What if English speaking USA were being researched 2000 years from now as an ancient civilization and the people of that day had only broken the code of deciphering our language 150 years earlier. Imagine a researcher doing a paper on how this civilization used sports as entertainment. He finds interest in the excavation of a football stadium. Researchers at that site know that something called football was played there, but know very little about what it involved. In his research of what appears to be ruins of residences in the vicinity, he discovers a journal of what appears to be a sports enthusiast who writes a lot about football and even describes some of the rules. Because of this groundbreaking research, archaeologists assume that football involved a round ball that was to be advanced toward a goal net at either end of a long field mostly with the feet and without the use of hands. What the archaeologists have no way of knowing is that the writer of the journal was from England, and was a big soccer fan, even though he was living in Green Bay for a time.

In this case, the translation of the journal was perfectly accurate, but their assumptions were completely off base. There were many countries and cultures who used the Egyptian language anciently. We need to not be too hasty in jumping to conclusions about what is an accurate translation or interpretation of an ancient Egyptian document based on the small thumbnail sketch of those ancient civilizations which we have today.

The post How We Know Things appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

They simply read the straight language and interpreted it based on whatever limited Egyptian culture they had been exposed to through the limited snippets of ancient documents they had been exposed to. What if an archaeologist a thousand years from now was basing their knowledge of American culture on promotional materials written to sell Chinese products to Americans? What kind of assumptions would they make about the inferences of certain words and phrases? If they found a part of a diary of a man who lived in Pittsburgh who was discussing his experience at a football game and didn’t know he had spent some time in London, what kind of football would they assume he was talking about? Think about the meaning of English words today compared with just 100 years ago. How about just 30 years ago. Remember the humorous confusion of certain word meanings in the movie Back to the Future when Marty asked for a Tab or a Pepsi Free? Now think of the possible false assumptions looking at a culture 3000 years ago being written about 2000 years ago by someone of another culture.

Critics like to think that modern scholars can simply read an ancient language and know if someone else’s interpretation of a particular document is accurate or not. Do you really think such an opinion should be considered conclusive with all these possible problems?

For more information see: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

The post Book of Abraham Playlist appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

It was long thought that all of the papyri owned by Joseph Smith had been destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire. Thus it was a news-making surprise when 11 fragments from his collection came to light in 1967. Soon many people were investigating how these fragments had survived. We learned that before the majority of the papyri had traveled to Chicago, a small portion had been given to the Huesser family as partial payment for housekeeping services. The Huessers later sold their collection to the Metropolitan Museum, which eventually gave the collection to the LDS Church.ⁱ Unsurprisingly, the papyri immediately caused people to think of testing Joseph Smith’s revelatory abilities. Many members of the LDS Church assumed that the text on the papyri which surrounded the original of Facsimile One was the source of the Book of Abraham. Would they now be able to prove that he was indeed blessed with divine revelatory abilities? Anti-Mormons also assumed that the text adjacent to the Sacrifice of Abraham Vignette was the source of the Book of Abraham and were excited about the opportunity to disprove Joseph Smith’s prophetic abilities.ⁱⁱ

Sadly, neither of these groups took the time to carefully and rigorously examine their assumptions. This continues to lead to a great deal of confusion. What should have happened was that instead of writing and speaking about research based on these assumptions, all involved should have done their homework. It was natural to presume that the text around a picture would have something to do with the picture. However, the problem lies in failing to recognize that we have made assumptions or in not carefully examining or testing those assumptions.ⁱⁱⁱ The problem was not in making an assumption, since we cannot move research forward without presuming something and then trying to prove or disprove it; that is the nature of the academic process. However, after this logical first step of presumption, the next step should have been to examine whether or not we had evidence that could support or discredit the conjecture. This is the step that almost everyone has failed to take. It is surprising how much stock has been put in the opinions and writings of people who either never realized they were making an assumption or who chose not to investigate that assumption. Almost all of the discussion about the Book of Abraham stems from the assumption about the writing surrounding the Sacrifice of Abraham Vignette, an assumption that almost everyone swallows without thinking. In this way, people have opened themselves up to an academic hoax. They willingly or unknowingly allow themselves to be deceived by accepting an untested theory as fact. As a result, many have gone through academic and religious confusion because of a faulty method.

So how should we test the assumption? The first step should be to examine the text itself to see if it contains any clues about its relationship with its associated pictures (or vignettes, as we call them in Egyptology). The second would be to examine similar papyri from the same time period to see if the texts and their vignettes were typically adjacent to each other. The third way to test this assumption would be to examine the accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the papyri and knew from what material Joseph Smith said he was translating. Modern speculations about the extant papyri or the role of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers in the translation of the Book of Abraham must take a backseat to eyewitnesses during Joseph Smith’s day.^iv

Elsewhere I have dealt with the first two methods of testing the assumption, and while they do not demonstrate the assumption to be false, they do show that we are not safe in making the assumption. Both the text itself and contemporary papyri suggest that the text next to the vignette was not necessarily associated with it.^v An extensive article is in process that more fully examines the eyewitness accounts of the papyri during Joseph Smith’s day. Here we can give just a few highlights.

Most people who saw the papyri and heard something about the source of the Book of Abraham did not specify whether that source was on the scrolls or the fragments. Here are some examples from the few that did: One witness wrote that Lucy Mack Smith showed her the papyri and “opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was ‘the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit [sic].’”^vi Another who was shown the papyri by the Prophet’s mother said “She produced a black looking roll (which she told us was papyrus) found upon the breast of the King, part of which the Prophet had unrolled and read.”^vii Another girl who frequently saw the papyri as a child said “in the arms of the Old King lay the roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham.”^viii

I have spent four years gathering every eyewitness account I can find. I am sure that there are some out there that I haven’t found, but there can’t be many. I have not fully sifted through the implications of every account (which is why the article is a little way from being completed), but I have given everything at least an initial examination. As the research stands now, it is clear that to the extent that the translations came from the papyri (an idea that is possible, but not sure) the long roll was the source of the Book of Abraham. To argue otherwise is to argue against the only historical evidence we have.

Also see: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

The post Have Egyptologists Found Abraham in the Papyri? Which Papyri? appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

As we compare Facsimile One with similar Egyptian vignettes, we may be barking up the wrong tree. What if Abraham’s descendants took Egyptian elements of culture and applied their own meanings to them? We know this happened.ⁱ For example, Jesus himself did this when he gave the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which clearly draws from the Egyptian tale of Setne-Kamwas. The Apocalypse of Abraham and Testament of Abraham are two more examples of Semitic adaptations of Egyptian religious traditions.ⁱⁱ Maybe we shouldn’t be looking at what Egyptians thought Facsimiles meant at all, but rather at how ancient Jews would have interpreted them.

Or perhaps Joseph Smith is giving us an interpretation that a small group of priests that were familiar with Abraham would have seen in this vignette. We know that from about the same time period when the vignette was created there were priests from the same area who were very familiar with Abraham, and who used him in their own religious texts/rituals.ⁱⁱⁱ This group of priests could easily have altered a drawing they were accustomed to in order to fit their specific textual needs, and thus those priests would interpret that drawing differently than other Egyptians. How can we be sure that this is not the case we are dealing with here? We cannot know, but it is certainly plausible.

It is also possible that Joseph Smith is providing the spiritual interpretation needed in modern times, regardless of how any ancient people would have viewed this document. Considering all of the above reasons, it seems quite likely that we are not justified in trying to compare Smith’s interpretations with those of ancient Egyptians. Yet that is exactly what we tend to do. This is understandable: it is the only group we have enough information about to which we can make a comparison.

Egyptologists vs Ancient Egyptians

Or is that true? Typically when people have asked what the Egyptians would say these drawings meant, and how this compares with what Joseph Smith said they meant, they actually end up comparing it to what modern Egyptologists say it means. This is, of course, understandable because we do not have access to any ancient Egyptians, and we assume modern Egyptologists are reliable replacements. But we know that we Egyptologists are often wrong regarding what Egyptians would have said on the subject. One study demonstrated that in the few instances where we have found Egyptian labels about various figures in hypocephali (the type of drawing that Facsimile Two is), they hardly ever match up with what Egyptologists say.^iv Thus it is problematic to look to modern Egyptologists for what ancient Egyptians would have said various drawings represented. Thus any conclusions reached by making such comparisons must be tentative, and should not be the basis for any conclusions regarding the larger issues.

Still, what happens when we do compare Facsimile One with Egyptological interpretations? As stated in the video, it is tempting to say that this is a common funerary scene because it has some elements in common with a funerary scene; it is, however, different. It is also clearly not a scene commonly associated with the Book of Breathings, though many have claimed it is. There are actually no other instances of this scene being adjacent to the Book of Breathings, though some continually insist that it is regardless of research^v. This vignette is fairly unique.

The closest iconographic parallel at Denderah is accompanied by a caption that reads that the goddess Bastet had commanded those who followed her to “slaughter your enemies,”^vi which means that the closest iconographic match to Facsimile One also matches what the scene is supposed to be about in the Book of Abraham, namely that someone in the scene was in danger and received protection.^vii Other lion couch scenes at the Denderah Temple depict Anubis and the sons of Horus defending someone from his adversaries, or list Shesmu, a god associated with human sacrifice, as being part of the scene. They also discuss being hacked to pieces, being burned, or being sent to the slaughterhouse.^viii While I am not certain that the scenes at Denderah are real parallels to Facsimile One, if critics want to associate them with the facsimile, they must also be willing to associate them with the sacrificial elements of the Denderah scenes, which parallel Joseph’s interpretation of this facsimile.

None of this is to suggest that such parallels prove that Joseph Smith was inspired; they do no such thing. They do, however, make it clear that it is plausible that he is inspired. Learning for certain of his inspiration can only be done through personal and spiritual inspiration, regardless of the fact that a segment of our population would like to discount the existence of such a thing. Like a colorblind man who argues against the existence of the color purple, they insist that real experiences they have never had do not exist only because they have not had them. I do not think I will be able to persuade those who have not had revelatory experiences of the validity of such experiences. At the same time they will not be able to convince me that my experiences are not real or valid. On this point we may have to agree to disagree. Still, the case clearly indicates that what Joseph Smith taught is plausible, and from that point agreement or disagreement rests upon one’s ability to receive spiritual confirmation of a plausible point.

Also see: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

The post Is Facsimile 1 a Common Funerary Document? No. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

As we discuss all of the Facsimiles, we must keep in mind what I wrote about Challenge Two. I must be emphatic: we do not know what paradigm we should use as we try to evaluate Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the Facsimiles. It may be useless to compare his interpretations to that of Egyptologistsⁱ. It is equally likely, perhaps more so, that we should be looking for an ancient Jewish interpretation of such representations, or how a small group of Egyptian priests would have interpreted them, or a spiritual interpretation. Still, for the sake of thorough research it is fun to compare it to an Egyptological perspective, and it just might have merit. Moreover, studying these drawings from an Egyptological point of view is an academic and human endeavor worthy in its own right. Studying how they may have been understood in different ways, by different groups, at different periods of time is even more enticing.

I must also reiterate that none of the similarities between Joseph Smith’s interpretations and those that we find in Egyptian sources proves that Joseph Smith was correct. They cannot do so. The true point is that it presents a case of plausibility.ⁱⁱ Arguments against Joseph Smith are not well founded when what he tells us is plausible.

In order to more fully understand the vignettes of the Joseph Smith papyri that were made into the Facsimiles in the published Book of Abraham, let us look more carefully at the zeitgeist from which the papyri came. The zeitgeist were created in a day of internationalization in Egypt. They were created in a day when the Egyptians were living among a great number of Greeks and Jews.ⁱⁱⁱ Each of these cultures borrowed from each other. The Greeks created gods and cultic practices heavily influenced by the Egyptians.^iv The Egyptians borrowed from both the Jews and the Greeks in their religious and cultic practices and representations,^v and many Jews were similarly influenced by the Greeks and Egyptians.^vi All of these cultures found their ways of understanding and representing their own religious beliefs to be changing and evolving as a result of the pastiche of religio-cultural identity they were melding into. As a result, we find curious uses of foreign religious ideas and identities manifesting themselves in each of these cultures’ religious practices and traditions. This impacts the possible interpretations of the Facsimiles.

To illustrate, let us look at some possible scenarios for the Facsimiles. As already mentioned, we know that some Jews were using foreign representations in their own way.^vii Besides those mentioned in Challenge Two, let us look at their later use of the Zodiac. In a few synagogues, such as those at Beit Alpha and Sepphoris, a mosaic of a zodiac was incorporated into the floor of the synagogue. Clearly it could not carry with it the full meaning that it would have had in Greek culture and still be compatible with the strict monotheism of Judaism. Thus we must conclude that the Jews who created or worshipped in these synagogues were using representations from the cultures around them but using and understanding them in their own unique way. Isn’t it possible that this was also done with all three Facsimiles? Couldn’t these all represent a Jewish way of understanding Egyptian style drawings? Shouldn’t we expect that at least some of the large number of Jews in Egypt adopted the Egyptian depictions around them and used them in their own way? Wouldn’t we actually be shocked if this didn’t happen?

On the other hand, we also know that at least some Egyptians were using Jewish stories and ideas in their religious practices and writings.^viii They used their typical religious rituals but inserted Jewish, Greek, Mesopotamian, and other religious elements into these rituals, texts and spells, thus slightly altering and adapting their ritual and textual representations.^ix Would we not expect them to do the same with their religious pictorial representations?

Also see: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

The post Why Did 1912 Egyptologists Disagree with Facsimile Translations? Limited Understanding. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

I’ve heard that Joseph Smith created a supposed Egyptian alphabet and grammar that shows a complete lack of understanding of how to decipher hieroglyphics.

Oh how I wish we more fully understood what the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar represents! I do not approach these things with a need to prove them right, but with a desire to better understand what is happening. It is a spin-off of trying to understand them better that allows me to help those with honest questions to find answers. Seeking for more knowledge and understanding always leads to answers to questions, and also always leads to more questions. In the case of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, there is so little that we understand and so many questions.ⁱ

While I am not sure, it seems to me that Joseph Smith and his colleagues were trying to understand Egyptian.ⁱⁱ They likely did not know of the developments in Europe regarding the cracking of hieroglyphs. Even there the ability to translate had not truly been developed; it was and continues to be a work in progress. The work being done on Egyptian in Kirtland seemed to be largely the work of W. W. Phelps, with some involvement of Joseph Smith (on the work on the KEP, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVAEC1wJFqY&list=PLc5yYrpPFm2sT29LjdbicouCVVWdaA0BW). Both Joseph Smith and W.W. Phelps seem to be products of their times, meaning, that like most others of their day, they thought that Egyptian symbols conveyed layers of meaning. Joseph Smith seemed to be trying to decipher the layers of meaning behind various characters.ⁱⁱⁱ

We can better understand what he was probably trying to do (I cannot stress enough that we do not have enough evidence to draw any firm conclusions) by looking at how it fits into a timeline of Joseph Smith’s efforts to understand ancient languages. We know that for some time Joseph Smith had been interested in learning Hebrew, and that he and Oliver Cowdery had even tried to piece together Hebrew by looking at characters from the Golden Plates and comparing it with the translation of the Book of Mormon. (For more on Joseph Smith’s study of Hebrew see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KZO80EYcmQ&list=PLc5yYrpPFm2sT29LjdbicouCVVWdaA0BW). In July of 1835 the Prophet engaged in sporadic attempts to translate the Egyptian papyri and create an alphabet and grammar.

The latter part of November 1835 became the most intensive period the Prophet would ever spend in translating the papyri. On November 19^th he spent the day translating. The next day he also spent translating and said he made rapid progress. He showed many brethren the records on the 23^rd and spent the afternoon of the 24^th translating. The next day he spent the whole day translating, and the next was occupied with transcribing Egyptian characters from the papyri.^iv This was apparently part of a short-lived attempt to continue to figure out the grammar of Egyptian because the very next day instead of working on the Egyptian language they begin studying Hebrew, a grammar and lexicon for which Joseph Smith had received from Oliver Cowdery a week earlier. The study of Hebrew eclipses the translation of the papyri, and never again will they receive as much translation attention as they had during the middle of November.

It seems that they gave up both their attempts to piece together Hebrew and Egyptian and opted for using published grammars and then a teacher to learn Hebrew. They did not have this option for Egyptian. The Prophet did not seem to engage in working on a translation of the Papyri again until he published portions of them in 1842. To our knowledge, he never worked on the alphabet and grammar again, abandoning that attempt in light of the possibility of learning Hebrew in a more conventional fashion. He did speak of it once more to W. W. Phelps when he was publishing the Book of Abraham in 1842, but it appears to only have been a passing conversation from which nothing came.

To summarize, the theory that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar represent an attempt, led by W.W. Phelps but aided by Joseph Smith, to figure out an Egyptian grammar using at least something of Joseph Smith’s translation, is supported by the fact that it fits in well with what we know of Joseph Smith’s other activities. He had been engaged in trying to figure out how to translate Hebrew in a conventional manner by using his own translation work. He gave this up. He then tried to figure out how to translate Egyptian using his own translation work. He gave this up. He finally attempted to learn to translate Hebrew using a very difficult grammar, and gave this up in favor of hiring a Hebrew teacher. At this point Smith excelled in learning Hebrew and never seems to have returned to the idea of trying to pick up a language using less conventional means.

While there are some difficulties with this theory, it is, so far, the theory that best accounts for all of the evidence. There is a great deal of work to be done here, and hopefully other scholars will devote their time and training to helping us understand this less-than-crucial, though very interesting, issue.

Also see: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

The post Was Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet his Translation Method? Apparently Not. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

The issue of translation poses a problem for many people. Very few people in the world could translate any Egyptian at all, and Joseph Smith certainly had no academic training that would have given him this ability. While all can agree on this beginning point, it immediately forces us to make an initial assumption if we are to evaluate Joseph Smith’s claims of translating from the papyri he possessed. If we do not believe that translation via divine assistance is possible and that the only method of translation is the conventional academic model, then the argument is over. Based on this assumption, Joseph Smith could not have translated the papyri and anything he did with them is false, regardless of how they may or may not match up with other ancient texts or ideas. Alternatively, we may believe in what the Bible calls “the gift of tongues,” which can include the ability to translate from a language one has not come to know through conventional means. If we believe this, we may still choose to believe that Joseph Smith was not blessed with such a gift. In this case we will still regard everything regarding his claim to translate as fraud. However, if we believe that God bestowed upon Joseph Smith an ability to translate outside of the conventional method, then the fact that he did not know Egyptian is irrelevant. Our beginning assumption colors how we see the rest of the evidence. If one does not discount the possibility that divine inspiration was available to Joseph Smith, then this whole question is moot.

Did Joseph Smith want to translate using a more conventional method? Absolutely! He wanted to learn both Hebrew and Egyptian in such a way. He prayed that he might be blessed with an understanding of ancient languages.ⁱ As was mentioned earlier, he eventually gave up trying to use his own translations to try to work out a conventional grammar and hired a Hebrew teacher (on his attempts to translate, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh8kfcQtu60&list=PLc5yYrpPFm2sT29LjdbicouCVVWdaA0BW). Until he hired a Hebrew teacher, was he a failure at translating using conventional methods? Yes. This is why he sought out such a teacher. Does any of this mean he did not translate via inspiration? No, in fact it highlights his desire to be able to learn to translate on his own instead of having to rely on revelation when the Lord saw fit to provide him with it.

Again, it is the original assumptions we make that we must be cognizant of. I have been privy to communications between scholars who have seen some of the things we have already mentioned wherein Joseph Smith’s interpretations agree with Egyptological interpretations. They have said something like “it has to be coincidence, Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian.” They are so dedicated to the assumption that he could not receive inspiration that any evidence to the contrary has to be dismissed. This is simply because it does not fit into the paradigm they have created. I admit that I operate in a similar way. Because of both spiritual and intellectual experiences, I begin with the assumption that Joseph Smith could and did receive inspiration to translate. Thus, just as some look for ways to explain away things that don’t agree with their paradigm, I look for explanations that fit into my paradigm when I encounter something that seems contrary. I follow the evidence and allow it to dictate my conclusions, but then I try to make sense of those conclusions within my operating paradigm. There is no way around this. Our assumptions inevitably color our conclusions. All we can do is raise ourselves to safest ground by at least admitting our assumptions, examining them, and operating knowingly in light of them. It is a failure to be transparent about assumptions, or a failure to realize that assumptions have been made, that leads to confusion on the issues surrounding the Joseph Smith Papyri. Most arguments fall away when we are clear about assumptions. Instead we can disagree on which assumption is correct, but admit that given a particular assumption many conclusions that follow are logical.

Also see: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

The post Joseph Translated the Book of Abraham Not Knowing Egyptian? Needed God's Help. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

We can be fairly certain when the papyri fragments we still have were written. They were created in about 200 BC.ⁱ That is roughly 2000 years after Abraham lived. However, this has little bearing on whether or not Abraham authored the original text. He certainly did not author the manuscript that fell into Joseph Smith’s hands, but that has no bearing on whether he was the author of the text.

To illustrate, the earliest copy of the Book of Isaiah also dates to about 200 BC.ⁱⁱ Isaiah lived about 500 years before this. But no one has claimed that this means Isaiah did not write the Book of Isaiah (some do not believe there was an Isaiah, and some believe the Book of Isaiah was written by several people, but none of this is due to the 200 BC date of our earliest manuscript). Everyone is aware that whatever Isaiah wrote was copied again and again for hundreds of years, and that the manuscript we now have is a copy of a copy of a copy. This is true for most ancient texts we know about. We do not have the original Epic of Gilgamesh, Illiad, or Epistle to James. None of this has any bearing on whether or not the texts are of ancient date. The transmission process for all ancient texts is complicated, and is seldom fully understood for any given text. I wish I understood more about the transmission process behind the Book of Abraham just as I do for the Book of Samuel, The Egyptian tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, and the Egyptian Instructions of Ptahotep.

A question we should ask ourselves is how the writings of Abraham may have ended up in Egypt nearly 2000 years after his death. Of course we do not know the answer, but there are many possibilities. Abraham himself spent time in Egypt and could have left some of his writing then. If this is the case then those writings were cared for by Egyptians for millennia. It seems more likely that his writings were cared for by his descendants and passed back into Egypt at a later date. They could have come with Jacob’s family as they took up their sojourn in Egypt. Even more likely is the idea that they could have come with the large infusion of Jews that entered Egypt after Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BC. From that time forth there was a steady flow of Jews coming in and out of Egypt.ⁱⁱⁱ The Jewish population in Egypt experienced great growth right around the time the papyri Joseph Smith owned were created. It was also a time when Egyptians were collecting such documents from foreign populations. In short, there are countless possibilities over two thousand years, but most especially in the few hundred years before 200 BC, when the text of the Book of Abraham could have come into Egyptian hands.^iv

We must also realize that Joseph Smith was not an expert on such transmission processes. He may have assumed that if a text was written by Abraham that the copy he owned was the original document created by Abraham. He had no educational background that would have led him to believe otherwise, and we should not assume that the Lord would feel a need to correct him in this matter (for more on this see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzP0iuNLa10&list=PLc5yYrpPFm2sT29LjdbicouCVVWdaA0BW). Instead the text must be judged on its own merits, applying both our full mental and our full spiritual capacities in such an evaluation.^v

Also see: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

The post Was the Book of Abraham Written by Him 2000 Years After He Died? Copied and Retold. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

But the Book of Abraham contains many anachronisms. It makes reference to Chaldeans, who didn’t exist until many years after Abraham. And it misuses words such as “Egyptus” and “Pharaoh.”

If the presence of anachronisms in a text means that the text is not of ancient origin, then there are very few ancient texts in the world. Most ancient texts we know of contain some kind of anachronism. Instead, anachronisms typically mean there is a rich textual history lying behind the text we have received. For example, the text written on the Shabaka Stone (housed in the British Museum) claims to be from the Old Kingdom, roughly 2300 BC. Some scholars have accepted this date for the text, and some have even pointed out textual elements that are reminiscent of this time period. Others have note textual similarities with the New Kingdom, positing a date of roughly 1200 BC. Yet others have seen elements that convince them the text was first composed during the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, or roughly 700 BC. Several different possibilities arise as a result. This could be an Old Kingdom composition that was both recopied and reworked in the 19^th and 25^th dynasties, and these reworkings left their mark on the text. Or it could have been composed in the 19^th dynasty with intentional archaizing elements introduced, which was then reworked in the 25^th dynasty. Or it could have been created in the 25^th dynasty with intentional archaizing elements, some of which seem to be from the Old Kingdom and some from the New Kingdom. There are other possibilities as well. The point is that it is quite possible that a complex textual history has given rise to anachronistic linguistic elements in this text. This is true of hundreds of texts. Finding them in the Book of Abraham is not surprising. In fact, it would be quite surprising if there were no anachronisms. It would be almost unique.

Many have used the same arguments they level against the Book of Abraham to attack the Bible. Kenneth Kitchen has done a marvelous job of dealing with these attacks in his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament. His methodology should be applied to the Book of Abraham as much as that is possible. This is research waiting to be done.ⁱ For our current topic, the point is that the anachronisms some people worry about have been dealt with for a very long time. Some we have found fairly straightforward answers to, and some we still struggle to understand, both in the Bible and the Book of Abraham. None of us pretend to understand the unique textual transmission process of any given text well enough to be able to fully explain either the consistencies or anachronisms present in those texts.

Neither do I pretend to fully understand the consistencies that the text of Abraham shares with other ancient documents and traditions. The shared elements with other non-Biblical traditions about Abraham are shockingly high even to a believer who expects to find some.ⁱⁱ The similarities between the autobiographical elements of the Book of Abraham and the only known contemporary account are also quite noteworthy (see http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=22&num=1&id=652). Names like Kolob,ⁱⁱⁱ Olishem,^iv and Jershon^v are difficult to explain away as coincidence. At least from my point of view, the so-called anachronisms do not paint a picture of implausibility, while the parallels do support an air of plausibility.^vi Neither can prove nor disprove the authenticity of the record. As I have mentioned in writing about other videos, going beyond plausibility can only be done by seeking divine confirmation. Learning in this way can only be done through personal and spiritual inspiration, regardless of the fact that a segment of our population would like to discount the existence of such a thing.

Also see: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

The post Why are there Anachronisms in the Book of Abraham? Shoud be Expected. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.

But I’ve heard that there is little if any corroborating evidence of the Book of Abraham.

In the end I believe too much has been made about the lack or presence of corroborating evidence for the Book of Abraham. Many have claimed there is none, many of us have shown there is.ⁱ So what? Yes there are some things about the Book of Abraham we would not expect to see. This is also the case with almost every new discovery of an ancient text. As scholars we love it when we find a text that has new and surprising evidence. We hope for and look for this. And then we find ourselves in an uproar if it happens with the Book of Abraham? Conversely, yes, we have found a number of elements in the Book of Abraham that have ancient parallels. This is interesting. It helps me understand Abraham and his world better. It paints a picture of plausibility. It can also lead to poor scholarship that starts to point out any and every possible parallel. Furthermore, it cannot prove anything.

The problem with the concern of corroborating evidence is that it takes us away from the text itself.ⁱⁱ The text is so beautiful, powerful, and significant. In my judgment, the best way to determine anything about the text is to read it carefully, to study it intimately. The doctrines are deep and the language is beautiful. I am not suggesting we ignore the storm over plausibility, corroboration, and verification.ⁱⁱⁱ Yet these things have played themselves to a standstill and will continue to play in such a way, just as they have with the Bible. Thus our task becomes searching the text itself. If we do not think it possible that God inspired this text and that He could give us answers as to whether it is true or not, then there is no need to do so. But for those who believe this is at least possible, and who are willing to honestly seek for truth regarding the text of the Book of Abraham, there is a course forward. Use your God-given mind to study these issues, balancing arguments, seeing assumptions, and maintaining an open mind. Use this same mind then to study the text. Then, if you are willing, honestly seek an answer from God. All of the work we do on the Book of Abraham, from every point of view, is worthwhile if it is employed in an informed, honest intellectual search. But it is not enough. Fortunately, more is available.

The post Any Evidences Supporting Authenticity of Book of Abraham? Many Significant Ones. appeared first on Mormon Challenges.