Mormons, what do you think of these scholars opinion of the Book of Abraham ?

Question

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."

Funny- many seem afraid to read it... I guess their faith is shaky...

Answer 1

this could all be tattooed on the forehead of Hinkley and they wouldn't see it. good work.

Answer 2

The scriptures are spiritually revealed... and they speak for themselves. Read and apply = feel the joy and peace. Voila! All the proof that is needed.

We believe that Joseph Smith revealed these things from God. You can then imagine how much credence we give to the accuracy of those who say that God doesn't know what he's talking about.

EDIT: Norris Penguin, I appreciate your sincerity, but...

The story of "Kinderhook Plates" according the the Church:
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b6a8aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Wikipedia is a completely bogus source as far as scholarship goes.

And regarding the scholars' interpretation of the facsimiles, Egyptian scholars agree on that interpretation because that's what they've all been taught in university. Egyptologists are known for being extremely conservative and not open to questioning established assumptions.

For instance, the geologist John West has proved that the Egyptian sphinx was carved thousands of years before Egyptologists think it was, but the Egyptologists totally discount his findings... not even considering them, because he's a geologist and not an Egyptologist.

The main point: Scholars (and scientists) debate things... they come up with ideas that change later on... (not Egyptologists, though, lol... too conservative to question). It's interesting to read what they have to say, but take it all with a grain of salt. They're only human (and they don't even CLAIM to have divine help).

I found some other interesting stuff (not directly about the Book of Abraham, but interesting and kind of related):

A Strange Thing in the Land: The Return of the Book of Enoch by Hugh Nibley (in 13 parts, on www.lds.org). Me and hubby are in the process of reading this one.
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.062a5ea6a5e8d8661b622015f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=&query=%22A+Strange+Thing+in+the+Land%22&bucket=AllChurchContent&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&submitSearch=Search&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor=

Answer 3

Nobody disputes the fact that Joseph had authentic papyrii from an actual Egyptian mummy. So all the learned professors deriding the copies as "poorly done" or "comical" don't seem to know the basic history of the matter.

Joseph did not "decipher heiroglyphics". He received revelation from God. Of course he had no knowledge of Egyptian language, culture, or society. THese scholars seem to be missing the point, especially given the fact that they don't have the original paparii to evaluate.

Answer 4

These scholars are all very well-versed in Egyptology. They are Doctorate professors at Ivy-League-quality universities. They write, publish, critique, and comment on journals and studies for a living. People like this VERY RARELY just "don't get their facts straight". Even rarer and more unlikely, however, is that such a large majority of scholars, completely disinterested in the LDS Church, true or not, would ALL just "not get their facts straight." As much as any of us would like to simply say "they don't understand," the fact is that they know much more about Abraham, Egypt, mummies, scrolls, burial rights, and hieroglyphics than any of us ever will. The "how" of the translation doesn't matter one bit; it's not the method of such a translation that they're criticizing. They're saying simply that the Book of Abraham wasn't a translation to begin with, and that Joseph's copies and interpretations of the Facsimiles are faulty.

Now, to answer the question:

In the educated scholarly community, there is no doubt that the extant papyri contain Egyptian burial rites and contain no reference to Abraham. The Mormon apologist side, however, claims that the papyri that Smith used for the translation have not yet been uncovered. This is one possible (and somewhat feasible, although not likely) way to reconcile the difference. Of course, that leaves unanswered the following questions:
1. Why would the story of Facsimile 1 be located several feet down the scroll from the Facsimile itself?
2. Given the fact that dozens of similar scrolls (also containing similar, very common burial depictions) have been uncovered, and that none of them have ever been found with anything but burial rites (which were considered sacred) on the same scrolls (or even in the same casket), is it really feasible to believe that the story breaks into a rhetoric about the LDS perception of the creation halfway through the scroll?

Also, to clear up misconceptions (no disrespect, beta, just clarification), Smith DID claim to translate/decipher the writings/characters. In fact, he produced an "Egyptian alphabet" document detailing what most of the characters meant. These characters were copied in order from a spot about 6-8 inches from the top of the scroll, and Smith assigns scriptural meanings to characters and words depicting the burial rites. These definitions include many words and phrases that appear in the current-day Book of Abraham, obviously. Unfortunately, though, these definitions have been proven to be erroneous (this isn't just an opinion or theory; there is unanimous accord on the matter, in the same way we can all be positively sure that "leche" is Spanish for "milk", even if we don't speak Spanish).

Additionally, although Smith did have original papyri, he made hand-drawn copies of the facsimiles for the publication. Since the originals of Facsimile 2 and Facsimile 3 still haven't been found, all we have to go off of are the copies. Luckily, as stated above, similar drawings and depictions have been found on dozens of other scrolls, and it is easy to pick out where pieces of the original scrolls were missing, because Joseph "filled in" the holes on his hand-drawn copies, and the fill-ins contrast these other discovered drawings quite heavily.

Many LDS scholars have recognized this, and now claim that Smith didn't actually "translate" the papyri, but that he was "inspired by them" and just drafted some long-lost Book of Abraham, which God recited to him by revelation. This, however, leaves the following questions unanswered:
1. Why, then, did Joseph claim to produce a literal translation of the papyri?
2. Why did Joseph claim that the papyri in his possession were "written by the hands of Abraham and Joseph of Egypt?"
3. If he didn't actually "translate", then what of his Egyptian alphabet document?

A similar situation arose with the Kinderhook plates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates
They were discovered, brought to Joseph, and he began to translate them. He told people that they were written by a great warrior (the last of his civilization to survive after a great war; where else have we seen this?), who was a "descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh" and detailed this descendant's civilization in the Americas. Unlike the papyri, though, the people who made the plates were still alive, admitted to creating them to foul up Joseph, and said they had copied the characters from Chinese tea boxes. Joseph was caught by their ruse. If he was capable of a "little white lie" in starting a translation of these plates (which really didn't have anything to do with Pharaoh or Ham), then wouldn't he be capable of doing the same thing for some random papyri that really didn't have anything to do with Abraham? We KNOW Joseph was human and imperfect, and even LDS faithful claim that Smith struggled with pride. Understanding that the Book of Abraham wasn't even regarded as authoritative, or canonized, until the 1920's, is it REALLY that big of a challenge to the Church simply to admit it's not genuine?

Answer 5

I don't hold what the scholars at the council of Nicea said as Doctrine and so why should I start accepting modern day scholars opinions as doctrine.

They don't have authority from God.

Answer 6

I'm not going to read that long thing about things you dug up to prove us wrong. They are all said by people who have no idea how Joseph translated. Maybe God's way is different then mans. Hmm... Are you willing to accept that maybe God knows a better way then man? Probably not.

Keep digging. Maybe eventually, you will find the truth. Until then, please leave us be and let us believe as we will.

Answer 7

Is this a question that you think you already know the answer to? I could show you everything you ever wanted to know. But because it is coming from a Mormon you have already shut your mind off and hardened your heart. Too bad.

Answer 8

*Yawn*

blah blah blah.

My faith has been proven to me in the happines of my life and in the spiritual witnesses I have received.

A fundie like you shouldn't resort to what scholars say anyways, as the evolutionists would have your head....

Answer 9

Oh, that GOD, he does work in mysterious ways, doesn't he?

Answer 10

If you think our book is a lie, then just don't read it. bigotry helps no one.

Answer 11

And you expect me to read that gibberish?