The review of the final day of the outreach to Mormons at the British Mormon Pageant 2013, written by Jason Thickpenny, made mention of the controversy surrounding the long discredited Mormon “scripture,” The Book of Abraham. The subject had come up in discussion with Mormons and Jason commented, “They had no idea about the fact it had been proven to be falsely translated.” There was little more on the subject, simply a link through to the CARMS website where further research might be carried out.
The typical Mormon response to criticism is nicely summed up in a short conversation Jason reproduced for us:
“Right at the end we spoke to a Lady who said that we are in error because we don’t accept that today we have a priesthood. I showed her Hebrews 1:1-2, to which she said ‘your not using the Kings James Bible’ – I showed the side of it, and then showed her the front – to which she then said ‘well…that bit must not have been translated right’……..’you young man need to read the book of Mormon’, I said ‘with all due respect why would I need to when God has already given me the answer in the bible?’ She left pretty sharp after that!!”
There is so much that might be said but I want you to note how easily a Mormon dismisses the Bible. It is an attitude you will come across time and again and, as we consider the Book of Abraham controversy, keep in mind that a typical Mormon will even dismiss the word of God in Scripture rather than consider their prophets might be wrong.
No, No, No
Ned Scarisbrick is a Mormon of long experience who began his podcast, The 4th Watch, in March 2013. It is an apologetics programme to help Mormons better understand their faith and, to this end, he has produced, “a compilation response to several articles posted at the anti-Mormon web site, ‘Mormonism Investigated UK’…” (I will have more to say next week about “anti-Mormons” and other epithets so beloved of Mormons)
By the time you come to the end of his podcast, where he deals with the BofA, you are used to his avuncular style and the simple Mormon side-step of answering evidence with unsubstantiated assertions. “No, no, no” he insists as he refutes each challenge with barely more than unadorned denial. As he warms to the subject of the BofA he begins by making an ad hominem attack on the source cited, i.e. CARMS.
“CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned. Well, I carry no brief for Matt Slick but this is not about Matt Slick, it is about the Bof A. Does Ned have anything compelling to say that might disprove what Matt Slick and many others have to say about the Bof A? Well let’s see what Ned comes up with as he commits almost every Mormon faux pas and in mere minutes.
Ad hominem attack: “CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned.
Assertion: “It has not been proven false.”
Appeal to Biased Source: Ned sends us to FAIR, the people for whom he is producing these podcasts.
Opinion: “He wants us to take his own view as fact,” Ned says of Jason’s post, before going on to share his own opinion (another assertion), “But it is not falsely translated.”
False Trail: He then asserts that what manuscripts we have today are nothing to do with the Bof A, as demonstrated in Dr Hugh Nibley’s book, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Again, hardly an unbiased source since Hugh Nibley was the Mormon church’s go-to man for any and every expert opinion. This is the same Hugh Nibley who is quoted in the December 1967 issue of The Daily Universe, pb.BYU, “The Papyri scripts given to the church do not prove the Book of Abraham is true…The church has been caught flat footed by this discovery.”
Rewriting History: “The church,” Ned insists, “has never claimed these have anything to do with the Book of Abraham.” Yet, in the Improvement Era of January 1968 we read,
“Perhaps no discovery in recent memory is expected to arouse as much widespread interest in the restored gospel as is the recent discovery of some Egyptian papyri, one of which is known to have been used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham.
Included in the collection of 11 manuscripts is one identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith obtained Facsimile 1, which prefaces the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Accompanying the manuscripts was a letter dated May 26, 1856, signed by both Emma Smith Bidamon, widow of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and their son, Joseph Smith, attesting that the papyri had been the property of the Prophet.”
It certainly sounds like it it has something to do with the writing of the BofA and the official church Improvement Era says as much.
Lingua Obscura: This is a classic Mormon defence in which the message is – We don’t really know. This stuff is very hard and, after all, translating stuff isn’t easy; culture, language, idiom, historical context, hard stuff like that. Who knows? Lets leave it to the experts to thrash it out, remembering no two experts will give the same translation, nobody agrees, its pretty hopeless really, so just let the Spirit work. Just believe.
So many problems with what Ned is saying here. First, wasn’t there some talk of living prophets? The mantle of Joseph and all that? So, why doesn’t the prophet cut through all this speculation and simply get the job done? Come out and explain what this is all about and put people’s minds at rest for goodness sake.
Secondly, if translation is so fraught with pitfalls and imponderable difficulties how come we have the Book of Mormon in so many languages? That is supposed to be an ancient document. The Bible certainly is an ancient document and we get by somehow in producing modern translations and in different languages that pretty much agree with each other. So where’s the fire?
Thirdly, if you ask any and every Egyptologist worth his salt they will all agree on one thing. The Book of Abraham is a fraud. Do you want evidence of this? Bill McKeever of Mormonism Research Ministry has written a helpful article. (I know Ned wants to say, “MRM? You trust MRM? Bill McKeever? No, no, no.” but maybe he should look at what Bill actually brings to the table before judging. After all, that’s what Mormons would ask for their message)
Bill’s article can be found here. What is interesting is the list of scholars 
and their unanimous opinion. Here are their comments:
“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.”
Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford, England
“I have examined the illustrations given in the ‘Pearl of Great Price.’ In the first place, they are copies (very badly done) of well known Egyptian subjects of which I have dozens of examples. Secondly, they are all many centuries later than Abraham.”
Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, London University
“Joseph Smith’s interpretation of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”
James, H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago
“The ‘Book of Abraham,’ it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication.”
Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Assist. Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Dept. of Egyptian Art
“The plates contained in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are rather comical and a very poor imitation of Egyptian originals.”
Dr. John Peters, Univ. of Pennsylvania
“…the explanatory notes to his facsimiles cannot be taken seriously by any scholar, as they seem to be undoubtedly the work of pure imagination.”
Rev. Prof. C.A.B. Mercer, Ph.D., Western Theological Seminary, Custodian Hibbard Collection, Egyptian Reproductions.
“The Egyptian papyrus which Smith declared to be the ‘Book of Abraham,’ and ‘translated’ or explained in his fantastical way, and of which are three specimens are published in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are parts of the well known ‘Book of the Dead.’ Although the reproductions are very bad, one can easily recognize familiar scenes from this book.” 
Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin
“A careful study has convinced me that Smith probably believed seriously to have deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics, but that he utterly failed. What he calls the ‘Book of Abraham’ is a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages.”
Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich
Of course, for any true believing Mormon no amount of unbiased, expert opinion will be enough. Remember Jason’s conversation and how ready the Mormon lady was to reject the Bible. But the American theologian John Gresham Machen observed:
“Because argument is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unnecessary. What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth is not make a person a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary, to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.” (quoted in John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, p.59)
The Blog Of Mormon 
Good stuff! Did you notice how he used a completely ‘false analogy’ when talking about translations? He said something about if you translate into French, then Spanish, then Japanese etc you lose something. But this is not at all analogous to translating from a single document in front of you. This was such a blatantly false analogy that one has to ask why it was employed. Honesty compels us to use fair analogies even if they don’t suit our cause.
LikeLike
I should have picked up on that, although I am sure he will be by soon enough to discuss it now you have brought it up. There is a particular way Mormons think to which they, themselves, are blind. It has to do with your starting point. If “the church is true” then all criticism simply has to be wrong. Like so many people – Christians included – they will repeat stock answers, cliché’s, basically lazy thinking, depending on “what everybody says” in their circle. Thanks for your comment. It is much appreciated.
LikeLike
The eight scholars that McKeever quote from are from the year 1912, before the now extant papyri fragments were rediscovered. All they had to go on was Joseph’s interpretation of Facsimile 1, so they are not commenting on the text of the Book of Abraham itself, an important observation.
I’m not saying modern non-LDS scholars would agree with LDS interpretations of Joseph’s restoration and interpretation of Facsimile 1, for goodness sake a lot of progress in Egyptology has been made since 1912. McKeever cites Spalding’s work (and you in turn repeat it) as if it had any relevancy in 2013, 101 years later.
I realize that you have criticized (in the original post) LDS for appealing to the fact that Book of Abraham scholarship is an extremely complex issue with only a small handful of individuals on either side of the issue who are qualified to speak authoritatively on it, but it is the simple truth. The rest of us are simply regurgitating their work. Critics quote Robert Ritner, LDS quote John Gee.
LikeLike
Hello James and thank you for your thoughtful comments. It makes a change from “Have you prayed about the Book of Mormon?” I did enjoy your blog, Lehi’s Library. For anyone who missed it just click on James’ name against his comments. Well worth a visit,
I understand your point but no one is saying they are commenting on the recently discovered text. What was available to these eminent gentlemen was what is available to us today in the Pearl of Great Price, that is, the illustrations. Flinders Petrie (1853-1942) for example stated:
“I have examined the illustrations given in the ‘Pearl of Great Price.’ In the first place, they are copies (very badly done) of well known Egyptian subjects of which I have dozens of examples. Secondly, they are all many centuries later than Abraham.”
Dr James Henry Breasted (1865-1935) said, “… these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”
Commenting on the plates Dr Robert Sayce (1846-1933) sounds almost exasperated, as do so many experts today with tiresome Mormon claims for “ancient documents” and I have interviewed one or two myself. “”It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.,” declared Dr Sayce.
The plates are the same today as then and the claims made for them are the same, claims that are ridiculous to today’s unbiased experts as to those experts of former days. You make my point for me when you comment, “I’m not saying modern non-LDS scholars would agree with LDS interpretations of Joseph’s restoration and interpretation of Facsimile 1…”
That is the point, surely? It is not about then and now, even though you bring up the progress in Egyptology in 101 years, nor is it about one scholar disagreeing with another, as our friend Ned would have it. Rather, it is about LDS scholars holding to a view based finally on faith that non-LDS scholars one and all find untenable.
You object to Spalding, but it is not Spalding that is quoted but the experts whose opinions he elicited. Whatever you think of Spalding those opinions hold today. Dr Robert Ritner, whom you mention, has produced the first ever complete translation of the papyri and information can be found on the Mormon Chronicles site
http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/complete-translation-of-joseph-smith.html
You say “Critics quote Robert Ritner, LDS quote John Gee.” as though to perpetuate the idea that “experts are in disagreement.” But John Gee is a Mormon who has come in for criticism for failing to include Dr Ritner in peer reviews of his work on the papyri. One must wonder why. Perhaps this quote from Dr Ritner will cast some light for us:
“The inevitable conflict with LDS received tradition was obvious from the beginning –as it has been to all Egyptologists– but that was not the primary motivating factor for my study. I wanted to show clearly what the texts actually said and contained, and equally clearly what they did not.”
So it appears “all Egyptologists” – apart from LDS Egyptologits – are of one accord that their work will stand in conflict with LDS claims, even with LDS experts such as John Gee. Dr Roberts goes on to observe:
“The only parallels between the Book of Abraham and the papyri are found in the Facsimiles (Ptolemaic in date [352-30 BCE.]) that are specifically described and referenced within the text of the [Book of Abraham (BoA hereafter)] itself. There is thus no possibility that the scenes, reworked from the papyri for the BoA, can be considered separate from the source of the BoA itself. Obviously, the papyrus containing the scenes is equally linked. The BoA just as clearly misunderstands these Facsimiles/Vignettes, with multiple confusions of standard imagery (for example: male vs. female vs. animal, specific deity images) and distorted interpretations of easily legible Egyptian text.”
In other words, the scenes in the BoA are the same as the scenes in the papyri and both are inevitably linked to the original manuscripts. But the interpretation of those scenes differs so widely as to make the Mormon understanding a distortion of information that is easily understood by unbiased scholars.
I am afraid you are in the same position as any Mormon who comes up against the cold light of well established academia. You must decide to accept it by faith in spite of the evidence, or you must acknowledge the evidence and change your mind. I know personally how very difficult that is.
LikeLike
Wow, I didn’t expect to take such a large barrage of shotgun fire on this issue. It seemed pretty straightforward to me. If I didn’t make that clear I would like to do so now. The Church has never claimed that this papyri was the source material. Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. Critics who claim that we have all, or a majority, of the papyri possessed by Joseph Smith are simply mistaken.
The Egyptian characters on the recovered documents are a portion of the “Book of Breathings,” an Egyptian religious text buried with mummies that instructed the dead on how to successfully reach the afterlife. This particular Book of Breathings was written for a deceased man named Hor, so it it usually called the Hor Book of Breathings. Hor was a Egyptian priest and this document was NOT the text for the Book of Abraham
Other than the vignette represented in Facsimile 1, the material on the papyri received by the Church, at least from a standard Egyptological point of view, does not include the actual text of the Book of Abraham. This was discussed in the Church publication, the New Era in January 1968.
So we can agree on that. Facsimile 2 or what is called a hypocephalus is also an Egyptian document for an individual names Sheshonq. Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes published a book called “One Eternal Round” on this one item. It is a scholarly work of over 600 pages. Not light reading but well done research. So Egyptology is in progression and to say that any and every Egyptologist worth his salt will all agree on one thing. The Book of Abraham is a fraud is going to far. Perhaps there are current discoveries that give plenty of new light on our old understanding. I could give numerous links to this new light but this is not about proving the Book of Abraham. Let’s say I have three scholars who combined have eight PhD. They have published over twenty books and more than one hundred peer reviewed articles. You have only two scholars with only one PhD and the other is a grad student. No published books or peer reviewed articles. Does that make them less valid than my scholars? I would say no. Truth is truth and will cut it’s own path. I don’t think scholarship is wrong but don’t place professional credentials in front of your views on what is true. Often we hear that the scientific truth of today is the scientific foolishness of tomorrow.
My point about using CARM and Matt Slick as valid sources stands. I know Matt and he lives not far from my home and I have been a guest on his radio show. I also have meet and talked to Bill McKeever from the MRM. Both men are kind and seem like your basic good neighbors types but both are anti-Mormon in their theology. Neither are unbiased when it comes to information regarding the LDS Church and it’s teachings. To recommend such organizations as neutral observers in disingenuous in my view. I would not recommend talking to democratic party officials to learn what the republican party teaches. I don’t think that having a certain opinion or view is in itself a bad thing. We all have our own level of understanding but to put forth such as “proof” is going over the line.
-Ned Scarisbrick
LikeLike
Hey Ned, can I find that show with you and Matt anywhere?
Also I sent you an email, if you got it thats fine no rush, otherwise please let me know if you didnt.
LikeLike
Hello Ned, how nice to meet you. I am sorry you feel my post came across rather strong but I hardly think it deserves to be called “a barrage of shotgun fire.” I am sure you feel, as I do, this is more than an academic exercise; it is about eternal principles, souls lost and souls saved. And I am equally certain that, like me, you don’t like to see people deceived and God’s eternal truths treated like commodities, or as objects of speculation. I respect your personal faith Ned but I am deadly serious about my own and if that is what comes across then I make no apologies.
In this respect, it should be recognised that the BoA is the source of many of the strangest doctrines of the Mormon Church, most notably perhaps the teaching on Negroes and the priesthood which the church now disingenuously ascribes to historical/cultural factors but that was in their “scripture” all along. This being the case I think a robust challenge of Mormon claims quite appropriate. Allow me to address your first point. You say:
“The Church has never claimed that this papyri was the source material. Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. Critics who claim that we have all, or a majority, of the papyri possessed by Joseph Smith are simply mistaken.”
This is part of a fast growing catalogue of arguments from silence. We can’t examine the gold plates, we have no evidence of reformed Egyptian, there is not a scrap of archaeological evidence for Book of Mormon history, we cannot know what early church leaders might have meant when they said this or that as recorded in the Journal of Discourses, we haven’t the scrolls from which Joseph Smith translated the BoA. What a careless and absent-minded people you are Ned! Especially given Mormons are supposed to be a record keeping people. And even being led by prophets seems to be no solution as we are left with apparent scholarly speculation about what is one of the most important claims of Joseph Smith’s life.
Now here is a fine state of affairs. Joseph Smith purports to translate some ordinary, run-of-the-mill Egyptian papyri that came his way, the very autograph of Abraham and an account of Joseph of Egypt, Smith declared. The manuscripts that form the basis of the book, preserved for millennia and brought into the very hands of God’s latter-day prophet to reveal to man “truths” found nowhere else – are lost. No angel took them back into heaven this time, they were simply mislaid.
The discovery of part of that collection in 1967 is potentially revelatory but when experts examine them they declare this has nothing to do with Abraham, it is a book of breathings, a funerary text from a couple of hundred years BC. Disappointed Mormons soon learn to repeat the party line much as you have done. “Of course,” they say,
“The Egyptian characters on the recovered documents are a portion of the “Book of Breathings,” an Egyptian religious text buried with mummies that instructed the dead on how to successfully reach the afterlife. This particular Book of Breathings was written for a deceased man named Hor, so it it usually called the Hor Book of Breathings. Hor was an Egyptian priest and this document was NOT the text for the Book of Abraham”
We are back to an argument from silence. But the evidence is not silent because something in the recovered manuscripts is directly linked to Joseph Smith – facsimile 1. I have in front of me a copy of the Pearl of Great Price and I am looking at three facsimiles with Joseph Smith’s explanation of each. In each in turn he sees “Abraham fastened upon and altar” (Facsimile 1); a cosmology with Kolob at the centre (Facsimile 2) and “Abraham sitting on Pharaohs throne…” (facsimile 3)
You insist the manuscripts do not include the actual text of the Book of Abraham but I think you are missing the point. They do contain facsimile 1 that Joseph Smith claimed he accurately translated and Egyptologists have shown once for all nothing he made of it is remotely accurate or true. They have no need of rediscovered manuscripts to show this. They are familiar enough with their business to be able to recognise immediately what these vignettes portray. It is embarrassingly obvious. You, yourself, have said,
“So we can agree on that. Facsimile 2 or what is called a hypocephalus is also an Egyptian document for an individual names Sheshonq.”
But having some big impressive words at your fingertips and delivering them in that urbane fashion typical of Mormon pseudo-scholarship makes no difference because Joseph Smith has declared facsimile 2 to be a cosmology while you admit it is nothing of the sort. We need go no further until you explain why Egyptologists, LDS and non-LDS, agree this is not what Smith claimed for it and you concur.
You appeal to the idea that Egyptology is in progression and make play of the scientific truth of today being the scientific foolishness of tomorrow (one day we will know what we don’t know now) but the Egyptologists of today agree with the Egyptologists of 100 years ago in declaring Smith’s “translation” of these facsimiles utter nonsense. What Mormons must come to terms with is that some issues are simply settled and not only is there no evidence to back up Mormon claims but there is much settled and established evidence to contradict them. On the question of evidence Professor Robert Ritner wrote:
“There is thus no possibility that the scenes, reworked from the papyri for the BoA, can be considered separate from the source of the BoA itself. Obviously, the papyrus containing the scenes is equally linked. The BoA just as clearly misunderstands these Facsimiles/Vignettes, with multiple confusions of standard imagery (for example: male vs. female vs. animal, specific deity images) and distorted interpretations of easily legible Egyptian text.”
In other words, you cannot have the scenes while at the same time insisting you have nothing connected with the BoA. That is having the penny and the bun; very greedy. Further, in referring to the Mormon understanding of these facsimiles he writes about misunderstanding, multiple confusions of standard imagery (note standard imagery, i.e. uncontroversial) and “distorted interpretations of easily legible Egyptian text.” Regarding Mormon claims for a missing BoA manuscript Prof Ritner writes that,
“For the reasons given above, this idea is not possible. The various alternative theories for a “missing BoA text” are discussed in detail in my book, and all are shown to be false. Parallel texts, standard papyrus document size (not whole rolls manufactured for commerce), measurements of rolling, a supposed (but false) reference to a lost text by the early scholar Seyffarth, and internal BoA remarks on the Facsimiles all indicate that the “Breathing Permit of Hor” (P JS I) is the source of the fictional account of Abraham. The fictional nature of the tale is blatant not only from the Egyptian evidence, but also from Mesopotamian evidence, incorporated within this study for the first time.”
In other words, Egyptologists can tell from what is there what might be missing and what cannot be missing. Writing about LDS scholarship in regards the facsimiles he says,
“Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the apologetic writings is the degree to which those translations support and often parallel Egyptological ones, demonstrating that the Joseph Smith interpretations are indefensible. Apologists can argue that the source text of BoA is lost, but they cannot deny the “translations” and “explanations” offered by Smith on the Facsimiles. Instead, they ignore them while translating the hieroglyphs as properly as possible, acknowledging Smith’s published translations to be wrong. Michael D. Rhodes’ treatment of the P. JS I Facsimiles [Facsimiles 1-3] is a classic example of this”
We are back to the facsimiles. One thing on which we can agree, the manuscripts are not in any meaningful way germane to the question of the facsimiles, facsimiles we now all agree were totally obscure to and misrepresented by Joseph Smith. He couldn’t and didn’t understand and translate them. Allow this truth to come home and consider the implications for his claim to have translated the Book of Mormon.
I have to smile at your comments on CARMS and MRM. First, I did not cite them as independent authorities – although I regard MRM with which I am familiar enough as trustworthy – simply as sources where independent commentary might be found, i.e. Egyptologists. Secondly, you are clearly blind to the typical Mormon habit of identifying everyone as they stand in relation to the Mormon Church but neither man is “anti-Mormon” in their theology. I can at least speak for Bill who is a good friend of mine when I say he is theologically Christian. He and I would argue we are simply defending our Christian faith from the outrageous claims of Mormonism. Your analogy with the Democratic and Republican parties are a hoot given that most Mormons I speak to insist “if you want to know about Mormonism you should ask a Mormon and not an enemy of the church.”
It seems to me, finally, that the Mormon Church cannot elicit any support for its claims from any non-LDS scholars and unless and until they can the jury will remain resolutely out on the question of Joseph Smiths abilities as a translator.
LikeLike
I don’t have time for a protracted discussion on this issue, especially when the tone has become rather condescending and unfriendly (the internet does that to people). I’ll just refer you to the “Semitic Adaptation Theory” that brings together much of LDS thinking over the past few decades into one succinct paper by Kevin Barney. It addresses just about all of the objections you’ve laid out.
Summary: Like many ancient Egyptian vignettes, the vignettes associated with the BoA were adopted by a Jewish redactor in the Ptolemaic or Roman era and syncretized Egyptian and Semitic themes, repurposing originally Egyptian vignettes into Semitic ones.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=40&chapid=168
Good day.
LikeLike