On The Book of Abraham

A few years ago two Elders who were serving in a town north of Columbus, Ohio, approached their Zone Leader with a question. It so happened that their investigator had certain doubts about The Book of Abraham. The Elders did not believe they could adequately respond to his concerns, hence they had turned to their Zone Leader. He in turn referred them to me, and so it was that I came into contact with these Elders.

Immediately I discerned that there was more at stake here than the concerns of a skeptical investigator: The Elder's own testimony was in need of a confirmation, or at least some affirming support. Regardless of what the investigator would do with whatever I would share, my paramount concern was building up my brother's faith.

I will go through this as I did with the Elders and their investigator that night. As it happens, this topic is one I have meant to expound on, and this is not that exposition, but an overview is helpful. What I will share is what I have learned largely on my own, and if anyone has paid any attention to what I share, I do not rely on traditions or other's so-called expertise, but on study as inspired by The Holy Ghost. With this in mind, I will share.

Question 1: Is The Book of Abraham a translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, and by translation I mean the American Translators Association definition, where the Egyptian characters or hieroglyphs are simply converted to their usual significations in English?

The answer is no. In fact, The Book of Abraham source scroll is an Egyptian funerary text. When scrutinized this particular copy of an Egyptian funerary text actually has unique features making it peculiar among the myriad of such texts, but the actual source text we have is by and large a common Pagan text which probably dates to the the fourth century AD, give or take a century.

Question 2: But didn't Joseph Smith say it was written by the hand of Abraham?

Yes, Joseph Smith did say that. Bear in mind that "by the hand of" means 'by authority of', and does not obligatory imply that the document is an autograph, that is, "by the hand of" does not necessarily mean, though it may, that Abraham penned this very scroll with his own hand, quill and ink. Let us take some things into consideration. Consider the gold plates upon which Mormon and Moroni etched The Book of Mormon:

1. The gold plates, actual autographs, were guarded by the power of God.
2. Moroni handed the plates over to Joseph Smith.
3. Joseph Smith endured numerous attempts to deprive him of the plates, but never allowed anyone to see them except for 11 other witnesses.
4. Then Joseph Smith returned the plates to Moroni.

Now compare the scrolls on which The Book of Abraham (Egyptian funerary text) is written:

1. The scrolls were found, transferred and sold to Joseph Smith by a series of dealers (grave-robbers in the first instance).
2. Joseph Smith showed the scrolls to just about anyone who inquired about them. It is reported that Joseph would display them at his house, and visitors could examine and handle them.
3. After The Book of Abraham was translated, Joseph Smith held on to the scrolls. After Joseph's death the scrolls changed hands, were considered lost in the great Chicago fire, but were rediscovered and given to the LDS Church.
4. The scroll's images were published in their entirety for all to see.

Clearly we see that Joseph Smith treated the scrolls very differently from the gold plates. If actual, bona fide autographs are Sacred items that will be safeguarded by the power of God, as with The Book of Mormon plates, then the actual Book of Abraham scrolls, though doctrinally priceless, were not considered to be of the same spiritual value as the Book of Mormon autograph/plates.

Question 3: So how did Joseph Smith go from an Egyptian Pagan funerary text to a book containing an important revelation given to Abraham?

Joseph Smith saw the scrolls, he saw that they were ancient, that they were Egyptian, and Joseph Smith was stirred to inspiration. As Joseph saw the hieroglyphs Joseph began to discern thoughts, ideas, the very message that Abraham had received and conveyed to his posterity. As Joseph looked at each individual hieroglyph on the scroll, Joseph understood, not what that hieroglyph would eventually be deciphered to mean by later Egyptologists (this was not the concern), but what (and here the revelation takes place) Abraham used that hieroglyph to mean. 

Abraham had received a revelation from God. In that revelation Abraham was taught about the premortal world and creation. Abraham, now having dwelt among the Egyptians, used their writing system to tell his own story. To accomplish this Abraham may have altered the hieroglyphs of his chosen Egyptian text slightly, but in essence Abraham commandeered a Pagan hieroglyphic text as though it were a picture text. Abraham then used the pictures in that text (the hieroglyphs) to tell his own story. More than this, Abraham's descendants continued the practice of using an Egyptian Pagan text's pictures to tell the story of Abraham's vision for almost two thousand years. Let me be clear: It appears that Abraham's descendants continued using the same Egyptian funerary text to tell Abraham's vision, independent of what an educated Egyptian would have read upon seeing the exact same scroll.

I am saying that Joseph Smith, by the gift of God, understood what would have been impossible to grasp otherwise: What an ancient Patriarch and a righteous line of his descendants had reinterpreted Egyptian hieroglyphs to mean, and not to mean in all cases, but to mean for the purpose of relating Abraham's sacred vision.

Question 4: If Joseph Smith got a revelation that restored a long-lost revelation given to Abraham, why did Joseph need the scroll at all? Why not just get the revelation?

Good question. In fact, Joseph Smith had already experienced this very process. In April of 1829, by using the Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith saw a parchment written by the Apostle John, and Joseph translated the parchment. His translation is now Section 7 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

But as regards a lengthy work, one where Joseph had to work, break, resume, over a period of time (Section 7 is rather brief), a "hard copy" was required. I put it forward for consideration that, as regards getting in the mindset to receive a powerful outpouring of inspiration from God, Joseph Smith was "tactile". That is, that by handling an actual old document and seeing its ancient images, Joseph Smith's mind became more receptive to receiving a great outpouring of the mind of God. I might say, in my own *small* way I am tactile. To connect with a text, to get in "the zone", I have to have the right text. The right text for me is often old, with thick but yellowed pages, heavy and cracked leather cover, and archaic (old and no longer used) script. When I have this type of text I can become engulfed in my reading of the book.

There was another prophet who was tactile. Joseph of old, per Genesis 44:1-5, used a silver cup to divine. Why a silver cup, why not just pray and discern? I put it to the reader that Joseph of old was tactile, that by handling a specific object Joseph of old became more receptive to great outpourings of the Holy Ghost.

Question 5: Realizing that this assertion seems fantastical, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

I arrived in two steps. First of all, there are the Facsimiles. In Facsimile 3 the image numbered 2 is said to be Pharaoh, but when you look at image 2 you will see that what is represented is clearly a woman. In the same Facsimile 3 the images numbered 4 and 5 are said to represent the Prince of Pharaoh and Shulem his (male) servant, but the images are clearly of a man and woman holding hands. Now, either Joseph was unobservant of such details or Joseph was relaying, not what the symbols meant to Egyptians of old and would mean to modern Egyptologists, but what they meant to Abraham and his righteous descendants who kept the sacred story alive by using the hieroglyphs as visual cues or prompts.

I realized (and here my linguistics background came into play) that what we LDS are dealing with in The Book of Abraham scrolls is not a direct translation of what those hieroglyphs normally were used to mean, but rather we LDS are dealing with a modern transcribing of the values that Abraham anciently reassigned to each hieroglyph. Some of these meanings may have been whole ideas, phrases, sentences even.

Question 6: Have you ever heard of The Apocalypse of Abraham?

Let me share something that is relevant. In the 1800's a Russian-born German Protestant theologian, Gottlieb Nathanael Bonwetsch, while searching through medieval manuscripts at a monastery came upon a manuscript written in Church Slavonic and bearing the title "The Apocalypse of Abraham". Having never heard of this book he took an immediate interest, translated the book to German, and published it. 

As much as anyone is able to reconstruct of the history of this book, the following is a sketch:

1. In the tenth or eleventh century AD, early in Russia's conversion to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, probably itinerant (traveling) monks visiting Constantinople came upon a manuscript, probably in Greek (translation) that, though not in The Bible (a fourth century AD compilation of Holy Writ), was still in use among Greek scribes. This book was called "The Apocalypse of Abraham." 
2. Though all source Greek texts of The Apocalypse of Abraham have since been lost, these monks translated their Greek text to Slavonic. When the text was read in Russian Churches, the text became enormously popular. Even as The Apocalypse of Abraham fell into obscurity in Europe, the Apocalypse continued enjoying enormous popularity in Russia.
3. Eventually the Russian Orthodox Church insisted that liturgies (religious worship texts) be drawn primarily from The Bible, and the Apocalypse fell into obscurity. The last copies appear to have been made in the sixteenth century, and from there they stood unused on a monastery shelf, until their rediscovery by Bonwetsch. 

Question 7: So what does The Apocalypse of Abraham tell?

The Apocalypse of Abraham, I wish to be clear, is not The Book of Abraham. In fact, the Apocalypse starts out with a background story of Abraham's upbringing that is not dealt with in The Book of Abraham at all. The Apocalypse has whole interactions between an Angel of God and Abraham that are not described in The Book of Abraham, but whose teachings bear some similarities to what The Book of Abraham teaches. That said, if one reads The Apocalypse of Abraham in its entirety, there are points of enormous interest.

1. The book explains that Abraham's father, Terah, was a polytheist.
2. The book explains how Abraham was led, step by step, to shun his father's idolatry and believe in the true and living God. During this process Abraham mentions that he cannot call the earth "god" because the earth itself is subject to the sun.
3. God sends an Angel to Abraham whose name is "Jah-oh-El", which is Hebrew for "Yahu is El" or 'The Lord is God'. In the Apocalypse the name "Jehovah" is strongly suggested but not printed outright.
4. Abraham prays to God saying, El-El-El-El "Jah-oh-El", which is the strongest suggestion of saying "Jah-oh-eh" or "Jehovah", though by adding "l" to make "Jahoel" or "Yahu is God", the writer of the Apocalypse avoided using the sacred name of Jehovah.
5. Abraham is shown that his posterity had lived before and were ordained to be born as the people of God.
6. In the Apocalypse God has Abraham taken to a fiery world of His. There Abraham looks below his feet and sees a vision of the world at its creation, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall of Adam. As Abraham speaks with God Abraham speaks of this image under his feet as a "picture". 
7. The Temple and Priesthood are revealed to Abraham in this vision.

For anyone familiar with The Book of Abraham, The Apocalypse of Abraham is fascinating. In The Book of Abraham Facsimile 2 Abraham mentions that the Egyptians called the earth "Jah-oh-eh", which is amazingly similar to "Jahoel". In effect, in Facsimile 2 Joseph records the Egyptians as doing what Abraham discerned he should not: Call the earth "god". Facsimile 2 also states that the Temple and Priesthood were revealed to Abraham. The Book of Abraham goes into detail about the Creation and the premortal lives of the Prophets and all people. 

Question 8: So tell me again, what is this Apocalypse of Abraham?

Some scholars believe that The Apocalypse of Abraham was preserved after the Jewish Temple was destroyed. The belief is that the book once had one or more pictures, the very imagery referred to in the text, but that only the text remained. Scholars believe that one of the "pictures" was round and represented the Creation and humanity. The reader will recall that Facsimile 2 of The Book of Abraham is round and that one of its glyphs represents the four quarters of the earth, at least in the values ascribed by Abraham.

The first version of The Apocalypse of Abraham may have been written in Aramaic, possibly Hebrew, then translated to Greek, and finally to Slavonic. Only the Slavonic texts were preserved (or have been discovered).

Question 9: Have you heard of the discovery of an Egyptian Facsimile similar to Facsimile 1?

Now, thousands of Egyptian papyri that are essentially Facsimile 1 (and 2 and 3) have been found. In and of itself finding another version of Facsimile 1 is no big deal. What was peculiar about this Facsimile is (1) it was found in a Jewish burial in Alexandria, Egypt, and (2) the name "Abraham" was penned anciently beside the figure on the sacrificial altar. 

Question 10: Are there any "proofs" within The Book of Abraham or The Bible itself?

Yes, there are many proofs or interesting correspondences, but I shall limit myself to two that The Lord revealed to me. 

In Abraham 2:25 Abraham asks Sarai, his wife, to say that she is his sister (not untrue, as she was his half-sister). Immediately after this Abraham receives his vision, from Chapter 3 on. From Abraham 4 on Abraham then refers to God in the plural, "The Gods", which in English translation is rendered as "they/the Gods said/called..." The reason the English translation has to phrase plurality as "they (the Gods) said..." is because English has no clearly plural form in the past tense. "He said" is only different from "they said" in the choice of pronoun. In Hebrew not only is the pronoun different but the form or ending of a plural verb is different from a singular verb. "He said" is "amar" but they said is "amru". 

Now, remember that Abraham asks his wife to say that she is his sister, then Abraham receives his vision, and then Abraham refers to Gods in the plural. In The Bible "Elohim" is used as God's Name-Title. Elohim is, technically speaking, plural, but the verbal forms used with Elohim are singular. To use English in a hypothetical example of how Hebrew uses Elohim, we could say "Gods commands you". Here "Gods" is plural in form, but "commands" is singular in form ("he commands" not "they commands"). There is one point in the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, where Elohim is used in the plural, and that is Genesis 20:13. Here Abraham explains that he had asked his wife to say that she was his sister. By this point in The Book of Abraham, Abraham had already received his vision. Abraham then says, in the Hebrew, if we use the same convention or construction as in The Book of Abraham translation, the following:

"And it came to pass, when they, the Gods, caused me to wander from my father's house..."

I have never found a translation of Genesis 20:13 that renders the Hebrew correctly. All the translations write "when God caused me to wander" rather than the more correct (in English): "they, the Gods, caused me..." The only other example of Gods plural in Hebrew is 2 Samuel 7:23, David's dedicatory prayer regarding the Temple. Is it coincidence that the first point in our preserved Hebrew text that "they the Gods" is preserved is in the mouth of Abraham after the point of discussing why he asked his wife to say she was his sister, just as in The Book of Abraham? It is not interesting that the point where Abraham in The Bible refers to Gods Plural is when, per The Book of Abraham, Abraham had received his vision, which is the very point where, in The Book of Abraham, Abraham starts referring to Gods Plural too?

The next is a smaller but more interesting point. In Genesis 18:19 The Lord, while blessing Abraham, says the following:

"For I know him [Abraham], that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of The Lord, to do justice and judgment; that The Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." 

(Q11) How exactly could Abraham instruct his children and household after his death to keep the way of The Lord unless there was a written mechanism for preserving those instructions? The existence of a Book of Abraham was not a luxury but a necessity.

As time goes on I will add to this post because there are numerous proofs that support The Book of Abraham, but time is of the essence, so I will allow this somewhat emaciated overview to suffice.

Question 12: So what happened with the Elders when you taught the investigator?

That was interesting. The investigator really thought he had the Elders over a barrel on The Book of Abraham, that scholars had pounded the nails into the coffin, at least as regards Joseph Smith being an inspired translator. When I said that The Book of Abraham was in fact not a literal translation and that the scroll was an Egyptian Pagan text, the one Elder's eyes widened and his face went pale in an expression of horror. But as we walked through these points, step by step, as I did here, the Elder came to life. In the end he was almost overcome by The Spirit of God. He said, as I recall, in a voice nearly consumed by faith, tears, and joy: "My testimony of Joseph Smith is now more powerful than ever. I know he was a prophet of God and that he was inspired to translate The Book of Abraham." I was very pleased. I had been the instrument for helping a good brother strengthen his testimony at a time when conspiring minds, via linguistic shell games and slight of hand, had sought to undermine pure and innocent testimonies such as his.

Conclusion:

So in conclusion it appears that ancient Hebrews would use Egyptian Pagan texts as cues, prompts or talking-points to relate the story of a powerful vision that Abraham received. Especially after the Temple was destroyed, changes were made to the story, and multiple versions may have emerged. One such version may be The Apocalypse of Abraham. When Joseph Smith, through the sacrifice of faithful members, obtained Egyptian papyri and proceeded to reveal a revelation that Abraham had received anciently and which his righteous posterity had continued telling by using Egyptian hieroglyphs as the vehicle for telling the sacred story (reassigning values to the hieroglyphs), Joseph Smith restored an astonishing, some might say absurd yet nevertheless actual and true practice of the ancient covenant people, that is, using an Egyptian Pagan text's hieroglyphs as the vehicle for relating a powerful revelation that Abraham had received. As far as scholars can tell, Jews and Christians continued telling Abraham's story via the Egyptian Pagan texts till about the fourth century AD, which is the approximate age of our LDS Abraham scroll. 

As I always say, fiction is fantastical, but there is nothing stranger than the truth. And this oddity, The Book of Abraham and The Apocalypse of Abraham, is actually textual.