Non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists' Support for the Book of Abraham

Home > Book of Abraham Sandbox > Other Pages on the Book of Abraham > Non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists' Support for the Book of Abraham

Non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists' Support for the Book of Abraham

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Summary: Many ask whether non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists support any aspect of the Book of Abraham and, if not, why not.

---

Support

It may come as no shock to readers that those non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not convinced that the Book of Abraham represents an authentic translation of an ancient text written by the prophet Abraham.

Many might ask, "Why is there no support from these non-Latter-day Saint experts? Wouldn't they convert to the Church if they performed an honest investigation of the Book of Abraham and came to the conclusion that it was authentic?" The short answer is no. The long answer is the subject of this article.

Bias

We all have biases. One of the most fundamental biases that humans exhibit is known as confirmation bias, which is the psychological tendency to seek, interpret, and recall information in a manner that confirms our existing beliefs. Everyone has this bias.

Latter-day Saint Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein candidly discussed these biases at the 2014 FAIR Conference.

There are many people in the world who are certain that that is not a valid source of knowledge. And beginning with that assumption then anything having to do with the restoration and Joseph Smith as a prophet has to be discarded. They have to ignore any evidence that would support that and I’ve seen this happen. I’ve seen people who are critical of Joseph Smith when something comes up that kind of supports something he had translated through inspiration; I’ve seen emails where they say, “Well, that can’t be true. He couldn’t have actually known that” even though it seems that he knew it. That’s their attempt to explain things away because it doesn’t fit in with their beginning assumption. So I’d like to be clear about my beginning assumption. I believe revelation is a valid source of knowledge. We should pursue things with our mind, but we should also pursue it with the part of our mind that listens to the Holy Ghost. And so I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon and anything else that we get from the restored gospel is true, therefore, any evidence I find I will try and fit into that paradigm. I don’t feel that I need to defend that paradigm, I feel that I want to understand the evidence that I find within that paradigm because to me it’s a given that it’s true. There are others who will assume that it’s not true and on these points we’ll just have to agree to disagree, but we will understand one another better when we understand how our beginning assumptions color the way we filter all of the evidence that we find. To that point we’ll return a few times as we go throughout these ideas about the Book of Abraham, but I’d just like to emphasize that to me, epistemologically, meaning our method of learning, includes revelation. I thinks that’s valid and we cannot give up that point as many people do.

Dr. Muhlestein has been mocked online for these comments, but they reveal something important about everyone who comes to the discussion about the Book of Abraham: they all have biases. Indeed, almost everyone who is actually interested in the Book of Abraham is interested in it because of deeper questions about the truthfulness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They all have a stake in the outcome of the debate over the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.

Some might think that non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists would not have biases against Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That could not be further from the truth.

Take, for example, the late Robert K. Ritner. Ritner, a professor at the University of Chicago, was the foremost critic of the Book of Abraham before his tragic death from illness in 2021. Ritner was an atheist and a member of the LGBT community. He also had a long-standing personal rivalry with Dr. John Gee of Brigham Young University. Is it at all possible that he would have biases that would not allow him to open his heart to a Church that supports a conservative sexual ethic? If it seems unfair to ask that question, consider how it feels when that kind of question is constantly asked about Latter-day Saint Egyptologists when they genuinely believe in the Book of Abraham's truthfulness.

It is more honest to acknowledge that we all have biases. The best we can do is be aware of our biases and do our best to temper them. It is neither intellectually sound nor honest to suggest that someone's religious affiliation should disqualify them from having a respectable opinion about the Book of Abraham or other beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Latter-day Saints Cite the Non-Latter-day Saints for Support

However, there is more that we can say about non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologist support for the Book of Abraham.

Many of the points that faithful scholars might raise to support the Book of Abraham's authenticity come from the work of non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists. Thus, if one is truly worried about a Latter-day Saint's interpretation of evidence, perhaps they can be comforted knowing that there are Egyptologists who are wholly unaware of the debate over the Book of Abraham but whose findings lend support to the Book.

Take, for example, Joseph Smith's explanation of Facsimile 2, Figure 6. Joseph Smith said that the four sons of Horus represented the earth in its four quarters. Non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge, without knowledge of the debate over the Book of Abraham, wrote:

The four children of Horus played a very important role in the funeral works of the early dynasties; they originally represented the four supports of heaven, but very soon each was regarded as the god of one of the four quarters of the earth, and also of that quarter of the heavens which was above it.

These kinds of statements can be found frequently when researching the relevant literature.

Some Non-Latter-day Saints Have Made Comments that Implicitly Support the Book of Abraham

It should be noted that some non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists have made statements that implicitly support various aspects of the Book of Abraham's authenticity. Returning to Dr. Ritner, we can survey many of his written statements about the Book of Abraham and glean some fruit:

• Regarding human sacrifice in ancient Egypt, in line with the Book of Abraham's claims that Egyptians attempted to take the life of Abraham, Ritner wrote that there is "indisputable evidence for the practice of human sacrifice in classical ancient Egypt." Ritner did a 180 on this statement in a 2014 response to the Church's Gospel Topics Essay on the Book of Abraham, saying that there was a distinction to be made between capital punishment and human sacrifice. Acccording to Ritner, Egyptians practiced the former and not the latter. However, along with pointing out Ritner's hypocrisy, Latter-day Saint scholars have responded that those two categories were often overlapping to Egyptians. One could sacrifice a human to the gods as punishment for their crimes whether religious or social.
• Joseph Smith explained the Fasimile 1, Figure 3 is a "priest of the idolatrous god Elkenah." Many believe that that figure, when properly reconstructed from the original facsimile, is actually Anubis. Ritner wrote the following: "Priestly impersonators of Anubis regularly appear in funerary ceremonies."
• Here's a statement from Ritner inveighing directly on the Book of Abraham: "Smith's statement that Amon (Fig 7.) is 'God sitting upon his throne' was an easy guess." Direct quote!
• Regarding Fasimile 2, Figure 4: "[Hugh] Nibley sought to defend Joseph Smith's 'explanation' of this figure by reference to the solar boat. . .as being 'a ship of 1000 cubits' and thus 'a numeral figure, in Egyptian signifying a thousand.' Neither barque, however, is used in Egyptian texts as a 'numeral figure' and the more common designation of the solar boat is in fact 'the barque of millions'--not 1000. As elsewhere, Nibley did not evaluate Smith's statements objectively; but sought out any possible defense, no matter how farfetched." So the number 1000 was still among the designations given to the solar boat? How does this not constitute implicit support for Joseph Smith's explanation of Facsimile 2, Figure 4?
• Regarding Facsimile 2, Figure 6: "In keeping with Smith's interpretation of the hypocephalus as an astronomical document, he explains the four sons of Horus (Fig. 6) as simply 'the earth in its four quarters.' While any group of four can have directional relevance, that is hardly the pivotal significance of these protectors of the embalmed viscera (lungs, liver, stomach, and intestines)."

These statements do not falsify the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. They implicitly support various aspects of its authenticity.

The Genetic Fallacy

But, at the end of the day, those that would dismiss the work and arguments of Latter-day Saint Egyptologists because of their religious affiliation are committing the Genetic Fallacy.

Notes

BACK TO TOP