* This is the fourth installment in my “Why I Don’t Believe” series.

If there is only one thing upon which my Mormon friends and I will agree, it’s that sacrament meetings are sometimes insufferably dull. Kids have their baggies of Cheerios, but the rest of us are left to find other means of avoiding the tedium of church. My distraction of choice was the Book of Abraham. I was especially intrigued by the facsimiles that accompanied it. I mean, what other sacred text can also function as a coloring book?

As I matured, so too did my interest in the Book of Abraham. The illustrations aside, it’s a fascinating and important work of scripture. I began to more faithfully study it and its teachings. The Book of Abraham discusses some of Mormonism’s most peculiar doctrines—the plurality of gods, the pre-existence, and polygamy. It also introduced the scriptural basis for the black priesthood ban.

Despite its importance, many Mormons are unaware of the history behind the Book of Abraham and the immense (if not insurmountable) difficulty it poses to their religion. For those who don’t find this post persuasive, I hope it will at least be informative.

In the summer of 1835, traveling salesman Michael Chandler pulled his wagon cart into Kirtland, Ohio—then home to the fledgling LDS Church. Chandler was marketing an ancient Egyptian exhibit, which contained four mummies and several rolls of papyri. He had heard of Joseph Smith’s alleged ability to translate ancient documents and hoped Smith would be interested in his papyri.

The young prophet was certainly intrigued. After briefly purveying the papyri, Smith proclaimed them to be “the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” The church purchased the papyri for $2,400 dollars (an estimated $75,000 in today’s dollars).

By his prophetic powers, Joseph Smith began “translating” the Egyptian papyri into a work of scripture. The Egyptian language was still virtually unknown at the time. And while the Rosetta Stone had been deciphered a decade earlier, this knowledge had yet to travel to America. Consequently, Smith’s professed knowledge of Egyptian was all the more impressive and curious.

There is little doubt that Smith claimed to have been actually translating ancient Egyptian. While working on the Book of Abraham, Smith and his scribes constructed an Egyptian alphabet and grammar (known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers).

Joseph Smith’s diary entries also suggest that he viewed his role as a translator:

“…I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics…a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them.”

“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.”

“This afternoon I re-commenced translating from the ancient records…”

“I returned home and spent the day in translating the Egyptian records…”

That the Book of Abraham was intended to be a literal translation of the papyri is made explicit in the book’s preface: “A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.”

Joseph Smith was so confident in his Egyptian that he even boasted the following in the Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons:

“Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim ‘Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is’…”

Smith’s statement, however, is gibberish and bears no resemblance whatsoever to Egyptian. In fact, neither the Kirtland Egyptian Papers nor (more importantly) the Book of Abraham coheres to any Egyptological understanding. To put it less charitably: Joseph Smith was either consciously dishonest or profoundly self-deluded. Both are uncomfortable conclusions for a believing Mormon.

General Authority and Church Historian B.H. Roberts recognized the gravity of the problem:

“…if Joseph Smith’s translation of the Egyptian parchment could be proven discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon, and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught.” (Comprehensive History of the Church 2:138)

And as early as the mid-19^th century, equipped with an increased understanding of Egyptian, scholars did discredit the Book of Abraham as fraudulent. The French Egyptologist Theodule Deveria was the first to identify the facsimiles found in the Book of Abraham as common to Egyptian funerary documents. Ancient Egyptians would bury or entomb their dead with a collection of hymns, spells, and instructions to allow the deceased to pass through obstacles in the afterlife.

Later, in 1912, Episcopalian Bishop F.S. Spalding solicited the expert opinions of eight Egyptologists concerning Joseph Smith’s purported translation. Below is a representative sample of their conclusions:

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.”—Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford, England

“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 a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages.”—Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, University of Munich

“The ‘Book of Abraham,’ it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication.”—Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Dept. of Egyptian Art

Egyptology has evolved since these expert opinions were solicited nearly a century ago, but it remains the scholarly consensus today that the Book of Abraham is assuredly not a translation of ancient Egyptian papyri.

The weight of evidence against Joseph Smith’s translation of the ancient Egyptian papyri into the Book of Abraham cannot fully be appreciated until one examines the facsimiles. They are a stunning visual demonstration of just how wrong Smith was.

Let’s look at Facsimile No. 1. The parchment on which this facsimile was located was in such poor condition that Smith had to pencil in his best guesses to complete the picture. Here is the facsimile before and after Smith’s restoration:

Smith believed this to be a depiction of Abraham “fastened upon an altar” before a wicked priest who sought to sacrifice Abraham to his pagan god. Flying above Abraham is “the Angel of the Lord.” Under him lay idolatrous statues of pagan gods.

Smith’s restoration and explanation of the picture was imaginative, but erroneous. From Dr. Richard Parker of Brown University: “This is a well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries, with Anubis, the jackal-headed god, on the left ministering to the dead Osiris on the bier…The apparent upper hand is part of the wing of a second bird which is hovering over the erect phallus of Osiris (now broken away). The second bird is Isis and she is magically impregnated by the dead Osiris and then later gives birth to Horus who avenges his father and takes over his inheritance. The complete bird [on the right] represents Nephthys, sister to Osiris and Isis. Beneath the bier are the four canopic jars with heads representative of the four sons of Horus…”

Compare this Egyptologically correct restoration of the facsimile with Smith’s attempt above:

Where Smith’s interpretation most went awry is where the original parchment was torn. That Smith drew Anubis without a jackal-head, for example, is very problematic. It was also wrong to have Anubis holding a knife, for ancient Egyptians found it disrespectful to depict a knife near the deceased.

I’d also like to draw your attention to Facsimile No. 3:

Joseph Smith explained that figure 1 was “Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king…” Abraham was brought before Pharaoh’s court to expound upon “the principles of astronomy.” Behind Abraham stands the Pharaoh, and in front of him stand the prince and two servants.

Yet again, Smith was wrong. Egyptologist Klaus Baer provides the proper interpretation: “Facsimile No. 3 shows a man (5) his hand raised in adoration and a cone of perfumed grease and a lotus flower on his head (ancient Egyptian festival attire), being introduced by Maat (4), the goddess of justice, and Anubis (6), the guide of the dead, into the presence of Osiris (1), enthroned as king of the Netherworld. Behind Osiris stands Isis (2), and in front of him is an offering-stand (3) with a jug and some flowers on it. Over the whole scene is a canopy with stars painted on it to represent the sky.”

Notice how Smith misidentifies figures 2 and 4 (who are obviously female) as men! Smith renders Isis as “King Pharaoh” and the goddess Maat as “Prince of Pharaoh.”

For more than a century, all that Egyptologists had to study from the Book of Abraham were these facsimiles published in the Times and Seasons and later in the Pearl of Great Price. The original papyri were lost shortly after Joseph Smith’s death and believed to have been destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.

But in 1966, twelve fragments of the papyri were remarkably rediscovered in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. It was clear that these were the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated—at least in part. They were pasted onto paper that had “drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area” on the back and an affidavit by Emma Smith stating that they had been in the possession of her husband.

In all, these fragments account for roughly a third of Joseph Smith’s total collection. Still, it is widely agreed that much of what was rediscovered constitutes the Book of Abraham. Consider the fact that Fascimile No. 1 was among the fragments. Also, Smith’s attempted Egyptian alphabet and grammar seems to correspond to the found papyri.

Now, scholars could examine the source text of the Book of Abraham and either confirm or falsify Smith’s translation. The LDS community anxiously awaited the reports, hoping that they would validate Smith.

Egyptologists, both Mormon and non-Mormon alike, quickly took to the task of translating the papyri. It soon became readily apparent that there were no similarities between the Book of Abraham and the actual content of the papyri. The consensus was, in accordance with earlier suspicions, that these papyri were common funerary documents. Specifically, they belonged to the Book of Breathings and were written for a priest named “Hor.” The name “Abraham” appears nowhere in the text.

The papyri also dated to almost 2,000 years after Abraham supposedly lived. It’s not surprising, then, that the Book of Abraham contains a number of gross anachronisms.

One such anachronism occurs in the very first verse of the Book of Abraham, which sets the story “In the land of the Chaldeans…” But the Chaldean people didn’t appear until at least the 9^th century B.C.E—a whole millennium after the time of Abraham! The Old Testament makes a similar mistake when, in Genesis, it mentions “Ur of Chaldeans” as Abraham’s birthplace (Genesis 15:7).

The Book of Abraham claims that Egypt was named after “Egyptus,” which is Chaldean for “forbidden.” The immediate problem: “Egyptus” is not Chaldean, but Greek, and in no language does in mean “forbidden.”  What’s more, ancient Egyptians didn’t refer to their land as “Egypt,” just as Germans don’t call their country “Germany.” They called their land “Kemet,” meaning “black,” in reference to the rich dark soil of the Nile Delta.

Another anachronism, and the last one I’ll mention, is Smith’s use of the word “pharaoh.” According to linguist Richard Packham: “The linguistic problem is that the word “pharaoh” originally meant “great house.” It did not become a title for the king until the beginning of the New Kingdom (18th Dynasty), which began about 1567 B.C.”

None of the aforementioned problems raised by the Book of Abraham are new or original to me. Church leaders and LDS apologists have known of these issues for decades. How have they responded?

The LDS leadership has largely responded with silence. But career apologists like Hugh Nibley, Michael D. Rhodes, Daniel C. Peterson, and others have volunteered a number of rationalizations over the years.

I can’t possibly address all of their arguments here (though I anticipate their discussion in the comments). Like previous posts, this one is just meant as an introduction to the issue—not some exhaustive treatment. I will, however, say a few things about Book of Abraham apologetics in general.

First, apologists are deeply committed to their religious beliefs and this biases their research. The primary purpose of apologetics is to defend Mormonism’s claims—the evidence be damned. To be sure, nobody is objective. But whom should you trust: A few BYU professors or the entire Egyptological community?

Second, nearly all apologetic approaches to the Book of Abraham are ad hoc. It was only after the evidence was clear that the Book of Abraham was not an accurate translation that some Mormons posited that Smith’s translation was “spiritual” rather than literal. God could have spared the LDS Church a lot of embarrassment and apologists a lot of time had he simply told Smith and subsequent prophets that the Book of Abraham wasn’t really a translation of ancient Egyptian papyri.

And third, there exists disagreement among Mormon apologists about the Book of Abraham and how to rescue it. Some apologists, for instance, admit that Smith botched the facsimiles, while others contend that his explanations of them were accurate.

The foremost Book of Abraham apologist today is BYU professor John Gee. At last month’s FAIR Conference, Gee gave a talk entitled, “The Larger Issue.” In his talk, Gee made a startling statement: “The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ… [H]ow the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.”

Gee is effectively saying that a canonical work—and one rich with doctrinal insights—is expendable. Ask yourself: Were there any compelling evidence for the Book of Abraham, would Gee have said what he did?

In a different era, Gee might have been excommunicated for this talk. But interestingly, his remarks were published in a recent Church News article, over which the church exercises direct editorial control.

Does this mark the beginning of the end for the Book of Abraham? It’s possible that the LDS Church will eventually remove it from the standard works, as they did the Lectures on Faith in 1921. Time will tell.

Until then, the Book of Abraham will continue to spark debate and stand as a witness against Joseph Smith’s prophetic pretensions.

For more information about the Book of Abraham, I’d highly recommend this link.