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.
Book of Abraham/Origin
Origin of the Book of Abraham
Jump to Subtopic:
- The method by which Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham
- The Book of Abraham written by Abraham's "own hand upon papyrus"
- Timeline of events related to the Book of Abraham and Kirtland Egyptian Papers
- Why is the Book of Abraham text not on the papyri?
Life and Character |
|
Youth |
|
Revelations and the Church |
|
Prophetic Statements |
|
Society |
|
Plural marriage (polygamy) |
|
Death |
Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide: "These papyri contain authentic Egyptian writings, but they do not date to the time of Abraham, nor do they contain the actual personally handwritten account of Abraham"
"Unit 31: Day 2, The Coming Forth of the Pearl of Great Price," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students (2013):
In 1966, 11 fragments of papyri the Prophet Joseph Smith once had were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. These papyri contain authentic Egyptian writings, but they do not date to the time of Abraham, nor do they contain the actual personally handwritten account of Abraham. It is important to remember that only a few fragments and not all of the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed have been found. The book of Abraham may have been translated from papyri that have not been recovered. These lost papyri may have contained copies of Abraham’s writings.
At the present time we simply do not know the exact nature of the relationship between the book of Abraham and the papyri Joseph Smith possessed. There are various theories proposed as to how the prophet translated these writings, but we simply do not know the details. We do know that the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham by the gift and power of God. [1]
How was the text of the Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith?
Pearl of Great Price Central, Insight #39: How Did Joseph Smith Translate the Book of Abraham?
The Book of Abraham was claimed to have been received by revelation
Richard Turley notes that the Book of Abraham was received by revelation:
"Very quickly, let me just say a few things about it very simple. Number 1, again, it was received by revelation."
Richard Turley, Questions Asked at 2010 Swedish Fireside
19th century sources confirm that the text of the Book of Abraham was received by revelation
Consider these two quotes, the first from John Whitmer, who was Church Historian from 1831 until his excommunication in 1838, and the second from Warren Parrish, who was one of the scribes during the translation.
John Whitmer said,
"Joseph the Seer saw these Record[s] and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records . . . which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints." [2]
Warren Parrish said,
"I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks [sic] as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven." [3]
A more detailed essay describing the translation of the Book of Abraham was done by Pearl of Great Price Central and may be found by following the link above.
Did Joseph use his seer stone to receive the text of the Book of Abraham in the same manner as he did for the Book of Mormon?
There is second-hand information that suggests Joseph Smith used his seer stone in the translation of the Book of Abraham
There is also second-hand information that suggests Joseph Smith used his seer stone (or what came to be called the "Urim and Thummim") in the translation of the Book of Abraham; though these accounts must be accepted carefully because of their secondary nature.
Wilford Woodruff said,
"The Lord is blessing Joseph with power to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of God; to translate through the Urim and Thummim ancient records and hieroglyphics old as Abraham or Adam which caused our hearts to burn within us while we behold their glorious truths opened unto us." [4]
"The Prophet translated the part of these writings which, as I have said is contained in the Pearl of Great Price, and known as the Book of Abraham. Thus you see one of the first gifts bestowed by the Lord for the benefit of His people, was that of revelation-the gift to translate, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, the gift of bringing to light old and ancient records." [5]
The official position of the Church is that the Book of Abraham is "an inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri." [6] Anything beyond this is speculation, and does not constitute official Church doctrine relative to the Book of Abraham's origins. Nevertheless, it's clear from the historical evidence that Joseph Smith was not attempting a scholarly translation of the Book of Abraham à la Jean-François Champollion or other Egyptologists, but rather produced a revelatory translation (see Richard Turley's comments below). The exact nature of this revelatory translation is uncertain, with various theories having been offered over the years.
Do we have all of the papyri that Joseph Smith had?
There is no question that we are currently missing some papyri
Even critics of the Book of Abraham must acknowledge this. For example, we are missing the originals to Facsimiles 2 and 3. The question therefore is: how much papyrus are we missing? Professor John Gee has estimated, based on historical eyewitness testimony, papyrilogical considerations, and mathematical calculations, that we're missing a sizable portion of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Professor Gee further argues the likelihood that the text of the Book of Abraham translated (again, via revelation, and not by scholarly means) by Joseph Smith was contained in this missing portion of papyri. [7] Professor Gee is not without his critics, however, who argue instead that we're missing only a small portion of the original papyri. [8]
As such, this is still an open question. Further research is being conducted that will hopefully shed further light on this question. In the mean time, however, Professor Gee's so-called "Missing Papyrus Theory" cannot merely be dismissed. Those who struggle with the Book of Abraham controversy must deal with the evidence presented by Professor Gee.
How does the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) relate to the Book of Abraham?
The exact relationship between the documents referred to as the "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" and the Book of Abraham have not yet been determined
Professor Brian M. Hauglid of Brigham Young University is currently undertaking a critical text edition of the so-called "Kirtland Egyptian Papers," or, more properly, the "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" (or GAEL), in conjunction with scholars at the Joseph Smith Papers. [9] Professor Hauglid has published some preliminary thoughts on his research, in addition to comments made by other Mormon scholars. [10]
Before we pass judgment on the GAEL, including it's relationship to the Book of Abraham text, we should be patient and see what Professor Hauglid and other scholars will release in the future, per Richard Turley's advice. This remains a relatively under-studied area of the Book of Abraham debate, and it would be foolish to jump to conclusions before all the relevant data is presented for scholarly scrutiny.
"Again, this concept of translation if you look at the 7th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, it’s a translation of a parchment sent up by the apostle john in the new testament. There’s no evidence it was anywhere around Joseph at the time that he translated it. OK, so again, translation is not character for character translation like you and I think about it, OK?"
Were the characters on the papyri written by Abraham himself?
[Richard Turley]: There are lots of theories on that. The church does believe that the book of Abraham is the word of God and if you read the book of Abraham, there are doctrines and principles you will understand that are important to you. That is the church’s position. Exactly how Joseph Smith did it? There are lots of scholarly debates going on about that. But there’s excellent work going on at BYU that should be out in the next year."
Does the Joseph Smith papyri consist of Egyptian funerary documents?
[Richard Turley]: The papyrus that we have we know what books those are from Egyptian.
Do the Joseph Smith papyri date back to the time of Abraham?
Richard Turley: "There’s a difference between the date of the copy and the date of the text"
[Richard Turley]: There’s a difference between the date of the copy and the date of the text. So the text, yes, we believe is older. The actual copy could be later."
This is a very important point to keep in mind. There is a difference between the date of a text and the date of a particular manuscript of a text. For example, biblical scholars recognize that even though our earliest manuscripts for the books of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) are currently found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to circa 200-100 BCE, the date of the composition of the text of the books themselves go back many centuries.
The same point applies to the Book of Abraham. As Professor Kerry Muhlestein explains:
Critics say that if this papyrus was written in the second century BC it could not possibly have been written by Abraham himself. In regard to this assumption, I ask, who said this particular papyrus was written by Abraham himself? The heading does not indicate that Abraham had written that particular copy but rather that he was the author of the original. What these critics have done is confuse the difference between a text and a manuscript. For example, many people have a copy of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings; each has a manuscript copy of the text that Tolkien originally wrote. A text, regardless of how many copies of it exist in the world, is written by one author. However, each copy of that text is a manuscript.
The earliest known copies of the book of Isaiah date to hundreds of years after the prophet’s death. Yet this has not led to the conclusion that Isaiah was not the author of the book of Isaiah. Clearly the manuscripts we have are copies of the original text that he wrote during his lifetime. We all know that when an author of the ancient world wrote something, if those writings were to survive or be disseminated, the text had to be copied again and again and again, for generation upon generation. When the heading states that the text was written by Abraham’s own hand, it notes who the author is, not who copied down the particular manuscript that came into Joseph’s possession. If critics had carefully thought through this issue, they would never have raised it.
These issues also highlight the question of how the Book of Abraham came to be in Egypt in the first place. There are a dizzying number of possibilities. Abraham himself was in Egypt, as was his great-grandson Joseph and all of his Israelite descendants for hundreds of years thereafter. After the Exodus, Israelites continued to travel to and live in Egypt. After the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, large groups of Jews settled in Egypt and created longstanding and thriving communities, even to the point that they built a temple. It was during this time period that Joseph Smith Papyri 1, 10, and 11 were created. Copies of these papyri could have moved back and forth between Egypt and Israel during any of these eras. [11]
Could Joseph Smith translate Egyptian?
At that time, nobody could translate Egyptian . The only way Joseph could translate would be through revelation.
Many students of the Book of Abraham have asked if Joseph Smith could have had access to means that he might learn Egyptian and translate the Book of Abraham and/or if he ever claimed to be able to translate Egyptian mechanically. Joseph couldn't translate Egyptian. At that time, hardly anyone in the United States could translate Egyptian. Jean-Francois Champollion would only recently (relatively speaking) be completing his transliteration of the Rosetta Stone. Joseph was able to receive the text of the Book of Abraham in the same manner that he did for the Book of Mormon, by revelation.
Some critics believe that Joseph claimed he knew Egyptian.
Some critics believe that Joseph claimed to know Egyptian for a couple of reasons.
One of these is an 1844 publication entitled Appeal to the Freemen of the State of Vermont, the "Brave Green Mountain Boys," and Honest Men that was purportedly written by Joseph Smith and in which an appeal to the GAEL is made to provide a translation for an Egyptian-sounding phrase.[12] However, this publication has been demonstrated to have been ghostwritten by W.W. Phelps acting as Joseph Smith.[13] Additionally, it would have been written after all the translation of the Book of Abraham was complete thus making it so that, prior to and during the translation, Joseph would not have claimed to know Egyptian.
A second reason is the GAEL itself and Joseph's use of it when doing his one-character "translation" of the Kinderhook Plates. As Latter-day Saint historians Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst McGee have observed in their definitive treatment of the Kinderhook plates, "[Joseph] Smith’s autonomous use of the Egyptian Alphabet book...in the translation of the Kinderhook plates shows that he considered it a legitimate translation tool."[14] However, as the Gospel Topics Essay on the Book of Abraham has stated, the relationship of the GAEL to the Book of Abraham is not certain. Some have argued that the GAEL represents an attempt by Joseph Smith's scribes to reverse engineer the translation of the Book of Abraham to the papyri without the aid of revelation. If that is true, then Joseph Smith is not necessarily claiming by revelation to know how to translate Egyptian mechanically as academic translators do today with grammar books, dictionaries, etc. It simply means that Joseph received a translation of the papyri by revelation and then without the aid of revelation tried to discern the meaning of the characters on the papyri to try and learn Egyptian.
The final reason comes from the Gospel Topics Essay on the Book of Abraham on churchofjesuschrist.org which states the following:
Phelps apparently viewed Joseph Smith as uniquely capable of understanding the Egyptian characters: "As no one could translate these writings," he told his wife, "they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were."[15]
This quotation from Phelps has been interpreted by critics to mean that Joseph Smith was claiming to know the Egyptian language.[16] However, it is clear from context that this did not mean that Joseph was claiming to have a working knowledge of Egyptian that he could use to translate documents mechanically, but that he was capable of discerning the meaning of the writings by revelation given to him because of his role and stewardship as prophet of God and President of the Church.
Are the statements of Abraham 1:12,14 about the altar and Gods at the "beginning of the record" significant for the Book of Abraham?
The earliest manuscripts of Abraham 1:12,14 have the text squeezed either between lines of the text or in the upper margin of the manuscript.
There are several criticisms that attach themselves to Abraham 1:12,14. It is postulated that they require that Abraham be familiar with the facsimiles themselves, that they complicate the Missing Papyrus Theory, and so on.
The earliest manuscripts of Abraham 1:12 and 14 have the text squeezed either between lines of text or in the upper margin of the earliest manuscript of these verses. Abraham 1:12 is in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, one of Joseph's scribes.
Furthermore, reading the text of the Book of Abraham becomes smoother with the omission of these phrases. The translation retains coherency even without the textual insertions. Scholarly consensus is that these lines in Abraham 1:12 and 1:14 were later additions to the text—perhaps even with the approval of Joseph Smith.[17] Thus they are not significant to the integrity of the Book of Abraham.
FAIR links |
|
||||||
Online |
|
||||||
Video |
|
||||||
Print |
|
||||||
Navigators |
|||||||
Sub categories |
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ "Unit 31: Day 2, The Coming Forth of the Pearl of Great Price," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Study Guide for Home-Study Seminary Students, LDS.org (2013)
- ↑ John Whitmer, quoted in Karen Lynn Davidson, Richard L. Jensen, and David J. Whittaker, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Histories, Vol. 2: Assigned Histories, 1831–1847 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 86.
- ↑ Warren Parrish, letter to the editor, Painesville Republican, 15 February 1838, cited in John Gee, "Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri," FARMS Review 20, no. 1 (2008): 115, n. 4.
- ↑ Wilford Woodruff journal, February 19, 1842.
- ↑ Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 20:65.
- ↑ The Pearl of Great Price–––Introduction (2013 ed.). Elsewhere official Church publications say concerning the Book of Abraham: "The book of Abraham is a translation that the Prophet Joseph Smith made from some Egyptian papyri." Old Testament: Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1996), 1.
- ↑ John Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," in The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 175–218; "Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri," 115–123; "Formulas and Faith," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21, no. 1 (2012): 60–65; "Book of Abraham, I Presume," online at http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-book-of-abraham-i-presume; See also http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Size_of_missing_papyrus
- ↑ Andrew W. Cook and Christopher C. Smith, "The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 43, no. 4 (Winter 2010), 1–42; Andrew W. Cook, "Formulas and Facts: A Response to John Gee," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 45, no. 3 (Fall 2012): 1–10.
- ↑ These documents are free to view online at the Joseph Smith Papers website.
- ↑ Brian M. Hauglid, A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions (Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2010), 1–20, 225–231; "Thoughts on the Book of Abraham," in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 245–258; Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 195–203; Hugh Nibley, "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," reprinted in An Approach to the Book of Abraham, The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley: Volume 18, ed. John Gee (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2009), 502–568.
- ↑ Kerry Muhlestein, "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View," in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, 230–31. See also http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/By_his_own_hand
- ↑ Robert K. Ritner, "'Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham'— A Response," <http://www.mormonthink.com/essays-book-of-abraham.htm> (21 May 2020).
- ↑ Samuel M. Brown, "The Translator and the Ghost Writer: Joseph Smith and W.W. Phelps," Journal of Mormon History Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2008): 26–62; Bruce A.Van Orden, "William W. Phelps's Service in Nauvoo as Joseph Smith's Political Clerk," BYU Studies 32, nos. 1, 2 (1992): 81–94; Bruce A. Van Orden, We'll Sing and We'll Shout: The Life and Times of W. W. Phelps (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company; Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2018), 356–60.
- ↑ Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee, "'President Joseph Has Translated a Portion' Joseph Smith and the Mistranslation of the Kinderhook Plates," in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 517.
- ↑ W. W. Phelps to Sally Phelps, July 19–20, 1835, in Bruce A. Van Orden, "Writing to Zion: The William W. Phelps Kirtland Letters (1835–1836)," BYU Studies 33, no. 3 (1993): 555. Cited in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," <https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng> (21 May 2020).
- ↑ Robert K. Ritner, "A Response," (21 May 2020).
- ↑ John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2018), 143–46; Brent M. Rogers and others, eds., Documents, Volume 5: October 1835–January 1838, Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press, 2017), 74–75; Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid, eds., Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts, Joseph Smith Papers (Salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press, 2018), 195–96, 239 nn. 57, 64. See also the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers website and their comments here and here.
Book of Abraham | Anachronisms | Assessment
Book of Abraham/Origin
Summary: This page contains responses to all claimed anachronisms in the Book of Abraham.
Abraham as a Historical Figure
Many scholars today deny that Abraham ever existed. How can someone believe that the Book of Abraham is authentic and written by Abraham if Abraham never existed?
Historical Plausibility
One thing to keep in mind when approaching this question is that the existence of biblical characters can actually never be proven nor disproven. It can only be made more plausible or more implausible. This is the basic notion of historical plausibility.
As explained by John Gee and Stephen Ricks:
Historical plausibility relies on the aggregate of information to provide a consistent picture of events and processes. It assumes that historical conditions at a given time and place are consistent and that change over both time and place varies consistently. That is, documents and artifacts produced at a given time and place have a certain commonality that may vary as both time and place change . . . Documents also follow certain patterns in layout, language, script, paleography, vocabulary, genre, specificity, onomastics, and cultural referents (including governmental, social, and religious institutions and practices). To the extent that a document matches others in these areas, it is historically plausible.[1]
There is no consensus about whether Abraham was real
If there is no consensus of scholars on whether Abraham was real, then we can be assured that there is no definitive reason to rule out Abraham's existence.
Modern revelation is a valid source of knowledge
Sometimes Latter-day Saints forget (or even deliberately discard) that modern revelation is a valid source of knowledge. The majority of biblical scholars do not accept this assumption and operate only on what they can determine from the archaeological record.
Modern revelation, for a Latter-day Saint, must be a kind of evidence, and offers us strong reasons to believe in the historicity of Abraham.
Chariots
On March 18, 2022, Dr. John Gee, the foremost expert on the Book of Abraham and a professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University, had a paper published in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship entitled “‘The Wind and the Fire to be My Chariot’: The Anachronism that Wasn’t.”
In the paper, Dr. Gee points out that no critic since the translation and publication of the Book of Abraham has pointed out the apparent anachronism of the chariot. In Abraham 2:7, God tells Abraham in Haran that he will “cause the wind and the fire to be [his] chariot.”
Is the chariot an actual anachronism in the Book of Abraham?
Dr. Gee responds to his own criticism and shows that both linguistic and archaeological data point to the chariot existing during the span of time typically thought of to be Abraham’s lifetime. One can read the paper by following this link.
The Dating of the Papyri
In 1967, the Church acquired some surviving fragments of the papyri from which the translation of the Book of Abraham was rendered from the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art through the help of Dr. Aziz Atiya, a professor at the University of Utah.
As papyrological work was done, scholars discovered that the papyrus dated to at least 1700 years (Between 300 BCE – 100 CE) after the prophet Abraham is traditionally claimed to have lived (2000 BCE).[2]
Many have naturally asked the question of how can the papyri date to such a late time and record genuinely historical events from the life of the supposedly historical Abraham.
Examples of Texts that have Survived for Long Periods of Time
In response to the above criticism, it may be noted that we do have knowledge of texts that record historical events and survive scribal transmission for a long period of time.
For example, The Book of the Dead was copied from the New Kingdom period of ancient Egyptian history clear down to the end of the Ptolemaic Period. That's 1000+ years of transmission.
Additionally, the oldest portions of the Pentateuch (e.g. the Song of Moses in Exodus 15) were passed through scribal transmission for well over 1,500+ years.
What's more, narrative texts from the Middle Kingdom period in Egyptian history like the Story of Sinuhe were preserved in copies belonging to the New Kingdom period, which would be around 700+ years of transmission.
Perhaps our best parallel would be the Holy Bible. It has a pretty long manual transmission history from autographs penned in the Iron Age all the way down to when they were placed in print editions of the Bible starting in the 1500s. In other words, people were hand-copying these texts with a fair degree of accuracy for over 3,000 years and yet we hold their texts as fairly accurate historically speaking.
Elements of the Book of Abraham that Date to the Time of Abraham
Elements from the Book of Abraham that can definitively place it in the time that the historical Abraham is claimed to live can help us construct the historical core of the Book of Abraham and bolster the claim of historical authenticity. Some of these elements that can more than plausibly date to Abraham’s day include:
- Human sacrifice
- The God of Elkenah
- Olishem
- The idolatrous gods represented by the canopic jars in facsimile 1.[3]
- Stating that autographs are “written in the hand” of that person.
- Identification of Shinehah as “the sun”.
- The name "Shulem" as reference to the king's waiter.[4]
- The astronomy of the Book of Abraham.
- The identification of a crocodile as "The God of Pharoah".
Stephen Smoot and Kerry Muhelstein’s Paper on the Transmission of the Book of Abraham
Stephen O. Smoot—a PhD student in Egyptian and Semitic Languages and Literature—and Dr. Kerry Muhelstein (PhD Egyptology, UCLA)—a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University—have outlined a plausible scenario in which a text containing the autobiographical writings of Abraham could have been preserved and transmitted for that long of time and on the type of papyrus that Joseph Smith claimed to translate from. We strongly encourage readers to review their paper published in BYU Studies on the subject.
These and other elements can combine to help us understand that, even though a text does have a very, very long transmission history, it can still plausibly preserve literal historical events from the lives of the first authors. That does not mean that the text as it has been preserved to us today must have originated entirely from the mind of the historical Abraham. Scribes and redactors could have made inspired emendations to the text over the years and we would still have a text that dates originally to the time of Abraham. In sum, we have no reason to believe that the dating of the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated threatens the possibility of being genuine writings from the prophet Abraham and no reason to believe that the dating of the papyri threatens the core theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"By His Own Hand, Upon Papyrus"
But our critics still won't be satisfied. They'll point out that when the Book of Abraham was first published in the Times and Seasons in March 1842, the title read as follows: "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."
How could the Book of Abraham have carried "by his own hand, upon papyrus" in its title, date to long after Abraham lived, and still be authentically from the prophet Abraham?
There are two ways to deal with this issue, either of which works with Latter-day Saint commitments.
One could believe that "by his own hand, upon papyrus" is an Egyptian title. There is some evidence for this. "By the hand" can indicate authorship of a text and not a specific copy of that text.
One could also believe that "by his own hand, upon papyrus" is a modern title given to the text by Joseph Smith or one of his associates. Given that the text is about Abraham and written in the first person, it would be natural for Joseph Smith to assume that the text was written by Abraham himself. That belief could indeed be true and the text could still have undergone copy and revision over many hundreds of years.
Either option is open to a Latter-day Saint.
Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson outline this issue in more detail here. Also, see Stephen Smoot's post on the FAIR Blog on this issue here.
Depiction of Angels
One critic has argued that the depiction of angels saving Abraham (Abraham 1:15) is anachronistic.[5] According to some biblical scholars, the concept of angels as benevolent, semi-divine beings did not develop in Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.
However, why could it not be the case that the Book of Abraham is authentic and carries this conception? Why could it not be the case that angels are real, appeared to Abraham, and he recorded his experience?
If we are to accept this anachronism as real, it seems to be easily explained by a later redactor or copyist of the Book of Abraham who may have overlaid their conception of angels onto the Book of Abraham narrative.
The Documentary Hypothesis
The Documentary Hypothesis is the theory that the first five books of the Bible were created by combining four separate documents written at different times. These documents are typically named after the ideologies of the authors who wrote them. The four sources are the J (Jahwist), P (Priestly), E (Elohist), and D (Deuteronomist) sources.
Critics argue that certain content in the Book of Abraham combines material from the Jahwist (dated to the 9th–10th century) and Priestly (dated to the 7th–6th century) sources, which were written hundreds of years after Abraham is traditionally thought to have lived.
| Priestly Source | Jahwist Source | KJV Genesis 2:4 | Abraham 5:4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created." | "In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." | "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." | "And the Gods came down and formed these the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were formed in the day that the Gods formed the earth and the heavens." |
There are two different approaches that one can take to the identification and dating of the sources and reconcile them with the Book of Abraham.
One approach might be to point out that the once-tight consensus surrounding the Documentary Hypothesis has begun to unravel in recent years. Scholars are no longer certain about the identification and dating of the sources that make up the first five books of the Bible.[6] This approach would deny any anachronistic material in the Book of Abraham.
Another approach might be to suggest that the Book of Abraham, like the first five books of the Bible under the Documentary Hypothesis, could be a composite work, created by multiple individuals over many years, rather than by one person. There could indeed have been a text initially composed by Abraham that was then edited by inspired prophets and seers after Abraham lived who were aware of the later-dated sources and their contents and incorporated that material into the Book of Abraham. This would simultaneously preserve the Book of Abraham's status as genuine, ancient, and originally authored by Abraham, while providing a convenient and simple explanation for the seemingly anachronistic material that exists within it.
Readers will decide for themselves which approach they will take. Either perspective is open to a Latter-day Saint without threatening any core commitment of their faith.
Regardless of the approach, it is clear that the translation of the Book of Abraham is modeled after the structure and style of the KJV's translation of Genesis. This is not a problem, however, because we know that God speaks to men in the manner of their language, unto their understanding, so that they can receive greater light (Doctrine & Covenants 1:24). This model of revelation easily applies to Joseph Smith's revelatory translations like the one in the Book of Abraham.
Hebrew Not Old Enough for Abraham
Stephen O. Smoot, a Latter-day Saint scholar of the Book of Abraham, addressed this issue in a 2025 paper.[7]
Smoot explains that the Book of Abraham does not require Abraham himself to have written in Hebrew. Scholars agree that Hebrew as a full language did not exist in Abraham’s time, even though older related languages were spoken then. So, a perfectly preserved Abrahamic text written in later Hebrew would be unlikely. Smoot points out, however, that the issue is much smaller than it first seems. Smoot provides three potential explanations for the presence of Hebrew in the Book of Abraham.
- Only three Hebrew-like words appear in the actual text of the Book of Abraham, and those words also appear in older Semitic languages that existed long before Hebrew. This means Joseph Smith could have been expressing very ancient ideas using Hebrew words he knew, rather than inserting something completely out of place.
- Ancient writings were often copied and updated by later scribes. Over many centuries, a text connected to Abraham could have been rewritten in ways that reflected the languages of later copyists, including Hebrew, even though Abraham himself never used it.
- Finally, Smoot suggests that the Hebrew words may have been used by Joseph Smith as explanations to help readers understand important religious ideas. The words are introduced with phrases like “which is” or “which means,” suggesting that the Hebrew words might be serving as clarifying notes or what scholars might call "translator's glosses." Because Joseph studied Hebrew later in his life, he may have used Hebrew to explain ancient ideas.
Ultimately, it is likely that Joseph Smith's knowledge of Hebrew influenced the final composition or editing of the Book of Abraham before its publication. In this way, the Book of Abraham reflects both divine revelation and Joseph Smith’s learning.
Human Sacrifice
Some scholars doubt the existence of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt.
Smoot, Gee, Muhlestein, and Thompson explain that the beginning of the Book of Abraham tells how Abraham’s own family tried to offer him up to their “strange gods” in a ritual that looked like human sacrifice or ritual killing, and that the text says this practice was done “after the manner of the Egyptians,” with a priest involved (Abraham 1:7–11). They then look at ancient Egyptian history and archaeology and show that, although scholars use terms like "ritual slaying," "sanctioned killing," or "sacred violence" instead of simply “human sacrifice,” there is evidence that ancient Egyptians sometimes killed people in ritual or religious contexts, especially for offenses against sacred space or religious norms, and that this kind of sanctioned killing happened during the time Abraham is thought to have lived. This ancient evidence matches many details of the Book of Abraham’s story about Abraham nearly being killed, suggesting that the narrative fits with what we know about ancient Near Eastern practices rather than being just a modern invention. For Latter-day Saints, the article can be used to show that the Book of Abraham’s dramatic opening accounts of ritual killing are connected to real ancient religious beliefs and rituals, helping readers understand the story in a historical and cultural context instead of seeing it as only a symbolic or made-up scene.—(Click here to read more)
The Name "Egyptus"
Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson have addressed this here. The name "Egyptus" would indeed have been anachronistic to Abraham's day. However, the name of Ham's wife in all three Kirtland-era Book of Abraham manuscripts is "Zeptah" instead of Egyptus. As Smoot, Gee, Muhlestein, and Thompson explain, "The name Zeptah is striking because it could very likely be a rendering of the Egyptian name Siptah (sꜣ Ptḥ), meaning 'son of [the god] Ptah.' This name, as well as its feminine equivalent 'daughter of [the god] Ptah' (sꜣt Ptḥ), is attested during the likely time of Abraham. It is also the name of an Egyptian king who lived many centuries after Abraham."
"Since Egyptes/Egyptus is a Greek name that would be anachronistic for Abraham’s day, it might reflect the work of ancient scribes transmitting the text who 'updated' the name centuries later. This may likewise have been the case with the name Zeptah as well."
More information can be found by reading Smoot's, Gee's, Muhlestein's, and Thompson's essay.
The Name "Pharaoh"
Several critics allege that calling someone "Pharaoh" is anachronistic to the time of Abraham.
It should be noted that the functional equivalent of the office of Pharaoh does indeed extend to the time of Abraham. The title "Pharaoh" began to be applied to the Egyptian ruler beginning around the 18th dynasty (1500 BC). It is true that the title "Pharaoh" does not range back to the traditional dating of Abraham's life. After the 18th dynasty, the title was retroactively applied to all monarchs of Egypt.
If there was a person who could be called the monarch in Abraham's day, Joseph Smith and his contemporaries would likely have called that person "Pharaoh." Since God speaks to men unto their understanding and in their language (Doctrine & Covenants 1:24), and since virtually anyone today would call any Egyptian monarch "pharaoh," it is unsurprising that the name Joseph Smith and God selected for an Egyptian monarch was "pharaoh."
Prophetic Figure Writing Scripture
David Bokovoy, a scholar of the Bible and a disaffected Latter-day Saint, wrote, "The notion of an ancient prophetic figure or patriarch writing scripture is historically anachronistic. Though traces of Moses as author exist in the Book of Deuteronomy, this view of scripture did not develop fully in Judean thought until the Hellenistic era (321–31BC)."
Bokovoy's claim is largely an assertion and does not merit much response. However, we might point out that an ancient inscription by a king named Idrimi from about 1500 BC shares some similarities with the Book of Abraham, because both texts are written in the first person and tell of the writer’s life, travels, connection to their ancestors, and relationship with God or divine promises. In the ancient Near East, people sometimes wrote about their own lives in this way, and the Idrimi inscription is one example of that kind of writing that archaeologists have found long after the Book of Abraham was published. Smoot, Gee, Muhlestein, and Thompson argue that because these kinds of autobiographical texts existed in the ancient world, this supports the idea that the Book of Abraham could also reflect an ancient literary tradition rather than being purely a modern creation. For Latter-day Saints, this article can be used to suggest that the style and form of the Book of Abraham fit with real ancient Near Eastern writings, helping readers see the Book of Abraham in a broader historical and cultural context.—(Click here to read more)
Potiphar's Hill
Some critics contend that the name "Potiphar" is anachronistic to the time of Abraham.
Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson addressed this issue:
Although the name Potiphar itself is only currently attested after Abraham’s day, the grammatical formula used in the name (pꜣ-dỉ-[X]; “the one whom [such-and-such god] has given”) appears to be based on an earlier formula that is found plentifully in Egyptian names from Abraham’s day. The Re element in the name Potiphar links the name (and thereby the cult site in the Book of Abraham) with solar worship, inasmuch as Re was the chief solar deity of ancient Egypt. This explains why the idolatrous priest in the Book of Abraham is depicted in the text as making an offering to the god of Shagreel, which is identified as a sun deity (Abr. 1:9). The veneration of this deity in Egypt predates Abraham’s day by many centuries, so it is not at all inconceivable that the name could have been as old as Abraham, even if it is not yet attested.
Ur of the Chaldees
The Chaldeens are mentioned a number of times in the Book of Abraham (Abraham 1:1, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 30, 2:4 and 3:1.) Abraham 3꞉1 states:
And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees
The phrase "Ur of the Chaldees" appears in the Old Testament in Genesis 11꞉26-28 in connection with Abraham (Abram) and his father Terah:
26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
27 ¶Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
It is claimed that the mention of "Ur of the Chaldees" in the Book of Abraham is an anachronism. According to Stephen Thompson, "scholarly estimates for the age of the patriarchs range from 2200 to 1200 B.C." [8] The Chaldeans, on the other hand, did not appear until hundreds of years later. Thompson notes that, "anything occurring after 1500 B.C. is definitely anachronistic to Abraham's lifetime."[8] An additional complication is that scholars today place "Chaldea" in southern Mesopotamia, which is too far away to have any Egyptian influence.
Scholars have long debated where “Ur of the Chaldees,” Abraham’s homeland, was located. The issue ultimately remains unresolved. While many modern scholars place it in southern Iraq, Latter-day Saint scholars have given careful attention to a northern location in Syria or southern Turkey. Their work matters because it helps explain details in the Book of Abraham that are difficult to account for if Abraham came from southern Mesopotamia.
Early religious tradition often placed Abraham’s home in the north, near modern-day Urfa in Turkey. This view existed centuries before modern archaeology and fits well with the biblical story of Abraham traveling first to Haran and then to Canaan. Latter-day Saint scholars note that this older tradition should not be ignored, especially since it matches the travel routes described in both Genesis and the Book of Abraham.
Latter-day Saint researchers have also shown that a northern location helps explain cultural details in the Book of Abraham. The book describes ideas and practices that show Egyptian influence. This influence makes more sense in the northern Near East, where Egypt had contact through trade and politics during Abraham’s time. In contrast, there is little evidence that Egypt had meaningful influence in southern Iraq that early. A northern Ur therefore fits better with the cultural world described in the Book of Abraham.
Another important point is geography. The Book of Abraham mentions specific regions and place names, such as Olishem, that some Latter-day Saint scholars connect to known northern locations. If Abraham lived in the north, his journey to Haran and then to the land of Canaan follows a natural and logical path. A southern location would require a much longer and less direct journey, raising questions the northern model answers more easily.
By pointing to a northern Ur of the Chaldees, Latter-day Saint scholars help show that the Book of Abraham fits well within the real ancient world. Their research suggests that the book reflects accurate geography and cultural knowledge rather than modern invention. While the question of Ur’s exact location remains open, the northern approach helps answer important questions about the Book of Abraham’s authenticity and shows why its details continue to make sense when studied carefully.—(Click here to read more)
The Use of the Hypocephalus
The vignettes or scenes portrayed in the Facsimiles date to after the time of Abraham.
The use of the hypocephalus (such as portrayed in Facsimile 2) dates back only to about the 7th century BC.
This data point suggests that a later copyist or redactor adapted the narrative of Abraham to his surrounding culture and embedded it within the hypocephalus.
Notes
- ↑ John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, “Historical Plausibility: The Historicity of the Book of Abraham as a Case Study,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 66.
- ↑ "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed November 4, 2019, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&query=Abraham.
- ↑ John Gee, "Four Idolatrous Gods in the Book of Abraham," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 133–52.
- ↑ John Gee, "Shulem, One of the King's Principal Waiters," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 19 (2016): 383–95.
- ↑ Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition (Signature Books, 2013), 117.
- ↑ Marc Z. Brettler, "Introduction to the Pentateuch," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Michael D. Coogan, 5th ed. (Oxford, 2018), 3–6.
- ↑ Stephen O. Smoot, "Joseph Smith Jr. as a Translator: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 64 (2025) : 357–61.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 Stephen E. Thompson, "Egyptology and the Book of Abraham", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Spring 1995)
Summary: A timeline of events related to the Book of Abraham and Kirtland Egyptian Papers
Jump to Subtopic:
- July 1, 1835 (approximate): From John Whitmer's history of the Church
- July 3-6, 1835: Messenger and Advocate—Joseph Smith interprets some characters from the papyri by revelation
- July 3-6, 1835: History of the Church—Joseph Smith interprets some characters from the papyri by revelation
- July 19 (approximate): Letter sent by W.W. Phelps to his wife—The papyri have not yet been translated
- July 19-31 1835 (approximate): History of the Church—Work is underway on the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL)
- August 5, 1835: From the Cleveland Whig
- 1 October 1835: Joseph Smith's Diary - Work is underway on the "Egyptian alphabet"
- 7 October 1835: "recommenced translating"
- 24 October 1835: Mr Goodrich and his lady called to see the ancient records
- 17 November 1835: exhibited the Alphabet of the ancient records to Mr. Holmes
- 19 November 1835: "spent the day in translating the Egyptian records"
- 20 November 1835: "we spent the day in translating"
- 24 November 1835: "we translated some of the Egyptian"
- 25 November 1835: "spent the day in Translating"
- 26 November 1835: "Spent the day in translating Egyptian characters from the papyrus"
- December 1835: "This record is beautifully written on papyrus with black, and a small part, red ink or paint, in perfect preservation"
- 30 January 1836: "waited upon several visiters & showed them the record of Abraham"
- 3 February 1836: received many visitors and showed the records of Abraham
- 17 February 1836: Elder Coe called to make some arrangements about the Egyptian records and the mummies
- 1837 "A Few Interesting Facts Respecting The Rise and Progress and Pretentions of the Mormons," Pamphlet written by William S. West (Hostile source)
- Robin Scott Jensen: The Story of the Joseph Smith Papyri
Why is the Book of Abraham text not on the papyri?
Summary: We do not claim to know why the text of the Book of Abraham (or the missing Book of Joseph) is not in evidence on the fragments of papyrus that were recovered. Critics, of course, simply assume this to be conclusive evidence that Joseph was a fraud. From a believer's perspective, however, there are several possible theories to account for this: 1) The text was revealed much in the same manner as that of the Book of Mormon, without the need for the actual papyri, 2) The text was present on portions of the papyri that are missing, and 3) The Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings manuscript and was lost. 4) Perhaps there was a way of understanding the Egyptian ideograms anciently that is unknown to Egyptology in our day, yet to be discovered, deciphered or acknowledged, that could yield an interpretation of a text that is different than the standard Egyptological reading.
Jump to Subtopic:
- Question: Was the text of the Book of Abraham received through revelation?
- Question: What is the Book of Abraham "Missing Papyrus theory"?
- Historical Sources on Translation of Book of Abraham
- Gospel Topics on LDS.org, "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham"