Posted on 03/17/2009 10:53:51 PM PDT by restornu
Is it true that the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated have been found, and that it has been proven that they do not contain the writings of Abraham?
Anonymous
Answer this Question
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webmaster de AllAboutMormons.com from La Jolla,
California: The manuscripts from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham eventually ended up in Chicago, and many of them were destroyed in the great Chicago fire of 1871. While some fragments of these manuscripts were later discovered to have survived the fire, much of the original text had been destroyed.
Contemporaries of Joseph Smith described what the papyri from which he translated the Book of Abraham looked like, and that description does not match the fragments we have today.
This evidence strongly suggests that the papyri from which most of the Book of Abraham was translated have in fact never been discovered and were probably destroyed in the Chicago fire.
AllAboutMormons.com Webmaster from La Jolla, California:
Joseph Smith was the first president of the Mormon Church. He received a message from God to restore Christ’s ancient church in modern times.
Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Abraham was written by the hand of Abraham, but the papyri discovered date to the 2nd century B.C. How can this be explained?
It seems almost certain that Joseph Smith was mistaken when he supposed that Abraham personally wrote the papyri.
This is an understandable mistake, given that he believed the papyri contained the words of Abraham.
This question, of course, has no bearing on whether the Book of Abraham is a true account.
A text originally written by Abraham could have been copied down through the centuries. Indeed, Dr. John Gee, who holds a PhD in Egyptology from Yale, notes that "some of the texts in the Book of the Dead manuscripts from the same time as the Joseph Smith Papyri (and even later) are also attested in manuscripts that go back before the time of Abraham."
Would Jewish texts have been mixed with Egyptian texts?
The papyri fragments currently known do not match the 19th-century descriptions of the papyri from which Joseph translated the Book of Abraham. Specifically, contemporaries of Joseph Smith stated that the papyri were in beautiful condition and when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms. Nothing like that has survived today.
One researcher, Dr. John Gee, believes that Joseph had five scrolls, but only fragments of two scrolls have survived. This suggests that the Book of Abraham was added to the end of the Book of Breathings, an ancient Egyptian text.
There are in fact archeological examples of Egyptian papyri containing multiple documents.
There are also at least three examples of Jewish editors incorporating Egyptian symbols into their writings.
One researcher suggests that the Egyptian book entitled “Instructions of Amenemope,” for example, may have provided some of the source material for the Book of Proverbs in the Bible.
Independent evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Abraham
There is also substantial evidence suggesting that the Book of Abraham is an authentic translation of an ancient text. For example, the Book of Abraham mentions “the plain of Olishem” (Abraham 1:10).
There is no mention of this plain in the Bible, but in an inscription of the Akkadian ruler Naram Sin, dating to about 2250 B.C., the place is mentioned explicitly. How could Joseph Smith have known such a plain existed anciently?
There are surprising parallels between the Book of Abraham and other ancient texts, including the Apocolypse of Abraham and the Testament of Abraham.
Joseph Smith did not have access to these ancient texts and couldn't have known of their contents.
Additionally, the Book of Abraham contains ancient Egyptian names with which Joseph Smith could not have been familiar.
The only portion of the Book of Abraham that can be definitively linked to the available papyri is facsimile 1. Some have criticized Joseph Smith because he associated this image, which is a typical Egyptian embalming scene called the lion couch, with the ancient Hebrew prophet Abraham. However, at least one ancient example has been found in which Abraham's name does appear in connection to an Egyptian lion couch scene.
The papyri as a prop: an alternate theory
While the current evidence does not preclude the possibility that the papyri did contain the records of ancient Abraham, the papyri need not physically contain these records for the Book of Abraham to be a true account. In modern Mormonism, we understand that revelation typically comes through study and prayer, but Joseph, who was learning the revelatory process as he went, often relied on “props” to give him the needed confidence to receive revelation.
Joseph Smith translated an ancient record engraven on metallic plates. This record is known today as the Book of Mormon.
In translating the Book of Mormon, for example, Joseph used “seer stones” early on. In my opinion, these stones were likely merely props used to give Joseph confidence. He abandoned them after a time. Similarly, during the translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph at times didn't even look at the plates as he transcribed the record.
I believe the plates in Joseph's possession did contain the Book of Mormon account, but, given that he could “translate” without them, they were at least at times functioning as props as well. Could it be that the papyri in Joseph's possession likewise functioned as mere props? Did the papyri serve only as a catalyst, giving Joseph the needed confidence to bring to light the ancient record of Abraham through the process of revelation? Does it even matter whether or not the papyri in Joseph's possession actually contained an account of ancient Abraham?
Caucus threads.
Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited
What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus
What will be pulled? Reply posts mentioning the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus. If the article is inappropriate for a caucus, the tag will be changed to open.
Who will be booted? Repeat offenders.
Relevant links
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Papyri
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Hits
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Papyri/Long_article
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9N56ziFVFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl7G1YrDp1Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUbp04NFCl0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IQxsZx2iS8
Do you know of a good book defending the Mormon view of the papyrus?
Placemark
This is an LDS Caucus thread which is cloese to disruptors!
Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited
What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus
Thank you
Have a nice day!
Thanks !:)
This article was helpful. Thank you for posting it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.