Talk:Book of Abraham

Contents

1 Translation 2 Nonsense 3 More on the degree/oral tradition theory 4 to study is to understand? what does this mean? 5 Removal of anti-mormon. 6 De-accessioned papyri from the Metropolitan Museum of Art? 7 Abraham's name on the papyri? 8 Hi from Tom Haws

Translation

FYI - Smith did not translate all of the Papyrus purchased. He translated a relatively small portion of what was avaible. Parts of the book of dead were in the collection, but not sure if he even attempted to translate any of it, besides some light shed on the Hypocephalus included.

Yes, I know that. I suppose we should make it clearer that both "sides" acknowledge this, but differ in their thoughts concerning whether the document was translated or mistranslated. -- Someone else 23:44, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Great edits. They captured what I couldn't. My father was involved in the analysis of the papyrus when they were bought back by the Church, and I have some photographs of what is left. Not much, but very interesting. Interesting how many names and places and concepts JS got right - even if one doesn't accept him as a prophet.Visorstuff

Nonsense

I removed the following, as it makes no sense - not only is the sentence structures messed up, but it makes illogical and uneducated claims.

The opening of the book was claim to be next to the scene reproduced in the facimilies, translated by Smith as, "In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence." The scene was amoung the fragments discovered, and the nearby text reads, "Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons -- and likewise Osiris Hor, justified, born to Tikhebyt, justified -- after his arms have been placed on his heart and the breathing permit (which Isis made and has writing on its inside and outside) has been wrapped in royal linen and placed under his left arm near his heart; the rest of the mummy-bandages should be wrapped over it. The man for whom this book was copied will breath forever and ever as the bas of the gods do."

Again, to the point made above under the translation heading, the bulk of the writing available on the papyrus that Smith translated the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph from is not available as it was likely destroyed. No one knows where the translation above mentioned came from and therefore the point above makes no sense. Read the scholarly research on teh topic, rather than the sensation anti-Mormon material and it will make sense to whomever wrote this jibberish. -Visorstuff 00:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It certainly has become ungrammatical, but it is not nonsense. The defense of Mormon apologists (against the claim that Smith mistranslated the text) is that the text that still exists is part of the papyrus that was not translated: that is, we cannot identify any part of the extant papyrus that was translated, and that a translation of the extant text that does not match Smith's work therefore doesn't prove anything. The argument fails if we can identify some portion of the extant text as having been translated by Smith (because none of the translation of the extant papyri have anything to do with the Book of Abraham). As it works out, the opening passage of the Book of Abraham can be identified on the right hand side of the "Small Sensen" papyrus (Papyrus Joseph Smith XI). Joseph Smith I and XI were once a single piece, as shown by a comparison of their edges by Dr. Klaus Baer of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. The Egyptian characters drawn in the margins of the ten-page Manuscript No. 1 (of the Book of Abraham), in the handwriting of the scribes of Joseph Smith match the characters on the first lines of the Small Sensen papyrus, and continue to match in Manuscripts No. 2 & 3 (manuscript No. 4 has no Eqyptian characters drawn in). A single Egyptian character is often translated by Smith as a complete verse or two of the Book of Abraham. So it is plain what the characters translated as "In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence...." come from: they are from Papyrus Joseph Smith XI, which is in fact a Book of Breathing from the first century AD, and can be translated as "Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of..." etc. The Egyptian character for "the" is translated by Smith as verse 11 of the Book of Abraham, etc.

correct translation	Smith translation (shortened)
the	Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time.....killed upon this altar
pool	and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians. And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me....commencement of this record
water	It was made after the form of a bedstead.....called by the Chadeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics
great	and as they lifted up their hands upon me that the might offer me up and take away my life....

- Nunh-huh 00:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe you are taking this from the Tanner's work - rather than Charles Larson's work? In either case, both are Anti-Mormons.

Here is an excerpt from Larson's work about the topic:

Of the eleven papyri fragments, only one at first glance had any apparent connection to the Book of Abraham (that is, the original from which Facsimile No. 1 was copied). But now, with attention drawn to the "Small Sensen" papyrus as well, it became obvious to at least one of the professional non-Mormon Egyptologists studying the material, Dr. Klaus Baer of the University of Chicago Oriental Institute, that the two fragments had once been joined to form a single, larger section of a scroll. "They seem to have been cut apart after being mounted [on the backing paper]," Baer wrote after studying the photographs closely. Soon afterward he was able to confirm his theory by a physical examination of the fragments themselves. He found that the right edge of the "Small Sensen" papyrus (Papyrus Joseph Smith XI) had indeed originally been joined to the left edge of the fragment from which Facsimile No. 1 (Papyrus Joseph Smith I) had been copied.

In fact, Dr. Baer's discovery fits perfectly with descriptions of the Book of Abraham papyrus scroll that occur in the Book of Abraham, itself:

. . . and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation [picture] at the commencement of this record (Book of Abraham 1:12).

A similar reference to Facsimile No. 1 is found two verses later:

That you may have an understanding of these gods [before which stood the altar just mentioned ], I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning [of the book] (Book of Abraham 1:14)...

fragments I and XI of the Joseph Smith Papyri do in fact dovetail perfectly, as Dr. Baer discovered, and that piecing them back together results in just such an arrangement as is described in the Book of Abraham quotations above, with a drawing at the beginning, or right end, of the scroll.

This theory supposes that the text Smith used to translate the first part of the Book of Abraham is directly after the alter facsimilies, and that that text was used to translate. There is no evidence of this. In fact, contemorpary references to papyrus state that Smith did not use the facsimilies as part of his translation process. That being said, if true, discounts this theory.

In fact, the charators of the "Small Sensen" papyrus, are written in a column in smith's alphabet/grammar book and the text from the Book of Abraham translation is next to them (). This does not tie the two together as smith often included charactors/notes in the margins of his work on both the Book of Mormon and his translation of the bible (the latter had many strange and curious marks in the margins, that were pinned on etc.) Not one scholar believes that the doodles in the margins of the Book of Mormon translations are "Reformed Egyptian." And clearly, not many Mormons familiar with the fragments think that those five or so charactors/words were translated into more than a page's worth of sentences.

In another Larson's (Stan not Charles, but still Anti-Mormon) work on the subject he identifies each of the remaining fragments:

After careful examination of the new papyri Baer concluded that they are from three separate documents: (1) the Breathing Permit of the priest Hôr, the son of Osorwêr and Tikhebyt; (2) the Book of the Dead of the lady Tshenmîn, daughter of Skhons; and (3) the Book of the Dead of the female musician of Amon-Re Neferirnûb.15 There is evidence of at least two other Egyptian documents. Facsimile No. 2, the original of which has not survived, belonged to Sheshonq. In the "Valuable Discovery" booklet, which has Joseph Smith's signature on the title page, there are transcribed characters from the Egyptian papyrus which belonged to Amenhotep, the son of Hôr, but again the original is not available.16 Certainly the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith possessed from 1835 to 1844 were more numerous than the papyri fragments that have survived.

It seems that everyone else that is not anti-mormon beleives that the surviving docuements were not part of the transation - except Baer. In any case, he thinks the docuements are funerary documents, which most Mormons would very much agree with. They were included to give the deceased reminders of some of the words and signs to show when moving in the afterlife. Not a big stretch for any Mormon.

People also assume that the "Book of the Dead" or "Book of Breathings" (sensen) is the same text for each person it was buried with. it was a highly individualized book in most cases - a good example is the jackal head versus the human head in Facsimilie 1, names and dialogue. Nibley who has had more access to the papyrus than any other person thought that only the "smallest and most insignificant-looking of them is connected ... to the Pearl of Great Price."

I still need to upload my photographs of the papyrus to this article. Perhaps that will help clear up some confusion. Visorstuff 20:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, the table is from Larson, not the Tanners. I'm not sure that it's fair to classify people into Anti-Mormon and Pro-Mormon and accept only the conclusions of one or the other: if we're including points of view, it's fair to cite a source, but it's not quite fair to insert our unattributed characterizations of them. I think Smith's explanations of his translation technique in his Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet make it quite clear that a single glyph would often translate into a full sentence or more of text...glyphs that would be translated by an Eqyptologist today as but a single word. So I don't think it's so much a matter of clearing up any confusion: it's rather a question of presenting all views and attributing them. I don't think anyone maintains that the Books of the Dead are invariant texts, do they? - Nunh-huh 03:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of where you took the table - was curious. At least you are using half-recent research in the area. Although I agree that it is important to include both Non-Mormon and Mormon sources and POV in the article, it is important to see note the accuracy and reliablilty of the research. If it comes from someone that says they are willing to lie, cheat and steal to hurt an organization, it makes the research much less credible.

One fault with Larson's work is his reliance on out of date material, such as the minister in 1912 that said he had a sample of the Book of Abraham text that was translated by an egyptologist. Now that history has vindicated this was impossible, it makes more sense to readers. However, Larson still uses the B.H. Roberts comments about the supposed translation as evidence against the Book of Abraham. Larson should have checked his sources better, both on this and other arguments he made. I can't belive that people still quote from the Fawn Brodie book after all the discredit it has had - evne the most adamant anti-mormons stay away from her work these days, but he still quotes from her work. Don't get me wrong, I think it should be included, but with the caviat that Mormon and Non-Mormon scholars don't always agree with the Anti-Mormon writers on the subject. Clearly, Larson's work is not scholarly, but Anti-Mormon in nature. Intent should be taken into account when referencing a POV source - even if it should be included.

I am curious on your source that says smith said that one glyph could translate into multiple sentences. I haven't seen that in my research on the topic, and if true, would provide some additional insight. Could you provide a source? My research shows that he thought that certain characters were parts of words, letters or sometimes oft-used phrases, but not sentences.

As far as the invariant texts, the argument is often used by critics of the Book of Abraham - while in fact the diffences between texts is actually a support for the vague translations of the Facsimilies. Visorstuff 16:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again as cited in Larson, Smith's Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language describes a method of translation that differentiates by "degrees" of "significance" based in part on the appearance of the character (e.g. superscripted lines), and gives examples of characters translated "in the first degree", "in the second degree", and so on, up the the "fifth degree". An example is "Iota toues-Zip Zi", translated in the first degree as "The land of Egypt"; in the second degree as "The land which was discovered under water by a woman"; in the third degree "The woman sought to settle her sons in that land. She being the daughter of Ham"; in the fourth degree as "The land of Egypt discovered by a woman who afterwards settled her sons in it"; and in the fifth degree as "The land of Egypt which was first discovered by a woman while under water and afterwards settled by her sons, she being a daughter of Ham -- Any land overflown by water -- A land seen when overflown by water -- land overflown by the seasons, land enriched by being overflown -- low marshy ground". This makes its way into the Book of Abraham 1:23,24, "The land of Egypt being that discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt whch signifies that which is forbidden; When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land". This certainly seems like several sentences. Are you saying that Larson has misquoted Smith? - Nunh-huh 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying that research does not support this theory. See http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/mnemonic.htm for a discussion about why those few charactors are not translated "by debrees." In addition, Larson in Chapter eight of his book states that most mormon scholars do not agree with his theory - including the encyclopedia of Mormonism, which is considered by Mormons and Non-Mormons alike vague on many topics such as this. For that volume to disagree with the theory, and actually take a stance when it is full of "we don't know"'s should say something about the reliability of the argument.

I am still not in agreement, in any case of your reading (or Larson's) that one glyph translates into many sentences. All Smith said, was that there was more significance to the charactor when there were additional marks surrounding it - something like an accent mark? Or could it be as other Mormon scholars think, a way to remind the oral traditionist of the rest of the dialogue (incidentally, some of the charactors or words in the columns have relationships to key words in the associated text. One scholar writes in the referenced link above, "Although it is true, as pointed out by the non-member critics, that the English text contains many principal words and ideas not reflected in the Egyptian hieratic symbols, we recognized some months ago certain cases in which the hieratic words are found in the corresponding English text. There was clearly some connection, but its exact nature was not apparent. We theorized that perhaps each set of Egyptian symbols represented merely a "key word" which would bring to mind a certain memorized set of phrases, which was part of a longer oral tradition. Oral tradition was not unknown to the Hebrews. Jewish legend and jurisprudence have it that there was in existence, even from the time of Moses, an oral tradition of the law which was passed on from generation to generation and subsequently codified in the Mishnah. If such an oral tradition can be attributed to Moses it can also be attributed to his ancestor, Abraham." Although I disagree with this theory, I think it is quite different than what you mean by your reference below.

The reality is no one knows what Smith meant by "significance." Research has shown some correlation betweent the charactors and the sentences, but they are still doodles. Larson points to other pages in the grammar book that covey different meaning, but on the same general topic, with the same charactor in the margin. Could it have been that smith was markign similar ideas with the same "doodle?" or mark - similar to what is done in the manuscripts of Psalm 119? Obviously, those hebrew letters don't translate into many versus, but many manuscrips have the letters drawn out in many places aside from just the headings. I still would like a more reliable, contemporary source about the charactors being translated into multiple sentences.

I guess I should not take up more room for this argument here, as it is pointless. My point is not to prove anything to you or any other reader, except that Larson's theory is not a supported enough thought outside anti-Mormon circles - even non-Mormon historians don't subscribe to it in general. If you think this argument is significant enough to put in the text, let's do it, however, please source it as controversial by nature from a known anti-mormon source, and generally not supported by other researchers. -Visorstuff 22:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More on the degree/oral tradition theory

I thought you may like to read the following as well on the theory i think you are trying to refer to:

Our investigation has revealed two major points:

1. Joseph Smith, when transcribing the hieratic words from the papyrus into the 'Alphabet and Grammar,' always dealt with complete morphemes. In no case did he copy a meaningless series of hieratic symbols by breaking a word other than at morpheme boundaries. Thus, for instance, when he transcribed a word composed of five hieratic symbols, he never made the mistake (statistically inevitable for anyone to whom the sign symbols are only a meaningless jumble of lines) of transcribing only three or four of the word's five signs, or of transcribing six or seven by including elements of the preceding or following words.

Of 19 transcribed hieratic words, 16 were carried over by Joseph Smith into his transcription as complete words. The transcription of only three of the words involved breaking them in two, and the breaks were always made at valid morpheme boundaries. In two of these cases, the break was made between root-morphemes and their suffixes and/or ideographic determinatives. In only one case was such a break within an alphabetically written word, and this occurred at such a place that the two word-halves created by the break could be analyzed as two valid semantic elements. This first discovery implies that Joseph Smith's handling of the hieratic symbols was not haphazard: a person with no insight into the meaning of the symbols would have been bound to make a false division

2. In every case the meaning of the hieratic word shows up in some relevant way in the juxtaposed verses from the Book of Abraham, whereas comparison of the hieratic with the preceding or following (rather than juxtaposed) English passages destroys the consistency of the parallels. Likewise, no significant parallels were found when the hieratic was compared in a similar way to other texts, such as the Book of Moses. Thus, the hieratic words seem to have a special relationship to the Book of Abraham and particularly to the verses with which they were connected by Joseph Smith.

In a number of cases, the parallels are further amplified by a relationship not simply of the narrow meaning of the hieratic words, but also of the underlying religious background of the words to the content of the relevant English passages. Furthermore, in the case of numerous hieratic words, homophonous Hebrew words have been found which also have meanings which appear in relevant ways in the associated English verses - a fact which might be expected if the text had been adopted as a memory device by a group of Semitic people for a specific Hebrew secret oral tradition.

This second discovery implies also that the author of the Book of Abraham had a significant insight into the meaning of the hieratic words of the Sen-Sen papyrus, and that the symbols on this papyrus have a definite relationship to the Book of Abraham verse with which Joseph Smith associated them.

From Mnemonic Device of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar & the Book of Abraham (Oct. 25, 1968), by John Tvedtnes.

The page you reference itself agrees that the relationship between symbol and corresponding text is troublesome, because so much text corresponds to a very compact symbol. The page tries to solve that "problem" by suggesting that the correspondance is not one of translation but of mnemonic. To me this makes little sense: if one "maps" onto the other, it's essentially translation. Since this problem seems to be acknowledged by all (I'm assuming you don't think the site you referred to is anti-Mormon) it seems it needs to be mentioned in the article. - Nunh-huh 23:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

to study is to understand? what does this mean?

This paragraph doesn't make sense to me:

To some, these arguments sound like special pleading, but most of those who study the Book of Abraham in detail understand the basis of the arguments.

The paragraph suggests some secret explanation of why these arguments are valid, but it doesn't provide that explanation. Remove the paragraph, or write something which explains why special pleading is not valid here.

I never liked the paragraph either - i think the point was tying to be made that this forum cannot address the complexities of each of the theories. The paragraph has been removed. -Visorstuff 14:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of anti-mormon.

Simply because a work goes against Mormon teaching such as Larson's or Tanner's comments about the gross mistranslations doesn't mean they are 'point of view' and need to be removed. They should be included along with the critism. I understand the desire to remove such things but the fact that Smith translated something without anything to do with the Book of Abraham to be the Book of Abraham seems need including in the article wouldn't you think? Removing everything you deem "anti-mormon" doesn't give it a NPOV it gives it a Mormon point of view. I think it's a rather critical addition. Tat 08:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that non-Mormon and even Anti-Mormon sources should be included in works, providing that they are founded on real research that can be supported or shared as opinions, as are Mormon claims.

You may want to read the dialogue we had on your recent edit that was removed in the above section titled, "Nonsense."

The plain fact of the matter is that the Tanners nor Gee nor any other researcher knows if Smith tried to do a one-to-one translation of the work, or if there were other alternatives for translation. Many in the Mormonism community (both pro and anti) are split on this subject.

I understand Larson's work on the supposed "water" translation you cited, however, was that truly part of of the text Smith used? If so, I'd love to see the *primary* document citing this, other than doodles in the margin of text, similar to how the manuscripts of 119 Psalm are written. I've done quite a bit of research in this area, and I haven't seen support, and doubt there is more info on it. Larsons "water" translation is pure conjecture and cannot be supported by any other evidence, research or otherwise. He gets that by what he thinks is Smith's correct guesses of paragraphs and charactors surrounding the supposed translation. I am working on an article about the Hypocephalus that hopefully will help clear this folklore theory up and provide an open and objective view into BoA translations. In academia, peer review does not equate to Larson's work - just because some anti-Mormons jump on the bandwagon and re-publish it, doesn't mean that it can be supported.

In fact, if you look at the Tanner's more conservative views (than the Larsons claims) on the translation, they point out that it is their assessment that Smith didn't do a one-to-one translation, which some other anti-mormons and mormon apologists agree with. It is also interesting that the Tanners although they use and quote from portions of larson's work, they don't support all of its conclusions. It is too problematic and unsupported by primary research. Rather they use Nibley's, Gee's, BYU Studies, FARMS and other Mormon scholars research as accurate and they point to the problems with the conclusions in Mormon research. Rarely do they accept Larsons or others research on the matter as accurate or authoritative. Why? Again, it is because it is too problematic and unsupported by primary research. -Visorstuff 19:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That should be included and commented on in a critic section of the work. It apparently come up enough to warrent an explanation and rebuttle. Also alteration of the Hypocephalus to include divinely inspired replacements where the old ones were written in. Divinely inspired, and written in upside-down. If you run a google search for Book of Abraham you'll get pages upon pages of links. Include the critics and include the apologetics. Tat 11:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

De-accessioned papyri from the Metropolitan Museum of Art?

"However, some portions of them were rediscovered in 1967 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City and presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which made them available for study by scholars." The fact is, the process of de-accessioning material at the Met is very carefully organized and scrutinized by trustee committees. No material could have been "given" to the Mormons, or even sold in a private sale. This tale was added to the "discovered in the Metropolitan Museum" element, 23:30, 9 Jun 2004 by User:COGDEN. This is a error, to be tactful about it. --Wetman 07:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While this may typically be the case, in 1967, the Museum presented the papyri as a gift to the LDS Church (mediated by a Dr. Aziz S. Atiya from the University of Utah and others) - pretty decent-sized media affair - was in national headlines, including, if I remember right, the New York Times. The papyri was discoverd in 1966 by a Aziz, and after it was given to the Church, on of my immediate family members was involved in the initial study, anaysis and photography of the specimin. If you'd like we can dig up old newspaper articles about this, but it is not an error. My additional question is: does this address your issue properly (even though it fits outside the norm)? Is this what you think was the error? or do you dispute that the documents were "discovered" in the Met? The statment factually accurate as COGDEN wrote it.

See the UofU's history of the event in this catalogue entry about boxes in the Aziz collection [1] (http://www.lib.utah.edu/middleeast/atiyapapers/):

The material in boxes 40 and 41, dating from 1959 to 1972, was donated in 1976 and 1991 and includes materials relating primarily to the Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri and Atiya’s role in making them public. While searching for Coptic and Arabic papyri in the Metropolitan Museum of Art storeroom in New York City, Atiya discovered the Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri, significant because they are the original documents used for research to write Facsimile No. 1 of the Book of Abraham, a scripture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. Since the Egyptian language could not be read in the 1830s and 1840s when the papyri were supposedly translated, this discovery provided the first chance to check Joseph Smith’s ability to translate the Egyptian papyri. Atiya functioned as the mediator between the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the First Presidency of the LDS Church. These boxes contain a transcribed interview of Atiya by Everett L. Cooley and Marian sheets; correspondence; photocopied material regarding the Book of Abraham; a paper on Atiya’s Mount Sinai expedition; a biography of Dr. Libib Habuchi, a noted Nubian scholar; copies of the issue of the Improvement Era that features Joseph Smith and the papyri in English and other languages; programs from Atiya’s lectures and displays, and Dr. Philip B. Price’s “Ethiopian Journal,” recording his journey to Ethiopia.

Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 16:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! The complete story should be in the Wikipedia article! --Wetman 21:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abraham's name on the papyri?

I wanted to discuss the editing comment made by Visorstuff that the name Abraham is accepted as being found on the Egyptian papyri. I've never heard this before, and I wanted to verify it. I was aware that somebody found a lion altar scene similar to Facsimile 1 that contained the name Abraham. Is this what you are referring to? COGDEN 18:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies in my haste to edit. There are other known samples of texts with the Lion couch scene - both include the name Abraham on them or "I, Abraham" - the quote is "Abraham who upon..." and the remainder is missing in the one, but the other alludes to "the couch." See Janet H. Johnson, “The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden (1975).” The corresponding portion in the Smith papyrus is destroyed. Interesting coincidence if you believe God wants us to know by faith that the Book of Abraham is true. -Visorstuff 23:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The distinguished scholar Janet H. Johnson (http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/nelc/facultypages/johnson/), Professor of Near Eastern Languages at the University of Chicago, was author of an article on a papyrus at Leiden, accessioned as "Leiden I 384". In her article "The Demotic Magical Spells of Leiden I 384," published in the series Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden volume 56 (1975), pp 29-64. Prof. Johnson most certainly did not find "Abraham" anywhere in the Egyptian papyri she described. --Wetman 00:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction to my citation - I left off the I 384 and series name by mistake. Look at column XIII line 6 - beneath the drawing are the greek words Abraham who upon..." and again in column VIII line 16 we find the name again. Nevertheless you can fine it here as well: Griffith and Thompson, Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden, col. VIII line 8. There are additional references as well, but these third century ones will suffice for this article. One thing is for sure - that is egyptians were facinated with cows/bulls, abraham and stars, among other things. -Visorstuff 02:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

F. L. Griffith and Herbert Thompson, The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden (1904) was reprinted by Dover, as The Leyden Papyrus, 1974. In its 1904 preface the editors noted "The influence of purely Greek mythology also is here by comparison very slight—hardly greater than that of the Alexandrian Judaism which has supplied a number of names of Hellenistic form to the demotic magician." Indeed, in the on-line excerpts at SacredTexts.com (http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/dmp/), the translation of col. VIII.8 reads "(8) inquire here to-day. Come in Piatoou, Khitore; ho! Shop, Shope, Shop, Abraham, the apple (?) of the Eye of the Uzat," 1. The papyrus itself has nothing to do with either historical Abraham nor Abraham of Genesis save the conjuring use of the name. 2. The represented "translation" of the Book of Abraham does not translate this papyrus. Are not those are the two facts behind all the mystification? --Wetman 21:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point #2. Can you explain in more detail before I respond? All that was said is that a simlar text is found in the surviving "book of abraham" papyrus the LDS Church owns. Most of what smith had was destroyed. The quote is in a section about apologetic responses - and is relative to their study. Of course the two translations wouldn't match up as they are not the same documents, and Smith claimed to recieve the Book of Abraham by revelation. And of course apologists look for any parallel/similarity. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you are trying to say - can you clarify? Incidentally, Uzat means healer, messiah, medicine/miracle worker/doctor, savior, right? Interesting Hellenistic-Christian-Judaic parallel. Look forward to your response. -Visorstuff 23:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi from Tom Haws

Hi. I'm new here. Hope I didn't just step into a minefield. Tom Haws 20:06, May 5, 2005 (UTC)