Since there is no official position, members of the church divide into four opinions about the translation of the Book of Abraham. The smallest group, comprising about 0.5 percent of members—according to my informal, admittedly unscientific surveys—thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the existing fragments that were in the Met. The next largest group thinks that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus fragments that are no longer in existence. About one-third think that there is or was no connection between the Book of Abraham and any papyrus fragments. The largest group, more than half of members, do not care where the Book of Abraham came from.

All approaches will be biased. Objectivity is a myth.

If you do address the issue in print, you need to know that the two sides in the dispute will never leave you alone. It is a life sentence with no possibility of parole.

If you decide you want to enter the debate, you ought to do some real homework. There is a large bibliography, and there are dozens of theories to master, not to mention a large body of evidence. Many mistakes would not have been made had Egyptologists only known the literature better.

If you want to do anything with the originals, you need to apply to the archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at least a full year in advance. You will need approvals from half a dozen committees that meet only once a month and for whom your request will be far down the list of agenda items. Requests to do anything before that time will garner an automatic denial.

Whatever goodwill Professor Baer had established among the Mormons by his tact has more than been destroyed by the recent cooperation of certain Egyptologists with anti-Mormons. Whatever short-term tactical gains for anti-Mormonism these Egyptologists may have made, the net result is a long-term loss for a serious Egyptological examination of the material. Those who wish to work with the originals will have to find ways to distance themselves from those efforts and the individuals involved in them, and from those who violate the church's copyrights on the material. It is worth following Professor Ritner's warning that those "for whom ridicule . . . [is] an occupation" and who are "not disposed to be particularly charitable" are "not relevant to the present discussion."

Dear Moderators,

It has been more than a quarter of a century since I first started studying ancient Egypt. I spent years in graduate school learning the basic skills to do research in the area. I teach the subject now and regularly publish and participate in professional conferences in my field. Occasionally, I have friends who direct my attention to this and other message boards where I am regularly vilified as incompetent by people who in some cases have not attended college, and usually masquerade behind pseudonyms. Yet, when I read their responses, I wonder about the competence of these critics. They remind me of something Nibley wrote long ago: "As if to prove that they have no intention of pursuing serious investigations, these people have conspicuously neglected to prepare themselves for any but the most localized research; they are like a man setting out to explore a wonderful cavern without bothering to equip himself with either lights or ropes. We respect our local Gelehrten for the knowledge and proficiency which they have demonstrated to the world, but when they go out of bounds and attack the Church with specious learning they invite legitimate censure. They are like dentists who insist on performing delicate brain surgery, because that is more interesting than filling teeth. Nice for them--but what about their patients?" I demonstrate my knowledge and proficiency on a regular basis, but [b]I never see the critics on the message boards at these events and thus see no demonstration of knowledge or proficiency from them.

So I am willing for the next month to conduct a little test of the basic Egyptological skills needed for an intelligent discussion of the Joseph Smith Papyri. I do not participate on these message boards and rarely even look at them. I will pose the questions through you, the moderators, requesting that you pin them for a month. Any who wish to demonstrate their skills may send their answers to the following to me at egyptiantest at byu.edu. All emails must include the person's real name, daytime phone number, and pseudonym under which they post to this board. All persons should submit a statement truthfully stating that their submission is their own work. I will evaluate the results and send to the moderators, the pseudonym and the test results in the form of a score. My answers coincide with the standard published Egyptological versions of these texts and images, so I am not introducing anything that is idiosyncratic.

This post has been made with the permission of John Gee for the use on http://www.mormonapologetics.org site solely. This is a good opportunity for our posters to have some interaction with Gee concerning the Joseph Smith Papyri.

Chaos

I think it quite likely that there are plenty of people (often mentioned here- Ritner etc) who could rise to Dr. Gee's challenge and yet have the same criticisms of Dr. Gee's writings anyway. So, one is left wondering about the point of the challenge.

The point? To question the competence of a critic and put off engaging that person's specific criticism.

The point is self-evident and I don't think there is one poster here who doesn't see what it is. Put up or shut up as the saying goes. It is time to stop blustering and start some serious analysis for those who think their opinion about obscure academic topics should make a difference to anybody. Apparently, a few bluffs have been called. Step up to the plate or get out of the debate. Calling trained scholars liars isn't a substitute for the real thing on this board.

I asked this in another thread, but I don't understand why it's necessary to read Egyptian to discuss the Book of Abraham. It's been my understanding that there's general agreement among everyone as to the translation of the Egyptian text. The interesting questions are not what the Egyptian says but how Joseph Smith arrived at an alternative translation.

Anyway, I don't know much about this subject, so I'll leave it to the experts.

cksalmon wrote:

I would not necessarily expect MB critics of the missing scroll hypothesis to be able to translate Egyptian. And discussing non-translational aspects of JSP/BoA does not require that one be able to translate Egyptian.

I wouldn't expect that either. But that isn't what happens on message boards. What we have been treated to is a shameful exhibition of slander, mockery and just plain meanness. Maybe if a discussion ever got on its feet it would be different. So let the mockers and savagers present their credentials and get on with it. It's not an unreasonable request.

Professor Gee,

Of what relevance could translating Egyptian be to the study of early Mormon history? JS didn't translate Egyptian. You have proposed that the text he translated is missing. So no matter how good you are at translating Egyptian, it won't help you. You don't even dispute that the characters in the left margins of the translation papers are incorrectly translated, although you question the relationship between the two. And for that theory your knowledge of Egyptian is useless. What about JS's translation or interpretation of the characters on the facsimiles? Does your expertise in Egyptian help you explain your way out of that? Hardly. No one (not even Noel, I believe) has questioned your ability to translate Egyptian. What is at issue is your theories about how the JS Egyptian papyri connect with the Book of Abraham. Basically, your idea that the missing papyri contain the missing text of Abraham is wishful thinking, the fallacy of possible proof, and downright silly, according to your mentor. The questionI have for you is: are you an Egyptologist who happens to be interested in the Book of Abraham, or are you an apologist who became an Egyptologist so that you could browbeat your opponents with irrelevant feats of erudition?

If there has been ad hominal attacks, I don't approve of it; but most of the points made by the critics involve the non-technical aspects of the debate. I hope you realize that your test, if taken seriously, would apply to many of your defenders as well, some of whom go into vast detail on things Egyptian. You quote Nibley, but how bright was his light and long his rope when he tried to explore the Egyptian caverns? And was his wild theories about JS's scribes trying to learn Egyptian by working backwards from JS's translation beyond criticism from all except the Egyptologist?

It looks like to me that this is the level of response we will have to be satisfied with when those who rely on badmouthing instead of demonstrating their knowledge can't put out what they demand from others. It is unfortunate that posters with no background in what they are criticizing resort to this instead of facing the problems with their approach with the same honesty they claim is lacking in others. Claiming that a critic doesn't need to know what an Egytologist knows to determine if that Egyptologist is lying or interpreting obscure translations correctly is laughable and pathetic. I don't know how to say what needs to be said about what we have seen nicely and we have been given no reason to try to. Dr. Gee has been a poster here and the scoffers will talk about what he says instead of throwing out schoolyard taunts when they are in our house. Critics can use all the phoney baloney justifications they can muster but the challenge stands unanswered and that tells us what we need to know.

cksalmon wrote:

It appears to be an attempt to silence criticisms, rather than respond to them.

And how will a challenge like this silence discussion? Will the name callers start caring about what they know as compared to what Dr. Gee knows and disappear into the shadows in shame? I have seen no indication of that. If a call out silences the school yard criticism then bully for us, respectful posters will finally be able to have a discussion. The truth is this challenge is doing what it needs to do. It is an embarrassment to those who can't do anything but parrot what somebody else says. The only thing that comes from them is the scurrilous insults they use to convince everybody they know best. So just keep bringing on those excuses and see who falls for them while the challenge stands unanswered. Complaining that Dr. Gee hasn't answered your questions when you won't even get near theh questions he asked first is the weakest response of all.

Chaos wrote:

I agree so let's begin with Dr. Gee's carefully thought out questions. We have to start somewhere, he did ask them first, and I think those who have slandered Dr. Gee should be responsible for restarting the debate in a nondefensive way.

We all know it's CaliforniaKid we're talking about.

What if CKid tries to answer the test and gets an "F" grade? Then will Gee post a response to CKid's criticism (...which was asked first, BTW)? There's a pundit folder for this kind of thing, right? Maybe we can get that moderator formerly known as Oreos to set it up. He/she did a pretty fair job when I debated David Stewart.

Dan Vogel wrote:

The existence of unique texts doesn't answer the problem of constructing a probable, rather than a merely possible argument.

Enough of the vague and indirect responses. Your original post needs clarifying. You said: What exactly are you talking about? Rather than the critics trying to guess what you mean and more or less causing problems that may not exist, please outline what accusations you are addressing with this test.

This is Dr. Gee's thread and no one else get's to control the topic. Sorry but the topic is his questions and nobody elses.

The final post from Dr. Gee:

At the end of a class I taught a few years ago one of the students told me that the class had the worst whining of any class she had ever attended. The class did whine about the textbooks, the subject matter, the essays, and the tests; I also know that they whined a great deal about me behind my back. This message board beats them hands down. As Elder Holland said this past conference: "no misfortune is so bad that whining about it won't make it worse."

I am withdrawing the test; my workload has increased and I no longer have time for it. I have asked the moderators to delete it from the thread and close the thread. I am certain you can start another one to grouse in.

Many construed the test to mean that if you did not know Egyptian you could not discuss the Book of Abraham. This is utter nonsense, as they all immediately went on to argue. Egyptian, however, is necessary if you wish to discuss the Book of Abraham as a translation of Egyptian (whether you think it was or wasn’t). If you wish to argue with those who espouse the view that the Bible was originally written in Syriac, you need to have some Syriac even if you take the contrary view.

Three things are interesting about the test:

(1) Few people seem to have read it all. For example, Mr. Vogel complains that Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the Facsimiles should have been addressed, but it was, in question 5.

(2) CaliforniaKid has taken the test. He and I have discussed his results and I will not post them. No one else seems to have thought about answering any of the questions. That is too bad, as the answers to those questions might have taught them something about the debate and my positions in it. Instead they merely spouted their opinions and claimed, without basis, that I had done nothing to engage their positions. If they had bothered to respond to the questions, even the bibliographic ones, they would have realized how hard it is to answer certain questions. The test was diagnostic of several skills, not just in Egyptian, that are directly relevant to the debate. The test was an invitation to a serious discussion, but no one is actually interested in such. I put forth a riddle for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

(3) Most importantly, no one seems to have any interest in what the texts actually say.

This has been the irony of the whole debate as no one else seems to care what either the Book of Abraham or the Letter of Fellowship Made by Isis actually says and yet the debate rests on a comparison between the two. The texts in the test were important too, but no one seems to have realized it.

In the end, the test should have taught those who took it something about faith. Who do we put our faith in, that is, who do we trust? Most critics put no trust in me, whatever argument I might make on whatever subject, because I am Mormon.

They are willing to put their trust in some surprisingly dubious sources because those sources tell them what they want to hear (compare Helaman 13:25-28). In the end, it does not matter whether anyone trusts me because they should trust God more than me. I have found God trustworthy. I have also found his prophets trustworthy--imperfect though they may be. If you trust God, you do not need to have the answer to every little question; certainly not now and perhaps not ever. If this or that sophistry seems persuasive or this or that little thing bothers you and makes you doubt God, then you do not have enough faith in him.

My test asked you not to trust me, but trust the texts; but they are not important, at least not to you. That is why I find discussion on these boards generally not to be worth my time.

--

John Gee

William (Bill) Gay Associate Research Professor of Egyptology

Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

Brigham Young University

That being said, I do understand some of John Gee's motivations (he does seem to be the favorite punching bag of critics, and it looks like it finally brought him to the point of responding).

BoA– “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”
Ms1a – “I sought for mine appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”
Ms1b – “I sought for mine appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”

BoA shagreel, Ms1a - shag = reel, Ms1b- shagreel

BoA - “Onitah, one of the royal descent directly”
Ms1a - “Onitah, one of the xxxxxx royal descent directly”
Ms1b- “Onitah, one of the xxxxxx royal descent directly”

BoA - “I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record”
Ms1a - “I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record.”
Ms1b - "I will refer you to the representation, that is lying before you at the commencement of this record"

BoA - bedstead, Ms1a – bedsted, Ms1b – bed stead
BoA kinsfolk, Ms1a – kinsfolk, Ms1b – kin folks

BoA – “And this because they have turned their hearts away from me”
Ms1a - “And this because their hearts are turned they have turned their hearts away from me”
Ms1b - “And this because their hearts are turn they have turned their hearts away from me”

BoA- “and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, xx xx xxx xxxx who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, xx xx xxx xxxx who blessed him”

One of the standard critical arguments in relation to the Book of Abraham controversy is that the BoA supposedly links itself to the so-called “Sensen” (or “Book of Breathings Made by Isis”) text via its apparent internal reference to Facsimile #1, which is known to have originally preceded the Sensen text on the scroll of Hor. While the overall length of the scroll of Hor is a disputed question, we do know that the scroll begins with the illustration known as Facsimile #1, which was then immediately followed by the Sensen text, which was then followed by an unknown length of scroll.

The critics claim that additional strength is given their argument by the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. The documents known respectively as KEPA #2 and #3 each contain text of a little more than the first chapter of the Book of Abraham in the main body of their pages, and successive characters from the Sensen text in the left column.

Of course, the critical argument, originating with Edward Ashment decades ago

has been that these two KEPA manuscripts are actually the transcripts of Joseph Smith’s orally-dictated “translation” of the Book of Abraham. And since we now know that the Sensen text has nothing to do with Abraham, then it follows that Joseph Smith’s purported “translation” was nothing of the sort; it is a fictionalized account originating in the mind of a pretended prophet. Or so the critics would have us believe.

Upon closer examination, however, some key questions must be considered: Is it incontrovertible that KEPA #2 and #3 are transcripts of an oral dictation? Is Abraham 1:12 an incontrovertible internal reference to Facsimile #1?

We have previously examined question #1, and I have presented persuasive evidence that both of these manuscripts cannot be, in fact, simultaneously-produced transcripts of an oral dictation.

Despite certain elements that admittedly appear consistent with a dictation theory, there are numerous compelling, even overriding, evidences that establish these documents as being visual copies of some earlier document(s).

Although I anticipate revisiting that topic in the near future, it will not be a subject for our current discussion.

The characters are not always associated with a discrete paragraph. It is especially evident with Williams' Ms. #2. The final two characters at the bottom of the first page are not clearly associated with the text. They appear to have been placed entirely at random in relationship to the text. They are not aligned with a paragraph break, nor the beginning of a sentence, nor even a specific line.

In several cases in Williams' Ms. #2, the characters appear to be placed with much uncertainty -- as though the scribe didn't have any idea what their specific relationship was to the English text in the body of the document.

I know precisely what the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are (contrary to your previous assertion). It's just that I view them as being utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. I've examined the contents of the KEP at length -- and doing so hasn't persuaded me one iota that the Book of Abraham is anything except what it claims to be.

Are there any, or even substantial (in your estimation), differences between the portion of text appearing in the columns of "translated" paragraphs and the final product published in 1842? (Aside from the fact that the KEP refer to only the first 1 1/2 chapters of the BofA?) Question 1: Why do you say "so another scribe to (sic) take over"? It was my understand from detailed descriptions of the manuscripts that each is of similar content. Perhaps that is my misunderstanding and you could clear that up. But, to elaborate, it is my understanding that there is nothing to indicate that one "scribe" wrote a certain portion, then another "scribe" took up where the previous one left off. Rather, all of the manuscripts appear to be related to the same portion of the Book of Abraham.

Question 2: What other indications lead you to believe that the process "went slowly"? I would not have made that observation based on the photographs I have seen in the past few days. To the contrary, the text in the right hand columns appears to have been written in an extremely fluid fashion, with very few evidences of ink pooling where the scribe would have freshened his pen after a period of pause. Do you not agree?

Question 3: At this period of time (when the KEP were being produced) is there any contemporary evidence that any of the individuals in question had been recently or were currently serviing Joseph Smith in the capacity of "scribe"? To my knowledge, neither Cowdery, Phelphs, nor Parrish had served as scribes to Joseph for a considerable time preceeding this period. Perhaps I am mistaken in this respect and someone will correct me. But I think not.

"Now, what does this all mean? That is a good question, and I don’t pretend to have a complete answer."

"…if I were an outsider looking in at all of this, I find it difficult to believe that I could be persuaded that the production of the Book of Abraham was anything other than a clumsy imposture perpetrated by Joseph Smith upon his followers. But, of course, I’m not. I came into the discussion already possessing a conviction that the Book of Abraham was divinely-inspired scripture."

contains priceless information about the gospel, pre-existence, the nature of Deity, the creation, and priesthood -- information which is not otherwise available in any other revelation now extant. (Mormon Doctrine p.567)

contains priceless information about the gospel, pre-existence, the nature of Deity, the creation, and priesthood -- information which is not otherwise available in any other revelation now extant. (Mormon Doctrine p.567)

Critics don't like the Haven and Blanchard quotes (and others) that speak of the long roll.

a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics,"32 including (1) some papyri "preserved under glass,"33 described as "a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics";34 (2) "a long roll of manuscript"35 that contained the Book of Abraham;36 (3) "another roll";37 (4) and "two or three other small pieces of papyrus with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c."38

a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics,'2 including (1) some papyri 'preserved under glass,'3 described as 'a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics';4 (2) 'a long roll of manuscript'5 that contained the Book of Abraham;6 (3) 'another roll';7 and (4) 'two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c.'"8

What fun we had with Aunt Emma's boys, Joseph, Frederick, Alexander and David. How we raced through the house playing hide and seek. My favorite hiding place was in an old wardrobe which contained the mummies, and it was in here that I would creep while the others searched the house. There were three mummies: "The old Egyptian king, the queen and their daughter. The bodies were wrapped in seven layers of linen cut in thin strips. In the arms of the Old King, lay the roll of papyrus from which our prophet translated the Book of Abraham"

...we called on Joseph's mother, passing the site of the Nauvoo House, a spacious hotel, the first floor only laid. It is like the Temple in being erected on the tithe system, and when finished will surpass in splendor any hotel in the State. Here Joseph and his heirs for generations are to have apartments free of expense, and they think the crowned heads of Europe will rusticate beneath its roof. Madam Smith's residence is a log house very near her son's. She opened the door and received us cordially. She is a motherly kind of woman of about sixty years. She receives a little pittance by exhibiting The mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short narrow stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household, -- one she did not know.

Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said, "This is the leg of Pharaoh's daughter, the one that saved Moses." Repressing a smile, I looked from the mummies to the old lady, but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was, "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sancrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament. - and it might have been for anything we knew - but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who - the serpent, I mean - was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."

"They did before the fall," she asserted with perfect confidence. The Judge slipped a coin in her hand which she received smilingly, with a pleasant, "Come again," as we bade her goodby.

want to diminish their reliability on the basis of the fact that these were young women who probably weren't really paying close attention to what was going on. I find that attitude condescending and naïve.

One wonders if Charlotte is reporting accurately. Until more evidence is gathered, the sum and value of Charlotte's report remains clouded on several issues." (The Saga of the Book of Abraham, by Jay M. Todd, page 249)

when you stop to consider what kinds of things an 18-year-old woman would most notice in such an experience, it would be the kinds of elements we read in Haven's account: the length of the roll and the nature of the illustrations on the papyrus itself.

To day I paid Br Joseph a visit. Saw the Rolls of papyrus and the writings thereon, taken from off the bosom of the Male Mummy, having some of the writings of ancient Abraham and of Joseph that was sold in Egypt. The writings are chiefly in the Egyptian language with the exception of a little Hebrew. I believe they give a description of some of the scenes in Ancient Egypt, of their worship, their Idol gods, etc. The writings are beautiful and plain, composed of red, and black inks. There is a perceptible difference, between the writings. Joseph, appears to have been the best scribe. There are representations of men, beasts, Birds, Idols and oxen attached to a kind of plough, a female guiding it. Also the serpent when he beguiled Eve. He appears with two legs, erect in form and appearance of man. But his head in the form, and representing the Serpent, with his forked tongue extended. There are likewise representations of an Alter erected, with a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it. A Celestial globe with the planet Kolob of first creation of the supreme being - a planet of light, - which planet - makes a revolution once in a thousand years, - Also the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed.

Abraham also in the Court of Pharaoh sitting upon the King's throne reasoning upon Astronomy, with a crown on his head, representing the Priesthood as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven. And King Pharaoh, standing behind him, together with a Prince - a principle waiter, and a black slave of the King. A genealogy of the Mummies, and the Epitaphs and their deaths, etc., etc., are also distinctly represented on the Papyrus which is called the "Book of Abraham."

The Male mummy was one of the Ancient Pharaohs of Egypt, a Priest, as he is embalmed with his tongue extended, representing a speaker: The females were his wife and two daughters, as a part of the writing has been translated, and informs us, who they were, also whose writing it is, and when those mummies were embalmed, which is nearly four thousand years ago.

despite Nibley, the evidence indicates that the Book of Abraham was developed from "that badly written, poorly preserved little text, entirely devoid of rubrics, which is today identified as the [Breathing Permit of Hor]."

"…Mormonism is probably the best conceived myth-fraternity to which one can belong…Joseph Smith tried so hard he put himself out on a limb with the Book of Abraham, and also with the Book of Mormon. He can be refuted - but why bother…It would be like wiping out placebos in medicine, and that would make no sense when they do lots of good…

"Why not say the right things and keep your membership in the great fraternity, enjoying the good things you like and discarding the ones you can't swallow (and keeping your mouth shut)? Hypocritical? Maybe…thousands of members have done, and are doing, what I suggest you consider doing. Silence is golden - etc…So why try to be heroic and fight the myths - the Mormon one or any other that does more good than ill?

"Perhaps you and I have been spoofed by Joseph Smith. Now that we have the inside dope - why not spoof a little back and stay aboard?"