Talk:Book of Abraham/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Why is it called book of breathings?

One of the things which made me question this Wikipedia article was the misnamed Document of Breathings Made by Isis. What makes it misnamed? It comes with the interpretation of the term snsn as "breathing," an interpretation that goes way back to Heinrich Brugsch's dictionary. But as recent studies show, snsn never means "to breathe." Instead, here it means something like "to fraternize, fellowship, associate, join." Quaegebeur has suggested that it be interpreted as a Letter of Recommendation Made by Isis; the translation of breathing permit is simply impossible.--Samuel Clayton (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source we can cite for this new interpretation of the title of the papyrus, then it's definitely worth noting. COGDEN 07:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Kerry Shirts referenced?

Kerry Shirts is a random guy with a website and a YouTube channel. Even on his own website he openly declares that he is not officially tied with the LDS church when he publishes his apologetics. Why is he therefore being referenced in the "other comments" section? I might as well include a reference to "my neighbor Dave." This material should be deleted and cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nageljr (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - done - but not only because of who he is, but because the content related to him was irrelevant to the discussion.--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Consistent Translations?

"Other translations and analyses have been performed at various times since 1968 by Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, including Michael D. Rhodes (BYU),[72] John Gee (BYU),[73] and Robert K. Ritner (University of Chicago).[74] The translations among all of these scholars are consistent"

What is the word "consistent" supposed to entail?

Michael D. Rhodes translation of facsimile 2 suggests that Joseph Smith's interpretation might be correct. And it might. When it comes to Egyptian symbols multiple translations are entirely possible. The wedjat-eye found above and to the left of the seated hawk figure in section 3 can represent "healing, light, totality, protection, glory, and even riches." Also "kolob" is often connected to the common semitic root QLB--meaning, heart or center( in Egyptian m-q3b "in the midst of"). The Arabic version qalb is notably included in the names of many bright stars:Antares, Regulus, and Canopus.

"Joseph Smith says that the earth is called Jah-oh-eh by the Egyptians. In the Times and Seasons he defined Jah-oh-eh as "O the Earth."[49] This would be reasonable rendering of the Egyptian i 3h.t, "O Earth" (assuming that Joseph used the biblical convention of rendering a Semitic yod with an english J.[50]"- Michael D. Rhodes

If mormon and non-mormon translations of the facsimiles are "consistent", then how come they tend to disagree on everything?

I prefer Rhodes' apologist commentary to Gee's. His claims should be discussed.

Here is an article by him: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/jshypo.htm --Samuel Clayton (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Egyptologist affiliation

This might seem pedantic, but I placed "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologist" in the table that has the translation of the Egyptian next to the JS explanation. I did this because as it stands the formatting seems to imply that Mormon Egyptologists are all supporting a direct translation that mirrors JS's, when in fact their translations closely approximate Ritner's and others.I've also included some additional citations.Kant66 (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A conflict of interest on both sides

What nonmormon egyptianologist is going to admit Smith was right? And what Mormon egyptianologist is going to admit he was wrong? The critics and apologists views differ so greatly and this article doesn't show it. That is what makes articles dealing with religion so difficult. Any attack on Joseph Smith is going to be seen as a personal attack on faith. It is a never ending debate: neither side is going to admit theyre– wrong under any condition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.19.217 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 June 2011‎

Translation of Facsimile 2

As included in the wikipedia article: 6 Represents this earth in its four quarters. "The four funerary genii, the sons of [Horus], Amset, Hapy, Tioumautew, and Kebhsoniw."

The four sons of Horus are the gods of the four quarters of the earth and later came to be regarded as presiding over the four cardinal points. How come that isn't mentioned in the article? After all, Joseph was actually right for once--even if it's just coincidence... The article makes it sound as though 1/31 is a low probability for simply guessing. It's not. Man, I wish I could guess like that in the lottery.--Samuel Clayton (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. Ritner wrote quite convincing that the apologist argument that he got this right is actually not correct. The four sons of Horus are never considered representative of the four quarters of the earth in the context of funerary papyri - if I am recalling the argument correctly. If you want to beleaguer the point I am sure I can find the Dialogue article where Ritner explains it. --Descartes1979 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. They are referenced as such within various funerary texts, IE Spells from the "Book of the Dead". See the Wikipedia article on the subject of the 4 sons of Horus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.243.200 (talk • contribs)

Nibley was not a linguist

Hugh Nibley was a famous LDS apologist, but just because he knew several languages did not make him a linguist. He did not publish in linguistics. He did not publish about language teaching or methodology or translation. He simply used his knowledge of languages to assist in his work on LDS apologetics. There is a fundamental difference between a linguist and an apologist who knows several languages. --Taivo (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You make a very good point. And if I hadn't found the following on the linguistics page, I'd agree with you and have no problem with your edit:

The term linguist, used for one who studies language, applies within the field to someone who either studies linguistics or uses linguistic methodologies to study groups of languages or particular languages. Outside the field, this term is commonly used to refer to people who speak many languages fluently.

The dictionary gives the same reading: 2. a person who is skilled in several languages; polyglot. ---Canstusdis (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. In the context of the sentence, I would interpret "linguist" as meaning someone whose primary field of academic studies is linguistics. Nibley was a professor of ancient scripture at BYU, not a linguist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Polemical statement

I thought I'd take it here before I deleted anything. The above material (including the lede) already clearly conveys the fact that the BoA was not literally translated from the JS papyrus. The statement recently added (“Except for those willfully blind, the case is closed")does not add anything new, is overly polemical, and is a reductio ad ridiculum. The statement of scholarly consensus in the lede already concisely and precisely conveys the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kant66 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; I only added this here because it had been added mistakenly on Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism), where it was out of place, so I moved the original users contrib from there to here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a Mormon, but I question the following chart reference: "Explanation by non-Mormon and Mormon Egyptologists (quotes are from Deveria 1860)". The quote implies that non-Mormon Egyptologists disagree with Smith's commentary, which they don't. I would recommend, "Explanation by non-Mormon Egyptologists (quotes are from Deveria 1860)," with a possible footnote showing consensus with Book of Breathing explanations among Mormon Egyptologists, but not to conflict necessarily with Smith's explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.163.228 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant criticism of Hebrew Transliterations

At least twice in the article, the cited sources criticize Joseph Smith's transliteration of Hebrew words (of Shaumahyeem and of Raukeeyang); this is irrelevant to the discussion, as their is no a priori correct Roman transliteration of Hebrew words. He seems to be using a different transliteration than the standard one, and it seems designed to be easier to pronounce phonetically for English speakers (like the use of ee for a long yod). His use of ng for ayin (and sometimes gn, as in gnolaum) reflects the fact that ayin was once a non-silent letter which later became silent (as is still taught today). A similar thing is happening right now with ng in Cantonese. Brirush (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancient scrolls correlation

Found something interesting in Charlesworth's "Testament of Abraham":

"In the Testament of Abraham, Abraham is shown a vision of the Last Judgment that is unquestionably related to the judgment scene pictured in the 125th chapter of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, one of the major religious texts of the ancient Egyptians. One of the Joseph Smith Papyri is in fact a drawing of this judgment scene. "

and also

"The Apocalypse of Abraham describes a vision Abraham saw while making a sacrifice to God. In this vision he is shown the plan of the universe, 'what is in the heavens, on the earth, in the sea, and in the abyss.' This is almost an exact translation of the Egyptian words in the left middle portion of Facsimile Number 2 of the book of Abraham (figures 9 and 10). He is shown 'the fullness of the whole world and its circle,' in a picture with two sides. This is a good description of the object depicted in Facsimile Number 2 (called a hypocephalus by Egyptologists). This document even describes the four animal-headed figures labeled number 6 in Facsimile Number 2 [Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 18]. The significance of these two ancient documents is that they are roughly contemporary with the hypocephalus and the other Egyptian documents purchased by Joseph Smith-and they relate the same things about Abraham that Joseph Smith revealed to us in the book of Abraham and in his explanation of the hypocephalus. "

Testament of Abraham, recension A, 12-13, in [Charlesworth, 1983].

The book is widespread, I was wondering why the information wasn't in the article? Maybe it could fit in the response to criticism section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.137.201 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Restructure criticism and response section

I recommend a citation to the most recent publication of the fragments, a complete translation of the Joseph Smith papyri by Robert K. Ritner in The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, Signature Books (Salt Lake City), 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.163.228 (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The latest construction of facsimile 1 can be found at: Bell, Lanny 2008. The ancient Egyptian "Books of Breathing", the Mormon "Book of Abraham", and the development of Egyptology in America. In Thompson, Stephen E. and Peter Der Manuelian (eds), Egypt and beyond: essays presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his retirement from the Wilbour chair of Egyptology at Brown University June 2005, 21-39. Providence, RI: Brown Univ., Dep. of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies (4 figs [ills]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.163.228 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there are rebuttals going both ways between critics and defenders of the Book of Abraham - and that some of these arguments need context and are therefore hard to follow in the existing two-section method of criticism and response. I propose folding the "defence" section into the "criticism and response" section - and bullet out the criticisms and their associated rebuttals. I think it would make more sense that way. For example, under criticism there is an item about tying the translation of the text to the papyri - but this doesn't make any sense unless you also read in the next section about how apologists believe that the text does not come from the papyri. You need these two bullets together for it to make sense.

Unless there are objections I will start restructuring in the next few days.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert K Ritner never made any claims of what Smith labeled "Olimlah" to be "Anubis" at any time prior to 2010. I would suggest that each "quote" be labeled with a specific citation and not a handful to shotgun what amounts to plagiarism. If Ritner makes such claims, he should consider himself lucky that those words were never put in an official publication. Makes me wonder if the authors who fabricated the Rorschach ink blots entry had a hand in this one. Purchase the $500 book those bogus blots allegedly were taken from and you'll see what I mean.Dirtclustit (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Teachings "unique to Mormonism"

The last sentence of the second paragraph in this article says "The book contains several doctrines that are unique to Mormonism, such as the concept of God organizing eternal, pre-existing elements to create the universe instead of creating it ex nihilo."

I'm not sure that the teaching of organised creation is unique to Mormonism- I've met several non-mormon people who agree with this teaching, but I don't know if their sects officially teach it. Some research and/or citation on this might be in order. Mghoffmann (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

There are definitely other things that could be included as being unique to Mormonism if this doctrine is not: Kolob, for instance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's definitely true. I suppose the statement should be edited, then, to list those doctrines which definitely are unique, such as those about Kolob, rather than something that may or may not be unique to Mormonism.Mghoffmann (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We need to rewrite this article completely

From what I've read, the rediscovery of the Book of Abraham at the Met, wasn't a rediscovery at all. To wit: 2012 "Book of Abraham, I presume" talk As the author of that article/talk notes, members of the church don't believe the facsimiles are the Book of Abraham. At most, we believe they are part of it or included with the Book of Abraham for interest' sake. What this article really needs is for the facsimiles to have their own, related article, and a serious discussion of the Book of Abraham here. Apart from that, the discussion of the facsimiles is pretty good, if a bit top heavy on the picking apart, but I'd like to see a more recent translation of the facsimiles. We could keep the current one, too, for fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalestel (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that this article needs a rewrite. For instance it is mentioned in passing that "several fragments of the papyri" were found in 1966 in the opening and "The controversy intensified in the late 1960s when portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri were located," skipping over the citation (by Joseph Smith himself) that "one" scroll of the "at least five" purchased dealt with Abraham. With only ten fragments recovered, the article is misleading upfront. It creates a 1 to 1 impression regarding material. It is also written in a way that puts the entire Book of Abraham, and The LDS Church, at odds with, well, the known world. When that clearly isn't the case. The LDS Church has been very forward in handling what they do have in a scholarly manner. For instance, when dealing with the remaining fragments, the article says, "Some LDS scholars have argued that much of the original papyrus collection is missing,[76] but others have challenged this notion, contending that the majority of the papyri have been recovered.[77]" However, it is not until the references are checked that the reader is aware that the LDS Scholars are speaking of Joseph Smith's total collection--the five scrolls or more--while the "others" are speaking of what remains of the existing scraps only. Also, nowhere in this article is it mentioned that it was the LDS Church who first published to the world that the papyri found had no discernible connection to the Book of Abraham (one scroll of five or more, what are the odds?), and was in fact a Book of Breathings. I would recommend as well that the article on Joseph Smith Papyri be merged with this article. Playerpage (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions and related questions

While I can see that several users are involved in good faith efforts on this article, both in adding and in reverting, I am not sure this is the approach that should be taken. The reverting summary implies that all changes must be agreed to by consensus prior to implementation, though knowing the good faith user as I do, I suspect the issue is more that rather large or wholesale changes are being made. However, I think that even in this situation, so long as there are appropriate refs and npov writing, there doesn't necessarily need to be consensus on all of it, since that would not be consistent with WP practice. So, I'd recommend leaving the edits that have been made and allowing the community to make adjustments, as appropriate or desired. With that said, if other users come along and feel the information is unsourced, etc. and should be reverted, I would support that. I just don't think the all or nothing approach works that well. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the editor who has been working on the page the last few days. I have a 10 year track record on this site, and have worked on many, many articles (including many GAs and FAs), so my intention is not malicious, nor disruptive. Were one to look at my edits, they will see that they are not disruptive or bad, and that anything I include in the article has a source attached to it. I have also taken it upon myself to clean this article up, since there are a lot of messy refs and bizarre formatting. Nothing out of the ordinary.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that this 72,000 character revert recently done by Jgstokes completely neuters the article and removes any and all mention of how the translation might be a work of fraud (the revision also removes the excellent images, and the comparison between what Joseph Smith says and what Egyptologists have to say about the images). Seeing that such a move is extremely POV, and that the editor is admittedly trying to undo "inaccuracies, real or perceived, on LDS related pages", I think there's a massive conflict of interest. I, however, am neither a member of the LDS church, nor an 'enemy'; I have no bias or intent to do anything other than improve the article using some source I recently came across (one of which written by University of Chicago Egyptologist Robert K. Ritner).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That enormous revert also reversed changes that no rational and well-meaning person could possibly object to: spelling corrections, expansions of references, making the references consistent, fixing various infelicities of diction, etc. Reverting because changes have been made when you weren't looking isn't appropriate, and reverting good changes because you object to other changes isn't appropriate either. - Nunh-huh 21:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Holy freaking cow! You make one bad mistake, one attempt (misguided though it was) to ensure accurate procedures are followed, and your name is mud. Not only that, but people hold you accountable for actions based on misjudgments made and use your own words against you. I'm sorry I made such a bad call, but that's hardly a reason for the uncalled-for pile-on. I did thank ChristensenMJ for his defense of me, but that's between him and me. This will likely be the first and only time I make such a massive revert. I'm sorry I acted badly in this case, but that's hardly a reason to devalue my efforts here on Wikipedia. I too have been a Wikipedian for several years, and I pride myself on making useful contributions here. It deeply troubles me when my intentions and motivations are twisted and misconstrued and called into question. Rest assured, it will never happen again. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to mull over what, if any, my future involvement will be on this article. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my accusations seemed extreme, it just seemed more than a coincidence that someone who is admittedly so close to the material kept reverting my changes. Like I said, I never wanted to offend anyone, and so if I did, I really do apologize. I can tell that you are a good-faith editor, and that is important!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that kind comment and your apology on my talk page. It means a lot to know my efforts are appreciated. I will continue my involvement on this page, I think, and will definitely let you know here if there are any potential problems I see with your edits. In the meantime, thanks for your efforts to make this article better. Have a wonderful day! --Jgstokes (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Book of Abraham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://signaturebooks.com/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookschapter.php?chapid=168
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030704231540/http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=92&table=review to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=92
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160819021356/http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/dialogue/id/2869 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/dialogue/id/2869

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of youtube link

I've removed the recently added link to a youtube video from this article and Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham. I don't think that the video passes the criteria for inclusion as an external link or reference described in WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK, specifically that it does not meet RS requirements and ELNO#1. While the edit describes the view as "scholarly", there is no way to confirm this and that description is therefore unfounded. It is the only video uploaded by an anonymous user 4 years ago. The video draws appears to draw potentially novel conclusions, and without knowing who is making the video, it fails WP:RS. I also find the end where it points to mormonthink as suspicious, since that site is as reliable a source as Jeff Lindsay or Fairmormon. I also don't see how it provides a unique source, again in large part because we don't know if this is from a legitimate scholar or an amateur researcher (like the "Late War" people a few years ago). Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is the content of the youtube link under discussion

External videos
The Joseph Smith Papyri, YouTube video

Hello. I agree that we don't have a good background on the author of this video, however, the content within the video does cite reputable sources for it's content, including analysis by several published Egyptologists, both Mormon and non-Mormon alike, and the materials are rigorously cited within the video itself. The content of the video is absolutely verifiable, rigorously cites Mormon church history with footnotes, and provides an excellent discussion and presentation of the Joseph Smith papyrus. One of the great strengths about free speech and non-censorship is that anonymous speakers are protected by the first amendment. One great example is this article Pamela Jones. While we do not know for certain who Pamela Jones actually is, the content she produced at Groklaw was rigorously documented and cited, which allows its inclusion in Wikipedia as it meets the criteria for WP:RS. I therefore disagree with your assessment as to whether this content meets the standards for inclusion. We don't have to know who the author is, so long as the content and its sources are cited then it passes muster. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What you just described as the basis for determining whether a source is reliable or not is essentially orthogonal to WP:RS. The whole point of RS is that we, as editors, don't need to (and in general shouldn't) fact check a source by determining if the content and its sources pass muster. That is the job of whatever editorial or review process the cited source goes through. If it hasn't gone through some kind of process like that, then it generally isn't a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes and the situations where it can be used become much, much more limited. Those situations are described in WP:SPS, under which this video falls. In that case, the video can only be used on an article related to "MormonHistoryEtc". For this article, referencing this video fails #2 and #3 of WP:SELFPUB, nor is its author an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications (the other exception for self-published sources). And that's why Pamela Jones is a bad analogy - PJ can be cited for the PJ and Groklaw articles because, even though the source is anonymous and self-published, it meets the SELFPUB usage criteria. On the other hand PJ could not be cited as a reliable source for a statement about some third party according to RS and SELFPUB. This is exactly why we don't cite sources like Mormonthink or FairMormon, even if they cite recognized primary and secondary sources. This video, like those two websites, draws conclusions from the primary and secondary sources not found in those sources, and without a peer-review process, fails WP:RS.

Your entire argument makes no mention of any WP policy, only your opinion of how it should work and an WP:OSE argument. Instead, in what way is inclusion of this video supported by actual WP policies? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, your arguments are entirely circular and are "We don't allow materials from anti-mormon websites in the article". Such a position is not supported by the rules of Wikipedia. I do not know at this point as to whether the video link can be included or not, so I am going to ask someone neutral to the discussion look it over and render an opinion. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

An outside opinion would certainly be the next step in dispute resolution. Please be carefully how you summarize my argument against the video's inclusion. Nowhere do I say that the video is unacceptable because it is "anti-mormon". All my arguments against it are based on WP:RS and WP:SPS. I did give other websites and sources, which are also LDS topic-related, that the community has already agreed do not satisfy WP:RS for similar reasons. However the examples include both a contra- (Mormonthink) and two pro- (FairMormon and Jeff Lindsay) Mormon sources. Where do you see in my argument for exclusion a rationale based on the source being "anti-Mormonism" or even skeptical/critical of Mormonism? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The vibrant debate we are having concerning this video seems very healthy. Any of these websites can and do contain materials critical of Mormonism. The youtube video contains neither pro nor con, as it is completely neutral and presents the complex facts in this matter is a way that is easily understood and really helps explain both points of view. IMHO it significantly improves the overall article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Octoberwoodland asked me for an outside opinion on this discussion. Disclaimer: I have not done any work on Wikipedia articles on religion in general or Mormonism specifically; I looked at this from a point of view of Wikipedia practice only. And from that point of view it is clear to me that this video does not belong in the article - because we don't know who the speaker or narrator is, who produced the video, or why. It is comparable to a blog, or a self-published book by an anonymous author. It sounds scholarly, it cites sources, but we have no way of knowing if they are citing sources neutrally or cherry-picking. There is no editorial control, no peer review, nothing to meet our criteria for Reliable Sources. So my opinion is, leave it out. That's just one person's opinion, feel free to seek WP:3O or other opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Melanie, thanks for looking over this and helping me understand whether it makes sense to include it. Despite the high quality of the video, the points you make are right on target. Thanks for helping me understand that. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Book of Abraham, a religious hoax

I added Category:Religious hoaxes to the entry, but it was removed. The book is clearly a religious hoax and should be labeled as such. ConnieBland (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I was the one that removed the category label. A hoax is defined as "a malicious deception." The Book of Abraham is no more a religious hoax than the Koran or Bible or even God. When you can explain why this should be labeled a religious hoax, and those NOT be labeled a hoax, then I will agree with you. A good example of a religious hoax would be the Kinderhook Plates.Epachamo (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely a hoax translation. There is nothing here that would be considered an actual "translation", Smith just made up nonsense.★Trekker (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Please cite a scholarly source that says Smith was purposefully creating a hoax translation, or that he believed he wasn't truly making an inspired translation of it. Its no more nonsense or made up than the book of Genesis, which is not labeled a religious hoax. Epachamo (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Epachamo on this matter. Regardless of what any individual editors or group of editors believe personally or as a group, there are an abundance of sources in this article which cite scholarly opinions verifying the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Those who claim that, contrary to those assertions, the book itself is a hoax, need more than their own biased, non-neutral, and not reliablely-sourced personal opinions verified by sources. Otherwise, the current content, wording, and opinions that have, by conssensus agreement, been used on this page, needs to stand as is. It is always wiser for editors to check their own prejudices, biases, and opinions at the door when they attempt to contribute to Wikipedia. That's how the content of the page as is has come together, and that is how it needs to continue to be edited. We go where the sources take us, and where there are no sources, such arguments are personal opinions that should be disregarded. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The book cannot be labeled as a hoax, but not because there is any evidence "verifying the authenticity of the Book of Abraham". We do not know—and almost certainly never will know—whether Joseph Smith wrote it as a hoax or genuinely believed that he was translating the hieroglyphic text even though he wasn't (as Athanasius Kircher did in his attempts to decipher hieroglyphs.) But the book is not an ancient text, and I'm concerned that the article gives the misleading impression that the scholarly community is divided on that point. From Ritner 2013, p. 8: "The basic events of Smith's romance do not correspond with either Mesopotamian or Egyptian history, and outside of Mormon confessional institutions, the Book of Abraham is not taught—or usually even noted—in studies of ancient history, religion or society."

Compare Book of Daniel#Composition. It's widely agreed among biblical scholars that the Book of Daniel was written well after the time it purports to describe; religious fundamentalists disagree, but their arguments are not mainstream. The article reflects that state of affairs. The consensus on the Book of Abraham is still more overwhelming. But I think its very falsity lets it slip under the radar, as it were, and attract much less scholarly comment than a similar biblical book would. Biblical texts are essential sources for understanding the history of the ancient Near East, even though some of them distort that history a great deal. Those who study that history have to engage with those texts to make sense of it. The Book of Abraham, in contrast, is of no use to them because it's not ancient, and even to Egyptologists the book is a tangential issue that most of them don't deal with. Mormon apologists who defend the book may therefore be more numerous than the scholars who actively debunk their work, but that doesn't mean their position is mainstream.

If it seems I'm overstating my case, see the paper by Stephen E. Thompson—a Mormon Egyptologist!—that is already cited in this article. On p. 146 he says:

It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations. This is the approach taken in many of the apologetic treatments of the Book of Abraham.

And on p. 160:

In the preceding I have argued that (1) Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original, funerary, context; (2) anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was translated from a text written by Abraham himself; and (3) what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible.

And there's Ritner 2013, pp. 118–119, writing in his usual blunt fashion (the italics are his) about Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles:

Since 1861, professional Egyptologists have been justifiably dismissive of Smith's uninformed explanations, and now even the FARMS-sponsored publication by Rhodes (2002) has failed to defend or even cite them. Here, at least, there is agreement that the Smith explanations are untenable, and as the images are directly cited in the narrative itself, the underlying text of the Book of Abraham has been found and Smith's interpretation disproved. There can be no question of any "lost" section of the papyrus that contained an ancient text composed by Abraham, since the author of the supposedly pre-existent Book of Abraham both claims and depicts the Ptolemaic vignette as his own addition (Facsimile 1) to the tale. Abraham cannot have lived as late as the Ptolemaic era, the papyrus illustration of Hôr cannot be dated earlier than the Ptolemaic era, and no rational defense of the narrative is possible.

On top of all that, the consensus among biblical scholars since the end of the 1970s has been that the patriarchs are legend, not historical figures (Lester Grabbe, 2017, Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?, pp. 31–32), so the idea of a narrative written by Abraham is itself implausible. A. Parrot (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

An original source papyri

The original source was much older and was first translated by John Bryant in 1831. Joseph Smith then got hold of it in 1835-1842. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.56.139 (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@51.9.56.139: Do you have a reliable source that supports this claim? A. Parrot (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple verifications for the surviving fragments of the papyri being fragmentary and therefore shorter than whatever the original was

@Epachamo, I notice you deleted the following sentence from the Book of Abraham page: "Supporters of this theory note that based on contemporaneous descriptions of Smith's Egyptian papyri possessed by Smith as a "long scroll", only a portion of the papyri survives with the rest either lost or destroyed."

The edit summary states, "To say 'only a portion' survived is also stating more than we have any right to say."

However, I am not sure I understand the edit summary. Sources provide verification that "only a portion" of the original scrolls remain extant; that is why they are called "fragments".

The first two quotations below from the Joseph Smith Papers were not on the Book of Abraham page prior to your edit, but could easily be added for additional verification. The last two sources were on the original page, though I would readily agree that the Joseph Smith Papers is much more reliable and robust; nevertheless, the JSP verifies the claim that the fragments are, as described, fragmentary—synonymous with being a portion of whatever said original was.

"Some scholars who have studied the Book of Breathing for Horos estimate that the roll originally measured between 150 and 156 centimeters; the extant portion of the papyrus is roughly 66 centimeters long. Fragments from a second roll contain text from a version of the Book of the Dead that was made for a woman named Semminis. Scholars estimate that this roll was originally about 300 or about 700 centimeters; the surviving portion is roughly 92 centimeters long." (Joseph Smith Papers)

"Two weeks after Lucy Mack Smith’s death, Emma Smith, JS’s widow, along with her second husband, Lewis C. Bidamon, and her son Joseph Smith III, sold the artifacts to Abel Combs, who split them into at least two collections. One collection went to a Chicago museum by way of St. Louis, only to be destroyed by the Great Chicago Fire of 1871." (Joseph Smith Papers)

"Nineteenth-century eyewitnesses ... said that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from the long scroll, which does not match any of the current fragments that came from the glazed slides." (Gee, 2017, 84)

"Only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith’s possession exist today." (Gospel Topics)

Given this, I am not sure I understand the edit summary. Multiple sources verify that the papyrus fragments are fragmentary, and the sources are hardly tabloids or social media posts or other unreliable sources. The Joseph Smith Papers are especially respected, robust, and definitely reliable and can be added to the page for further verification.

Would you prefer a revision along the lines of the following? "Supporters of this theory claim that based on contemporaneous descriptions of Smith's Egyptian papyri possessed by Smith as a "long scroll", only a portion of the papyri survives with the rest either lost or destroyed."

Would that be better? Though even that seems to be phrased oddly conditionally, given that the sources cited verify that just a portion survives, inasmuch as 66 centimeters is less than 150 centimeters, and 92 centimeters is less than 300 centimeters, and one collection of the mummies and papyri was "destroyed by the Great Chicago Fire". In fact, a claim along those very lines—that parts of the papyri have been destroyed/lost—is already stated elsewhere on this very Wikipedia page: "The museum and all its contents were burned in 1871 during the Great Chicago Fire. Today it is presumed that the papyri that formed the basis for Facsimiles 2 and 3 were lost in the conflagration."

All this is to say I am not sure where the claims of the edit summary are coming from, insofar as there are verifications for the sentence said edit deleted. In the absence of a clear reason to not include the sentence, which provided readers with additional context as to why the "missing scroll" interpreters/apologists believe there is a "missing scroll", I am inclined to restore the sentence. P-Makoto (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, it deserves a better explanation from me. There is no doubt from anyone that we are missing portions of the scrolls. What is in significant doubt is how much of the scroll was also missing in Joseph Smith's time, and how much was destroyed. To say that "only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith's possession exist today" is something we cannot say with any authority. In the 1960s, when it became clear that the Hor scroll did not contain the Book of Abraham, a theory was advanced by Nibley that the Hor papyrus was longer and contained the Book of Abraham on a destroyed section. To boost his theory, Nibley told of a story of his Uncle Preston (a Church historian), who recalled Joseph F. Smith telling him of a memory 60 years earlier of the papyrus being unrolled through two rooms of the Mansion house. Hardly contemporary, and extremely problematic as a historical source. John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein have written extensively that the Hor scroll was 1,300 centimeters, with enough space to tack on the Book of Abraham at the end of it. It is significant that the Joseph Smith Papers scholars write that the Hor scroll is between 150 and 156 centimeters. This is a complete rejection of Gee, Muhlestein, and the "long scroll" theory, and Gee knew it, thrashing the Joseph Smith Papers project in print. My point is, the "long scroll" theory is extremely loaded, and should be handled with care. Epachamo (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Gee doesn't bring up that Nibley/Smith account in the chapter linked in the citations on the page, so I presume it's a line of argument he expressed in earlier publications. Givens and Hauglid's footnote said Gee's much longer estimate of the scroll's length came from an application of Friedhelm Hoffman's formula (Givens & Hauglid, Pearl of Greatest Price, page 159), which on further research Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith have been unable to replicate, leading them to hypothesize Gee made an error somewhere in his calculations. I had made another attempt at appropriately treating this content in the article, this time as an explanatory footnote at the end of the paragraph. I'm open to your thoughts on it. P-Makoto (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)