THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM AND ITS REJECTION
BY EGYPTOLOGISTS AND SCHOLARS
Joseph Smith, the prophet and founder of the LDS church, claimed to
have translated "The Book of Abraham" from Egyptian
hieroglyphics. However, Egyptologists have unanimously declared his
so-called "translation" to be fraudulent. They maintain
that the papyri from which he supposedly translated this book were
nothing more than ordinary pagan burial scripts. The story goes as
follows:
In July, 1835 a man named Michael Chandler was exhibiting Egyptian mummies in Kirtland, Ohio. Inside the coffins were papyri inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphics, which at that time were indecipherable. Joseph Smith claimed that one of these scrolls contained the writings of Abraham, and another the writings of Joseph of Egypt (History of the Church, Vol. 2:236). On the strength of this, the LDS church purchased the exhibit and Smith supposedly translated the Book of Abraham, although he never got around to the writings of Joseph. Some time later they lost trace of the papyri and it was presumed that they had been destroyed in a fire in Chicago in 1871. The Book of Abraham was canonized by the LDS in October, 1880, and was included in the Pearl of Great Price.
During the spring of 1966, Dr. Aziz S. Atiya noticed some Egyptian papyri in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art that had a familiar look about them. On closer examination he realized that they were the papyri used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham. There were no doubts about this. First of all, there was a statement with them signed by Emma Smith Bidamon, to the effect that she was the former wife of Joseph Smith. (After his death Emma had married Lewis Bidamon, on 23rd December, 1847 in Nauvoo.) Secondly, the papyri had been glued on to some stiff backing paper of nineteenth century vintage, and on the backs were drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area. These papyri were positively identified by the LDS as being those used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham. On the 27th November, 1967 they were handed over to the LDS church in a public ceremony. The story was covered by the Deseret News of Salt Lake City.
In the interim, advances had been made in Egyptian language studies, based on the work done after the discovery of the Rosetta stone in 1799 and another stele in 1866. The situation now is that Egyptian hieroglyphics can be translated by any of the major universities of the world. And the LDS felt that, at long last, they would be able to prove to the world that their Book of Abraham was genuine scripture.
However, every single specialist in Egyptology who has viewed Joseph Smith's work has declared his translation to be fraudulent. And they all agree that the papyri are nothing more than well known pagan burial scripts. Appended are the remarks of some of the experts who examined the papyri, together with Smith's interpretation and illustrations:
The LDS was caught short and could not refute these allegations. But they came up with an excuse. They maintained that the hieroglyphics represented two different types of Egyptian language, hence the two different translations. But according to Drs. Von Bissing and Petrie, the writings on the papyri were indicative of a very much later period than Abraham's time, so this automatically invalidates their far-fetched claim about two different types of Egyptian languages, as the time period would still have been wrong. And furthermore, Smith's explanations of what the drawings were supposed to have represented were also wrong, and this cannot be refuted.
The next excuse given by the LDS was that the papyri concerned were not those that had been used by their prophet when translating, and that the relevant papyri were missing. But this excuse is invalidated by the fact that prior to their being examined by the Egyptologists, the LDS had identified them as being the same papyri that Smith had used in his translation. Furthermore, Smith's translation dictionary reveals that characters from the existing fragments match those in his notes. The LDS ignores this fact, because they cannot explain it away.
Regardless of the LDS excuses, the Hebrew nation guarded their scriptures jealously. So it's most unlikely that they would have lost this supposed revelation or have omitted it from the biblical record, if it had ever existed.
The likelihood of the idolatrous Egyptians having preserved copies of a Hebrew revelation for the purpose of placing it in their coffins is too ridiculous to warrant consideration.
FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM WAS FRAUDULENT
Much (but not all) of the information in this section was gleaned from pages 153 to 160 of Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, by Stephen Thompson. This respected scholar and author received his Bachelor of Arts in Near Eastern Studies from Brigham Young University in 1984, and a Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy in Egyptology from Brown University in 1988 and 1991, respectively.
In his book, Thompson points out that the heading of the Book of Abraham says that it comprises the writings of Abraham whilst he was in Egypt, and that it was "written by his own hand upon papyrus." But if this was the case, these writings would not have contained anachronisms (things that could not have occurred during Abraham's lifetime or about which he would have had no knowledge).
Abraham 1:12 and 14 refer to Facsimile 1. But this facsimile is dated by experts at approximately 100 BC, which is well over a thousand years after Abraham's lifetime. So the time frame doesn't fit in with Joseph Smith's claims.
Then too, there are several proper names mentioned in this book that only came into being after Abraham's time. The title "Pharaoh," (used in the same way as we use the title "King,") is mentioned in Abraham 1:6. The problem here is that "Pharaoh" was not used as a title for a ruler of Egypt before 1504 BC, during the reign of Tutmosis III, which was after Abraham's time. The LDS argues that Joseph was merely using the word "Pharaoh" as a direct translation of the word "king," but this could not possibly have been the case because he obviously thought that Pharaoh was actually the king's first name, according to Facsimile 3, Figure 2, which reads, "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in characters above his head."
"Potiphar's hill" is another anachronism, this time mentioned in Abraham 1:10, 20. The Old Testament records two forms for this name, "Potiphar," the name of the Egyptian who bought Joseph (Genesis 37:36) and "Potiphera," the priest of On, who was Joseph's father-in-law (Genesis 41:45). Thompson states that the names of the Egyptian form for Potiphar are common in Egypt, but were first attested only in the eleventh century BC, long after Abraham's time. So here again Joseph Smith would have us believe that Abraham used terms that were completely unknown during his lifetime.
Yet another anachronism is the name "Egyptus," which is dated at least 125 years after Abraham's time.
On the strength of these four anachronisms alone, one would have to conclude that Abraham could not possibly have authored this document.
Thompson also points out some historical errors. For instance, up until Abraham's lifetime human sacrifices were not offered in Egypt. Yet Abraham 1:7, 9-10, 13 and 17 indicate that a child was sacrificed as a thank offering, and that three virgins were killed on the sacrificial altar because they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone. Then, when the priest attempted to sacrifice Abraham too, the Lord intervened. Although this was supposed to have occurred in Chaldea, the Book of Abraham tells us specifically that their worship practices were "after the manner of the Egyptians" (Abraham 1:9, 11), that the images representing these gods were Egyptian (verse 14) and furthermore that the priests were also Pharaoh's priests (verse 7). But the Egyptians were very tolerant of other religions and never ever forced their beliefs on anyone, not even on the nations that they had conquered. Thompson assures us that: "there is no evidence that any Asiatic land ever became so thoroughly Egyptianized that they would have adopted such a zealous attitude towards the Egyptian pharaoh on their own."
It is an understatement to say that Joseph Smith was lacking in knowledge and therefore out of his depth when it came to the ancient Egyptian civilization and their religious practices. However, if this had been a genuine translation, then Smith's lack of knowledge would not have made any difference for the simple reason that he would have been the translator, not the author.
EXPLANATION OF FACSIMILE NO. 1
(Joseph Smith's explanation for Facsimile No. 1 is right at the beginning of the Book of Abraham, facing the first page.) According to Egyptologists, his entire explanation of this well known scene from the Osiris mysteries is wrong. But because of space constraints we will only examine two points here.
Firstly, Smith describes figures 5 to 8 as being idolatrous Gods. But Egyptologists tell us that these were canopic jars that had contained the deceased's internal organs. As a matter of interest, there is a collection of canopic jars on display in the British Museum.
Secondly, he indicates that figure 5 is the idolatrous god of Elkanah. But Elkanah was a Hebrew name, that according to the New Unger's Bible Dictionary, was popular amongst the Levites.
THOMAS STUART FERGUSON
Thomas Ferguson was a devout defender of the Mormon faith, and wrote three books on the subject. (He also spent twenty-five years of his life attempting to prove the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon through archeology.)
Naturally he was very excited about the rediscovery of the Book of Abraham papyri, and was convinced that at long last it would gain world wide recognition as a genuine book of scripture. Unwilling to wait it out until the LDS had conducted their official investigation through the appropriate channels, Ferguson decided to conduct his own independent investigations. Because of his legal training, he felt that the results of any investigation into these papyri would be more objective and impartial if the experts weren't aware of their connection with the LDS or with the Book of Abraham. So he obtained photos of them from Hugh B. Brown, first counselor in the LDS First Presidency, which he took to Henry L. F. Lutz, Emeritus Professor of Egyptology at the University of California at Berkeley, without revealing to him what they were or why he wanted a translation. Lutz identified these papyri as being funeral scripts used by Egyptian idolaters, and furthermore that they were from a far later period than the Book of Abraham. Ferguson was devastated by this news, and could only conclude that the Book of Abraham was fraudulent and that Joseph Smith was a deceiver.
On top of this crushing disappointment, the complete absence of any archeological evidence at all to back up the Book of Mormon convinced him, without any shadow of a doubt, that the Book of Mormon was also a deception. (See the relevant link at the end of this page.)
After a lifetime of devotion to the LDS church, Thomas Ferguson reached the place where he had to admit that Mormonism was a spiritual deception and Joseph Smith was a false prophet. You can read all about this in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book, "The Changing World of Mormonism," a link for which is provided at the end of this page. (Because of the generosity of Sandra Tanner, access to this book is free.) On page 140 they discuss an unexpected visit they had from Ferguson, on the subject of his loss of faith.
The above information, combined with the evidence of the Egyptologists given in the first part of this article, give compelling reasons as to why the Book of Abraham falls into the categories of fraud and spiritual deception.
CONCLUSION
Common sense alone tells us that if there was the slightest chance that the Book of Abraham could be a genuine record written by Abraham, as the LDS claims it is, there would be tremendous excitement about it worldwide, in much the same way as there was about the Dead Sea Scrolls. But not a single expert in ancient scripts, outside the LDS church, believes that this was a genuine translation. On the contrary, they are all convinced that it was an outrageous fraud.
Mormons need to ask themselves why it is that there is a complete lack of evidence in support of every single one of Joseph Smith's many fantastic claims, and then contrast this with the mass of evidence indicating not only that his claims were false, but also that he was a habitual deceiver. There are records still in existence indicating that he began his career of fraud and deception early in his youth and that he was well known in that regard, having been charged and found guilty in a court of law. (This is discussed further in "The Book of Mormon Exposed," a link to which is provided below.)
Should you wish to contact the writer (who was a second generation Mormon), you are invited to do so at this email address:
reply@bibtruth.com
Here are some links to relevant articles:
The Book of Mormon Exposed
The Apostasy is a Mormon Fallacy
The Book of Mormon Witnesses Who Never Saw the Gold Plates
Joseph Smith's First Vision and the Controversy Surrounding It
Joseph Smith, the Latter-day False Prophet
The Changing World of Mormonism (Tanner)
NOTE
To access a comprehensive index of articles comparing various aspects of Mormonism with what the Bible teaches, click on the "home" button at the bottom of this page.
Copyright 2007 by Mormonism and Biblical Truth. All rights reserved.
In July, 1835 a man named Michael Chandler was exhibiting Egyptian mummies in Kirtland, Ohio. Inside the coffins were papyri inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphics, which at that time were indecipherable. Joseph Smith claimed that one of these scrolls contained the writings of Abraham, and another the writings of Joseph of Egypt (History of the Church, Vol. 2:236). On the strength of this, the LDS church purchased the exhibit and Smith supposedly translated the Book of Abraham, although he never got around to the writings of Joseph. Some time later they lost trace of the papyri and it was presumed that they had been destroyed in a fire in Chicago in 1871. The Book of Abraham was canonized by the LDS in October, 1880, and was included in the Pearl of Great Price.
During the spring of 1966, Dr. Aziz S. Atiya noticed some Egyptian papyri in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art that had a familiar look about them. On closer examination he realized that they were the papyri used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham. There were no doubts about this. First of all, there was a statement with them signed by Emma Smith Bidamon, to the effect that she was the former wife of Joseph Smith. (After his death Emma had married Lewis Bidamon, on 23rd December, 1847 in Nauvoo.) Secondly, the papyri had been glued on to some stiff backing paper of nineteenth century vintage, and on the backs were drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area. These papyri were positively identified by the LDS as being those used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham. On the 27th November, 1967 they were handed over to the LDS church in a public ceremony. The story was covered by the Deseret News of Salt Lake City.
In the interim, advances had been made in Egyptian language studies, based on the work done after the discovery of the Rosetta stone in 1799 and another stele in 1866. The situation now is that Egyptian hieroglyphics can be translated by any of the major universities of the world. And the LDS felt that, at long last, they would be able to prove to the world that their Book of Abraham was genuine scripture.
However, every single specialist in Egyptology who has viewed Joseph Smith's work has declared his translation to be fraudulent. And they all agree that the papyri are nothing more than well known pagan burial scripts. Appended are the remarks of some of the experts who examined the papyri, together with Smith's interpretation and illustrations:
"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 an Egyptian funeral text, probably not older than the Greek ages." (Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology, University of Munich)According to Klaus Baer, Associate Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, the LDS's papyrus was about a deceased man, "Hor," who had been named after the Egyptian god Horus. Experts who have examined this papyrus all agree that it is a drawing of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead, being prepared for burial by the god Anubis.
"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) (Author's italics)
"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 Egyptian papyrus which Smith declared to be the Book of Abraham, and 'translated' or explained in his fantastical way, and of which 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)
"The Book of Abraham, it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication." (Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Assist. Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art, N.Y.)
"........... 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 LDS was caught short and could not refute these allegations. But they came up with an excuse. They maintained that the hieroglyphics represented two different types of Egyptian language, hence the two different translations. But according to Drs. Von Bissing and Petrie, the writings on the papyri were indicative of a very much later period than Abraham's time, so this automatically invalidates their far-fetched claim about two different types of Egyptian languages, as the time period would still have been wrong. And furthermore, Smith's explanations of what the drawings were supposed to have represented were also wrong, and this cannot be refuted.
The next excuse given by the LDS was that the papyri concerned were not those that had been used by their prophet when translating, and that the relevant papyri were missing. But this excuse is invalidated by the fact that prior to their being examined by the Egyptologists, the LDS had identified them as being the same papyri that Smith had used in his translation. Furthermore, Smith's translation dictionary reveals that characters from the existing fragments match those in his notes. The LDS ignores this fact, because they cannot explain it away.
Regardless of the LDS excuses, the Hebrew nation guarded their scriptures jealously. So it's most unlikely that they would have lost this supposed revelation or have omitted it from the biblical record, if it had ever existed.
The likelihood of the idolatrous Egyptians having preserved copies of a Hebrew revelation for the purpose of placing it in their coffins is too ridiculous to warrant consideration.
FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM WAS FRAUDULENT
Much (but not all) of the information in this section was gleaned from pages 153 to 160 of Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, by Stephen Thompson. This respected scholar and author received his Bachelor of Arts in Near Eastern Studies from Brigham Young University in 1984, and a Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy in Egyptology from Brown University in 1988 and 1991, respectively.
In his book, Thompson points out that the heading of the Book of Abraham says that it comprises the writings of Abraham whilst he was in Egypt, and that it was "written by his own hand upon papyrus." But if this was the case, these writings would not have contained anachronisms (things that could not have occurred during Abraham's lifetime or about which he would have had no knowledge).
Abraham 1:12 and 14 refer to Facsimile 1. But this facsimile is dated by experts at approximately 100 BC, which is well over a thousand years after Abraham's lifetime. So the time frame doesn't fit in with Joseph Smith's claims.
Then too, there are several proper names mentioned in this book that only came into being after Abraham's time. The title "Pharaoh," (used in the same way as we use the title "King,") is mentioned in Abraham 1:6. The problem here is that "Pharaoh" was not used as a title for a ruler of Egypt before 1504 BC, during the reign of Tutmosis III, which was after Abraham's time. The LDS argues that Joseph was merely using the word "Pharaoh" as a direct translation of the word "king," but this could not possibly have been the case because he obviously thought that Pharaoh was actually the king's first name, according to Facsimile 3, Figure 2, which reads, "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in characters above his head."
"Potiphar's hill" is another anachronism, this time mentioned in Abraham 1:10, 20. The Old Testament records two forms for this name, "Potiphar," the name of the Egyptian who bought Joseph (Genesis 37:36) and "Potiphera," the priest of On, who was Joseph's father-in-law (Genesis 41:45). Thompson states that the names of the Egyptian form for Potiphar are common in Egypt, but were first attested only in the eleventh century BC, long after Abraham's time. So here again Joseph Smith would have us believe that Abraham used terms that were completely unknown during his lifetime.
Yet another anachronism is the name "Egyptus," which is dated at least 125 years after Abraham's time.
On the strength of these four anachronisms alone, one would have to conclude that Abraham could not possibly have authored this document.
Thompson also points out some historical errors. For instance, up until Abraham's lifetime human sacrifices were not offered in Egypt. Yet Abraham 1:7, 9-10, 13 and 17 indicate that a child was sacrificed as a thank offering, and that three virgins were killed on the sacrificial altar because they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone. Then, when the priest attempted to sacrifice Abraham too, the Lord intervened. Although this was supposed to have occurred in Chaldea, the Book of Abraham tells us specifically that their worship practices were "after the manner of the Egyptians" (Abraham 1:9, 11), that the images representing these gods were Egyptian (verse 14) and furthermore that the priests were also Pharaoh's priests (verse 7). But the Egyptians were very tolerant of other religions and never ever forced their beliefs on anyone, not even on the nations that they had conquered. Thompson assures us that: "there is no evidence that any Asiatic land ever became so thoroughly Egyptianized that they would have adopted such a zealous attitude towards the Egyptian pharaoh on their own."
It is an understatement to say that Joseph Smith was lacking in knowledge and therefore out of his depth when it came to the ancient Egyptian civilization and their religious practices. However, if this had been a genuine translation, then Smith's lack of knowledge would not have made any difference for the simple reason that he would have been the translator, not the author.
EXPLANATION OF FACSIMILE NO. 1
(Joseph Smith's explanation for Facsimile No. 1 is right at the beginning of the Book of Abraham, facing the first page.) According to Egyptologists, his entire explanation of this well known scene from the Osiris mysteries is wrong. But because of space constraints we will only examine two points here.
Firstly, Smith describes figures 5 to 8 as being idolatrous Gods. But Egyptologists tell us that these were canopic jars that had contained the deceased's internal organs. As a matter of interest, there is a collection of canopic jars on display in the British Museum.
Secondly, he indicates that figure 5 is the idolatrous god of Elkanah. But Elkanah was a Hebrew name, that according to the New Unger's Bible Dictionary, was popular amongst the Levites.
THOMAS STUART FERGUSON
Thomas Ferguson was a devout defender of the Mormon faith, and wrote three books on the subject. (He also spent twenty-five years of his life attempting to prove the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon through archeology.)
Naturally he was very excited about the rediscovery of the Book of Abraham papyri, and was convinced that at long last it would gain world wide recognition as a genuine book of scripture. Unwilling to wait it out until the LDS had conducted their official investigation through the appropriate channels, Ferguson decided to conduct his own independent investigations. Because of his legal training, he felt that the results of any investigation into these papyri would be more objective and impartial if the experts weren't aware of their connection with the LDS or with the Book of Abraham. So he obtained photos of them from Hugh B. Brown, first counselor in the LDS First Presidency, which he took to Henry L. F. Lutz, Emeritus Professor of Egyptology at the University of California at Berkeley, without revealing to him what they were or why he wanted a translation. Lutz identified these papyri as being funeral scripts used by Egyptian idolaters, and furthermore that they were from a far later period than the Book of Abraham. Ferguson was devastated by this news, and could only conclude that the Book of Abraham was fraudulent and that Joseph Smith was a deceiver.
On top of this crushing disappointment, the complete absence of any archeological evidence at all to back up the Book of Mormon convinced him, without any shadow of a doubt, that the Book of Mormon was also a deception. (See the relevant link at the end of this page.)
After a lifetime of devotion to the LDS church, Thomas Ferguson reached the place where he had to admit that Mormonism was a spiritual deception and Joseph Smith was a false prophet. You can read all about this in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book, "The Changing World of Mormonism," a link for which is provided at the end of this page. (Because of the generosity of Sandra Tanner, access to this book is free.) On page 140 they discuss an unexpected visit they had from Ferguson, on the subject of his loss of faith.
The above information, combined with the evidence of the Egyptologists given in the first part of this article, give compelling reasons as to why the Book of Abraham falls into the categories of fraud and spiritual deception.
CONCLUSION
Common sense alone tells us that if there was the slightest chance that the Book of Abraham could be a genuine record written by Abraham, as the LDS claims it is, there would be tremendous excitement about it worldwide, in much the same way as there was about the Dead Sea Scrolls. But not a single expert in ancient scripts, outside the LDS church, believes that this was a genuine translation. On the contrary, they are all convinced that it was an outrageous fraud.
Mormons need to ask themselves why it is that there is a complete lack of evidence in support of every single one of Joseph Smith's many fantastic claims, and then contrast this with the mass of evidence indicating not only that his claims were false, but also that he was a habitual deceiver. There are records still in existence indicating that he began his career of fraud and deception early in his youth and that he was well known in that regard, having been charged and found guilty in a court of law. (This is discussed further in "The Book of Mormon Exposed," a link to which is provided below.)
Should you wish to contact the writer (who was a second generation Mormon), you are invited to do so at this email address:
reply@bibtruth.com
Here are some links to relevant articles:
The Book of Mormon Exposed
The Apostasy is a Mormon Fallacy
The Book of Mormon Witnesses Who Never Saw the Gold Plates
Joseph Smith's First Vision and the Controversy Surrounding It
Joseph Smith, the Latter-day False Prophet
The Changing World of Mormonism (Tanner)
NOTE
To access a comprehensive index of articles comparing various aspects of Mormonism with what the Bible teaches, click on the "home" button at the bottom of this page.
Copyright 2007 by Mormonism and Biblical Truth. All rights reserved.