Skeptoid: The Book of Abraham

As mentioned in my last post, I would like to take the time to respond to Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid Podcast: specifically, Decrypting the Book of Abraham. But first, let’s be fair: Skeptoid is a ten-minute show, so Brian’s treatment thereof is certainly not on the same level as the volumes and volumes that have been written on the subject. Perhaps it is for this reason that he has ignored several well-established facts that would detract from his argument, and I expect that I, being limited by time and reasonable space, shall do the same. However, I think we need to return to the context I so often speak of. Brian, this one is for you.

Brian begins his Podcast by giving a brief history of the papyri which, after being purchased by the Church of the Latter Day Saints (as it was then, inexplicably, known), resulted in a translation of a portion of the Book of Abraham. To be frank, this history is probably the most accurate summary I’ve seen, in so few words. Yes, there are a few mistakes (e.g. calling the Church of Jesus Christ “the Mormon Church,” calling Kolob a planet, etc.), but overall it is a succinct description of the events as they happened, devoid of the negative bias so often seen in critical works. If you’re reading this, Brian, you have my most sincere gratitude. In this respect, you seem a true scholar, and I thus trust you to tweak (or at least annotate) these minor errors. Thank you!

Most readers of this blog probably know what happened from there: the sale of the papyri, their relocation to Chicago, the apparent destruction of most of them in the Great Chicago Fire, and the eventual discovery of the extant fragments in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. However, this is where Brian’s treatment begins to break down.

I. Contents and Length of the Book of Abraham

Brian first charges that “All of [Joseph] Smith's original papyri had been fragmentary, and these ten pieces probably made up some one-third to one-half of his original collection. Let’s see what Joseph and his contemporaries had to say about this:

“The Record of Abraham… found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation” (attrib. Joseph Smith Jr., History of the Church 2:348).

I think we can all agree that a document “in perfect preservation” is far from “fragmentary,” Brian. But what of the quantity?

“We are told that the papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House” (Hugh Nibley, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 3:2 [Summer 1968], p.101).

I have been unable to find the source for Nibley’s assurances—who tells us that they extended that far?—and am frankly surprised that so many cite this statement instead of going directly to his source. However, I think it telling that in all my years of studying criticism of the Book of Abraham, I have never once heard it disputed. So, this hardly seems conducive to the “one-third to one-half” theory; in fact, Egyptologist John Gee states that the extant fragments comprise, at most, 13% of the original (A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, 23)—quite a bit to have lost. Indeed, I have heard for years that Joseph Smith said the full translation of the Book of Abraham would be longer than the Bible, a claim repeated by H. Donl Peterson in The Story of the Book of Abraham (see p.25).

II. Contents of the Extant Documents

Now let us move on to the translation of the extant documents. Brian, you point out that the contents of the fragments have nothing to do with the contents of the Book of Abraham. This is true enough, but I question why you think that they would. Let’s see what the Book of Abraham itself has to say about the hypocephalus now known as “Facsimile 1”:

“[T]hat you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record” (Abraham 1:12).

So, regardless of who wrote the Book of Abraham—whether you believe it to be Abraham, Joseph Smith Jr., or some other third party (more on this later)—at least the first set of hieroglyphics was completed before the Book of Abraham was written and, as such, could not be the source thereof. When one considers that as many as 25% of all known Sensen texts (the category into which the Facsimile #1 document falls) have other documents attached to them, this seems entirely consistent with the Book’s own description.

III. Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar

Brian points out that Joseph Smith Jr. and his associates authored a document entitled Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. This document, he argues, provides a clear link to the extant documents—which, of course, is true. Unfortunately, he also makes a tremendous assumption as to the purpose of this document—one that, if incorrect, undermines the very crux of his argument against it.

Latter-day Saint scholar and apologist Michael R. Ash gives an alternate (and, in my opinion, much more probable) reason behind this document: that of attempting to understand the original.

“Many LDS scholars believe that the [Kirtland Egyptian Papers] are an example of a backwards translation. In other words, Joseph translated the Book of Abraham prior to the creation of the KEP and then he… tried to match the translated text to what they believed were the characters that were used to elicit the translation. In this scenario the KEP were not the product of revelation, but were rather an attempt to “study out” the translation, after-the-fact, in what might have been an experiment to create an Egyptian alphabet” (Ash, Shaken Faith Syndrome, 120; note that “study out” is a familiar phrase to Latter-day Saints and an important concept in so-called “Mormonism,” as outlined in the ninth section of the Church’s Doctrine and Covenants).

The problem with Brian’s version of events is that it assumes that Joseph Smith and his associates believed that, having translated a small portion of the Book of Abraham, they were suddenly qualified to teach the Egyptian language. If such a thing were true, we should see evidence of it elsewhere in Joseph’s life—perhaps even a Nephite Alphabet and Grammar based on his earlier translation of the Book of Mormon. Not surprisingly, we do not. The only linguistic instruction the Prophet ever gave was the occasional, off-the-cuff statement in the context of a religious sermon.

Furthermore, if one believes that Joseph, et al, were attempting to perpetuate a fraud, it assumes two more things: first, that they would attempt to get something out of this document, perhaps by publishing and selling it to the thousands of Latter-day Saints that would have eagerly gobbled up anything from their Prophet. Not only did this not happen, but I know of no evidence that most Church members even knew it existed—hardly consistent with Joseph’s other, more prophetic works.

Secondly, we must assume that Joseph and his associates were so ignorant as to believe that Egyptian would never be translated by scholarly means. This is likewise wholly untenable, as Joseph’s occasional statements on the subject of Egyptology (including his subtle invitation to the world in figures 9-11 of Facsimile #2) make it abundantly clear that he never expected the language to remain a mystery forever.

In short, it seems that Joseph didn’t think too much of Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. If he had, you can bet that he (and thousands of others) would have used it to its fullest extent.

IV. Age of the Papyri

The last point Brian makes is that “The papyri have been dated to the first century BC, about 1500 years after Abraham is claimed to have lived.” This, he continues, “makes it difficult to reconcile Smith’s statement that they were written by Abraham's own hand.” While admitting Dr. Hugh Nibley’s response—that “it's common to refer to a book as having been written by someone without literally meaning that that exact volume was created by a pen held in that person’s own hand,” he states that this position be “tenuous,” and he may be right. Since Joseph’s not around to explain what he meant, it’s kind of hard to know, one way or the other. More pertinently, though, I think Brian’s missing an important point here:

So what?

Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that Joseph honestly believed that that particular copy of the Book of Abraham was actually, physically written by a pen held in Abraham’s own hand. If so, then Joseph was wrong. And if Joseph was wrong, so what? Joseph was wrong about a lot of things. It doesn’t disprove the Book of Abraham, and it certainly doesn’t disprove his prophetic calling. What it proves is that Joseph didn’t know everything, which really didn’t need proving in the first place: Joseph personally attested to that fact, on many occasions.

What Brian has neglected to deal with is this: let’s assume that this particular copy of the Book of Abraham wasn’t written by Abraham himself. If that be the case, then who did pick up the pen and author this particular copy—and more importantly, is that relevant? The answer, of course, is an unmitigated yes, which is exactly where the entire argument against the Book of Abraham breaks down.

The discovery that the Joseph Smith papyri date to the first century BC led to what is, in my estimation, the most concrete and indisputable proof of the Book of Abraham’s veracity. Without that date, none of it would make a bit of sense; with it firmly in place, the stage was unwittingly set for a discovery so big that it really deserves its own post. Stay tuned, dear readers. If you’re not yet aware of the facts I’ll set forth in my next entry, you’re in for quite a ride.