This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“Despite Joseph’s claim that this record was written by Abraham ‘by his own hand, upon papyrus,’ scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated and have dated it in 1st century CE, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it.”
(CES Letter)
‘By His Own Hand’ Is A Figure Of Speech
The idiom by his own hand means “as a result of one’s own actions.” Abraham wrote this book himself. We know there were multiple copies of this book made because variations of its stories and theology have been found all over the ancient world. This is the writing of Abraham, written by his own hand, but it is not the same pieces of paper he wrote it on. It was copyied by someone much later.
When we read Giddianhi say in the Book of Mormon, “Therefore I have written this epistle, sealing it with mine own hand,” do we assume that Joseph Smith held in his hands the very epistle that Giddianhi had sent to Lachoneus? Of course not! Obviously, Mormon copied the epistle into the gold pllates and Joseph Smith used the gold plates to translate the Book of Mormon. Likewise, the scroll that Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Abraham was just a copy.
Today, do we assume that an author has created every single book that bears his name? Does any publisher specify in the copyright page of an autobiography that “this is just a copy of the original transcript we received from the author?” Of course not. They say, “this was written by the actual person” because obviously the author did not sit down and type out every single copy of the book on a typewriter.
Joseph Smith never said that the mummy that came with the Egyptian scrolls was the body of Abraham: “Who these ancient inhabitants of Egypt are, we do not pretend to say.” Why would the original Book of Abraham source be found buried with some other person’s body? So obviously he didn’t think that Abraham produced that specific copy of the book that was buried with the mummy.
The introduction to the Book of Abraham never claims that the “ancient records” that they acquired were the specific scroll that Abraham first penned his story on. Instead, the introduction reads, “Translation of some ancient records” from Egypt; then, “the writings of Abraham… written by his own hand.” That’s it.
Fourth Papyrus Scroll Has Not Been Found
CES Letter incorrectly assumes that the few recovered fragments from some of Joseph Smith’s papyri, which date to the first century AD, are the basis for the Book of Abraham. But there were at least four scrolls. Witness descriptions match the Book of Abraham source with the fourth scroll which has not been recovered–the so-called Amenhotep Scroll. Descriptions of ink color, scroll size, writing style, and state of preservation disqualify the other scrolls.
The Amenhotep Scroll perished in the Chicago Fire along with most of the Egyptian collection, so we don’t know anything about it. Maybe it actually was the original copy of the Abraham book and it ended up with this Egyptian mummy, for some reason, and maybe it did actually date to Abraham’s time? We just don’t know.
Scripture Was Renewed By Copying
The ancient Hebrew custom of copying important religious books was considered a “renewal” rather than just creating a copy. Each time a priest preached from the Torah, it was done in a “covenant renewal ceremony.” But the act of actually reproducing the Torah, called sefer Torah, was likewise done in a sacred ceremony and considered “a personal renewal” that kept the book alive. Handwritten texts are considered the most sacred.
It was therefore important and fitting for Joseph Smith to specify that this book was written by the prophet Abraham, and that it was his book. That way, people wouldn’t have thought the author was one of these transcribers.
Dr. Hugh Nibley explained: “…when a holy book (usually a leather roll) grew old and worn out from handling, it was not destroyed but renewed. Important writings were immortal—for the Egyptians they were ‘the divine words,’ for the Jews the very letters were holy and indestructible, being the word of God. The wearing out of a particular copy of scripture therefore in no way brought the life of the book to a close—it could not perish. In Egypt it was simply renewed (ma.w, sma.w) “fairer than before,” and so continued its life to the next renewal. Thus we are told at the beginning of what some have claimed to be the oldest writing in the world [the Shabako Stone], ‘His Majesty wrote this book down anew. . . . His Majesty discovered it as a work of the Ancestors, but eaten by worms. . . . So His Majesty wrote it down from the beginning, so that it is more beautiful than it was before.’ It is not a case of the old book’s being replaced by a new one, but of the original book itself continuing its existence in a rejuvenated state. No people were more hypnotized by the idea of a renewal of lives than the Egyptians—not a succession of lives or a line of descent, but the actual revival and rejuvenation of a single life. …An Egyptian document, J. Spiegel observes, is like the print of an etching, which is not only a work of art in its own right but “can lay claim equally well to being the original . . . regardless of whether the individual copies turn out well or ill.” Because he thinks in terms of types, according to Spiegel, for the Egyptian “there is no essential difference between an original and a copy. For as they understand it, all pictures are but reproductions of an ideal original.” . . . This concept was equally at home in Israel. An interesting passage from the Book of Jubilees [a text unknown before 1850] recounts that Joseph while living in Egypt “remembered the Lord and the words which Jacob, his father, used to read from amongst the words of Abraham.” Here is a clear statement that “the words of Abraham” were handed down in written form from generation to generation, and were the subject of serious study in the family circle. The same source informs us that when Israel died and was buried in Canaan, “he gave all his books and the books of his fathers to Levi his son that he might preserve them and renew them for his children until this day.” Here “the books of the fathers” including “the words of Abraham” have been preserved for later generations by a process of renewal. …The noble who has writing or carving done is always given full credit for its actual execution; such claims of zealous craftsmanship “have loftily ignored the artist,” writes Wilson. “It was the noble who ‘made’ or ‘decorated’ his tomb,” though one noble of the Old Kingdom breaks down enough to show us how these claims were understood: “I made this for my old father. . . . I had the sculptor Itju make (it).” Dr. Wilson cites a number of cases in which men claim to have “made” their father’s tombs, one of them speci?cally stating that he did so “while his arm was still strong”—with his own hand! Credit for actually writing the inscription of the famous Metternich Stele is claimed by “the prophetess of Nebwen, Nest-Amun, daughter of the Prophet of Nebwen and Scribe of the Inundation, ‘Ankh-Psametik,'” who states that she “renewed (sma.w) this book [there it is again!] after she had found it removed from the house of Osiris-Mnevis, so that her name might be preserved.” The inscription then shifts to the masculine gender as if the scribe were really a man, leading to considerable dispute among the experts as to just who gets the credit. Certain it is that the Lady boasts of having given an ancient book a new lease on life, even though her hand may never have touched a pen. …Nest-Amun hoped to preserve her name by attaching it to a book, and in a very recent study M. A. Korostovstev notes that “for an Egyptian to attach his name to a written work was an infallible means of passing it down through the centuries.” That may be one reason why Abraham chose the peculiar Egyptian medium he did for the transmission of his record—or at least why it has reached us only in this form. Indeed Theodor Böhl observed recently that the one chance the original Patriarchal literature would ever have of surviving would be to have it written down on Egyptian papyrus.” (Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 4–7 via FairMormon)
Facsimile Appears In Recovered Papyrus
The strongest piece of evidence Anti-Mormons the recovered papyrus was Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham source is that we see Facsimile 1 on it. If it was the source of Facsimile 1, doesn’t that mean it was also the source for the rest of the Book of Abraham? Well, there are several reasons why this couldn’t be the case:
- Facsimiles 2 is a Hypocephalus and that would never be in a Book of Breathings scroll, which is where Facsimile 1 can be found. So either each facsimile was also included on the lost Amenhotep Scroll, or Joseph took the facsimiles from different sources.
- The Hypocephalus in Facsimile 2 mentions a guy named Sheshonq, and none of the four mummies had this name. This indicates facsimiles came from different sources.
- All four rolls were displayed under glass in the same collection as the other papyri collection. This indicates the fragments were important because Book of Abraham facsimiles were found throughout the various scrolls and everything wasn’t just in one place. Otherwise, Joseph Smith would have only put the Book of Abraham source behind glass and not cared about everything else. Joseph Smith understood that different scrolls apply to different things.
- Text is much easier to reproduce than illustrations. If the Abraham scroll was passed down over many generations since the days of Abraham, it is likely that they gave up copying illustrations along the way, and this is why Joseph took images from the other scrolls to derive Abrahamic concepts.
- Only one facsimile was referenced in the Abraham text, yet Joseph produced three facsimiles. Why didn’t the Book of Abraham mention the other two facsimiles if they were meant to go together with the text? This disassociates the facsimiles from the Abraham text.”
- The Abraham text describes the facsimile differently than what it actually looks like in the recovered papyrus. Abraham describes the bedstead as standing “before” the idol gods, while the facsimile shows the bed over the idols. The priest’s foot is in front of the jars, so it looks to me like the jars are under the bed, not before them. Abraham’s text reads: “I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is… hieroglyphics.” There are no hieroglyphics in this Facsimile, and there is nothing to explain anything about the idols. If Abraham had had this same facsimile in front of him, he would have described it to match how it actually showed. This indicates the facsimile we have today is not what Abraham originally wrote in his book.
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Argument From Ignorance | There is no way to know if the document that Joseph Smith used for the Book of Abraham text is the recovered fragment that dates to the 1st century AD. The document that perished in a Chicago fire is a much more likely candidate, according to witness descriptions. |
| Strawman Fallacy | CES Letter takes an idiom, “by his own hand,” literally and ignores all historical context. He didn’t mean that this was the specific piece of paper that Abraham wrote on, otherwise he would have said “the papyrus of Abraham” rather than “the writing of Abraham.” There is a comma between “written by his own hand” and “upon papyrus.” This is writing from Abraham and it appears on a papyrus. |
| Guilt By Association | Even if Joseph Smith did incorrectly think this was the piece of paper that Abraham wrote on himself, this introduction is not actually part of the translation. It is just some explanation added by Joseph Smith, so that would mean he simply made a false assumption. He wasn’t perfect. he wasn’t a wizard. |
| Repetition | CES Letter repeats this argument four more times in their pdf (p. 24#2, 29#5, 29#6, 44). |
Bait & Switch – This argument is a classic case of Anti-Mormons taking things out of context to make them appear false. It is like a magician making a rabbit disappear. First, they show the empty box, and then they take a rabbit put it in the magic disappearing box–they show a new context and then introduce the subject into that new context. CES Letter takes a fragment of parchment that was not the Book of Abraham source material and they say that it was supposed to be the source. Next, the magician opens the door of the box, but the rabbit is behind a mirror so that it looks as if the box is empty–the subject hidden in the new context. CES Letter cherry-picks Joseph Smith’s interpretations so that they never match the Egyptian context, so it looks like the papyrus fragment was definitely the source but had nothing to do with Abraham. Finally, the magician sneaks the rabbit out the back of the box in a secret door. Anti-Mormons take away the subject and leave only their different context. They point out all the things Joseph Smith “misidentified” in the facsimiles and call the whole thing gibberish. Before we know it, we went from a book of scripture that was translated from a scroll that was burned in the Chicago fire to a list of Egyptian names in funerary documents.
Presto! The box is empty!
Big Lie Tactic – Most anti-Mormons agree that the Book of Abraham is the “smoking gun” that disproves Mormonism. But that is just because they assume that the recovered papyri fragments are the source for the Book of Abraham. It is a lie that compounds with further investigation of the Book of Abraham and leads to other lies.
This lie is easier for the CES Letter reader to believe after all those earlier arguments that attached the same narrative about the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith used the same “peep stone” that he used to look for buried treasure to translate the Book of Mormon, doesn’t that make it easier to believe Joseph used a “common funerary document,” as anti-Mormons incorrectly call the fragment, to create the Book of Mormon? CES Letter says in both cases science disproves the claim of prophesy:
“This is a testable claim. Joseph failed the test with the Book of Abraham. He failed the test with the Kinderhook Plates. With this modus operandi and track record, I’m now supposed to believe that Joseph has the credibility of translating the keystone Book of Mormon? With a rock in a hat?”
(CES Letter)
>
Creating Superstition – CES Letter reinforces their demand that Mormons need to validate every single detail of their faith with science. They frame the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as a “model” that has no evidence for it–an easy trick for Anti-Mormons to play when it comes to ancient history as they discount every piece of evidence as coincidence, forged, or unfounded.
This kind of narrative led the crusaders to seek out physical objects from the holy land to validate the bible, pieces of the cross or the cup of Jesus Christ. It always leads to superstition, because no amount of science can prove without reasonable doubt that a historical object is what it purports to be. The Shroud of Turin? I mean, there is a mountain of evidence that correlates the Book of Abraham. Since the day of Joseph Smith, ancient book after ancient book has been discovered and translated into English that says the same thing as the Book of Abraham. But no amount of scientific testing would convince the anti-Mormons. Even if the legitimacy of the claim were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, they would pass it off as coincidence.
After all, that’s what they do with the copy of the Facsimile 1 diagram which was discovered by archaeologists with the name “Abraham” under it. Anti-Mormons reply, “well that doesn’t really say ‘Abraham.’ Just a name very similar to Abraham.” Yeah, uh huh.
Actually, I think it would be detrimental to Mormonism if undeniable evidence were found, because it would shift our narrative away from matters of faith toward un-spiritual confirmation of a historical event from physical evidence. And that’s what Anti-Mormons are trying to do. The shift away from faith serves Satan’s intentions because a person who relies on superstition is not practicing personal agency, but being total reliant on others for his beliefs and actions.
CES Letter can get away with this Big Lie claim because it is the consensus among so many people that Abraham did not write this book, and because it takes so long to explain the evidence. It is like claiming that the Library of Alexandria never really existed because we have no physical evidence today, apart from some alleged ancient tales. An archaeologist can give plenty of convincing evidence, but it would take hours. By providing zero evidence to support their own claim, CES Letter makes the initial Big Lie appear self-evident, like the Book of Abraham must be false because it takes so long to explain it.
Joseph Smith said we should find truth wherever it is: “Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft. …Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”(Teachings of Joseph Smith)
Contradiction Strategy – In the previous arguments, CES Letter cherry-picked evidence to contradict the Book of Mormon. It is funny that in this argument CES Letter cherry-picks an idiom and takes it literally to try to point out a contradiction. This is like a little kid whining, “You said it would take just a second!” This shows just how flimsy the anti-Mormon narrative is. This is their evidence for the Big Lie which snowballs into all the other arguments against the Book of Abraham.
This is how CES Letter works. They give a few bits of incorrect leading evidence; the reader connects to dots in their mind; and CES Letter pushes it to a sweeping generalization. If there were any evidence for the Book of Abraham, why is this Egyptian papyrus talking about Egyptian stuff instead of Abraham? Um, maybe because it’s Egyptian?! Readers are much more likely to believe CES Letter‘s incredibly string of logic because they connected the dots out on their own, subconsciously. They are also more likely to believe the evidences for that deduction, which in this case are falsehoods.
‘Common Era’ Instead Of A.D. – Notice that instead of “1st century AD,” CES Letter says “1st century CE.” CE stands for “common area,” and was created by atheist scientists because they didn’t want to date things according to the death of Jesus Christ–they wanted to distance science from Christianity. So this is a subtle circular fallacy by CES Letter, as it implies the ‘scientific way’ of dating events is superior to the Christian way… even though CE is exactly the same thing as AD.
CES Letter uses fake science–or in this case a ridiculous assumption–to point out an inconsistency regarding LDS belief, and then presents science as the superior alternative source for truth. CES Letter uses the contradiction strategy by narrowing a physical issue down to a binary context: either this recovered papyri fragment talks about Abraham or the Book of Abraham was made up. No other choices. They then appeal to “science” and deconstruct the outdated Mormon belief.
False Binary – Anti-Mormons typically present evidence for their binary context as self-evident and irrefutable, with no need for further explanation, and then they rapidly move on to other attacks that bolster the constrained definition. The purpose is not really to discuss Book of Abraham evidences, which would actually be an interesting discussion, but to shift the narrative from faith to binary science, disregarding context, and to quickly move on to more effective attacks to strengthen this narrative.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with exploring and critically investigating physical evidence, such as the recovered papyri from Joseph Smith’s Egyptian collection that have survived. It is an exciting opportunity. The danger is when people use faulty logic and leap to wild, simplistic conclusions. There is a smart and vibrant group of LDS scholars investigating the evidence and making great discoveries, which will increase what we learn from the Book of Abraham. They are careful not to become superstitious and search for holy grails to confirm their faith. They do not replace faith with a dependence on only what we can see.
Invalidate All Ancient Scripture – CES Letter‘s attack on the Book of Abraham invalidates all ancient writing, which is quite convenient for their ideology. Archaeology and historical science is only as useful to Anti-Mormons as it can invalidate faith for them and momentarily be twisted to support their alternative ideology, such as the idea that mankind evolved from monkeys without a spark of divinity in them. They hold religions to the highest standards of skepticism, yet place blind faith in Marxism.
The Anti-Mormon substitute for religious scripture is a national-standard science textbook that jumps to wild politically correct conclusions and requires revising every year. It is a science show that one day teaches kids that chromosomes determine your sex identity, rather than eternal spirit nature, and then the next day erases that segment and teaches kids that sex identity is totally fluid. For followers of Satan, truth is only the narrative, and the narrative changes however it needs to in order to support the ideology in new circumstances.
The Book of Abraham is miraculous. What we know about the facsimiles and their Egyptian contexts gives credibility to the Book of Abraham. We do not have the fourth scroll to see if it matches the text, but the text speaks completely for itself. There are many parallel themes and stories with other ancient Abraham sources, sources that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known about. The doctrine also rings true, as it teaches the eternal principles of God and brings us closer to our Savior.Complete answers to CES Letter questions about Mormons: