Handwritten manuscripts from the Kirtland period of LDS Church history seem to indicate that the Book of Abraham was "translated" from one of the extant mounted fragments of this scroll. But when this fragment is translated Egyptologically, it turns out to have nothing to do with Abraham. As a result, missing papyrus theorist John Gee has argued that a Book of Abraham may have followed the Document of Breathing on the lost interior portion of the scroll. He explains, "Both Mormon and non-Mormon eyewitnesses from the nineteenth century agree that it was a 'roll of papyrus from which [Joseph Smith] translated the Book of Abraham,' meaning the 'long roll of manuscript,' and not one of the mounted fragments that eventually ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art" (John Gee, “Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri,” FARMS Review 20, no. 1 (2008): 119).
Dr. Gee's claim is not accurate. Consider the following eyewitness accounts, which indicate that both the mounted fragments and the intact portion of the scroll were identified as an Abrahamic record, and in fact the "deciphered" portion of the record was among the fragments:
"[Joseph Smith] then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames, covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted. . . . There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham."
(“A Glance at the Mormons,” The Friend; a Religious and Literary Journal 13, no. 43 [July 25, 1840]: 342–43.)
"Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. 'That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,' said the prophet."
(Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past: From the Leaves of Old Journals, (Boston, Mass.: Roberts Brothers, 1883), 386.)
"From this he drew forth a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics. These had been unrolled from four mummies, which the prophet had purchased at a cost of twenty-four hundred dollars. By some inexplicable mode, as the storekeeper informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets contained the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in Egypt."
(Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons, or Three Days at Nauvoo, in 1842, 2nd rev. and enl. ed. [London: J.G.F. & J. Rivington, 1843], 22.)
"[Lucy Mack Smith] produced a black looking roll (which she told us was papyrus) found on the breast of the King, part of which the prophet had unrolled and read; and she had pasted the deciphered sheets on the leaves of a book which she showed us."
(M. to Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer, September 1846, in Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer 3, no. 27 [October 3, 1846]: 211-12.)
Our current English text of the Book of Abraham was translated from pJS XI, the "instructions" column of the Document of Breathing. This needn't threaten faith or membership in the Church, but it may require a change of paradigms in the way Mormons think about translation and prophethood. Such changes can be frightening and traumatic at first, but ultimately I think people will find they are also beneficial. Some may even find their faith deepened by the experience. One example of such a paradigm change in action is Karl C. Sandberg, "Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham, and Joseph Smith as Translator," Dialogue 22 (Winter 1989): 17-38. Another I recommend is Jason Monson's Mormon pluralism.
16 comments:
I can't comment on any of the actual *stuff* contained here, but I wanted to say that the site design is pretty sweet.
I gotta say, for me, this is just one of those areas where apologists are just embarrassing themselves. Admittedly, I am not a historian, but I don't think anyone but a devout Mormon would look at the situation and still claim it is a literal translation of that funerary text.
I hope it does cause a shift in thinking. Unfortunately, it will be slow coming because of the nature of the Book of Mormon. If we accept that Joseph didn't translate (literally) that book, what can we say about his translation of the BoM? Maybe nothing, but doubt is certainly planted.
Personally, if, we in the church, did something as simple as replacing the words "translated" with "revealed" and got rid of all the translation-depicting art, we could make for a smoother transition. Like you, I don't think it has to destroy one's faith, but our continued insistence on historicity and literal translations makes for a very B&W type thinking.
Great post!
Thanks, Andrew. I can't take too much credit, 'cause it's one of the built-in Blogger layouts. But I like both the understated simplicity of it and the unusual color scheme.
jmb, I agree that change will not come easily for most people. (Actually, for most people change will probably never come at all!) My own theological liberalization took years, and I actually had a head start because I wasn't raised to believe in inerrancy or creationism. I can't pretend it's been easy, but I do think it has been rewarding. I feel I'm a better person because of it.
That doesn't mean I want to go around pushing these kinds of changes on people who don't want them, of course. The main thing is that I want my counterarguments to Gee in print, so that those who want good history can find it without bad apologetics getting in the way. :)
Chris,
The new look for the blog is very welcome. Thanks.
"My own theological liberalization took years, and I actually had a head start because I wasn't raised to believe in inerrancy or creationism. I can't pretend it's been easy, but I do think it has been rewarding. I feel I'm a better person because of it."
Sounds like we're in the same boat!
Wow Todd, I absolutely agree with you! One of the reasons that I have such a problem with Gee's theory is that it has discouraged study of both the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers as they relate to the Book of Abraham. In my opinion, these are some of the most fascinating documents in all of early Mormonism. I just love reading about how Joseph interpreted the various symbols and illustrations on the papyri. It is a fascinating window into the mind of a prophetic artist, who could mine tiny symbols for vast panoramas of sacred meaning!
Yes, I also agree with you Tod. I think that is a possibility. In fact, if we believe the BoM is historical, I don't see any other way than to conclude that there was something about the objects that stirred revelation. Shoot even if it is isn't historical, it would be worth exploring.
Hi Chris, wonderful blog.
I was wondering: how have these quotes been accepted in the Mormon apologetic world? Or does everyone you discuss the BoA with hold the more liberal view in the first place?
Hey openminded,
So far as I know, no apologist has even acknowledged the apparent implication of these quotes, let alone accepted or refuted that implication. I haven't really gone out of my way to bring it to their attention, though. Hopefully these quotes will eventually be included in a published article, though, so perhaps after that they will receive more apologetic attention.
Hi Chris,
What do you make of the claims that the pJS are the writings of a scribe rather than Smith himself, and were therefore not used in the BoA?
PJS refers to the papyrus itself, which was written by ancient Egyptians. What are sometimes said to be the work of Smith's scribes are the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which consist of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, and several handwritten manuscripts of the BoA that have characters from one of the extant papyrus fragments juxtaposed with the English text.
I personally think the evidence argues strongly against these having been independent, speculative productions of Smith's scribes. Entries in Smith's diaries and history suggest otherwise, as does the internal evidence of the manuscripts themselves. I discussed these issues in a paper published last year in the JWHA Journal. For a brief summary of the debate and a citation for my paper, see here.
I tested these quotes on Mormanity to see what the response would be like (I'm id, on that blog), and one of the replies seemed to have a pretty decent response these quotes:
"I am not sure how you would conclude from the above eye witness accounts that the existing fragments are everything that Joseph had to translate from. One of the quotes you mentioned "M. to Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer", quotes Lucy Smith describing a black roll that as far as I understand, we don't have today. Also there is nothing in the other accounts that would suggest that they were only describing the fragments that we have today or that those were the only fragments Joseph used to translate the BOA."
Sounds like he minimized the quotes pretty well. What do you think?
(and tell me if I'm pestering you with this subject, I'll stop)
Hey openminded,
To understand why that doesn't work, you kind of need to understand the big picture. The evidence suggests that when Joseph Smith acquired the Hor scroll, the outer portions of the scroll were fragile and falling apart. Joseph Smith pasted the fragments from the outer portion onto paper backing and framed them, but the interior portion remained intact as a scroll. We know from the 1856 St. Louis Museum catalog that the interior portion of the scroll contained at least a portion of the Document of Breathing text, followed by Facsimile 3. John Gee's theory is that Facsimile 3 was followed on the scroll by another text: the Book of Abraham. This is why he tries to argue that the Book of Abraham came from the scroll rather than from the mounted fragments. He wants to show that the fragments were not considered Abrahamic.
As for the hypothesis that there were additional mounted fragments that we don't have today, there's nothing that excludes this from the realm of possibility. But there is also no evidence for it. The bulk of the evidence we do have suggests that the interior of the Hor scroll remained intact as a scroll, so there is no reason to think Joseph would have owned additional mounted fragments from this interior section. Note that I am not the only one assuming that the mounted fragments the witnesses described were the ones we have today. Gee assumes this as well.
These quotes are also only one aspect of what is frankly a very solid case that the Document of Breathings was thought to be the source of the Book of Abraham. As a historian, I have a responsibility to read the sources straightforwardly. I have no problem if the apologists' faith commitments lead them to posit wild speculative interpretations that fly in the face of a straightforward reading. What bothers me is when these speculative interpretations are presented to lay readers as if they have great plausibility, and the critics are all liars for thinking otherwise.
Anyway, that's probably enough for now. BTW, I do have a paper related to this subject slated for publication, and another on the subject undergoing peer review. So hopefully those papers will help clarify why I find the apologists' arguments unconvincing. I'll post on my blog if and when they are published.
Peace,
-Chris
Well Chris, this is Ed Goble. In response to your statement of knowing of no apologist to admit the implication of your stuff, you must not remember me, I'm an apologist in your camp, paradoxically. And I have believed as you do for some time, even before I became aware of you. My difference with you is that I believe in the divinity of the Book of Abraham. If you remember, I asked you for permission to quote your stuff in a book I've written on it that is in the hands of FAIR that they pretend does not exist.
I think that the snow job Shryver will do next week at the FAIR conference is deplorable. Richley Crapo is another guy that believes as we do who I gather is a faithful member. He co-authored that mnemonic device paper with Tvedtnes.
Hi Ed,
Thanks for the comment. I didn't mean to say that there are no apologists who acknowledge the papyrus isn't missing. I merely meant that I wasn't aware of any apologists who had specifically acknowledged the implication of the quotations in the OP. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
I didn't realize that Richley Crapo was still around! Is he still a mnemonic device guy?
Also, have you thought about trying a different publisher for your book? You might try Greg Kofford, for example. I wouldn't mind giving it a read sometime, too, if I can find some free moments in between all my other responsibilities and addictive time-wasters. :)
Good luck,
-Chris
Also, Joseph Smith's diary contains Joseph Smith's recorded notes where he lists and translates the Egyptian characters from the papyri. The characters in his diary match the characters and the order of the characters in the papyri that we have today. Hard to argue that we have the wrong papyri.
It's actually funny to read the translation that JS gives for those Egyptian characters in his diary. Not only is the translation way off, but for each Egyptian character (equivalent to one English word), Joseph gives a paragraph long translation. Way off.
Post a Comment