ABRAHAM IS A HOR?

On my mission I taught people that the Book of Abraham was a translation by Joseph Smith (JS) of an ancient text. I showed people the Facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price, teaching them that they were picture depictions of Abraham’s life and teachings. I bore testimony that it was scripture.

Of course, I did all of these things in complete trust that what I learned in LDS seminary and in the mission manuals were historically accurate truth. I believed whole-heartedly the prophetic calling of JS and that these writings – Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham – were testimony of his prophetic calling. "In an 1830 revelation, Joseph was called 'a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church.' The series of titles implied that prophethood was connected to translation" (Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 130). I learned about the issues with the Book of Abraham (BoA) well after my mission.

On July 3, 1835, Michael H. Chandler visited Kirtland to offer JS four mummies and some rolls of papyri. JS bought the pieces, claiming that the papyri contained the writings of Abraham of Ur and Joseph of Egypt. From the papyri JS produced the BoA that we enjoy today in the Pearl of Great Price. JS seemed pretty proud of his possession, accepting visitors to view the papyri and to listen to his explanation of them up to his death (Bushman, 286).

Bushman points out that JS had his own use of the word ‘translation’. “Joseph did not translate in the sense of learning the language and consulting dictionaries. He received the words by 'revelation,' whether or not a text lay before him" (Bushman, 132). Bushman goes on: “As Joseph saw it, he was working by inspiration – that had been clear from the beginning. When he ‘translated’ the Book of Mormon, he did not read from the gold plates; he looked into the crystals of the Urim and Thummim or gazed at the seerstone. The words came by inspiration, not by reading the characters on the plates. By analogy, it seemed likely that the papyri had been an occasion for receiving a revelation rather than a word-for-word interpretation of the hieroglyphs as in ordinary translations. Joseph translated Abraham as he had the characters on the gold plates, by knowing the meaning without actually knowing the plates’ language” (Bushman, 292).

So I understand Bushman to say that the papyri were a spark that lit the fire of God’s revelation. The papyri serve only as the release valve for the flood of ancient information that makes up the BoA. Joseph simply referred to the revelation as a ‘translation’ as a way to reference respectfully back to the catalyst of the whole event - the papyri. We should not think, according to my reading of Bushman, that by ‘translation’ JS meant a word-for-word rendering of a narrative in one language into another language through linguistic means, but we should think of the papyri as an item that simply induced God’s revealing of Himself and of great spiritual knowledge to JS.   

There’s one explanation, but what do you do with the clear interest in JS et al. in understanding the Egyptian language? Bushman points out that in the fall of 1835 Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Warren Parrish, and Frederick G. Williams were given the chance to translate the papyri themselves. From this exercise of futility the group pulled together a “Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language” (Bushman, 120-121). It seems clear that JS was interested in the Egyptian language beyond its function as a catalyst for ‘translation’-as-revelation. He and his crew were interested in looking at the papyri and sincerely deducing its written message. So why would JS be interested in the original language of the papyri when the divine message was so clearly provided by God through revelation? No language, no matter. God will provide.

Of course, the general LDS populous is not privy to JS’s special use of ‘translation’, and ignorant missionaries like myself go and tell people a story that suggests JS sat down and translated the hieroglyphics of the papyri like any translator would.

“In 1967, that view of translation [the view that JS translated the Book of Abraham word-for-word] suffered a blow when eleven scraps of the Abraham papyri, long since lost and believed to have been burned, were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and given to Latter-day Saint leaders in Salt Lake City. Color pictures were soon printed and scholars went to work. The texts were thought to be the Abraham papyri because Joseph had published facsimiles from the papyri with his translation, and the same pictures appeared on the museum fragments. Moreover, some of the characters from the Egyptian grammar appeared on the fragments. The translation of these texts by expert Egyptologists would finally prove or disprove Joseph’s claims to miraculous translating powers. Would any of the language correspond to the text in his Book of Abraham? Some Mormons were crushed when the fragments turned out to be rather conventional funerary texts placed with mummified bodies, in this case Hor, to assure continuing life as an immortal god. According to the Egyptologists, nothing on the fragments resembled Joseph’s account of Abraham” (Bushman, 291).

But this was not the first time Egyptologists had critiqued JS’s translation with its original papyri. In 1856, five years after the publication of the Pearl of Great Price, M. Theodule Deveria, an Egyptologist of the time, commented on Facsimile No. 3:

“The deceased led by Ma into the presence of Osiris. His name is Horus, as may be seen in the prayer which is at the bottom of the picture, and which is addressed to the divinities of the four cardinal points” (Quote taken from this link. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, 25)

A similar event occurs in 1912.

Others Egyptologists confirm.

So here we have the remains of what is clearly the source of JS’s ‘translation’ of the BoA, and it has nothing to do with Abraham. It has everything to do with someone named Hor, or Horus. Additionally, Abraham would have lived sometime in the proximity of 2000 B.C. and the papyri was written during the first century B.C. Clearly, Abraham could not have written something in the first century B.C. while living in 2000 B.C., nor do I think he would been interested in Hor’s burial (No disrespect intended to Hor’s family or friends; Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, 15-16).  

So why would I think as a missionary that the BoA was indeed a word-for-word translation of a text written by the hand of Abraham?  I quote for you the beginning title and introduction to the BoA:

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

It seems pretty clear from the get go that: 1) This is a translation from the papyrus by JS (remember, I, along with most LDS people, are not privy to JS’s special use of the word, ‘translation.’); 2) it is written by Abraham’s own hand. Pretty cut and dry presentation. I really shouldn’t have to go look for some special explanation of what this all means. It seems clear what JS meant for his audience to understand and for us ignorant missionaries to teach.

Here is a brief summary of some defense offered for the BoA:

1)      Not actually authored by Abraham, but penned by a Jewish redactor who was passing along a tradition going back to Abraham.

My response: Then why didn’t JS say so? He’s a prophet, I think he could have known that bit without leading us on to think it came directly from the hand of Abraham.

2)      The ‘translation’ is a revelation from God and not a word-for-word translation.

My response: Then stop calling it a translation! This is misleading language and inappropriate. If you can admit it really wasn’t an actual translation then don’t put this as the beginning introduction to the Book of Abraham. Of course, the LDS church has been defending it as a literal translation for so long that it will look bad if it backs out now.

3)      There are other messages and meanings embedded in the text along with the Egyptologist's translations that are unknown to us, and could be where Joseph Smith found his message and interpretation (Wikipedia).

Response: Why would a funeral rite for someone named Hor contain anything about Abraham, let alone the narrative we have in Abraham 1-2:18? This is an argument of silence, meaning that since we don’t know every little nook and cranny we should just continue believing the way we have been, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. I don’t think I should hold my breath on this one in hopes that Kolob is going to appear in Hor’s funeral rites.

4)      What if the papyri we have in the museum aren’t actually the papyri JS had purchased and used for his ‘translation’?

Response: From Wikipedia: “There is broad agreement that the recovered papyri are portions of the originals, partly based on the fact that they were pasted onto paper which had ‘drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area’ on the back and an accompanying affidavit by Emma Smith, stating that they had been in the possession of Joseph Smith.”

As most of these issues do, I feel like this issue will simply come down to a question of belief. Do I believe in the theology presented in the Book of Abraham? Do I believe it is the word of God revealed to JS? For most LDS people these issues of translation and history are not informative to faith. What matters is the confirmation of the Spirit. So here I write, praying for answers, with a mountain of evidence before me. I go before God now better informed and ask God’s help in understanding what to do with this new information. Am I really meant to ignore it? Can’t I integrate it into my faith with a healthy and uplifting end? What’s the point of prayer if I can’t? What’s the point of having and using a brain if I can’t?

I wonder how Hor feels about us using his funeral rites like this?

Sorry, Hor.

Search, Ponder, Pray, Repeat