There are 7 thoughts on “Book of Abraham Polemics: Dan Vogel’s Broad Critique of the Defense of the Book of Abraham”.

  1. Great work Jeff, as always! Thanks so much for all that you do. There is clear evidence that Vogel, Ritner, etc. have built on outdated assumptions. Your work has helped Book of Abraham research move forward in new ways.

  2. Thank you for this timely and needed review. Vogel has every right to take a position regarding the origins of the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith. What he doesn’t have a right to do is mislead (intentional or not) regarding that effort. It is unfortunate that editors in the Joseph Smith papers project working on matters related to the Book of Abraham have been so apparently taken in by one who cannot even accurately describe his efforts to the reading public regarding the subject. Dispassionate indeed.

  3. I found an interestinig viewpoint on the site of Royal Skousen on the value of Smith’s interpretation of the facsmilies.
    The Book of Abraham was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, who later (mistakenly thinking it was a
    translation from the papyri he had in his possession) tried to connect the revealed text to the papyri by
    inserting two sentences, verse 12c and verse 14, into Abraham 1. The secondary nature of these two
    inserted sentences can be directly observed in the photos of folios 1a and 1b in the document identified
    as Ab2. Verse 12c is totally inserted intralinearly, not partially (as incorrectly represented in the
    accompanying transcription – and without comment). Verse 14 is not written on the page as are other
    portions of this part of the text (instead, it is written flush to the left), which implies that it is a comment
    on the papyri and that it was added to the revealed text. Overall, these results imply that all the
    facsimiles from the papyri (1-3 in the published Pearl of Great Price) should be considered
    extracanonical and additions to the revealed text of the Book of Abraham, not integral parts of the
    original text of the book.” page 39

    • Skousen’s view is interesting, but this peripheral comment on his website can be debated. He refers to Book of Abraham Manuscript A, p. 1, where “I will refer you to the the representation at the commencement of this record” in crammed as two short lines in one half-page width line of space, but it follows wording that suggests something of this nature is expected: “and that you might have a knowledge of this alter”. Manuscript B does not have this, but has “I will refer you to the representation” occurring in line, not as an addition. A stricken out error also immediately follows. The nature of these two manuscripts does not require the phrasing to be a late addition. It could be scribal errors in working with an existing manuscript, but there could also have been changes made in the process similar to what Skousen proposes.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged. Individual authors are given the option to disallow commenting or end commenting after a certain period at their discretion.

Close this window

Top of Page

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This