The Book of Abraham: Did William the Conqueror Know Henry VIII?
May 16, 2006
You
may have noticed that I added a new category in the left sidebar with links to
web sites that have information on the Book of Abraham. I have culled these sites from extensive
Internet searches. They represent the
best resources available on the web for folks who want to know more about the
Book of Abraham. I include a link to a
page that links to numerous apologetic sites, including FARMS and Jeff
Lindsay’s Mormanity. Having studied the
materials of both those skeptical of and believers in the Book of Abraham as an
inspired revealed “translation” of an ancient text originally authored by the
biblical patriarch Abraham, I think the disputes over this book of LDS
scripture focus on three main areas: the text itself (irrespective of
translation methods used to produce it); issues regarding the provenance of the
papyri and the translation of the text from those papyri; and the translation
of the facsimiles included in the canonized text and found on the papyri
discovered in 1967.
In
this first of a series of posts on the Book of Abraham, I focus on one aspect
of the text itself. I have chosen this
as my first installment for two reasons. First, apologists since Nibley have said that critics do not address the
text but focus only on the translation issues. Jeff Lindsay repeats this mantra on his web
site. It is simply untrue, as will be
demonstrated by this post and as is demonstrated by even a casual review of the
materials linked in my sidebar. Second,
the apologists presumably make this statement to imply that critics avoid
discussion of the text because the text is immune to criticism. Of course, the apologists are wrong on this
as well. The text itself presents numerous
problems for those who assert that the Book of Abraham originated in antiquity. Among these problems is one which is, in my
opinion, most devastating to the apologetic stance: anachronisms.
In
literature, an anachronism is “something located at a time when it could not
have existed or occurred.” A famous
example of an anachronism is found in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, in which the bell of a clock tower strikes on the
hour. Striking clocks, of course, did
not exist in Rome at the time of Caesar.
An
anachronism in a work of fiction, even one purported to be based on history, is
understandable and forgivable. But with
respect to documents that purport to be actual historical documents,
anachronisms provide those seeking to authenticate such documents with the
means of detecting forgeries. For
example, let’s say a document surfaces that purports to be written by William
the Conqueror. It is a personal diary kept during the Battle
of Hastings. The William Diary, as it comes to be known,
is found by a young man with little formal education and contains details about
the type of clothing worn by the soldiers in battle. Scholars who examine the diary say the details
about the type and color of fastenings on the clothing are precisely correct
descriptions of 11th-century clothing. Furthermore, professional historians acknowledge that the battle scenes
described in the William Diary accurately depict what is known about the Battle
of Hastings and such information is far from common knowledge. The young man who discovered the William
Diary, most agree, was incapable of producing a document that includes so many
accurate details about 11th-century England. Armed with only this information, many might be willing to accept the William
Diary as genuine.
But
suppose the text of the William Diary also contains references to the Magna Carta,
Henry VIII, and William Shakespeare? The
Battle of Hastings occurred in 1066. The
Magna Carta was signed in 1215. Henry
VIII lived in the 15th and 16th
centuries; Shakespeare about a
century later. These are undisputed
historical facts. So, what would these
anachronisms tell us about the genuineness of the William Diary? It seems obvious: there is no possible way
William the Conqueror could have been the author of the William Diary because
it includes references to people and things that would not exist for hundreds
of years after the time of its alleged authorship. And no matter how many details the forger
“got right” about life in 11th-century England or the battle tactics of the
warring factions in the Battle of Hastings, the presence of anachronisms in the
text, alone, would rule out the possibility that the William Diary was written
by William himself.
Likewise,
the presence of anachronisms in the text of the Book of Abraham would
constitute unassailable evidence against its authenticity. Indeed, anachronisms in the text would be
even more devastating to the authenticity of the Book of Abraham than the
anachronisms in our hypothetical were to the William Diary. Why? Because no matter what theory of
translation one postulates, any anachronisms in the text produced by Joseph
Smith demonstrate that the Book of Abraham is not an ancient document. The traditional doctrine advanced by the
leaders of the church is that the Book of Abraham was written by Abraham’s “own
hand upon papyrus.” The initial
publication of the Book of Abraham, under the direction of Joseph Smith,
contained a statement to that effect, which was also included when the book was
canonized in 1880. There is also some
evidence that Joseph Smith told visitors that the papyri on display (for a fee
payable to his mother Lucy Mack Smith) contained the actual writings of Abraham
himself. The church has never retracted
or corrected this notion. If correct, there
could be no references in the text to people, places, or events that post-date
Abraham’s life.
Because
it is almost certain that the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed date only to
the first or second century B.C.E.
rather than the second millennium B.C.E.,
apologists in recent years have advanced the theory that the papyrus from which
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham contained not the writings of
Abraham himself but rather copies of
a book originally penned by Abraham. If
so, that could explain anachronisms creeping into the text. Such is the likely explanation for the
anachronisms in the stories about Abraham in the Bible. Scholars believe that the Genesis accounts of
Abraham were likely first written and included in the Hebrew Bible around the
6th or 7th century B.C.E. The problem
with that theory for the Book of Abraham, however, is that it was translated by
Joseph Smith by revelation, not through traditional means of translation. For this reason, any anachronisms that may
have been introduced to the text by scribes and copyists between the time of
Abraham and the time the papyri were produced should have been excised by
Joseph Smith who, presumably, would be revealing the original, pure text
written by Abraham.
To
deal with this uncomfortable difficulty, apologists have even more recently
advanced a more radical idea: that the text of the Book of Abraham had nothing
whatever to do with what was written on the papyri. Instead, the Book of Abraham came fully
formed from the inspired mind of Joseph Smith. Under this theory, the documents Joseph Smith purchased from the mummy
merchant simply served as a catalyst for Joseph to receive a revelation. Whether Abraham actually wrote the original
text or not, the text of the Book of Abraham is inspired and prophetic, having
been given to Joseph Smith by direct revelation from God. To my knowledge, no General Authority of the
church has endorsed this view. But while
this theory flatly contradicts the canonized text of the Book of Abraham, which
says the book was translated by Joseph Smith from the papyrus, it nevertheless
may be the only answer to the consensus among Egyptologists that the words on
the papyrus and symbols on the facsimiles bear no relation to the text produced
by Joseph Smith. However, though this
theory may help provide a possible explanation for problems Egyptologists have, if there never was an actual original text,
either penned by Abraham or included on the papyri, then Joseph Smith produced
the text by “pure revelation.” If so,
then God would be the author of any anachronisms found in the text. That God would inspire his Prophet to pretend
to translate a record found on papyrus and include in the revealed text
anachronisms, it seems to me, is an absurd proposition.
Thus,
there is no explanation for anachronisms in the modern text that does not call
into question the ancient origin of the document or Joseph Smith’s inspiration
in producing the text of the Book of Abraham. If there are anachronisms in the text, they deal a fatal blow to the
notion that the work is of ancient origin and that the text is an accurate
portrayal of events as they actually occurred. Even one anachronism would be sufficient to prove that the text of the
Book of Abraham is not a work of ancient origin. And no matter how many parallels one might
find in the Book of Abraham to ancient Egypt, they are no more relevant to the
question of the document’s ancient origin than the things in our hypothetical
William Diary that seemed to be accurate depictions of 11th-century
England.
So,
are there any anachronisms in the text of the Book of Abraham?
It appears there are several, beginning with the very first
verse:
“In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence.” Abraham 1:1.
According to the LDS Bible Dictionary, Abraham
(first called Abram) was born around 1996 B.C.E. Scholars have debated
whether Abraham was an actual historical individual, but those who believe he
was place his life between 2400 B.C.E. and 1500 B.C.E. See http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abraham.html.
As Stephen Thompson points out,
the word Chaldea is a gross anachronism:
The first such term, Chaldea, occurs in
Abraham 1:1, and subsequently verses 8, 13, 20, 23, 29-30, and 2:4. The
Chaldeans (Hebrew kasdim) were a people who spoke a West-Semitic language
similar to Aramaic and who appeared in the ninth century B.C. in the land south
of Babylonia, and appear to have migrated from Syria. Westermann has noted that
the city of Ur could be qualified as "of the Chaldees" only from the
tenth to the sixth centuries, in any case, not before the first millennium.
Gary Greenberg concurs:
The Mesopotamian city of Ur has a history
dating back to at least the third millennium B.C., but the association of the
city with the Chaldees dates to only about the eighth century B.C. The name
Chaldees refers to the "land of the people of Chaldea," located just
south of Babylon in southern Mesopotamia. Little is known of Chaldea
prior to the eighth century B.C. At this time, it temporarily captured
the throne of Babylon and ruled the entire region, including Ur. From
that time on, although it didn't rule continuously in Babylon, its name came to
be associated with southern Mesopotamia. In 587 B.C., the Chaldeans
conquered the kingdom of Judah and transferred the Hebrew elite to Babylon.
Confounding the situation further, the
biblical Hebrew does not call the city "Ur of the Chaldees." The word
translated as Chaldees actually reads "chesdim," meaning either the
"people of Chesed' or "land of Chesed." The identification of
this city with Chaldea in the King James Version derives from the Greek
translation of the Bible, which used the name Chaldee. . . .
. . . Since Abraham was born only 290 years
after the flood, there is no way that the Chaldees could have been associated
with Ur in his time frame. . . .
. . . The anachronistic Mesopotamian genealogy
of Abraham and his relatives shows that it was a late invention intended to
place Hebrew origins in the cultural center of the powerful Mesopotamian
empires that followed after the defeat of the Chaldeans by the Persians, and
intended to enhance Hebrew prestige within the Babylonian community.
Gary Greenberg, 101 Myths of the Bible: How
Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History at 115-116. Available here.
So, the Book of Abraham not only mentions a group of people
who would not come into existence for hundreds of years after the time of
Abraham, it also incorporates into the text an error from the King James
Version of the Bible. This anachronism
alone shows that the Book of Abraham was not written by Abraham and is not an
accurate history. There are other
anachronisms: the use of the name Pharaoh; the use of the name Potiphar; the
explanation for the etymology of the name Egypt; Hebrew names for Egyptian gods;
Facsimile 1; and the depiction of human sacrifice as an Egyptian ritual.
In sum, no matter what one says about the method Joseph Smith used to translate, no matter what one says about the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, the potential “missing” scrolls, or any problems related to an examination of the papyri, anachronisms in the text of the Book of Abraham argue convincingly against it being an ancient document of divinely inspired origin.
I knew some of the problems with the BoA, but I had no idea about these ones. Good info - and thanks for the links -- really interesting stuff!
Posted by: rebecca | May 16, 2006 at 04:31 PM
So is this what you do in your free time? Equality, this is impressive. It seems that apologists want to have it both ways.
1. Anachronisms could have been introduced by scribes copying down the information with the passing of time.
2. Don't worry about the fact that the Book of Breathings has NOTHING to do wiht The Book of Abraham, because it was just a physical object that allowed JS to bring us this marvelous work.
The problem is that while each explanation makes part of the "problem" dissapear. The theories can't work together.
I almost feel guilty for calling my research on The BoA conclusive enough to call it a fraud after looking at the amount of work you have put into this.
Posted by: Extremely Disaffected | May 16, 2006 at 05:07 PM
The BofA is really the smoking gun that shows Joseph's fraud for what it is. Ignore the text, and you have problems with the translation. Focus on the text, and you have something that doesn't make sense. Excellent points.
Posted by: joseph's left one | May 18, 2006 at 07:36 PM
I think you are correct, J-lo. I am not sure I would go so far as to say Joseph was acting fraudulently with hsi translation activities, though. I reject the traditional orthodox view that the Book of Abraham is an ancient document depicting actual events that really happened. However, I am not convinced that Joseph Smith didn't believe that. I think he really believed in most of the "revelations" he received--the same way Russell Crowe believed he really saw Paul Bettany in A Beautiful Mind. So, is it worse to say Joseph was a fraudulent con-man or that he was mentally unhinged? I will leave that for others to judge.
Posted by: Equality | May 18, 2006 at 08:21 PM
Awesome logic Equality. I never examined the text myself. You make a strong argument. The translation issue is pretty damaging but this is the nail in the coffin.
Posted by: DaVinci | December 08, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Hey Equality,
First time I've been on your blog though I have been a member of FLAK for over a year. It is a pleasure to read your work.
Insight Driver
Posted by: Edward Casey | March 12, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Thanks for the compliment, ID. Your posts at FLAK are always, er, insightful.
Posted by: Equality | March 12, 2007 at 03:09 PM
I thought this post was great, but the BoA issue sometimes really makes my head spin. Has anyone read Michael D. Rhodes arguments supporting the authenticity? For example: http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/JosephSmithHypocephalus.pdf
A slightly longer (and somewhat sarcastic at times) treatment of the issue can be found here, if anyone's willing to slog through it: http://www.boap.org/LDS/critic.html
I am having a hard time correlating the arguments for and against and the rhetoric makes me dizzy.
Forgive me if I've missed more about this issue on this site or one of the ones listed in the sidebar. I endeavor to do my due diligence in researching issues ... but Egyptology doesn't come to me so easy.
Thanks!
Posted by: raw | November 16, 2007 at 06:00 AM
The author spends much more time on explaining why his argument is irrefutable, than on actually producing supporting evidence. The first red flag. He also introduces a "strawman" by presuming that an inspired translation would remove any anachronisms from the text. This implies that he is an expert on inspired translations and how they work. I won't launch into a detailed discussion of the "Chaldees" issue, since this doesn't really seem to be the central point of article. It's interesting to note that Joseph Smith, in his translation of the Bible, sometimes kept passages in wording closer to the KJV Bible, even when he knew that wording to be inaccurate from his language studies.
The anachronism issue is an interesting point, and it would have been more useful for the author to examine it in a more scholarly manner; rather than dwelling on why his conclusions are beyond dispute, and trying to head off all counter arguments before they come.
Posted by: David Jones | August 07, 2008 at 12:37 AM
David,
Thanks for commenting. The purpose of the post by the author (hey, that's me! You can call me Equality or even Eric) was not to disprove the literal historicity of the Book of Abraham in a comprehensive and scholarly manner. Others more knowledgeable and erudite than I have already accomplished that task (see my left sidebar under Book of Abraham). Rather, the purpose was to serve as a counter-argument to a specific Mormon apologetic assertion, namely, that critics of the Book of Abraham do not engage the text itself. The apologetic argument is that the text itself proves Joseph Smith's prophetic capabilities and, therefore, the "truth" of the book. In my post, I took up the apologetic challenge and pointed out some things in the text that I think could lead reasonable and open-minded people to conclude that the text of the book was not, in fact, "written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus."
Much of my post is devoted to a simple logic exercise that, if applied to the claims made for the Book of Abraham by Mormon leaders, demonstrates that those claims cannot be true. Mormon leaders claim that the Book of Abraham was written by Abraham. They claim that the canonized scriptures are reliable; indeed, they claim that the scriptures are the "measuring rod" against which we should judge ideas, assertions, and arguments. But the text itself, and what we know about history, contradicts their claims.
You say I have set up a straw man by arguing that the Book of Abraham should be free from anachronisms. But while Mormon leaders acknowledge that there are certain errors in the Bible, they have never acknowledged errors in the Book of Abraham, have they? You criticize me for not having sufficient supporting evidence to substantiate my claims. Now I ask you for some evidence: give me a statement by a Mormon church President or Apostle or from an official church instruction manual in which errors in the Book of Abraham are acknowledged. I don't claim to be an expert on the "inspired" translation process, but the leaders of the Mormon church do. And they haven't, near as I can tell, ever said that the text that Joseph produced contains errors and anachronisms. Pray tell, how did such errors creep in? Enlighten me and my readers, please. Tell me which parts of the book are original to Abraham, and which were added later. Are you saying that Joseph Smith knew there were errors in the text but he left them in and didn't tell anyone? Or that Joseph the mighty Seer was able to translate the text miraculously with God as his guide, but God wouldn't bother to mention that there were errors that needed correcting? Mormon apologists acknowledge that the text on the papyri does not match the text Joseph translated. They have concocted a theory to explain this: that Joseph simply used the papyri as a "catalyst" to receive pure revelation (similar to the way he received revelations canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants). If that is so, then how do you explain anachronisms and errors? It is not a case of translating a copy of a copy of an original document, where textual errors could creep in. If Joseph received pure revelation, using the papyrus inexplicably as a mere catalyst, then why would God who is communicating to Joseph directly give him false information? Why would God tell him that Abraham wrote something that Abraham never wrote?
The point of the post was to show, examining the text and not the the issues with the papyrus, the facsimiles, etc. (which by themselves disprove the Book of Abraham--perhaps that is why apologists such as Hugh Nibley so desperately wanted to keep the focus only on the English translation and not on the papyri) that the text Joseph Smith produced (i.e., the ideas communicated by the words Joseph produced) could not have been written by Abraham.
Nothing in your comment dissuades me from that conclusion.
Posted by: Equality | August 07, 2008 at 11:53 AM