In June of 2014, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org. This essay acknowledges the significant translation discrepancies between what was rendered by Joseph Smith and what is rendered by modern-day Egyptologists [1], stating that “None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham […] the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham.” [2] Moreover, the essay suggests two possible—yet mutually exclusive—explanations for this dilemma, proposing what are now referred to as the catalyst theory (a progressive model) and the missing text theory (a conservative model).
In this post, I will put forward the claim that of these two seemingly incompatible proposals, the available evidence seems to suggest that the catalyst theory is consistent—or at least more consistent—with the historical record. I recognize that these are not the only two possible explanations for why the Book of Abraham shows no correlation to the available source material; however, they are the only two proposals suggested in the Church’s 2014 essay, and therefore, they are the only proposals discussed.
historical sketch
During the summer of 1835 in Kirtland, Ohio, Joseph Smith purchased four ancient Egyptian mummies and two papyrus scrolls from Michael Chandler, a traveling salesman, exhibitor, and entrepreneur. After an initial review of the papyri, Joseph Smith, W.W. Phelps, and Oliver Cowdery, determined that these materials come from a sacred origin. Joseph recorded: “much to our joy [we] found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. — a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.” [3] Their translation efforts resulted in the production of two important, yet highly criticized works: the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar Manuscripts (commonly referred to as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers).
The Book of Abraham was published in the Church’s periodical Times and Seasons in Nauvoo, Illinois, in March and May of 1842. This published version was introduced as “A translation Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the book of abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” [4] The Book of Abraham was officially accepted as scripture by the Church in 1880 and is included today in our standard works. In 1856, Lucy Mack Smith sold the scrolls and the mummies, and the papyri were presumed destroyed during The Great Chicago Fire [5]. Without the papyri in possession nearly all critical assessment from the intellectual community was disregarded. Claims regarding the translations truth and validity were easily discredited on the basis of the papyri being unavailable. However, the discussion dramatically changed after they were discovered in 1966.
Agreements
With portions of the original papyri available to the public and their subsequent publishing in The Improvement Era, dozens of modern-day Egyptologists have translated the remaining papyri and revealed exactly what was written. The papyri used to produce The Book of Abraham has absolutely nothing to do with the prophet Abraham, the Book of Abraham, or Mormon theology whatsoever, but is actually, nothing more than a very common funerary document known as “The Book of Breathings” for a deceased Egyptian named Horus [6].
Modern day Egyptologists, non-Mormon academics, and LDS apologists—well, most LDS apologists—have come to consensus on the following four facts:
(1) Joseph Smith claimed that the Lord revealed to him that the papyri contained the writings of Abraham.
(2) The remaining papyri scrolls have absolutely nothing to do with Abraham, the writings of Abraham, the Book of Abraham, Mormon theology, or Mormon Cosmology whatsoever.
(3) The remaining fragments of the scroll from which the Book of Abraham was translated is a common Egyptian funerary text for a dead man named Horus.
(4) The papyri scrolls date to approximately 2,000 years after the time when Abraham lived, and were not physically written “by the hand of Abraham”.
The discrepancy between what Joseph Smith claimed and what the evidence suggests is reasonably problematic. In the words of Latter-day scholar and Apostle, Elder BH Roberts: “If Joseph Smith’s translation of the Egyptian parchment could be 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.” [7] And for this cause, the LDS Church published its essay on the Book of Abraham in June of 2014, which addresses skepticism and proposes two possibilities to address translation dissimilarity.
Proposal 1: The Catalyst Theory
In Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham, the Church provides the following statement:
“Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.” [8]
This proposal redefines “translation”. What was once understood to be the process of rendering words or text from one language into another, “translation” is now understood to be a revelatory process. In this view, Joseph Smith’s translation process wasn’t physical; it was metaphysical. The catalyst theory turns much of the previous apologetic scholarship on it’s head, dismissing the previous models of literal or “tight control translation” [9] as attempts to fit square pegs into round holes.
The Catalyst Theory Explained:
(1) The Book of Abraham as it currently exists in our scriptures was not found anywhere on the papyri Joseph Smith received.
(2) When Joseph Smith examined the papyri, he became interested in Abraham.
(3) Therefore, God gave Joseph a revelation of a translation from an ancient, authentic document from Abraham. This document constitutes the Book of Abraham as contained in the Pearl of Great Price.
It seems to me that this is a step in the right direction. Joseph Smith could not and absolutely did not translate the Book of Abraham in the literal, traditional sense that is usually implied by the term “translation” (turning one language into another or from a foreign language into one’s own). Although he tried to, as illustrated in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, his attempts at literal translation weren’t even close.
While this proposal seems reasonable to me, there is still a small group of conservative apologists who reject it. The primary criticism against the catalyst theory contends that if Joseph Smith claimed that he was literally translating an ancient document into English, and if his finished translation (the Book of Abraham) didn’t come from the papyri, than the model assumes that Joseph was used as a “dummy prophet”. In other words, the Lord was working through Joseph despite his ignorance, confusion, and contradictory claims. The available evidence seems to suggest that Joseph thought he was literally translating—or at least attempting to literally translate—the papyri.
The catalyst theory may not be the most comprehensive explanation as to how the Book of Abraham came to be; however, I find the “dummy prophet” argument to be a moot apologetic rebuttal. This model describes a revelatory process for producing scripture that is consistent with Joseph’s other “translations” [10]. For instance, in both versions of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, the “translation” consisted of looking at an original text and discovering a new text that was not present in the first, coming as pure revelation. Joseph also described receiving sections of the Doctrine and Covenants—specifically section 7—as a form of “translation”, in which case he received text, verbiage, and doctrinal content through a vision, and not from a previously written manuscript.
In Reflections of a Scientist by Dr. Henry Eyring—father of Henry B. Eyring—the author describes the catalyst theory well ahead of any apologist, stating the following: “Modern scholars, looking at the scrolls, found nothing they considered to be similar to that book. I remarked at the time that such a finding didn’t bother me in the least. God doesn’t need a crib sheet in the form of a papyrus scroll to reveal Abraham’s thoughts and words to Joseph Smith, with any degree of precision He considers necessary for His purposes. If the only function of the scrolls was to awaken the Prophet to the idea of receiving such inspiration, they would have fulfilled their purpose.” [11] The Church’s proposed “Catalyst Theory” along with Dr. Eyring describe a logical, yet consistent explanation for how the Book of Abraham may have come into existence.
Proposal #2: The Missing Text Theory
The alternative suggestion by the Church to address the translation discrepancies between Joseph Smith and modern-day Egyptologists is the idea that the Book of Abraham was a literal translation from missing portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri. In this theory, the burden of proof returns to apologetics. Translation and Historicity of The Book of Abraham states that “Eyewitnesses spoke of ‘a long roll’ or multiple ‘rolls’ of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments.”
The essay’s catalyst theory was a step forward; however, implying a literal translation seems to be a step back. What is being suggested is twofold: first, there could have been additional scrolls used by Joseph Smith and his scribes as source material for the Book of Abraham that are now missing, presumably destroyed in the great Chicago fire of 1871 [12]. Second, no one can be sure how long these scrolls actually were prior to the Chicago fire. Both of these suggestions are problematic.
Before addressing either of these points—a missing scroll or the unknown scroll length—it is important to note that dozens of Egyptologists have independently studied the surviving portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri that were actually translated (along with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Facsimiles 1-3, and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar documents), and these scholars have concluded that the correct translations of the papyri not only have absolutely nothing to do with Abraham, but they have everything to do with a funerary text for a dead Egyptian man Horus. According Dr. Flinders Petrie, Egyptologist from the University of London, “To anyone with knowledge of the large class of [Egyptian] funeral documents to which these belong, the attempts to guess a meaning are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these [i.e., Smith’s] explanations.” To me, no amount of additional papri will change the fact that the translations we have are absolutely incorrect. Here are two quick examples from facsimile #3.:
A Third Scroll — with regard to the notion that there may have been an additional scroll used in the translation process, Joseph’s two scribes, W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery, affirmed that Joseph purchased exactly two scrolls from Mr. Chandler in their individual journals and various letters [13]. In a letter to his wife, W.W. Phelps wrote “[…] four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the “rolls of papyrus,” contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh’s court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham.”
Even Joseph himself noted that the source material used for the Book of Abraham came from one scroll, writing: “much to our joy [we] found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham.” [14] Moreover, Lucy Mack Smith provided a signed affidavit from Joseph’s Wife Emma at the sale of the papyri in 1856, which indicated that there were only two scrolls used in the translation [15]. Given the considerable amount of evidence discrediting the idea of a third scroll—letters, journal entries, affidavits, etc.—it is reasonable to assume that a third scroll probably didn’t exist.
Unknown Scroll Length — the suggestion of not knowing the length of the papyri is just as problematic as the idea of a missing scroll. Recent examinations of the scroll’s lacunae—an imprinted, repeating pattern in papyri caused by scrolling—can accurately determine the exact length of the scroll, to the centimeter. Using the repeating depressions along the top and bottom of the remaining papyri, the missing portions are estimated to be only 2 columns of text, or roughly 56 centimeters in length. “The distances between successive matching lacunae in the unrolled papyrus correspond to the lengths of the original windings; hence, the outer windings can be measured by shifting the edge function of each fragment, with respect to itself, until the lacunae match up.” [16] [note: the numeric formulas used to determine lacunae and scroll length can be found here]. With the length of the original papyri known, it appears that the scroll wasn’t long enough to house all 5 chapters of the Book of Abraham.
The journal entries and letters of Phelps and Cowdery combined with the affidavit produced by Emma seem to rule out the possibility of there being a third scroll. In addition, the scroll’s lacunae is evidence that the scroll is in no way long enough to house a verbatim translation of what is read in the Pearl of Great Price. But regardless of whether or not there was a significant amount of missing papyri, the existence of any additional text doesn’t change the fact that Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri do not correlate in any way with the translations of modern-day Egyptologists [17].
Conclusion
In closing, Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham found in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, is an insightful, perspective changing essay. It readily acknowledges the translation discrepancies [18] between the work of Joseph Smith and that of Egyptologists. It addresses some of the long-held concerns over the origin, production, and translation of this book of scripture, and puts forth two possible, yet mutually exclusive explanations on why these discrepancies exist.
The available evidence suggests that modern-day Egyptological translations do not—in any way—support the proposal of a literal translation model (or a conservative missing text theory). Moreover, it seems fair to suggest that any missing papyri text, regardless of whether or not it exists, would do little to support this approach since all available material that has already been translated doesn’t coincide with Joseph Smith’s translations. Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie from the London University stated that “It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these [i.e., Smith’s] explanations.” [19] I don’t rule out the possibility that somehow future apologetic research could present a persuasive argument to support a literal translation; however, until that time comes, I don’t feel inclined to post-rationalize a claim I once thought was correct in order for it to remain correct.
In contrast to literal translation, the notion that after Joseph Smith purchased and examined the papyri, these materials catalyzed “a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri” [20], is a model consistent with how Joseph Smith “translated” other documents such as the Book of Moses, the Book of Commandments, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and both versions of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. This idea is a step in the right direction. In applying the catalyst theory, the original papyri that was purchased from Mr. Chandler was not literally the Book of Abraham as Joseph thought it was, and it certainly doesn’t need to be in order for the Book of Abraham to be a work of God.
— Thomas J. Blasucci
[1] “[…] these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations 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, Egyptologist, Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, as cited in Joseph Smith Jun. As a Translator, p. 26-27.
[2] Translation and Historicity of The Book of Abraham: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng
[3] Joseph Smith History, 1838–1856, vol. B-1, 596.
[4] The Pearl of Great Price (containing The Book of Abraham)
[5] John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000), 2.
[6] Ritner, Robert K. The “Breathing Permit of Hor”: Thirty-four Years Later. Pg. 110.
[7] Elder B.H. Roberts, LDS Comprehensive History of the Church 2:138
[8] Translation and Historicity of The Book of Abraham: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng
[9] Royal Skousen, “Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Book of Mormon: Evidence for Tight Control of the Text,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7:1 (1998), 22–31.
[10] “JS worked intermittently on translating some of the papyri for the remainder of the year, though his exact process of translating is unclear […]Portions of this translation were first published in March 1842. JS and other church members, as encouraged by an 1833 revelation, also sought to gain more conventional translation skills through the academic study of other languages, including Greek, Hebrew, and German.” Joseph Smith Papers Project: http://josephsmithpapers.org/topic?name=Translate
[11] Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, p. 46.
[12] “A collection of pa[p]yrus manuscripts, long believed to have been destroyed in the Chicago Fire of 1871, was presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here Monday by the Metropolitan Museum of Art….. Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called ‘Facsimile No. 1’ and published with the Book of Abraham.” — Deseret News, Nov. 27, 1967.
[13] Letter sent by W.W. Phelps to his wife—The papyri have not yet been translated:”The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the “rolls of papyrus,” contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh’s court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham. God has so ordered it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church and the sacred writing I had just locked up in Brother Joseph’s house when your letter came, so I had two consolations of good things in one day. These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints. . . .” – W.W. Phelps Letters.
[14] Joseph Smith History, 1838–1856, vol. B-1, 596
[15] Deseret News, Salt Lake City, November 27, 1967.
[16] https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Original-Length-of-the-Scroll-of-Hor.pdf
[17] Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Department of Egyptian Art; Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator, p. 29.
[18] “It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud…. Smith has turned the Goddess [in Facsimile No. 1] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.”— Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology, printed in Joseph Smith Jun. As a Translator, by F.S. Spaulding, p. 23.
[19] Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, London University; quoted in F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator, p. 24.
[20] Translation and Historicity of The Book of Abraham: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng
Through a Glass Darkly 
I highly recommend this article as a supplement:
http://signaturebooks.com/2014/08/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post! I commend your academically honest approach to the topic which is greatly needed these days.
My favorite part of your post is your treatment of the word “translation.” JS called language a narrow, little prison; and when we think of JS translating ancient texts we may inadvertently start out on the wrong foot.
“What was once understood to be the process of rendering words or text from one language into another, “translation” is now understood to be a revelatory process . . . Joseph Smith could not and absolutely did not translate the Book of Abraham in the literal, traditional sense that is usually implied by the term “translation” (turning one language into another or from a foreign language into one’s own).” Exactly!
In order to translate a text (in the traditional sense) one must have a working knowledge of a least two languages. If we thus narrow our definition of translation, JS did not translate anything. He did not know or claim to know Egyptian, reformed Egyptian, or Hebrew. It seems that all of JS’s translations (including the BoM) were revelatory processes, as you rightly point out. Critics delight in mocking this seemingly new or different understanding of the term translation. But this is not mental manipulation, gymnastics, or an excuse–it reflects an accurate understanding of JS’s translation process based upon the historical record and our revealed texts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Papyri, Catalysts, and The Book of Abraham […]
LikeLike