• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FAIR

2022 FAIR Conference videos are now available to watch!

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

New Research on the Book of Abraham

August 8, 2013 by Stephen Smoot

Fascinating new research regarding the Book of Abraham has been published in the most recent edition of the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture, published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. The two articles are by Egyptologists Kerry Muhlestein (PhD, UCLA) and John Gee (PhD, Yale). 

The Religious and Cultural Background of Joseph Smith Papyrus I

Professor Kerry Muhlestein of Brigham Young University

As the title would suggest, Professor Muhlestein’s article covers the ancient historical context behind Joseph Smith Papyrus I. This papyrus fragment was returned to the Church in 1967, and contains the original to Facsimile 1 in the Book of Abraham. The fragment has proven controversial, with both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars weighing in on its nature and Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the figures thereon.

However, while much has been said with regard to Joseph Smith’s interpretations of this fragment, comparatively little has been done to examine its ancient background. Here Professor Muhlestein’s article proves especially enlightening. “We can better appreciate the text of the Book of Abraham as we learn more about the culture and history in which it was created,” Professor Muhlestein writes. This includes “studies about Egypt, Canaan, and Mesopotamia during Abraham’s day” as well as “the era when the papyri we still have were created.”

Professor Muhlestein’s research into this historical background has yielded significant discoveries, specifically that “biblical names and figures were used in Egyptian contexts.” Accordingly, Professor Muhlestein seeks to answer the following questions in his article:

(1) Who used biblical figures and stories? (2) What figures and stories did they use? (3) How did they use them? (4) Why did they use them? (5) When did they use them? (6) How did they learn of them? And (7) When did they learn of them?

As explained by Muhlestein, the ancient Egyptians were evidently not only aware of biblical figures, including Abraham, but also comfortably syncretized biblical figures with their own religious figures. This is especially apparent in the so-called Greek Magical Papyri, but also in other Egyptian documents. One text even depicts a figure on a lion couch similar to the one in Facsimile 1 as being Abraham. “The vignette depicts a mummiform figure on a lion couch. Here we would typically expect to identify the figure with Osiris, but the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch.” With this and other evidence in mind, Professor Muhlestein concludes that “there are enough instances in which Abraham appears in contexts normally occupied by Osiris that we must conclude the Egyptians saw some sort of connection between the two.”

Why is this significant from an apologetic perspective? For starters, critics of the Book of Abraham have typically claimed that the Joseph Smith Papyri have nothing to do with Abraham. This is certainly true insofar as the papyri we currently possess do not translate as the English Book of Abraham published in 1842 by Joseph Smith. However, critics usually take this criticism a step further. They typically assert that any connection between Abraham and Egyptian religion is nonsense. “How,” the critic typically asks, “would a book about the biblical figure Abraham end up being buried with some funeral papyri belonging to an Egyptian priest?” Or, as put by Charles Larson:

Since the Joseph Smith Papyri have been identified with absolute certainty as prayers to pagan Egyptian gods that, by biblical definition are ripe with occultism, it is inconceivable, given the holy character of God, that He would associate Himself or His revelation in any way with these pagan religious documents. This fact alone is ample grounds for totally rejecting the Book of Abraham as a revelation from the one True and Living God.[1]

Besides the fact that this assertion ignores the clear sycretization of Israelite religion with earlier Canaanite “pagan” religion,[2] the claim that there are no connections between Abraham and ancient Egyptian religion now proves wholly unpersuasive, as Professor Muhlestein’s article now shows beyond any doubt that such connections did take place. As Professor Muhlestein explains:

As a result of these conclusions we can better understand why Hor, a Theban priest in 200 BC, would possess papyrus associated with Abraham. He was a product of his times who was informed by his culture and in turn had opportunity to inform that culture. His interest in biblical characters and his possession of both biblical and nonbiblical stories about these characters was part of his occupation. Hor would undoubtedly have been interested in any religious stories that could have been incorporated into, and thus given more power to, his priestly duties.

Professor Muhlestein’s article also explores how biblical figures were imported into Egypt and how they were employed in various texts.

Finally, before any critics complain that this is a Mormon writing in a Mormon publication for a Mormon audience, I note that this research has been published elsewhere by Professor Muhlestein in a professional, non-Mormon Egyptological venue.[3] If it’s good enough for Professor Muhlestein’s non-Mormon Egyptological peers, it should certainly be good enough for anonymous critics on the Internet.

Abraham and Idrimi

Professor John Gee of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

The article directly succeeding Professor Muhlestein’s comes from Professor John Gee, and explores what he has elsewhere called a “Book of Abraham Bullseye.” According to Professor Gee, there exists but one known autobiographical text from Syria roughly contemporary to the time of Abraham. It is the autobiography of the Syrian king Idrimi, “the ruler of the town of Alalakh.” At first glance this autobiography may not attract to much attention to readers of the Book of Abraham. That is until we realize that “Idrimi’s autobiography compares well with Abraham’s autobiography in both subject and form.”

These similarities include: 1) being told in the first person, 2) geographical details, 3) travelogues, 4) discussion of covenants, 5) motivation for writing an autobiography, and 6) some discussion of genealogy. There are differences between the two, Professor Gee notes, but “the autobiographical form seems to require the mention of certain topics, including (1) continuity with the past tradition through references to the house, gods, and records of their fathers and (2) piety to the gods they serve by describing their explicit service and following the revelation they receive from their god.”

Professor Gee ends his article by concluding that “the Book of Abraham belongs to the same specific literary tradition as Idrimi’s autobiography,” as well as with this probing question, which critics of the Book of Abraham would do well to address: “How did Joseph Smith manage to publish in the Book of Abraham a story that closely matched a Middle-Bronze-Age Syrian autobiography that would not be discovered for nearly a hundred years?”

Conclusion

With this new research, perhaps we should re-think the assertion of one critic that “anyone investigating claims of ancient evidence for Smith’s translation should not ‘waste his time’.”[4] Not only is there ancient evidence for the Book of Abraham, but that evidence keeps coming.

Notes:

[1]: Charles Larson, . . . By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), 120.

[2]: That Canaanite religion influenced the development of Israelite conceptions of deity has been abundantly demonstrated by biblical scholars since at least the discovery of the Ugaritic texts in the late 1920s, if not earlier.

[3]: See Kerry Muhlestein, “Abraham, Isaac, and Osiris-Michael: The Use of Biblical Figures in Egyptian Religion, A Survey,” in Achievements and Problems of Modern Egyptology, ed. Galina A. Belova (Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, Center for Egyptological Studies, 2011), 246–259.

[4]: See here.

Filed Under: Book of Abraham, LDS Scriptures Tagged With: Book of Abraham, critics, Joseph Smith Papyri, Pearl of Great Price

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Jon says

    August 13, 2013 at 6:54 am

    “One text even depicts a figure on a lion couch similar to the one in Facsimile 1 as being Abraham. ‘The vignette depicts a mummiform figure on a lion couch. Here we would typically expect to identify the figure with Osiris, but the text notes that it is Abraham on the couch.'”

    Where does the text note that it is Abraham on the couch?

  2. Stephen Smoot says

    August 13, 2013 at 10:56 am

    Hi Jon,

    The answer to your question depends on how one understands the inscription directly below the vignette.

    I think it can be safely said that the text and the vignette are associated, since there is instruction to copy the inscription with the vignette when copies of the text are made.

    The question is, then, how do we understand the reference to “ABPAAM” in the text. That this is the biblical Abraham I have no doubt. As Muhlestein notes, Abraham and other Jewish names are invoked in the Greek Magical Papyri, so it only makes sense that this “ABPAAM” is the Abraham of the Bible. I also can’t imagine any other “Abraham” being used in a religious context in any ancient Near Eastern religious system (Jewish or otherwise).

    If anyone is going to insist that it isn’t the biblical Abraham, I’d challenge them to give some good justification for this claim beyond ideological desire for it not to be Abraham of the Bible.

    Now, Muhlestein cites two translations of this inscription (Gee and Betz). Gee translates the text as “Abraham who . . . upon” and Betz as “Abraham who at”. Gee and Muhlestein seem to think that the mummiform figure on the lion couch is Abraham himself. Other have argued that Abraham’s name is being invoked in a magical spell to protect the figure on the lion couch, but that the figure is not Abraham.

    Either way, we have Abraham being associated with a lion couch scene. That’s what I think is crucial. If it turns out not to be Abraham on the couch, then I’d be happy to concede that, since we still have his name being used in conjunction with a lion couch scene.

    Muhlestein’s ultimate point seems to be that it isn’t absurd to associate Abraham with an Egyptian lion couch scene (as Joseph Smith did in Facsimile 1). He also provides other evidence explaining why an Egyptian priest like Hor would have had an interest in a text about Abraham. This doesn’t prove the Book of Abraham, but it does create a plausible situation in which a text like the Book of Abraham could have been associate with the Joseph Smith Papyri (assuming, of course, that there was an ancient Book of Abraham text.)

  3. Jon says

    August 15, 2013 at 8:13 am

    Thank you for the response.

    I think it’s fair to conclude that Muhlestein overstates the evidence by using the verb “notes.”

  4. nathan000000 says

    August 23, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Great summary. Stephen, have you seen those two charts comparing the state of Mesoamerican archaeology in Joseph Smith’s day with the present (1842 v. 2005)?

    http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms

    I would love to see a similar pair of charts constructed for the book of Abraham. Do you know if anyone has created one? Who would be in a position to do so?

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


RSS-Icon RSS Feed (all posts)

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FAIR app
Android app on Google Play

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FAIR Latest

  • Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 1: Preface/Introduction
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 3; Mark 1; Luke 3
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – John 1
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 2; Luke 2
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 1; Luke 1

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Sarah Allen on Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 1: Preface/Introduction
  • Michael Towns on Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 1: Preface/Introduction
  • David Linn on Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 3; Mark 1; Luke 3
  • Sarah on Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 3; Mark 1; Luke 3
  • Adam W on Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – John 1

Archives

Footer

FairMormon Logo

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.

Our Friends

  • BYU Religious Studies Center
  • BYU Studies
  • Book of Mormon Central
  • TheFamilyProclamation.org
  • Interpreter Foundation
  • Wilford Woodruff Papers Project

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • iTunes
  • YouTube

Donate to FAIR

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Donate to us by shopping at Amazon at no extra cost to you. Learn how →

Site Footer

Copyright © 1997-2023 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of FAIR, its officers, directors or supporters.

No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc.

Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FAIR are solely those of FAIR and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) Logo

FAIR is controlled and operated by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)