fragments to be the Book of Abraham, but they are not. There are still plenty of tough questions to ask and reasonable objections to make, as there is with almost anything in any religion, but I learned in that experience just how powerful and dangerous a well-crafted lie can be. I can sympathize with those who lost their testimonies over Book of Abraham attacks, but I’d like to urge you to come back and look at the exciting news that continues to be revealed about this majestic ancient test.
My little adventure led to several pages on my LDSFAQ area about the Book of Abraham and the growing evidence for its authenticity. These include “Questions About the Book of Abraham: Part One,” “Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility,” and “Part 3: Ancient Records Offer New Support for the Book of Abraham.”
A more recent source you’ll want to consider is the new DVD, A Most Remarkable Book: Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Looks fascinating–this just came out. I’m ordering one and haven’t seen it yet. You can also hear a podcast about the DVD at the FAIR Blog.
There have been some exciting discoveries since I wrote my LDSFAQ pages on the Book of Abraham and I’m in the process of adding some updates. Some of the most significant ones are mentioned by Dr. John Gee, one of a few scholars deeply familiar with the Egyptian texts potentially relevant to the Book of Abraham. Dr. Gee has some valuable insight into how modern scholarship is helping to better place the Book of Abraham in history. However, before I share some news from Dr. Gee, let me remind you of some of the controversy over the location of the Book of Abraham. This background will help you better appreciate Dr. Gee’s additional insights. So first, here is a background passage from Daniel C. Peterson’s article, “News from Antiquity,” in the January 1994 issue of the Ensign, available online (for the footnotes omitted below, see the related quote on Part 2 of my Book of Abraham LDS FAQ page):
The book begins with Abraham “in the land of Ur, of Chaldea.” (Abr. 1:20.) It is obvious that this “Chaldea” was a place under strong Egyptian influence. It was there that Abraham’s own fathers turned aside from worship of the true God to the service of “the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” (Abr. 1:6; facsimile 1, fig. 9.) Apart from a passing reference in Joshua 24:2 [Josh. 24:2], the Bible does not tell of the idolatry of Abraham’s ancestors. However, their worship of false gods and Abraham’s faithfulness in worshipping the true God, as well as his attempts to convert his family, are common themes of many very old Jewish and Christian stories. [2]
Where was Ur of the Chaldees? Since the nineteenth century, most authorities have identified it with the modern Tell al-Muqayyar, a site in southern Iraq. However, certain elements of the book of Abraham do not seem to fit well in southern Iraq; in particular, Egyptian influences appear to be lacking there during the time of Abraham (traditionally placed around 2000 B.C.). It is thus interesting to note that some recent reevaluations of the question locate Ur in the area known anciently as Aram-Naharaim, or northwestern Mesopotamia (northeastern Syria and southeastern Turkey, in terms of modern geography). This was a region under Egyptian influence at the time of Abraham.[3] The book of Abraham mentions a place it calls “the plain of Olishem” (Abr. 1:10), which was apparently part of the land of Chaldea. No such place is mentioned in the Bible, but the name does occur in an inscription of the Akkadian ruler Naram Sin, dating to about 2250 B.C. Remarkably, it refers to a place located precisely in northwestern Syria.[4]
Yes, it’s cool that there is new evidence from an ancient text for the plains of Olishem in the Book of Abraham, but the real purpose of this passage is to remind you that modern LDS scholarship points to Ur of the Chaldees and the initial setting for the Book of Abraham as being in the north, perhaps in Syria, not in southern Iraq. Now we turn to Dr. Gree for an update included in his presentation at the Eleventh Annual FAIR Conference, August 6, 2009 entitled “The Larger Issue.”
For years the critics have noted that the Book of Abraham has Egyptians up in Abraham’s homeland in Abraham’s day. This is something that they see as problematic. In the 1960s Georges Posener first suggested that there was an Egyptian empire in Syria in those days, but most scholars rejected it. There simply was not enough archaeological evidence for it in their opinion. Two articles last year change the picture. One was the publication by the President of the International Association of Egyptologists of a new autobiographical text from the Middle Kingdom. It details how this Egyptian led an expedition to Byblos and while there became involved in a military altercation between Byblos and Ullaza and ended up taking over both. This became the beginning of Egyptian involvement in northern Syria in the Middle Kingdom. Confirmation of the story comes from Byblos were the former kings are replaced by Egyptian appointed governors who began recording their titles in Egyptians. The second article came out in the premier peer-reviewed Egyptological journal in North America and detailed how a careful examination of the textual and archaeological sources indicates that Egypt had a presence in the northern Levant only during the reigns of two pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom: Sesostris III and Amenemhet III.
These articles point to a specific historical scenario for the Book of Abraham. The first chapter of Abraham takes place when Egypt controls Abraham’s homeland in northern Syria, and this can only be during a short, sixty year time period, about 1860-1800 BC. We know from archaeological evidence of that time period that Egyptian gods were worshiped at Ebla, and that Ebla is mentioned in Egyptian texts of the time. We also know that Egyptian sphinxes inscribed for monarchs of the time were found at Aleppo and Ugarit. This gives us an idea of the area under the Egyptian monarchs Sesostris III and Amenemhet III. It also explains Abraham’s travel route. He crosses the Euphrates to Harran, outside the Egyptian sphere of influence and stays a few years, during which time the Egyptian empire of the Middle Kingdom collapses making it safe for him to return to formerly Egyptian held territory.
Unfortunately, the time period when Abraham lived is almost unknown to Egyptology even today. The debates among Kim Ryholt, Manfred Beitak, Jim and Susan Allen, Daphna Ben Tor, and Chris Bennett about this time period shows how much is up in the air even today.
It might come as some surprise to some that Abraham is in the area of northern Mesopotamia and Syria. The term Chaldean did not mean the same in Joseph Smith’s day as it does now. In the present day, the Chaldeans are equated only with the tribes of the Kaldu that lived in the Iron Age in southern Mesopotamia. In Joseph Smith’s day it referred to the language that we call Aramaic and especially the Aramaic dialect that we call Syriac. It also referred to those who spoke that language (which originated in northern Syria). It also referred to the general area of greater Mesopotamia. Additionally, it was used as a term for superstitious.
The Chaldeans do not appear as such in the Hebrew Bible. Abraham is said to be from Ur of the Kasdim, not the Chaldeans. Though Kasdim is translated as Chaldeans, that is no indication that the Kasdim are the Kaldu. Recent analysis of the names in the biblical account of Abraham indicates that all of them originate in northern Mesopotamia. The name Abram itself, is attested only in northern Mesopotamia. The name is also only attested at the time when the Book of Abraham predicts it. Several towns are named Ur in Mesopotamia, that is the reason why it must be qualified as the Ur of the Kasdim.
Another example of how the Book of Abraham matches its day is the mention in the Book of Abraham of human sacrifice after the manner of the Egyptians. We know from archaeological evidence that the Egyptians practiced human sacrifice at that time, in areas that they dominated outside of Egypt. This archaeological evidence corresponds in practice to later ritual texts that describe how do human sacrifice. It also corresponds to historical records from Egypt that detail the circumstances under which human sacrifice occurred in Abraham’s day. Almost none of this material was available even to Nibley. This shows how much the picture can change in a few years. We also know the type of people targeted for human sacrifice: sbi, rebels or apostates (the term is used for both). Abraham says that his “fathers . . . utterly refused to hearken to my voice” (Abraham 1:5) when he condemned them for “having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given them , unto the worship of the gods of the heathen” (Abraham 1:5), instead they “endeavored to take away my life” (Abraham 1:7). There was no separation of church and state in ancient Egypt and the Pharaoh was the head of both. So to revolt against his authority, whether religious or political, made someone a rebel and subject to a ritualized death penalty. Archaeological evidence for this practice was first discovered about fifty years ago, but more archaeological evidence has appeared in the last ten years.
Read that passage again–there are a large number of interesting new twists in the unfolding story of one of the most remarkable ancient scriptural texts, the Book of Abraham. Like the Book of Mormon, the evidence for the plausibility of the Book of Abraham continues to increase, making it, in a sense, “truer than ever.” This is an exciting time to be LDS!
So much has changed in the few years since Hugh Nibley took up the defense of the Book of Abraham. He clearly got some things wrong. That’s life and that’s scholarship. He sometimes said that anything he wrote more than 3 years ago shouldn’t be held against him because things change so quickly. Well, they do. The vector of change, though, is in a direction I like. Some issues that were quite problematic are being resolved with evidence that just wasn’t available in Nibley’s day and certainly not Joseph Smith’s. Some huge discoveries in the past few years have helped us better appreciate the text of the Book of Abraham in several ways. I’ll say it again: like the Book of Mormon, it’s a text that is becoming truer than ever, in spite of human influence (yeah, human influences like the ancient geocentric model of the cosmos embedded in the Book of Abraham–something for another post, another day).
Patience–that was the answer I needed in the 1990s when I had my own little crisis of faith. I’m glad I pressed forward and continued to study, ponder, pray, and finally see past the deception that had so bothered me. I felt really cheated when I saw the sleight of hand that the critics used, and I’ve seen crooked antics of that nature frequently since then. I still have some major issues on hold, waiting for further light and knowledge, interested in the truth but willing to wait for answers. Meanwhile, the journey is a rewarding and joyous one. The Church is true, in spite of some gaps, and the Gospel is true, in spite of human weakness in others and my own failure in understanding and faith. I look forward to learning and experiencing more.
Update: A great resource that calmly spells out the major arguments against the Book of Abraham and then refutes them is “Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham” at the the Book of Abraham Project website. URL is http://www.boap.org/LDS/BOAP/SecondEd/Draft-copy/AppendixV-JS-Commentary-on-BOA.pdf.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thank you for this post. The process you describe of searching for answers – a way to reconcile the 'obvious' conclusions of critics with your own past experiences with these scriptures – hit home. A loved one recently lost his testimony due to this and other related 'facts' and I am working to strengthen my foundation. Keeping my head in the sand won't work any more.
I look forward to reading the references you have provided here.
The critics have decent reasons for thinking that the papyri that we have were used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham. Facsimiles 1 and 3 both occur in the Book of Breathings and in the Book of Abraham. The "Kirtland Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" shows characters from the scrolls that we have side by side with phrases from the Book of Abraham. I'm familiar with the apologetic responses to these difficulties-that Joseph combined facsimiles 1 and 3 from different scrolls, that Joseph wasn't responsible for the translations in the Alphabet and Grammar, etc.-but simply to dismiss the criticism as "sleight of hand" is unfair.
Part of your argument that there were other scrolls used to translate the Book of Abraham depends on eyewitness accounts suggesting that the Book of Abraham scrolls were in better condition than the papyri that we now have. Let me just point out that more than a hundred years transpired between the translation of the Book of Abraham and the recovery of the papyri, and the scrolls may not have been preserved very carefully during that time.
Apologists have trumpeted the fact that some things in the Book of Abraham have been found in other ancient books that Joseph Smith could not have been familiar with. That may be, but much of the nonbiblical stuff in the Book of Abraham can be found in the Book of Jasher and in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. According to H. Donl Peterson, Joseph Smith was familiar with the Book of Jasher, and it's likely that he was aware of Josephus. Oliver Cowdery had a copy, I think. These sources say that Abraham's father was an idolater and servant to Nimrod, that they tried to sacrifice Abraham, and that Abraham taught astronomy to the Egyptians.
Some other difficulties with the Book of Abraham include the anachronistic use of "Egyptus" and "Pharaoh" as names of the mother and son who founded Egypt. The word "Pharaoh" wasn't applied to Egypt's ruler until after the time that Abraham allegedly lived. Egypt obviously wasn't called "Egypt" by the ancient Egyptians, so suggesting that it was named after "Egyptus" is ahistorical. True, the Nile overflows its banks periodically, but Egypt was never underwater during human history. The Egyptian civilization predates any supposed daughter of Noah, so she and her sons could not have established its "first government."
What many antis have done with their arguments truly is sleight of hand. They left out critically important information that greatly weakened the argument. The claim is still made "the original text used to translated the Book of Abraham has been found" without explaining that there were other scrolls and much more text no longer part of the collection. Most of the other issues you raise have been addressed on my pages and elsewhere.
A general point, though: Historical inaccuracies in texts like Genesis, Exodus, and the Book of Abraham do not mean that they are not authentic ancient texts, nor do such imperfections in either the understanding of Moses, Abraham, or later editors of the text destroy the authenticity or sacred value of the text. Likewise, the ancient geocentric astronomy in Abraham is technically incorrect–though a plausible way for an ancient writer to describe or comprehend inspired insights about the heavens.
No, I don't expect perfection in scripture and am not prepared to fall apart because Moses thought a bat is a bird or because Abraham of a later editor the Egyptian text related to Abraham possibly passed on errant technical or historical information from even more ancient stories.
But the case for the Book of Abraham as an ancient text, delivered to us only through divine assistance in modern days, warts and all, is increasingly "interesting". Really, doesn't something like the multiple bulls eyes such as properly identifying the sons of Horus as representing the four corners of the earth at least raise your eyebrows and perhaps your curiosity? Or is a list of complaints from an anti-Mormon website enough to close your mind to the interesting possibilities this marvelous text raises?
Jeff,
The historical inaccuracies that I mentioned above are much more likely to have been inserted into the text by Joseph Smith than by Abraham. The names "Egyptus" and "Pharaoh" were related to words with which Joseph Smith was familiar, but not Abraham. Regardless, let's say for the sake of argument that the historical and astronomical inaccuracies are due to Abraham rather than Joseph Smith. What we're doing is undermining Abraham's reliability in order to save Joseph Smith's. Sure, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but what else did Abraham get wrong? The bit about Ham's lineage being cursed? That's fairly consequential. If Joseph Smith was a true seer because he could accurately restore Abraham's writings, that's great, but I don't know what good it does if Abraham's writings were so unreliable as sources of truth.
As for the sons of Horus, yes it does raise an eyebrow. I think you overstate the case by calling it a bull's eye, however. The four sons of Horus were associated with the four cardinal directions; that's not exactly equal to the four corners of the earth. I'd score that one a partial hit. But again, for the sake of argument, let's say that he did get that one right. There are others that he clearly got wrong. What are we supposed to do with partially reliable revelation? If we have to wait for science to tell us which parts of the scriptures are true and which parts need to be reinterpreted, what is the incremental value of revelation over science?
I fully agree with you that imperfections in the record do not destroy a text's sacred value, but I disagree that they don't impact its authenticity.
Jeff, let's not focus so much on the trees that we lose sight of the forest. There are very compelling reasons to reject the authenticity of the B of A that have nothing to do with the status of the fragments you mention. Foremost among those reasons is the simple fact that once again we are being asked to believe in a translation of a text without the opportunity to examine an original, which, we are told, really really did exist but (gosh darn it) is no longer available for our inspection–rather like the Golden Plates. Surely you can understand how suspicious this looks to the non-believer, especially given the powerful historical evidence for the fertility of Joseph Smith's imagination (e.g., Zelph the White Lamanite, Jackson County as the site of Eden and the altar used by Abraham himself).
There's more to say here, but I might not be able to get to it until tomorrow.
— Eveningsun
Here's the source for the first of the two articles Gee mentioned, but neglected to cite.
James P. Allen: The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur: Preliminary Report, In: Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 352 (November 2008), p. 29-39
I coun't figure out what the other source was. The missing article is more relevant to the case Gee is trying to make.
Eveningsun
You said: "once again we are being asked to believe in a translation of a text without the opportunity to examine an original, which, we are told, really really did exist but (gosh darn it) is no longer available for our inspection"
Granted, we are being asked to believe that by many apologists but this isn't what Joseph Smith had in mind.
If the historical records are at all accurate, Joseph Smith proudly displayed these during his lifetime for all to see and they were then sold to a museum after his death. He was hardly trying to keep them from being discovered.
Over the summer, I noted a couple of other authentic hits in the Book of Abraham:
http://gentlyhewstone.com/2011/08/29/two-things-joseph-smith-got-right-about-the-book-of-abraham-facsimiles/
In 1998 there was an interesting round table discussion done at BYU on the facsimiles. They talk in some length about the issue of these scrolls if anyone is interested. Again this is pretty old but it's fun to listen to
http://media.byub.org/mp3/scripturediscussions/721/721-202.mp3
mkprr,
Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that the documents are not around today to be examined by a competent modern Egyptologist, and that the Church is asking us to accept Joseph's translation of them anyway.
If the documents were still around, I suspect the Church would not be treating them as canonical, and apologists like Jeff would be singing quite a different tune about them.
— Eveningsun
" I was troubled enough to go to the Lord in prayer and explain that while I had a deep testimony of the Book of Mormon and accepted it as scripture, I had to ask what went wrong with the Book of Abraham? Did Joseph just blow it? The response I got was not an answer to my question, but a sense that I needed to put this issue on hold and do more homework, patiently."
That's excellent, sir. I had a similar experience in my youth regarding the Word of Wisdom. When the temptation to disobey it was gaining strength in my heart, I took the matter to the Lord. He answered my prayer and I gained much strength to to forever choose to obey that doctrinal standard. Always take you troubles before the Lord in earnest prayer.
The scientific evidence regarding the authenticity of the Book of Abraham has aumented much in recent years. Things like the location of (Abraham's) Ur and Abraham's faithfulness to the Lord despite his persecutors, even his own family, are "proven" so autentic that only a prophet of God could have translated it.
But, as with all divine truth, one must rely upn the Holy Ghost. Personally I've always liked not just the Book of Abraham but the Pearl of Great Price in general. I like the doctrines of intelligences and of the creation. In fact, I find the Pearl of Great Price's creation account clearly more compelling and settling than that of Genesis. To me it flows better and explains the nature ofthe creation much better than that of Genesis. By the Spirit, I know it's a book of God and thus I do get excited about science "catching up" to the Spirit.
"Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that the documents are not around today to be examined by a competent modern Egyptologist, and that the Church is asking us to accept Joseph's translation of them anyway."
There's no original record of any ancient scripture, biblical or extra biblical.
"If the documents were still around, I suspect the Church would not be treating them as canonical, and apologists like Jeff would be singing quite a different tune about them."
Not only are you wrong inthat but you'd also be wrong that the enemies ofthe Church would cease or ease up their attacks if they existed. Ultimately it is by the spirit of God that one learns of His truths.