Assessment of Claimed Anachronisms in the Book of Abraham

Main Page > Book of Abraham Sandbox > Book of Abraham Anachronisms > Assessment of Claimed Anachronisms in the Book of Abraham

Assessment of Claimed Anachronisms in the Book of Abraham

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Summary: This page contains responses to all claimed anachronisms in the Book of Abraham.

Contents:

• Abraham as a Historical Figure
• Abraham Speaking Egyptian
• "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus"
• Chariots
• The Dating of the Papyri
• Depiction of Angels
• The Documentary Hypothesis
• Hebrew Not Old Enough for Abraham
• Human Sacrifice
• The Name "Egyptus"
• The Name "Pharaoh"
• Potiphar's Hill
• Prophetic Figure Writing Scripture
• The Scenes in the Facsimiles
• Ur of the Chaldees

---

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.

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.

Abraham Speaking Egyptian

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 1835, Joseph Smith, founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, began the translation of some Egyptian papyri that was sold to him in the Church’s then-headquarters—Kirtland, Ohio. Joseph Smith claimed that the papyri purported to be the autobiographical writings of the ancient biblical patriarch Abraham. This translation was made part of the official canon of the Church in the 1880s.

In 1967, the Church acquired some surviving fragments of the papyri from which the translation 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).

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.
• 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.
• 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 redactora 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.

Depiction of Angels

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. 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. 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

Human Sacrifice

The Name "Egyptus"

The Name "Pharaoh"

Several critics allege that calling someone "Pharaoh" is anachronistic to the time of Abraham.

The Functional Equivalent of the Office of Pharaoh Does Go Back to the Time of Abraham

It should be noted that the functional equivalent of the office of Pharaoh absolutely does range 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 that could be called the monarch in Abraham's day, Joseph Smith and his contemporaries would call 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

Potiphar's Hill

The Scenes in the Facsimiles

Ur of the Chaldees

Pearl of Great Price Central, Insight #4: 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

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." 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."

An additional complication is that scholars today place "Chaldea" in southern Mesopotamia, which is too far away to have any Egyptian influence.

The phrase "Ur of the Chaldees" appears in the Old Testament in connection with Abraham (Abram) and his father Terah

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.

The location of "Ur of the Chaldees" is not known

The location of "Ur of the Chaldees" is not known, although that has been much speculation among religious scholars concerning its possible location. It is noted by the Church that "Most scholars today locate “Chaldea” (or Ur) in southern Mesopotamia, removed from the area of Egyptian influence, but cogent arguments have been made for a northern location, within the realm of Egyptian influence."

Those "cogent arguments" for a northern location can be found from the likes of John Gee and Paul Y. Hoskisson below.

Paul Hoskisson (1991): "I will suggest an alternate location for the Ur of the Chaldees in the story of Abraham"

Paul Y. Hoskisson, "Research and Perspectives: Where Was the Ur of Abraham?", Ensign (July 1991)

Most people have an interest in the material settings of the scriptural accounts they hold sacred. Beyond this interest, physical settings become particularly important when scholars locate scriptural sites on present-day maps, because on this basis scholars augment and supplement our body of scriptural knowledge with facts from the indicated sites. For instance, many scholars place the site of Abraham’s Ur in southern Mesopotamia, and on that basis suggest that Abraham had contact with and was influenced by the dominant cult of that Ur, the cult of the moon god. With the aid of the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, I will suggest an alternate location for the Ur of the Chaldees in the story of Abraham. —(Click here to continue)

John Gee: "If Oylum Hoyuk is Olishem, the Ur of the Chaldees should be one of the dozens of Middle Bronze II sites in the Kilis plain"

John Gee,

If indeed tablets from Hittite from the site identify it as Ullis, the it is probably the Ulisum that Naram-Sin attacked and is a likely candidate for Olishem. If Oylum Hoyuk is Olishem, the Ur of the Chaldees should be one of the dozens of Middle Bronze II sites in the Kilis plain. We await further discoveries and publications. At present, given the many uncertainties, we can regard this identification as promising but not proven. —(Click here to continue)

Stephen O. Smoot, "'In the Land of the Chaldeans': The Search for Abraham's Homeland Revisited

First, I will look at what Genesis says about Abraham and his sojourns throughout Mesopotamia and Syria. I will pay special attention to passages in Genesis and elsewhere that touch on Abraham’s geographical and cultural setting(s). Then I will provide a brief history of the excavation of Tell el-Muqayyar and recount what modern scholarship says about Ur in various parts of its history. From there I will compare the picture in Genesis with the archaeological picture provided by this scholarship. As will be seen in my analysis, the attempts by the renowned archaeologist Sir Leonard Woolley and others to identify Tell el-Muqayyar as Abraham’s Ur are not without considerable difficulty. I will then transition into highlighting the work of scholars who have placed Abraham’s Ur not in southern Iraq but rather in various sites in Syria or northern Mesopotamia. After that, I will conclude by bringing the book of Abraham into the equation to explore the significance it carries when it comes to locating Abraham’s Ur.—(Click here to continue)

Notes

BACK TO TOP