Mes: mayo 2021

Publicado en

The Relationship Between the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyri

Book of Abraham Insight #40

It is clear that Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the Book of Abraham was connected to the Egyptian papyri he acquired in the summer of 1835. However, less clear is the precise relationship shared between the Book of Abraham text and the papyri.

Several theories posit ways in which the Book of Abraham text relates to the papyri. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyri, but they do not specify which papyri. Theories about the relationship may be categorized under three heads: Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham (1) from the fragments of papyri that we still have, (2) from papyri that we no longer have, or (3) without the aid of any of the Joseph Smith Papyri.1

Exploring these theories individually reveals that while they each have some evidence for them, “not all of the theories account equally for the historical evidence. It is worth knowing some of the problems associated with the various theories. Whichever theory one chooses to follow, one must be prepared to deal with the problems posed by the evidence that the theory cannot account for.”2

Theory 1: Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from surviving papyri fragments

The proponents of this theory maintain that Joseph Smith derived the Book of Abraham from the surviving fragments of the Hor Book of Breathings (P. Joseph Smith I, XI+X). This theory is mainly advocated by critics of Joseph Smith who want to cast doubt on the Prophet’s claims to inspiration, since these surviving fragments do not translate as the Book of Abraham.3 Some Latter-day Saint scholars also believe Joseph Smith attempted to translate the Book of Abraham from the surviving papyri fragments based on their interpretation of the historical data.4

The two main points of evidence cited by proponents of this theory are: (1) the hieratic Egyptian characters from P. Joseph Smith XI that appear in the margins of the early Book of Abraham manuscripts, and (2) the apparent reference to Facsimile 1 (the illustration in P. Joseph Smith I) at Abraham 1:12, 14.5 At first glance these two pieces of evidence may appear persuasive, but other scholars have disputed their explanatory power in connecting the English text of the Book of Abraham to the surviving fragments.

For example, it is not clear who added the hieratic characters in the margins of the Book of Abraham manuscripts or when they were added. It is also not clear what the scribe was thinking when they added the characters. It has been widely assumed that they were added at Joseph Smith’s direct prompting during the process of translation, but this is not certain.6 “Though the juxtaposition of the characters and Book of Abraham text implies a relationship between the two, the exact nature of that relationship is not stated” and is complicated by the evidence that the manuscripts which bear these marginal characters appear to be copies of an earlier text that is no longer extant.7 There is thus no “demonstrable relationship between the characters on the papyri and the text of the Book of Abraham.”8 Any assumed relationship between the two remains an assumption.

A page from one of the Kirtland-era Book of Abraham manuscripts in the handwriting of Warren Parrish. Characters from the Egyptian papyri can be seen in the left margin of the manuscript. Image via the Joseph Smith Papers website.

The second point of evidence (the reference to Facsimile 1 at Abraham 1:12, 14) is likewise more complicated than is often supposed. For starters, scholars have recognized that the last line of Abraham 1:12 (““I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record”) and all of Abraham 1:14 (“That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics”) are interlinear insertions in the earliest manuscript copy of the Book of Abraham.9 What’s more, even if one assumes these references were original and not added later, “the reference [at Abraham 1:12, 14] indicates that the vignette depicting the altar and idols is not adjacent to the text but some distance from it.”10 In other words, the reference at Abraham 1:12, 14 could be read as indicating just the opposite of how proponents of this theory understand it.

Theory 2: Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from missing papyri fragments

This theory has gained traction as scholars have looked more closely at nineteenth century eyewitness descriptions of the papyri believed to be the source of the Book of Abraham.

The nineteenth-century eyewitnesses, both Mormon and non-Mormon, favorable and hostile to the Church, agree that the Book of Abraham was translated from a long roll of papyrus that was still a long roll in the 1840s and 1850s. The current fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri, however, were all mounted on heavy paper and placed in glass frames in 1837. None of them can be the long roll described in the 1840s and 1850s. So these fragments are specifically not the source of the Book of Abraham according to the eyewitnesses.11

The main advantage to this theory is that it can account for the nineteenth century eyewitness evidence. It also answers the objections raised by those who rightly point out that the Hor Book of Breathings is not the Book of Abraham. However, this theory has been criticized on the grounds that while there are indeed missing portions of papyri (for example, Facsimiles 2 and 3 are no longer extant) it is questionable to some whether there was enough missing papyri to accommodate a hypothetical missing Book of Abraham text.12 Furthermore, even though “this theory accounts for [the eyewitness] evidence” it is still “frustrating to many people. Because the papyri are no longer extant, there is no possible way to check Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham.”13

Theory 3: Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham without any physical papyri

This theory argues that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham directly by revelation without using any physical papyri. As an essay published by the Church recently articulated,

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.14

Those who adopt this theory urge Latter-day Saints to reconsider the scope and mechanism of “translation” in Joseph Smith’s theology and scriptural productions.15 The strength of this theory is that it is consistent with the Prophet’s other scriptural productions. “One advantage is that in Doctrine and Covenants section 7, Joseph Smith translated an ancient papyrus that he never had in his possession; hence, there is a precedent for Joseph Smith translating a papyrus that was not in his possession, and so there is no reason to suppose that he had to have the papyrus of the Book of Abraham in his possession either.”16 At the same time, however, the main drawback to this theory is that Joseph Smith himself believed that he possessed a physical record of Abraham.17

“Given our current state of knowledge,” concludes one Latter-day Saint scholar, “the theory that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyri that we no longer have accounts for the most evidence with the fewest problems. Even so, for none of the theories is the evidence as neat or as compelling as one might wish.”18 It could even be argued that some of these (and other) theories might be combined to form new paradigms. “As scholars continue to find, research, and analyze the evidence that bears on this subject, future studies will undoubtedly illuminate other theories that have not yet been conceived.”19

Since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken an official stance on how the translation of the Book of Abraham was accomplished other than by revelation, and since the evidence is not as clear or as complete as we might like, it would perhaps be wiser for readers to worry less about the method of the translation and more about the results.

Further Reading

John Gee, “The Relationship of the Book of Abraham Text to the Papyri,” in An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2017), 83–86.

Kerry Muhlestein, “Joseph Smith and Egyptian Artifacts: A Model for Evaluating the Prophetic Nature of the Prophet’s Ideas about the Ancient World,” BYU Studies Quarterly 55, no. 3 (2016): 35–82.

Kerry Muhlestein, “The Explanation-Defying Book of Abraham,” in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and Provo, UT: Brigham Young University’s Religious Studies Center, 2016), 79–91.

Footnotes

 

1 John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2017), 83.

2 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 84.

3 Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002).

4 Brian M. Hauglid, “The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project: ‘A Knowledge of Hidden Languages’,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, edited by Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 474–511.

5 Grant S. Heward and Jerald Tanner, “The Source of the Book of Abraham Identified,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 2 (1968): 89–97; Christopher C. Smith, “‘That which Is Lost’: Assessing the State of Preservation of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 31, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2011): 73.

6 See the discussion in Kerry Muhlestein, “Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Introduction to the Historiography of their Acquisitions, Translations, and Interpretations,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 32–36; “The Explanation-Defying Book of Abraham,” in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and Provo, UT: Brigham Young University’s Religious Studies Center, 2016), 81–82, 84–85; “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 228–229.

7 Brent M. Rogers et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 5: October 1835–January 1838 (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2017), 74–75.

8 Muhlestein, “The Explanation-Defying Book of Abraham,” 85.

9 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 143; Rogers et al., eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 5, 78; Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2018), 195–196nn57, 64.

10 Muhlestein, “Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri,” 29–32, quote at 30; cf. “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham,” 225–226.

11 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 85; cf. pp. 4–5; “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” in The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 175–217; Kerry Muhlestein, “Papyri and Presumptions: A Careful Examination of the Eyewitness Accounts Associated with the Joseph Smith Papyri,” Journal of Mormon History 42, no. 4 (October 2016): 31–50.

12 One of the main points of contention is whether it can be mathematically calculated how much papyrus is currently missing, and what was potentially contained on the missing portion. For different arguments, see John Gee, “Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri,” FARMS Review 20, no. 1 (2008): 117–123; Andrew W. Cook and Christopher C. Smith, “The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 43, no. 4 (2010): 1–42; “Formulas and Faith,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 21, no. 1 (2012): 60–65; Smith, “‘That which Is Lost’,” 69–83; Muhlestein, “Papyri and Presumptions,” 31–50.

13 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 85.

14 “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham,” Gospel Topics.

15 Karl C. Sandberg, “Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham, and Joseph Smith as Translator,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 22, no. 4 (Winter 1989): 17–38; Terryl Givens, The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2019), 180–202.

16 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 85.

17 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 85–86.

18 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 85.

19 Kerry Muhlestein, “Joseph Smith and Egyptian Artifacts: A Model for Evaluating the Prophetic Nature of the Prophet’s Ideas about the Ancient World,” BYU Studies Quarterly 55, no. 3 (2016): 67.

Publicado en

How Did Joseph Smith Translate the Book of Abraham?

Book of Abraham Insight #39

Multiple sources associated with the coming forth of the Book of Abraham spoke of Joseph Smith as translating the text.1 The Prophet himself used this language to describe his own activity with the text. For example, an entry in Joseph Smith’s journal under the date November 20, 1835 indicates the Prophet “spent the day in translating” the Egyptian records.2 In an unpublished editorial that was apparently meant to be printed in the March 1, 1842 issue of the Times and Seasons (the issue that saw the publication of the first installment of the Book of Abraham), Joseph Smith signaled his desire to “continue to translate and publish [the text] as fast as possible [until] the whole is completed.”3 What was published with the Book of Abraham was a preface announcing it as “A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands . . . purporting to be the writings of Abraham.”4

But while Joseph Smith and others used the word “translation” to describe the production of the Book of Abraham, the means or methods Joseph used to translate ancient scripture were unique. Rather than utilizing dictionaries, grammar books, and lexicons, Joseph translated scripture through revelation. This can be seen in the other efforts Joseph Smith undertook throughout his prophetic ministry to produce other books of scripture.5

The Book of Mormon

Joseph Smith’s signature work of scripture is the Book of Mormon, which the Prophet claimed to have translated from golden plates “by the gift and power of God.”6 While early efforts to decipher the “reformed Egyptian” (Mormon 9:32) characters of the Book of Mormon evidently did involve some mental effort by the Prophet and his scribes,7 ultimately the translation was accomplished through the use of divinely-prepared seer stones. “When Joseph Smith began translating the Book of Mormon in 1827, he usually left the plates in a box or wrapped in a cloth, placed the interpreters or his seer stone (both of which seem to have been called Urim and Thummim) in a hat, and read the translation he saw in the stone to a scribe. . . . When the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon were stolen, an angel took back the interpreters, and Joseph instead used his seer stone.”8 All of this suggests that Joseph Smith’s mechanism for translating the Book of Mormon, while still in some way conveying one language (Egyptian) to another (English), was more closely synonymous with revelation.9

The Parchment of John (Doctrine and Covenants 7)

Doctrine and Covenants 7 was received by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in April 1829 just before or during the time when Oliver acted as a scribe for the translation of the Book of Mormon.10 When this section was first published in 1833, it was described as “a Revelation [sic] given to Joseph and Oliver”  and was said to have been “translated from parchment, written and hid up by” a figure named John (presumably the beloved disciple).11 This revealed “translation” of John’s record was received, like the Book of Mormon, through seeric instruments (the Urim and Thummim).12 It is important to remember that during this process Joseph Smith “did not have physical possession of the papyrus he was translating.”13

The chapter heading to Chapter VI of the 1833 Book of Commandments (Doctrine and Covenants 7). The heading identifies this text as both a revelation and a translation. Image via the Joseph Smith Papers website.

The “New Translation” of the Bible

Another important effort undertaken by Joseph Smith was what he called a “new translation” of the Bible.14 Accomplished principally between 1830–1833, this “new translation” of the Bible (today called the Joseph Smith Translation) was not accomplished by the Prophet carefully scrutinizing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, nor even by consulting his seer stone or the Urim and Thummim, but instead by revising the English text of the King James Version of the Bible.15 “At the beginning of this translation, Joseph Smith would dictate long passages to his scribe without the use of the Urim and Thummim. When Sidney Rigdon began serving as a scribe, however, he apparently persuaded Joseph to change his practice and mark only passages in the Bible that needed changes and record those.”16 Even though Joseph and his clerks were revising the English text of the KJV and sometimes revealing entirely new content (such as portions of what is today called the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price),17 they nevertheless called the project a translation. While it is arguable that a handful of Joseph Smith’s revisions to the KJV Bible are indeed more precise renderings of the underlying Greek and Hebrew, or that the larger portions revealed by the Prophet in some way correspond to now-lost ancient manuscripts, this once again indicates the broad range of meaning the Prophet applied to this term.

The Book of Abraham

When it comes to the nature of the translation of the Book of Abraham, there is not much direct evidence for how Joseph accomplished the work. “No known first-person account from Joseph Smith exists to explain the translation of the Book of Abraham, and the scribes who worked on the project and others who claimed knowledge of the process provided only vague or general reminiscences.”18 John Whitmer, then acting as the Church’s historian and recorder, commented that “Joseph the Seer saw these Record[s] and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records … which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the saints.”19 Another important source is Warren Parrish, one of the scribes who assisted Joseph in the production of the Book of Abraham. After his disaffection from the Church in 1837, Parrish reported that in his capacity as Joseph’s scribe he “penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as [Joseph] claimed to receive it by direct inspiration from Heaven.”20 Parrish’s statement, like Whitmer’s, emphasizes that the method of Joseph’s “translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks” was revelatory, not academic, but that the Prophet was still performing a translation of an ancient language. Unfortunately, Parrish did not elaborate further on the precise nature of this translation “by direct inspiration.”

Other sources report that the Prophet used the Urim and Thummim (meaning probably one of his seer stones) in the translation of the Book of Abraham, although these sources come from those not immediately involved in the production of the text, and in one instance may have been confusing the translation process of the Book of Abraham with the translation process of the Book of Mormon, and so they should be accepted cautiously.21 If Joseph did use a seer stone in the translation of the Book of Abraham, this would reinforce the point that the method or means of translation for the Prophet was unique.

Joseph Smith’s brown seer stone. Some sources reported the Prophet using the Urim and Thummim (perhaps this or a similar seer stone) in the translation of the Book of Abraham. Image via the Joseph Smith Papers website.

Clues from the Book of Abraham text itself suggests that the Prophet felt free to continually adapt and revise his initial translation. For example, some of the names of the characters in the Book of Abraham were revised in 1842 shortly before the publication of the Book of Abraham.22 Likewise, Joseph Smith’s study of Hebrew appears to have also influenced the final form of the text, as Joseph’s knowledge of such influenced either how he initially rendered or later revised certain words and phrases in the Book of Abraham’s creation account.23 One of the glosses at the beginning of the book (“which signifies hieroglyphics”; Abraham 1:14) is not present in the Kirtland-era manuscripts, which appears to indicate that it came from Joseph Smith or one of his scribes at the time of the publication of the text.24 Another gloss (“I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record”; Abraham 1:12) was inserted interlineally, suggesting that “the references to the facsimiles within the text of the Book of Abraham seem to have been nineteenth-century editorial insertions”25 (although this is not the only interpretation of this data point).26

It should not come as a surprise that Joseph Smith (or his scribes) made revisions to the English text of the Book of Abraham and still called it a translation, since he also revised his revelations that comprise the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon in subsequent editions after their initial publication.27

Replica of the Urim and Thummim by Brian Westover, photo by Daniel Smith. Image via Book of Mormon Central.

Whatever his precise method of translation, which Joseph specified no more than being “by the gift and power of God,” more important is what the Prophet produced. As Hugh Nibley recognized, “[T]he Prophet has saved us the trouble of faulting his method by announcing in no uncertain terms that it is a method unique to himself depending entirely on divine revelation. That places the whole thing beyond the reach of direct examination and criticism but leaves wide open the really effective means of testing any method, which is by the results it produces.”28 The results of Joseph Smith’s inspired translations are books of scripture that would have been beyond the Prophet’s natural ability to produce on his own. This is true for the Book of Abraham, which evinces numerous signs of having been derived from the ancient world as it claims and not from Joseph Smith’s fertile imagination or nineteenth-century environment.29

A fuller grasp of this fascinating and important subject therefore includes appreciating how Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saints used words such as “translation” in ways that are similar but also in some ways very different than how they are typically used today.30

Further Reading

Kerry Muhlestein, “Book of Abraham, translation of,” in The Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2017), 63–69.

John Gee, “Joseph Smith and the Papyri,” in An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2017), 13–42.

Hugh Nibley, “Translated Correctly?” in The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 2005), 51–65.

Robert J. Matthews, “Joseph Smith—Translator,” in Joseph Smith: The Prophet, The Man, ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993), 77–87.

Footnotes

 

1 History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838], 596; John Whitmer, History, 1831–circa 1847, 76; Warren Parrish, letter to the editor, Painesville Republican, 15 February 1838, cited in John Gee, “Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri,” FARMS Review 20, no. 1 (2008): 115n4.

2 Journal, 1835–1836, 47.

3 Editorial, circa 1 March 1842, Draft, 1.

4 “Book of Abraham,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (March 1, 1842): 704, emphasis in original.

5 See the overview and discussion in Kerry Muhlestein, “Book of Abraham, translation of,” in The Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2017), 63–69; cf. “Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Introduction to the Historiography of their Acquisitions, Translations, and Interpretations,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 22 (2016): 32–39; Hugh Nibley, “Translated Correctly?” in The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 2005), 51–65; Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2018), xxii–xxvi.

6 “Church History,” Times and Seasons 3, no. 9 (March 1, 1842): 707.

7 David E. Sloan, “The Anthon Transcripts and the Translation of the Book of Mormon: Studying It Out in the Mind of Joseph Smith,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5, no. 2 (1996): 57–81.

8 John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2017), 20.

9 For an overview, see Michael Hubbard MacKay, “‘Git Them Translated’: Translating the Characters on the Gold Plates,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, ed. Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 83–116; Brant A. Gardner, “Translating the Book of Mormon,” in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2016), 21–32.

10 “Account of John, April 1829–C [D&C 7],” in The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 1: July 1828–June 1831, ed. Michael Hubbard MacKay et al. (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2013), 47–48. For the historical context of this section, see Jeffrey G. Cannon, “Oliver Cowdery’s Gift,” in Revelations in Context: The Stories Behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Matthew McBride and James Goldberg (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2016), 15–19.

11 “Chapter VI.,” in A Book of Commandments, for the Government of the Church of Christ, Organized according to Law, on the 6th of April, 1830 (Independence, MO: W. W. Phelps & Co., 1833), 18. In the Manuscript Revelation Book this section is called a “revelation” and not explicitly a “translation.” Revelation Book 1, 13.

12 History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834], 15.

13 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 21; cf. MacKay et al., The Joseph Smith Papers, Documents, Volume 1, 48n129.

14 Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson County, Missouri, 25 June 1833, [1]; Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson County, Missouri, 2 July 1833, 52.

15 See generally Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible,” in Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 51–76; “The King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation,” in The King James Bible and the Restoration, ed. Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 197–214; Royal Skousen, “The Earliest Textual Sources for Joseph Smith’s ‘New Translation ‘ of the King James Bible,” FARMS Review 17, no. 2 (2005): 451–470; The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon. Part Five: The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2019), 132–140.

16 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 21.

17 In fact, it appears that part of the process in revising some portions of the text of the “new translation” involved Joseph consulting popular biblical commentaries of his day. See “Joseph Smith’s Use of Bible Commentaries in His Translations,” LDS Perspectives Podcast, Episode 55.

18 Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2018), xxiii.

19 John Whitmer, History, 1831–circa 1847, 76.

20 Warren Parrish, letter to the editor, Painesville Republican, February 15, 1838.

21 Wilford Woodruff Journal, February 19, 1842, in Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1983), 2:155; Parley P. Pratt, “Editorials,” The Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 3 (July 1, 1842): 47; Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer, October 3, 1846, 211; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses (August 25, 1878), 20:65. The account in the Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer reads thus: “[W]hen Joseph was reading the papyrus, he closed his eyes, and held a hat over his face, and that the revelation came to him; and that where the papyrus was torn, he could read the parts that were destroyed equally as well as those that were there; and that scribes sat by him writing, as he expounded.” The detail of Joseph placing his face into his hat to read the papyrus sounds much like how witnesses described the translation of the Book of Mormon, suggesting the possibility that the paper misreported or confused which text Lucy Mack Smith was describing.

22 See Pearl of Great Price Central, “Zeptah and Egyptes,” Book of Abraham Insight #8 (August 28, 2019).

23 Matthew J. Grey, “‘The Word of the Lord in the Original’’: Joseph Smith’s Study of Hebrew in Kirtland,” in Approaching Antiquity, 249–302; Kerry Muhlestein and Megan Hansen, “‘The Work of Translating’: The Book of Abraham’s Translation Chronology,” in Let Us Reason Together: Essays in Honor of the Life’s Work of Robert L. Millett, ed. J. Spencer Fluhman and Brent L. Top (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center and Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2016), 149–153.

24 Jensen and Hauglid, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, 309n85.

25 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 143; Jensen and Hauglid, The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, 195n57.

26 Kerry Muhlestein, “Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Introduction to the Historiography of their Acquisitions, Translations, and Interpretations,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 29–32; “The Explanation-Defying Book of Abraham,” in A Reason for Faith, 82; “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 225–226.

27 See Royal Skousen, “Changes in The Book of Mormon,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 11 (2014): 161–176; Marlin K. Jensen, “The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books,” Ensign, July 2009, 47–51; Robin Scott Jensen, Richard E. Turley, Jr., and Riley M. Lorimer, eds., “Joseph Smith–Era Publications of Revelations,” in The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 2: Published Revelations (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2011), ix–xxxvi.

28 Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, 63.

29 As discussed in the Book of Abraham Insight articles posted here at Pearl of Great Price Central, as well as in Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 49–55, 97–105.

30 See further Robert J. Matthews, “Joseph Smith—Translator,” in Joseph Smith: The Prophet, The Man, ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993), 77–87; Richard Lyman Bushman, “Joseph Smith as Translator,” in Believing History: Latter-day Saint Essays, ed. Reid L. Neilson and Jed Woodworth (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2004), 233–247; Alexander L. Baugh, “Joseph Smith: Seer, Translator, Revelator, and Prophet,” BYU devotional speech, June 24, 2014; “Joseph Smith as Revelator and Translator,” The Joseph Smith Papers Project.

Publicado en

The “Kirtland Egyptian Papers” and the Book of Abraham

Book of Abraham Insight #38

Associated with the translation of the Book of Abraham is a collection of documents known today as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.1 This name was coined by Hugh Nibley in the early 1970s to describe a corpus of manuscripts that can be classified into, broadly, two categories: Book of Abraham manuscripts and Egyptian-language manuscripts.2 Although still commonly used, because some of these documents post-date the Kirtland period of Latter-day Saint history, and because it is somewhat vague, the name coined by Nibley to describe this corpus has fallen out of use among scholars who prefer more precise classifications. What’s more, “The[se] name designations are modern ones and typically reflect assumptions of the individuals using the particular designations. No [single] designation [to describe these texts] has gained wide acceptance.”3

Notwithstanding, as mentioned above, this corpus “can be divided into two fairly distinct parts: “(1) those papers that center primarily on the text of the Book of Abraham and (2) those that focus on alphabet and grammar material that the authors connected to the ancient Egyptian language.”4 The Abraham manuscripts (1) are what contain the extant English text of the Book of Abraham. These manuscripts date from between mid-1835 to early-1842 and are in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps, Warren Parrish, Frederick G. Williams, and Willard Richards.5 The Egyptian-language manuscripts (2) are comprised of a hodgepodge of documents that transcribe portions of the characters from the Egyptian papyri and appear to attempt to systematize an understanding of the Egyptian language in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Warren Parrish.6 While these two groups can be broadly distinguished, “it should also be understood that the Abraham documents contain a certain amount of Egyptian material and the Egyptian papers include a certain amount of Abraham material.”7 Because of this, it is clear that there is some kind of relationship between these two groups.

Although there is an apparent relationship between these two groups of documents, because of conflicting interpretations of the historical data among scholars “almost every aspect of these documents is disputed: their authorship, their date, their purpose, their relationship with the Book of Abraham, their relationship with the Joseph Smith Papyri, their relationship with each other, what the documents are or were intended to be, and even whether the documents form a discrete or coherent group.”8 This uncertainty has unfortunately resulted in a lack of consensus on how to understand this collection.

The first page of the “Grammar & A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language” in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps, dating to mid- to late-1835. Image via the Joseph Smith Papers website.

Although it is clear that the Egyptian-language documents in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers reflect a sincere attempt by those involved to somehow understand the Egyptian language (there is no evidence for conscious fraud or deceit on the part of those involved), “like many similar efforts of the time to unravel the mysteries of the Egyptian language, these attempts are considered by modern Egyptologists—both Latter-day Saints and others—to be of no actual value in understanding [the] Egyptian” language.9 Because of this, some have attempted to use the Egyptian-language documents to cast doubt on Joseph Smith’s prophetic inspiration or the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. This effort, however, is highly questionable for many reasons.

First, “The extent of Joseph Smith’s involvement in the creation of these manuscripts is unknown.”10 While it is true that he had some involvement in the project since his handwriting appears in one manuscript and his signature on another,11 there is not enough evidence to conclusively demonstrate that Joseph Smith was the driving instigator behind the effort to create a systematized grammar of the Egyptian language.

Second, “It is unclear when in 1835 Joseph Smith began creating the existing Book of Abraham manuscripts or what relationship the Book of Abraham manuscripts have to the Egyptian-language documents.”12

Third, while “considerable overlap of themes exists between the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian-language documents . . . most of the Book of Abraham is not textually dependent on any of the extant Egyptian-language documents. The inverse is also true: most of the content in the Egyptian-language documents is independent of the Book of Abraham.”13

Fourth, and finally, the Egyptian-language documents were never presented as authoritative revelation similar to Joseph Smith’s other canonized books of scripture. “What emerges most clearly from a closer look at the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is the fact that there is nothing official or final about them—they are fluid, exploratory, confidential, and hence free of any possibility or intention of fraud or deception.”14

The first page of the “Grammar & A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language” in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps, dating to mid- to late-1835. Image via the Joseph Smith Papers website.

Rather than viewing the Egyptian-language documents as Joseph Smith’s botched revelation, they might instead more plausibly be seen as part of “an interest in ancient languages within the early church and an anticipation that additional ancient texts would be revealed.”15 This interest prompted Joseph Smith and those close to him to attempt a secular study of other ancient languages such as Hebrew and Greek.16 The Egyptian-language project undertaken by some early Latter-day Saints and associated with the coming forth of the Book of Abraham may very well be situated in that same context.

There is still much that we do not know about the so-called Kirtland Egyptian Papers, including the precise circumstances surrounding their creation and purpose. While their ultimate nature remains debated, the work of scholars in recent years has called into question older assumptions and arguments about the extent of Joseph Smith’s participation in the Egyptian-language project and the Book of Abraham’s dependency on these manuscripts. In the mean time, what can be safely concluded is that “although we have incomplete information on exactly how the Book of Abraham was translated, the resulting contents of that translation are more important than the process itself.”17

Further Reading

John Gee, “Joseph Smith and the Papyri,” in An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2017), 13–42.

Brian M. Hauglid, “The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project: ‘A Knowledge of Hidden Languages’,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, edited by Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 474–511.

Hugh Nibley, “The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” BYU Studies 11, no. 4 (Summer 1971): 350–399; reprinted in An Approach to the Book of Abraham (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2009), 502–568.

Footnotes

 

1 Hugh Nibley, “The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” BYU Studies 11, no. 4 (Summer 1971): 350–399; reprinted in An Approach to the Book of Abraham (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2009), 502–568.

2 Brian M. Hauglid, “The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project: ‘A Knowledge of Hidden Languages’,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, edited by Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), 447–449.

3 John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2017), 32–33.

4 Hauglid, “The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project,” 477.

5 Hauglid, “The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project,” 477–478; Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 34–35.

6 Hauglid, “The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project,” 478; Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 34–35. The Book of Abraham manuscripts and related Egyptian-language documents can be viewed online at the Joseph Smith Papers website.

7 Hauglid, “The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project,” 477.

8 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 33.

9 Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church Historian’s Press, 2018), xxv.

10 Jensen and Hauglid, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, xv.

11 Jensen and Hauglid, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, xv; Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 34.

12 Jensen and Hauglid, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, xxv. For different arguments on the direction of the dependency between the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian-language documents, see Hauglid, “The Book of Abraham and the Egyptian Project,” 474–511; Kerry Muhlestein, “Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Introduction to the Historiography of their Acquisitions, Translations, and Interpretations,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 22 (2016): 33–37.

13 Jensen and Hauglid, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, xxv.

14 Nibley, “The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” 399.

15 Jensen and Hauglid, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4, xxi.

16 See Matthew J. Grey, “‘The Word of the Lord in the Original’: Joseph Smith’s Study of Hebrew in Kirtland,” in Approaching Antiquity, 249–302; John W. Welch, “Joseph Smith’s Awareness of Greek and Latin,” in Approaching Antiquity, 303–328.

17 Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 39.

Publicado en

Isis el Faraón (Facsímil 3, Figura 2)

Perspectiva del Libro de Abraham #36

La explicación dada para el Facsímil No. 3 identifica la Figura 2 como "Rey Faraón, cuyo nombre se da en los símbolos sobre su cabeza". Una posible forma de identificar esta figura por métodos egiptológicos sería leer "los caracteres [jeroglíficos] sobre su cabeza". Desafortunadamente, no se conserva la ilustración o viñeta original del papiro, por lo que nos vemos obligados a descifrar los jeroglíficos tal y como son interpretados en el Facsímil 3 por su propio grabador, Reuben Hedlock. Si bien parece que Hedlock ha realizado un trabajo bastante digno de elogio en la reproducción de los facsímiles (al menos en base a la comparación del Facsímil 1 con el papiro original existente), al mismo tiempo ha cometido algunos errores notables1. Así pues, la primera incógnita para resolver la cuestión de la identidad de esta figura sería determinar el grado de legibilidad de estos jeroglíficos.Incluso, varios egiptólogos que han examinado el Facsímil 3 han señalado que los jeroglíficos reproducidos por Hedlock eran parcial o totalmente ilegibles2, "lo que les obliga a basarse en lecturas comparables de otros textos para interpretar las figuras"3. Los dos únicos egiptólogos que han hecho un intento de interpretar los jeroglíficos que aparecen en la figura 2 son los siguientes4:

Robert Ritner (2011)

Michael Rhodes (2002)

ȝs.t wr.t mw.t nṯr

"Isis la grande, la madre del Dios".

ỉs.t wr.t mw.t nṯr

"La gran Isis, madre del dios".
Ritner no incluye una transcripción jeroglífica de su lectura, mientras que Rhodes sí lo hace. Sin embargo, una comparación minuciosa de los jeroglíficos reproducidos por Hedlock y Rhodes revela algunas dificultades5. La diferencia más notable está en los tres símbolos superiores que forman el nombre de Isis. Estos glifos fueron mal conservados por Hedlock o mal dibujados por el antiguo egipcio escriba original (es imposible saberlo sin el fragmento de papiro original), lo que los hace prácticamente ilegibles. Lo que han hecho egiptólogos como Rhodes (y, al parecer, Ritner) es reconstruir y leer estos glifos como ellos creen que deben leerse (como el nombre de Isis), en lugar de cómo están realmente en el facsímil conservado6. Por lo tanto, aunque esta figura podría identificarse razonablemente como Isis basándose en elementos iconográficos similares encontrados en secciones comparables7, no se puede llegar a la identidad de esta figura basándose únicamente en la lectura de los jeroglíficos mal conservados. En consecuencia, la identificación de esta figura como Isis merece ser objeto de estudio, pero existen razones para aceptar esta interpretación con cautela. A primera vista, esto puede ser un problema para José Smith, ya que, como se ha visto anteriormente, los expertos identifican a esta figura como la diosa Isis (o a veces la diosa Hathor, a la que a menudo se relaciona con Isis8), y no el faraón egipcio. Si asumimos que esta identificación es correcta, un examen más detallado de los atributos y epítetos atribuidos a la diosa Isis durante la época en que se dibujó el Facsímil 3, nos revela que esta identificación tiene efectivamente cierta justificación. Como madre del dios Horus, que era la manifestación divina del faraón, Isis había sido reconocida durante mucho tiempo como la madre real y la esposa del rey por los antiguos egipcios. "Se mostraba comúnmente como una mujer que llevaba el símbolo del trono que sirve para escribir su nombre. Como ‘diosa del trono’, era la madre de cada rey egipcio"9. En virtud de sus asociaciones reales y debido a su extensa adoración en todo el mundo mediterráneo, en la época de los Papiros de José Smith, Isis había llegado a ser identificada como el mismísimo Faraón(a) de Egipto. Por ejemplo, en un texto de esta época se le denomina "la faraona de toda la tierra" (tȝ pr-ˁȝt nt tȝ r-ḏr-f)10. De sus decenas de títulos y epítetos adicionales, se le designó también, entre otras cosas, "gobernante de las dos tierras en la casa de la alegría" (hḳȝt-tȝwy m ḥwt ȝwṯ-ỉb)11, "gobernante de dioses y diosas" (hḳȝt nṯrw nṯrwt)12, "faraón(a) de todo" (pr-ˁȝt nt tm nb)13, "la reina que se apodera del cargo por su poder" (nswt ỉṯỉ ỉȝwt m sḫrw-s)14, "excelente gobernante" (ḥḳȝt mnḫt)15, "excelente reina" (nswt mnḫt)16, "excelente gobernante en el trono de su padre" (ḥḳȝt mnḫt ḥr nst ỉt-s)17, "gobernante de Egipto" (ḥḳȝt nt bȝḳt)18 y "reina de todo Egipto" (nswt nt snwt r ȝw-s)19. Estos y otros calificativos semejantes se daban habitualmente al monarca reinante, fuera hombre o mujer, y dado que el nombre de Isis en egipcio significa literalmente "trono" o "asiento", su identidad compartida con el cargo de faraón no es en absoluto sorprendente. "Como presunta encarnación de la ‘sede del trono, [Isis] está vinculada de manera especial a la realeza y, por tanto, al aspecto político de la naturaleza divina [del rey]; su papel como madre de Horus y hermana-esposa de Osiris la relaciona aún más estrechamente con la realeza egipcia, en la que está encarnado el rey vivo Horus [el faraón]"20. De este modo, "con la idea de que la Gran Dama [Isis] realmente" personifica el trono, y por lo tanto la realeza egipcia, "la incongruencia de la identificación [de José Smith] de la figura 2 [en el Facsímil 3] como ‘Rey Faraón’ comienza a desaparecer"21.

Otras lecturas

Hugh Nibley, Abraham en Egipto, 2da. ed. (Salt Lake City y Provo, UT: Deseret Book y FARMS, 2000), 382–465.

Notas a pie de página

1 Por ejemplo, Hedlock situó la figura 3 en el Facsímil 1 detrás de las figuras 2 y 4, mientras que en la ilustración original la figura 3 está situada entre las figuras 2 y 4.

2 Como William Flinders Petrie: "Las inscripciones están demasiado mal copiadas para poder leerlas", o John Peters: " Sin embargo, los jeroglíficos que deberían describir las escenas son meros arañazos ilegibles, al no tener el imitador la habilidad o la inteligencia para copiar tal escritura" en Franklin S. Spalding, José Smith, Jr. Como Traductor (Salt Lake City: The Arrow Press, 1912), 24, 28. Compárese con los comentarios de Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hôr: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 3 (otoño 1968): 127nn109-110.

3 Quinten Zehn Barney, The Neglected Facsimile: An Examination and Comparative Study of Facsimile No. 3 of The Book of Abraham, tesis de maestría, Universidad Brigham Young (2019), 26.

4 Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition (Salt Lake City, UT: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2011), 139; Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), 25.

5 "A Fac-Simile from the Book of Abraham", Times and Seasons 3, nº 14 (16 de mayo 1842): 783; Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings, 24.

6 Tal y como ha reconocido un egiptólogo, esto puede ser "un procedimiento peligroso cuando se intenta hacer uso de los nombres para demostrar algo". Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hôr", 127n110.

7 Véase la discusión en Barney, The Neglected Facsimile, 63–88.

8 Hugh Nibley, Abraham en Egipto, 2da. ed. (Salt Lake City y Provo, UT: Deseret Book y FARMS, 2000), 425-432.

9 Geraldine Pinch, Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt (Nueva York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002), 149; cf. L. Kákosy, "Isis Regina", en Studia Aegyptiaca I: Recueil d’études dédiées à Vilmos Wessetzky à l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire, ed. L. Kákosy y E. Gaál (Budapest: Éötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, 1974), 221-230.

10 Christian Leitz, ed., Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen (Lovaina: Peeters, 2003), 3:40; 8:29.

11 Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 5:551; 8:30.

12 Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 5:545–546; 8:30.

13 Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 3:40; 8:30.

14 Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 4:347; 8:30.

15 Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 5:543–544; 8:30.

16 Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 4:348; 8:30.

17 Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 5:544; 8:30.

18 Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 4:348; 8:30.

19 Leitz, Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 4:348; 8:30.

20 Siegfried Morenz, "Vorträge und Referate (Ausführliche Fassung) Ägyptische Nationalreligion und sogenannte Isismission", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 111, nº 2 (1961): 434. "Como presunta representación del " trono", se relaciona de forma especial con la realeza y, por tanto, con el aspecto político del ser divino; su papel como madre de Horus y hermana-esposa de Osiris la vincula más estrechamente con la realeza egipcia, en la cual el rey vivo encarna a Horus . . . entra". C.f. Jan Bergman, "Isis" en Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. Wolfgang Helck y Eberhard Otto (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980), 3:186-187.

21 Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 429.

Publicado en

Abraham y Osiris (Facsímil 3, Figura 1)

Perspectiva del Libro de Abraham # 35

La figura 1 de Facsímil 3 del Libro de Abraham fue interpretada por José Smith como, ‘Abraham sentado en el trono de Faraón, por la cortesía del rey; con una corona sobre su cabeza, que representa el sacerdocio; como emblemático de la gran presidencia en el cielo; con el cetro de la justicia, y el juicio en su mano’". Esta interpretación ha chocado con las ofrecidas por los egiptólogos, que en cambio han identificado la figura como el dios Osiris.1 Es más, dos egiptólogos han afirmado llegar a esta interpretación leyendo los jeroglíficos a la derecha de la Figura 12.

Robert Ritner (2011)

Michael Rhodes (2002)
ḏd-mdw ỉ(n) Wsỉr ẖnty-ỉmnty.w nb(?) ȝbḏw(?) nṯr ˁȝ r ḏ.t nḥḥ(?) Recitación de Osiris, el más importante de los occidentales, Señor de Abidos(?), el gran dios por los siglos de los siglos(?). "ḏd-mdw ỉ(n) Wsỉr ẖnty-ỉmnty.w mn=k, Wsỉr, Ḥr m ns.t ˁȝ.ṯ=f Palabras pronunciadas por Osiris, el más importante de los occidentales: Que tú, Osiris Hor, permanezcas al lado del trono de la grandeza.
Uno de estos egiptólogos ha intentado reproducir los jeroglíficos que acompañan a la Figura 13.Sin embargo, una comparación de su reproducción y el original de Reuben Hedlock, revela algunas dificultades.
Una comparación lado a lado de los jeroglíficos que aparecen junto a la Figura 1 en el Facsímil 3 en 1842 (derecha) y los jeroglíficos reconstruidos de Rodas en 2002 (izquierda).
Por ejemplo, algunos de los glifos en el nombre de Osiris en la primera columna a la derecha solo tienen un parecido general con las ortografías certificadas del nombre de Osiris en otras copias del Libro de las Respiraciones, y otros glifos que componen el resto del nombre y epítetos para Osiris también se ven bastante diferentes.4 "Estas cuestiones se combinan para sugerir que la traducción de los caracteres puede no ser tan sencilla como se ha asumido anteriormente", por lo que "si bien se pueden ver buenas razones para … el uso de textos paralelos" 5 para reconstruir caracteres ilegibles en Facsímil 3, también es necesario ser consciente de las dificultades o incertidumbres en la lectura de los jeroglíficos en la copia de Hedlock de Facsímil 36. Sin embargo, la identidad de esta figura como Osiris parece razonable con base en una iconografía comparable. Por lo tanto, se podría preguntar con razón cómo o incluso si es posible conciliar la identificación de José Smith de esta figura como Abraham. En 1981, el erudito de los Santos de los Últimos Días Blake T. Ostler llamó la atención sobre las posibles conexiones egipcias entre las figuras de Osiris y Abraham.7 Por ejemplo, Ostler citó el trabajo de un erudito alemán no miembro de la Iglesia que dibujaba paralelos entre la parábola de Lázaro y el hombre rico en Lucas 16:19–31 y un texto egipcio conocido como el cuento de Setne.8 Según lo resumido más recientemente por otro erudito Santo de los Últimos Días, en el texto egipcio, un niño llamado Si-Osiris (‘hijo de Osiris’) y su padre presencian "dos funerales: primero, el de un hombre rico, envuelto en lino fino, fuertemente lamentado y abundantemente honrado; luego, el de un hombre pobre, envuelto en una estera de paja, no acompañado y sin luto". El padre dice que preferiría tener la suerte del hombre rico que la del pobre".9 Para mostrarle a su padre la locura de su pensamiento, Si-Osiris lo lleva al inframundo, donde el hombre rico que tuvo un funeral elaborado es castigado, mientras que el pobre que no tuvo un entierro digno es glorificado y exaltado en presencia del mismo dios Osiris. La razón de este tratamiento dispar es que, en el juicio, las buenas acciones del pobre pesaban más que las malas, pero con el hombre rico lo contrario era cierto".10
El dios Osiris, sentado y sosteniendo símbolos de realeza (un ladrón, bastón y cetro) y el símbolo de la vida (el símbolo Ankh), está protegido por su hermana-esposa Isis en este relieve de la tumba de Khaemhat (TT 57) del reinado del rey de la XVIII Dinastía Amenhotep III (circa 1390-1352 aC). Foto de Stephen O. Smoot.
Algunos eruditos han argumentado a favor de un préstamo judío y la adaptación de la historia de Setne que hizo su camino en el Evangelio de Lucas. La egiptóloga Miriam Lichtheim presenta su traducción de la historia de Setne comentando los "motivos genuinamente egipcios" del noble que es torturado en el inframundo mientras que el pobre hombre es deificado en el más allá. Estos motivos, insiste, "formaron la base para la parábola de Jesús en Lucas 16, 19–31, y para las leyendas judías relacionadas, conservadas en muchas variantes en fuentes judías talmúdicas y medievales".11 Otro erudito ha explorado más a fondo los paralelismos entre estas dos tradiciones y observa cómo Lázaro siendo exaltado en "el seno de Abraham" en el relato de Lucas de la parábola es muy probable que una remodelación judía de las representaciones en la historia de Setne del pobre mendigo sea encontrado exaltado por el trono de Osiris". En sus palabras, "’Abraham’ debe ser un sustituto judío del dios pagano Osiris". Él es la sede misma de la autoridad divina" en la parábola, "porque él era originalmente el señor de Amnte, Osiris".12 Incluso el nombre Lázaro es probablemente la interpretación griega del hebreo-arameo "Dios le ayudó" (אלעזר/לעזר), que "apunta hacia un original egipcio con un significado similar: ‘Osiris-le-ayuda’, por ejemplo".13 Como explicó Barney, "Podemos ver cómo la historia egipcia se ha transformado en vestimenta semita. . . . El ‘seno de Abraham’ [de la parábola de Lucás] representa … la morada egipcia de los muertos. Y, lo más notable, Abraham es un sustituto judío del dios pagano Osiris, tal como es el caso en Facsímiles 1 y 3".14 Parece haber otro ejemplo de la figura bíblica de Abraham que antiguamente se asociaba con el dios egipcio Osiris. Como explicó el egiptólogo John Gee, una fórmula funeraria egipcia encontrada en varias fuentes fue sincretizada más tarde con figuras judías en sus posteriores representaciones en griego y copto. La versión Demótica corta de la conjuro dice: "Que su alma viva en la presencia de Osiris-Sokar, el gran dios, el señor de Abidos" (ˁnḫ pȝ by=f m bȝḥ wsir skr pȝ nṯr ˁȝ nb ỉbḏw). En griego, esta fórmula fue traducida más tarde como: "Descansa su alma en el seno de Abraham, Isaac y Jacob" (ἀναπαύσον τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοὺ εἰς κόλπις Αβρααμ κ(αὶ) Ισαακ κ(αὶ) Ιακωβ. En griego: Descansa su alma en el seno de Abraham, Isaac y Jacob). En esta reformulación, "la expresión ‘vivir en presencia de Osiris’ ha sido reemplazada por la expresión descansar en el seno de Abraham".15 No podemos saber exactamente por qué Abraham fue visto por algunos en la antigüedad como un sustituto del dios egipcio Osiris.16 Cualquiera que sea el caso, "hay suficientes casos en que Abraham aparece en contextos normalmente ocupados por Osiris que debemos concluir que los egipcios vieron algún tipo de conexión".17 Es especialmente notable, como se ha visto anteriormente, que Abraham aparece como un sustituto de Osiris en formas asociadas con el juicio de los muertos o una declaración postmortem de la dignidad del difunto. Esto, a su vez, podría arrojar alguna idea de lo que de otro modo podría parecer la interpretación incongruente de José Smith de esta figura en Facsímil 3.

Otras lecturas

Kevin L. Barney, "The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources", en Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, ed. John Gee y Brian M. Hauglid (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2005), 107–130. Blake T. Ostler, "Abraham: An Egyptian Connection", FARMS Report (1981).

Notas al pie de página

1 Véase, por ejemplo, Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hôr: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 3 (Autumn 1968): 126; Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002), 23.

2 Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, A Complete Edition: P. JS 1–4 and the Hypocephalus of Sheshonq (Salt Lake City, UT: The Smith–Pettit Foundation, 2011), 139; Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings, 25.

3 Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings, 24.

4 Quinten Zehn Barney, The Neglected Facsimile: An Examination and Comparative Study of Facsimile No. 3 of The Book of Abraham, MA thesis, Brigham Young University (2019), 45, 121–122.

5 Barney, The Neglected Facsimile, 49.

6 Barney, The Neglected Facsimile, 45. La vacilación de Ritner en su lectura de los jeroglíficos en Facsímil 3, así como los múltiples desacuerdos con la propia lectura de Rhodes de la misma, indica aún más la dificultad en la lectura de estos glifos.

7 Blake T. Ostler, "Abraham: An Egyptian Connection", FARMS Report (1981).

8 Ostler, "Abraham", 3–8, citando a Hugo Greßmann, Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus: Eine literargeschichtliche Studie (Berlín: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1918).

9 Kevin L. Barney, "The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources", en Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, ed. John Gee y Brian M. Hauglid (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2005), 121-122.

10 Barney, "The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources", 121.

11 Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume III: The Late Period (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980), 125–126; cf. Robert K. Ritner, "The Adventures of Setna and Si-Osire (Setna II)", en The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, ed. William Kelly Simpson, 3rd ed. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003), 470–471.

12 K. Grobel, "…Cuyo nombre era Neves", New Testament Studies 10 (1964): 380.

13 Grobel, "…Whose name was Neves", 381.

14 Barney, "The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources", 121.

15 John Gee, "A New Look at the ˁnẖ pȝ by Formula", en Actes du IXe congrès international des études démotiques, Paris, 31 août–3 septembre 2005, ed. Ghislaine Widmer y Didier Devauchelle (Paris: Institut Français D’Archaéologie Orientale, 2009), 143.

16 Cabe señalar que la antigua asociación entre Abraham y Osiris no es el único caso atestiguado de sincretización judeo-egipcia. Como Gary Rendsburg ha señalado, "el escritor bíblico utilizó el venerable mito de Horus para presentar a Moisés como igual a Faraón". Como se ve en muchos paralelos entre las dos figuras, "el joven Moisés [en el relato bíblico] es similar al joven Horus, este último un igual mítico del Faraón viviente". Gary A. Rendsburg, "Moses as Equal to Pharaoh", en Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Gary Beckman y Theodore J. Lewis (Providence, RI: Brown University, Brown Judaic Studies, 2010), 201–219, citado en 208.

17 Kerry Muhlestein, "Abraham, Isaac, and Osiris-Michael: The Use of Biblical Figures in Egyptian Religion, A Survey", en Achievements and Problems of Modern Egyptology: Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Moscow on September 29–October 2, 2009, ed. Galina A. Belova (Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences, Center for Egyptological Studies, 2009), 251.

Publicado en

Facsimile 3: Judgment Scene vs. Presentation Scene

Book of Abraham Insight #34

El facsímile 3 del Libro de Abraham ha sido identificado en el pasado por los egiptólogos como "una escena constantemente recurrente en la literatura egipcia, mejor conocida por el capítulo 125 del Libro de los Muertos. Representa el juicio de los muertos ante el trono de Osiris"1. Basado en iconografía comparable de otros textos funerarios egipcios, esta interpretación del Facsímil 3 ha prevalecido entre los egiptólogos2. "El juicio formal de los muertos contenido en el conjuro 125 del Libro de los Muertos… implica que el suplicante fallecido haga una ‘confesión negativa’ afirmando su comportamiento impecable en la tierra en presencia de cuarenta y dos dioses reunidos en el Sala de la Doble Verdad, mientras el corazón es pesado contra la pluma de Maat"3. Esta escena del juicio se representa muy frecuentemente como ocurriendo ante la presencia del dios Osiris, que a menudo se muestra sentado en un trono acompañado por sus hermanas/esposas Isis y/o Neftis. Aunque esta interpretación del Facsímile 3 se ha vuelto común entre los investigadores, algunos han planteado objeciones considerables a esta explicación. El egiptólogo John Gee, por ejemplo, ha expresado problemas con la visión del Facsímile 3 como una escena de juicio4. "Los problemas con la teoría de que el Facsímile 3 es la viñeta del Libro de los Muertos 125 se pueden mostrar más fácilmente" por lo que falta en Facsímile 35. Varias copias antiguas del Libro de los Muertos ilustran visualmente o describen textualmente lo que los antiguos egipcios mismos consideraban los elementos esenciales necesarios para una escena de juicio. Esto incluye, según una copia del Libro de los Muertos del siglo I a. C.:
Los cuarenta y dos dioses [frente al] difunto por encima de la sala de las verdades; una figura de Hathor, [dama] del inframundo llevando un cetro de uas, protegiendo al hombre, mientras que los dos brazos de la balanza son rectos y Thot está a su izquierda, a su derecha [. . .] mientras Horus habla, y Anubis lo agarra en el lado en el que están las dos verdades (Maats) mientras él está opuesto en el otro lado de la balanza. Thoth lee los escritos ya que tiene un pergamino en su mano […Ammit] en cuya mano hay un cuchillo y ante quien hay una espada y un cetro, Anubis sosteniendo su mano. Un loto con dos soportes en los que están los cuatro hijos de Horus. Una capilla en la que Osiris se sienta en su trono donde hay una mesa de ofrendas con un loto delante de él. Isis está detrás de él alabando, y Neftis está detrás de él alabando6.
"Si comparamos esta descripción con el Facsímile 3", observa Gee, "encontramos que la descripción no coincide en absoluto".
El facsímil 3 carece de los cuarenta y dos dioses. Falta Hathor sosteniendo el cetro. No hay balanza. Thoth falta en el lado izquierdo de la escala inexistente. Falta Horus. La figura generalmente identificada con Anubis no está agarrando el lado de la balanza, sino la cintura del hombre. Dado que Thoth no está representado, no se le puede mostrar leyendo nada. Ammit no aparece, junto con el cuchillo, la espada y el cetro. Al loto le faltan los cuatro hijos de Horus encima. Aunque a Osiris se le muestra sentado, no se le representa sentado dentro de ninguna capilla. Casi todos los elementos que los egipcios pensaban que eran importantes para la escena destacan por su ausencia en el Facsímile 3. Significativamente, estos elementos están presentes en una viñeta que acompaña al Libro de los Muertos, capítulo 125, que se encuentra entre los Papiros de José Smith, así como otras copias de viñetas del Libro de los Muertos, capítulo 125. Estos elementos están presentes en todas las escenas de juicio que los críticos compararían con el Facsímile 3. Los elementos de la escena del juicio como se enumeran en el Libro Demótico de los Muertos son consistentes con los de las escenas anteriores del juicio. Su ausencia en el Facsímile 3 indica que el Facsímile 3 no es una escena de juicio y no está directamente asociado con el Libro de los Muertos 1257.
Entonces, si el Facsímil 3 del Libro de Abraham probablemente no es una escena de juicio del conjuro 125 del Libro de los Muertos, entonces ¿qué podría ser? Recientemente, Quinten Barney realizó un estudio de Facsímile 3 comparándolo con escenas de trono similares que representan al dios Osiris a partir de copias existentes del antiguo Libro Egipcio de las Respiraciones8. Barney categorizó cuatro tipos de escenas del trono (invocación, pesaje del Corazón, presentación e híbrido) del Libro de las Respiraciones y las comparó con Facsímil 39. Después de una cuidadosa comparación, Barney concluyó que mientras el "Facsímile no. 3 tiene mucho en común con las diversas escenas del trono que se encuentran en estos textos, incluidas las escenas del Libro de las Respiraciones […] varios desafíos se presentan a medida que comenzamos a tratar de clasificar el Facsímile en una de las cuatro categorías de escenas del trono presentadas anteriormente"10. De hecho, cuando se compara con otras escenas del trono del Libro de las Respiraciones, el Facsímile 3 contiene una serie de elementos artísticos inusuales que no son estándar en otras ilustraciones, y su colocación original en el rollo de papiro obtenido por José Smith tampoco es estándar para este tipo de texto. Así, si bien "el tipo de escena con el que el facsímile no. 3 se compara mejor es la escena de la presentación, en la que el difunto es introducido en la presencia de Osiris por una o más deidades egipcias … hay varios problemas para incluir el facsímile no. 3 en esta categoría"11. Si el Facsímile 3 se acerca más a una escena de presentación que a una escena de juicio, entonces podría tener una conexión plausible con la astronomía. "Las escenas paralelas en los templos egipcios están explícitamente etiquetadas como iniciaciones. Los rituales de iniciación conocidos del Egipto grecorromano incluyen instrucción en astronomía como parte de la iniciación"12. Esto coincide con la interpretación de José Smith de que esta escena representa a Abraham "razonando sobre los principios de la Astronomía, en la corte del rey". Hasta que nuevas investigaciones puedan arrojar más información sobre este fascinante pero complejo asunto, tendremos que estar contentos por ahora de que "aunque el Facsímile no. 3 se adjuntó al Libro de las Respiraciones de Hor, no es en lo absoluto una escena funeraria común de esa colección de textos"13.

Lecturas adicionales

Quinten Barney, "The Neglected Facsimile: An Examination and Comparative Study of Facsimile No. 3 of The Book of Abraham", MA thesis, Brigham Young University, 2019. John Gee, “Facsimile 3 and Book of the Dead 125”, en Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, ed. John Gee y Brian M. Hauglid (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2005), 95–105.

Notas al pie de página

1 Michael D. Rhodes, "Facsímiles del Libro de Abraham", en The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 Vols. (Nueva York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:136.

2 Véase, por ejemplo, Franklin S. Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator (Salt Lake City: Arrow, 1912), 24, 26; Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, A Complete Edition: P. JS 1–4 and the Hypocephalus of Sheshonq (Salt Lake City, UT: The Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2011), 138. Klaus Baer opinó en 1968 que el Facsímile 3 era "una escena [que] proviene de un papiro mortuorio y es similar, pero no idéntica, a las escenas que muestran el juicio del difunto ante Osiris" en el Libro de los Muertos conjuro 125. Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hôr: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 3 (otoño 1968): 126.

3 Peter F. Dorman, "The Origins and Early Development of the Book of the Dead", en Book of the Dead: Becoming God in Ancient Egypt, ed. Foy Scalf (Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute, 2017), 39.

4 John Gee, “Facsimile 3 and Book of the Dead 125”, en Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, ed. John Gee y Brian M. Hauglid (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2005), 95–105.

5 Gee, "Facsimile 3 and Book of the Dead 125", 99.

6 Gee, "Facsimile 3 and Book of the Dead 125", 100, citando P. Bibliothèque Nationale E 140 1/16—24, Franz Lexa, Das demotische Totenbuch der Pariser Nationalbibliothek (Papyrus des Pamonthes) (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910), ix, 6—8, placa I.

7 Gee, "Facsimile 3 and Book of the Dead 125", 100–101.

8 Quinten Barney, "The Neglected Facsimile: An Examination and Comparative Study of Facsimile No. 3 of The Book of Abraham", MA thesis, Brigham Young University, 2019.

9 Barney, "The Neglected Facsimile", 70–88.

10 Barney, "The Neglected Facsimile", 81.

11 Barney, "The Neglected Facsimile", 81.

12 John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City y Provo, UT: Deseret Book y Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2017), 153.

13 Barney, "The Neglected Facsimile", 88. Véase además Hugh Nibley, "All the Court ‘s A Stage: Facsimile 3, A Royal Mummying", en Abraham in Egypt, 2ª ed. (Salt Lake City y Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 2000), 382–465.