Is There a Possible Defense for the Book of Abraham?

Is There Any Possible Defense for the Book of Abraham?

Behaving Like a Defense Attorney
Imagine that you have been assigned as a defense attorney to a client that has been accused of a murder. Following the commission of the murder, this defendant wrote out a confession and gave it to the police. Several days later the defendant reconsidered and now wanted to plead his innocence. But the signed confession would eventually come before the jury. As his attorney, how would you handle this piece of evidence? Well, you might try to simply deny that the confession was actually the work of your defendant. You might try to argue that the confession really didn’t say what it appeared to say. You might argue that there was originally far more written material and that the missing part of the confession really would have made it clear that what remains was not a confession at all. You might just try to attack the character of the investigators who are making the case against your client. While these strategies might seem crazy, you would definitely have to do something, and you just never know what the jury might believe…

Well, the Mormon church has had an experience just like this as it has tried to defend Joseph Smith’s false translation of the Book of Abraham from papyri he purchased in 1835 (click HERE for the whole story). They’ve done their best to explain away the written material (the Book of Abraham) in light of the discovery that the original text from the ancient papyri fails to say a single thing about the patriarch Abraham as Joseph Smith had claimed.

The Two Big Problems
The Mormon Church finds itself at the defendant’s table trying to respond to two very difficult problems with the Book of Abraham Papyri. First, the papyri are not old enough to be what Joseph said they were. And second, they don’t say what Joseph said they say! The evidence is overwhelming and Mormon leadership finds itself in the role of the defense lawyer, looking desperately for a line of defense that will revive its sagging prophet in front of the jury.

Who Cares If The Papyri Aren’t as Old as They’re Supposed to Be?
The papyri are supposed to be the record of Abraham while he was in Egypt and if this was actually true, the papyri would be the oldest existing manuscript of Biblical material. According to Mormon writers, the 'Book of Abraham' was supposed to have been written about 4,000 years ago!

'the Book of Abraham will some day be reckoned as one of the most remarkable documents in existence... the writings of Abraham... must of necessity be older than the original text of Genesis.' (Mormon apologist Sidney B. Sperry, Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, 1938, page 83)

Mormon prophets and teachers have always maintained that the papyri that was purchased by Joseph Smith was the actual papyri that was created and written by Abraham. In fact, early believers were told that the papyri were the writings of Abraham. There are several examples of this to be found in the early history of the church and the writings of those who were witnesses at this time in history:

'The storekeeper... 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 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. Pointing to the figure of a man lying on a table, he said, 'that is the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed. That man standing by him with a drawn knife is an idolatrous priest of the Egyptians.' (Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons, 1842, pp.22-23)

Soon after purchasing the papyri from Michael H. Chandler, Joseph wrote in his journal: '...with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc., - a more full account which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 236)

Following the purchase and display of the papyri, some young ladies came to view the Egyptian records, 'One of the young ladies who had been examining them, was asked if they had the appearance of antiquity. She observed with an air of contempt, that they had not. On hearing this, I [Joseph Smith] was surprised at the ignorance she displayed, and I observed to her, that she was an anomaly in creation, for all the wise and learned that had examined them, without hesitation pronounced them ancient.' (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 329)

'And now come with me,' said the prophet, 'and I will show you the curiosities.' So Saying he led the way to a lower room ... There are some pine presses fixed against the wall of the room. These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies, shrunken and black with age. 'These are mummies,' said the exhibitor. 'I want you to look at the little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!' 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. 'This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis.' The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and a woman, and a serpent walking on a pair of legs.' (Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past, 1883, page 386)

There is little doubt that the earliest of leaders and witnesses believed and maintained that these papyri were, in fact the very scrolls upon which Abraham and Joseph wrote. These papyri were considered to be the original scrolls until they were later recovered in 1966. After discovering the original papyri, scientists, linguists, archeologists and investigators (both Mormon and non-Mormon) examined them and came to agree that the papyri are far too young to have been written by Abraham. They are approximately 1500 to 2000 years too late, dating from anywhere between 500 B.C. (John A. Wilson, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 70.) and 60 A.D. If they papyri had never been discovered, this truth would never have come to light. Today, however, we know the truth, and the truth contradicts the statements of the earliest Mormon leaders and witnesses.

How Do They Account for the Young Papyri?
Now current Mormon thought on the issue of the age of the papyri has changed in an effort to defend the veracity and claims of Joseph Smith. Today, Mormons try to argue that the papyri are actually later transcriptions and copies of the ancient scrolls written by Abraham. The originals were written around 2000BC, but these copies are later transcriptions and copies that date back to the 500BC to 60AD range. The originals would be old enough if we had them, but the papyri we do have are simply “less-ancient” copies of the “ancient” originals. But this explanation flies in the face of reason:

To begin with, this explanation contradicts 130 years of Mormon teaching on the subject in which leaders and witnesses described the papyri as original writings of the patriarch Abraham, written in his own hand.

Furthermore, why would an upstanding, upper-class member of Egyptian society, choose to be buried with the copied records of a Jew? History is pretty clear about the relationship between the Egyptians and the Jews, and the Mormons would have us believe that this particular Egyptian would have asked to be buried with a copy of Jewish History clutched to his breast as part of the pagan mummification process. Logic dictates that a 500BC Egyptian is most likely going to be buried with a 500BC Egyptian document that is consistent with the burial event.

In addition to this, the existing papyri simply don’t say anything that would place them in the era related to 2000BC in ancient Egypt. The content of the papyri would at least help verify the dating of the document, even if the content had been transcribed or copied from an earlier document. But the papyri simply tell us about an ancient burial ritual and prayers that are consistent with Egyptian culture in 500BC. Nothing in the papyri hints specifically or exclusively to a time in history in which Abraham would have lived.

Why Don’t the Papyri Say What Joseph Said They Said?
Mormon leadership has struggled to answer this important question and Mormon apologists have undergone two basic strategies in order to account for the fact that recovered papyri don’t translate into the Book of Abraham. First, some Mormon apologists will say that there is a portion of the papyri that is still missing and was not returned to the church in 1967. The present day Book of Abraham was translated from the missing papyri. Secondly, other apologists have argued that there is no missing papyri but that doesn’t matter, because Joseph didn’t actually use the papyrus word for word to produce the Book of Abraham anyway!

Nothing is Missing
In order to address this issue, we’ve got to do our best to determine if the papyri that were rediscovered in 1966 and returned to the LDS church in 1967 were the same ones that were used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon. If we determine that these are, in fact, the same papyri, Mormon apologists cannot continue to say that the Book of Abraham actually comes from some piece of papyri that is no longer with us. So, do we have all of the papyri? Mormons have often claimed that we do not, and have argued this based on the fact that we don’t have the original papyrus drawing of Facsimile No. 3 that Joseph included in the Book of Abraham. After all, if Facsimile No. 3 is missing from the original papyri, isn’t it possible that more papyri (with the test of the Book of Abraham) is also missing? The answer is, well… no.

Facsimile No. 3 JSP X JSP XI JSP I

These four pieces account for the papyri used by Joseph Smith to produce the Book of Abraham

Let’s take a look at this in simple terms. We have several pieces of papyrus that were returned to the church in 1967. Of these papyri, three are particularly important. They have been given names and are identified as JSP I, JSP XI and JSP X. The papyri read from right to left. These three pieces of papyri are connected to the Book of Abraham in an interesting way. The first piece (JSP I) contains the ancient drawing from which Facsimile No. 1 has been derived. It fits perfectly with another piece of papyrus, now known as JSP XI. The original manuscripts of the Book of Abraham, as they appear in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, reveal that Joseph was using characters from this second papyrus (JSP XI) when he 'translated' the first chapter of the Book of Abraham. But in addition to this, in Abraham 1:12 the patriarch Abraham was supposed to have said the following:

'And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.'

It’s fairly clear, therefore, that the picture shown as Facsimile No. 1 (JSP I) was the start of the papyrus scroll, and that Joseph Smith was claiming to translate from the very next portion of the papyrus (JSP XI). The text of the Book of Abraham itself demonstrates that the drawing appearing as Facsimile No. 1 (JSP I) was supposed to be at the beginning of the scroll. A larger piece of papyri (JSP X) follows the smaller JSP XI. While the name 'Abraham' does not appear on any of the three pieces of papyri, the Egyptian name “Hor” appears on every piece, connecting them contextually. The name can be seen in at least nine places. Although the original piece of papyrus Joseph used to prepare Facsimile No. 3 is missing, Egyptologists have also found the name 'Hor' on the printed facsimile that Joseph inserted in the Book of Abraham. Now think about that for a minute. “Hor” is seen all over the existing papyri here, and also on Joseph’s reproduction of Facsimile No. 3. It is more than reasonable to believe that the scene shown in Facsimile No. 3 ended the original series of papyri (which have now been translated properly and are known to be the “Book of Breathings”). This scroll was prepared for the man “Hor” who had died and needed the magical papyrus which contained the charms necessary to reach the 'world of the hereafter.'

Even the famous Mormon Scholar and Apologist, Hugh Nibley was willing to concede that Facsimile No. 3 was probably part of the original papyri, placed at the left hand end of the scroll:

'For the Book of Breathings is before all else, as Bonnet observes, a composite, made up of 'compilations and excerpts from older funerary sources and mortuary formulas…Of particular interest to us is the close association of the Book of Breathings with the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham.... the text of Joseph Smith Pap. No. XI was written on the same strip of material as Facsimile Number 1, the writing beginning immediately to the left of the 'lion-couch' scene. The British Museum Book of Breathing[s], 'the Kerasher Papyrus,' has both the 'lion-couch' scene... and a scene resembling our Facsimile Number 3... This last stands at the head of the 'Kerasher' text, and suggests that our Fac. No. 3 was originally attached at the other end of the Joseph Smith Papyrus, coming after the last column, which is missing....the Book of Breathings...contains the essential elements of the Egyptian funerary rites from the earliest times...The Book of Breathings is not to be dismissed, as it has been, as a mere talisman against stinking corpses; it is a sermon on breathing in every Egyptian sense of the word.' (Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1971, pp. 158, 160, 162, 164, 166)

Here’s the point: We have all the papyri that Joseph used to translate the Book of Abraham. He used five fragments to translate the book. He used JSP I for the drawing he later called Facsimile No. 1. He used JSP XI and JSP X for the text of the Book of Abraham. He used the lost papyri containing the drawing he later called Facsimile No. 3 to illustrate the book as Facsimile No. 3. And finally, he inserted the drawing he later called Facsimile No. 2 (from another piece of the papyri, unrelated to JSP I, XI and X) into the middle of the text. Despite what Mormon apologists might want to claim, even if there are missing pieces of papyri from the original set purchased by Joseph Smith, those missing pieces have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham. We have the pieces that Joseph used for the translation.

Even If There Was Another Piece of Papyrus
But, just for the sake of argument, let’s go with the position held by Mormon apologists. Let’s just assume for the sake of argument that there is a piece of papyrus that is missing, and this missing piece, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, actually contains the Book of Abraham. Mormon apologist Michael Rhodes argued that there may be a third role of papyrus, and this papyrus may be the one that contained the Book of Abraham. But does that really make sense?

Remember that in the Book of Abraham, 1:12, Abraham was supposed to have said that he included a drawing of the attempt to slay him 'at the commencement of this record.' Now, it is obvious that the drawing from the original papyri matches Facsimile No. 1 in the Book of Abraham. If, then, Joseph had another roll of papyrus which really contained the Book of Abraham, why did he not use the drawing which Abraham himself said he placed at the beginning of that roll? Why would Smith switch over to the pagan “Book of Breathings” and use an illustration (Facsimile No. 1) from that roll?

The problem goes even deeper: why would the prophet include Facsimile No. 3 at the end of the record? Remember that the name “Hor” can clearly be read in the hieroglyphs on Facsimile No. 3 and this drawing was, according to Hugh Nibley and other scholars, originally located at the end of the “Book of Breathings” papyrus. Mormon apologists would have us believe that Joseph rejected the drawing Abraham himself put at the beginning of his record and added a substitute and two other drawings created by idol worshipers from the pagan “Book of Breathing” which obviously has nothing to do with Abraham! How could this be “inspired” behavior on the part of Joseph Smith?

Well, Maybe He Didn’t Even Use the Papyri
Many Mormon apologists have investigated the evidence and come to the conclusion that we actually do have all the papyri that Joseph used for the Book of Abraham. They also admit that true contemporary translations of the papyri do not produce the Book of Abraham. So, where do they go from here? One direction might be to seriously examine the veracity of their leader and founder, Joseph Smith. Sadly, however, many still look for another explanation.

Many Mormons now suggest that Joseph may have obtained the Book of Abraham by way of direct revelation and not from the papyrus at all! This position solves a problem for Mormons, in that it does not require the existing papyri to line up with reality! The idea here is that God inspired Joseph and revealed the text of the Book of Abraham, using the papyri simply as an inspirational tool. The words came to Joseph directly from God, independent of the papyri. By this theory, when Joseph got the revelation, and saw drawings on the papyri that were similar to what God was describing to him, he simply modified the drawings to match the revelation. The papyri simply served as a visual foundation from which God miraculously reveals something entirely different from what actually exists.

Joseph's Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet demonstrates his assertion that he was translating character by character

The problem with this attempt to escape to explain away the papyri is that it flies in the face of everything Joseph Smith ever wrote or allowed to be published about the subject. It is clear from Joseph’s own writing that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from the characters he found on the papyri:

'The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the Ancients.' (History of the Church, vol 2, page 238)

'October 1.--This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet... during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter.' (Ibid., page 286)

'Tuesday, [Nov.] 24.--...In the afternoon we translated some of the Egyptian records... Thursday, 26.--Spent the day in translating Egyptian characters from the papyrus...' (Ibid, page 320)

At the beginning of the handwritten manuscript of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith asserted that it was a 'Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt.' The introduction to the Book of Abraham still maintains that it was 'Translated From The Papyrus, By Joseph Smith' (Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham, Introduction). To now argue that the Book of Abraham was not actually translated from the papyri, denies over 150 years of Mormon teaching on the subject, and the very words of Joseph himself. His Alphabet and Grammar is a clear indication that Joseph claimed to be translating the papyri character for character.

So, What Now?
On a personal level, when I first came to believe that God does (in fact) exist, I examined several faith systems, looking desperately for the truth. Because I had several Mormons in my family, I gave the LDS a long and open-minded look. But when I discovered the evidence of the Book of Abraham papyri, I simply could not ignore the obvious implications. Despite the efforts of Mormons to restore the reliability of the Book of Abraham, it appears to be a demonstrably false book, errantly translated and misrepresented as scripture by the Church. If we can PROVE that this is not the work of God; should we believe that anything else uttered by Joseph Smith is divinely inspired? You decide.