A Documentary Analysis of the Book of Abraham

A DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF ABRAHAMby

©Robert F. Smith2007 draft

first draft July 1971third draft July 1976

Julius Wellhausen, the father of documentary analysis, was born in 1844 – the year ofJoseph Smith’s assassination. If he knew anything at all about Mormons, it would undoubtedlyhave been through the lectures and writings of his contemporary, Eduard Meyer. He might haveagreed with Meyer’s assessment of the Mormon phenomenon, i.e., that, while Mormonismrepresented a very interesting, even authentically biblical character, the Old Testament heroesthemselves were really the stuff of myth, fairy tale, and legend. It is intriguing to imagine the1

reaction of Wellhausen to the Mormon Canon of Scripture and to the possible application of hismethods of source analysis thereto. Latter-day Saints have generally shied from such analysis(notably at BYU early in the 20 century), though, squarely facing the problem, B. H. Robertsth

expressed unmitigated confidence in the strength and resilience of his Church’s Scripture. And,2

more recently, John L. Sorenson showed that application of the Documentary Hypothesis to theBook of Mormon can be very productive and coherent.3

Indeed, documentary analysis is regularly applied by scholars to the widest possible rangeof literature. Take, for example, “the longest and greatest literary composition written incuneiform Akkadian,” the Gilgamesh Epic, which, as Stephanie Dalley tells us, provides

the unique opportunity . . . for tracing earlier, independent folk-tales which werecombined in the creation of the whole work, and we can see how the whole workin written form never became fossilized, but was constantly altered throughcontact with a continuing oral narrative tradition.

Meyer, Ursprung und Geschichte der Mormonen (M. Niemeyer, 1912), reviewed by H. Nibley,1

The World and the Prophets (Deseret, 1962), 18-22 = The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, III (FARMS/Deseret Book, 1987), 21-25.

Roberts insisted that the Book of Mormon “submit to every analysis and examination,” e.g.,2

specifically to archaeological and historical tests, as well as to the higher and lower criticism – commentsmade in the Logan Tabernacle, April 2, 1911, as reported by F. E. Barker in Improvement Era, 14 (June1911); and Roberts, “Higher Criticism and the Book of Mormon,” Imp. Era, 14 (July 1911), 781.

Sorenson, “Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship,” Dialogue, 10/4 (Autumn 1977), 31-39 =3

Nephite Culture and Society: Collected Papers (SLC: New Sage Books, 1997), 25-39.

1

2 DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS

In addition, “each period and area had its own version of the story, . . .”4

Following a short review of the legacy of Wellhausen & Co., I briefly examine herein thecurrent theories surrounding formation and transmission of pentateuchal tradition – oral as wellas written – particularly the Primeval History and Patriarchal Narrative sections of Genesisdealing with Abraham. The composite nature of the LDS Book of Abraham itself is then laid outand possible modes of transmission for it suggested in light of Frank Moore Cross’ more recentexposition of the New Documentary Hypothesis. Finally, the Yahwist (J) and Priestly (P)character of the Book of Abraham is detailed in both analytic and synthetic approaches. Atechnical excursus on the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri is attached at the close.

Graf-Wellhausen

Despite the brilliant and intuitive studies by J. Astruc, H. Hupfeld, and others, when5

Wellhausen came on the scene, documentary analysis was yet in its infancy. Wellhausenpossessed a fine analytical mind, a knowledge of biblical Hebrew (as well as of Arabic languageand history), an acceptance of K. H. Graf’s late dating for Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and a6

firm belief in Hegelian historical evolution (dialectic) and apriorism.7

During the last quarter of the 19 century, Wellhausen demonstrated, in a most rigorousth

and convincing manner, the apparent soundness of what has come to be known as the “Graf-Wellhausen” source theory for the Pentateuch – though the method has been extended to the

Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 39, where Dalley mistakenly assumes that “a4

master version with variants” can be reconstructed and edited for ancient Hebrew and Classical texts. Ifanything, the Mormon Canon demonstrates the impossibility of such a task, i.e., “to produce one coherentedition.” As Ephraim Speiser said of Genesis 1, “it can be established that (1) the material was importedfor the most part, and (2) that the ultimate source of the borrowings and adaptations can be traced to asingle land,” i.e., Mesopotamia (Speiser, Genesis, LIV).

See the summary by R. de Vaux, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, trans. D. McHugh (N.Y.,5

1971), 31-48 – reprinted from VTS, I (1953), 182-198.

Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des alten Testaments (Leipzig, 1866).6

His Hegelianism he inherited from Vatke; Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel,7

trans. Menzies & Black (Edinburgh, 1885/N.Y., 1957), 245, and passim. Marx followed the samecurrents in Hegel and achieved a similar distortion of history. As pointed out to me by Louis Midgleyover 40 years ago, Hegel’s dialectical process or doctrine of progress was well refuted in 1834 by JosephSmith Jr. – B. H. Roberts, ed., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2 ed.nd

(Deseret, 1960), II:5-15; cf. W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), 1(n. 3), 265; F. M. Cross, Jr., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Harvard, 1973), vi, 3, 82-83; HustonSmith, Forgotten Truth: The Primordial Tradition (Harper & Row, 1976), chapter 6; despite theexuberance expressed in Dialogue, IX/1 (Spring 1974), 34-41, the canons of Brodie’s “New MormonHistory” are basically Hegelian and a priori.

SMITH’S BOOK OF ABRAHAM COMMENTARY 3

remainder of the Old Testament. The theory, actually the result of the work of a host of earlyscholars, generally held that the Pentateuch represented a post-Exilic redaction or edition ofseveral separate and distinct literary works (documents), the origins of which were thenconsidered to be as follows:

1. The J document, characterized by certain unique aspects of style and vocabulary – includingthe preeminence of the name “Jehovah” (Yahweh) – composed ca. 850 B.C.;2. The E document, characterized by very different but equally unique aspects as well as by thename “Elohim,” composed ca. 750 B.C., and combined with J by an editor ca. 650 B.C.;3. The D document, or Deuteronomic Code, originating ca. 621 B.C. (presumably at the behestof King Josiah), and added to JE ca. 550 B.C.;4. Finally, the P, or Priestly Code (ca. 500-450 B.C.) was added ca. 400 B.C., when the finalunvocalized (unpointed) redaction was made (R). 8

This theory, while not unopposed, was soon backed by a strong consensus, althoughnumerous scholars practically made a mockery of it through an endless series of ever moreminute divisions of the basic documents (as was to be done to Isaiah). These intemperacies, aswell as the late dating systems, may now be disregarded. For, with the belated popularity ofGunkel, the advent of form-criticism, and the discovery and translation of textual matter ante-9

dating the Israelite period, it became clear that the late dating, for all but D, could only beanachronistic – particularly for the patriarchal narratives. The evidence has also led to the10

conclusion that history is “oscillatory” and “unpredictable” rather than linear and progressive. 11

Successive redactions (editions and revisions) of biblical material have left relatively untouchedvast sections of archaic narrative, law, and poetry. An extended discussion would be required

R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (Harper & Row, 1948), 139-140; the Tiberian8

or Massoretic vowel pointing system dates from the 8 and 9 centuries A.D.th th

H. Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis: Biblical Saga and History, trans. W. H. Carruth, and9

Foreword by W. F. Albright (N.Y., 1964); from the 2 German edition (Göttingen, 1901).nd

J. Bright, A History of Israel, 2 ed. (Phila.: Westminster, 1972), 69-70; Wellhausen’s10 nd

subjective, Hegelian conclusions are now rejected by responsible scholars; particularly absurd was hisassumption that the Psalms were completely post-Exilic; today we know that the poetic sections areamong the most archaic in the Bible, as in any literature (Albright, YGC, 1-4); the texts from Ugarit andEbla not only reinforce the early dating, but raise their horizon considerably.

R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 1969), 406, n. 48, citing11

Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 107-108,204, n. 37; cf. K. Kenyon, Archaeology of theHoly Land, 3 ed. (1970), 52; C. P. Delougaz, “Concluding Remarks,” in Delougaz, Hill, and Lloyd,rd

Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region, OIP 88 (Univ. of Chicago, 1967), 275; A. A. Barb,“Mystery, Myth, and Magic,” in J. R. Harris, ed., The Legacy of Egypt, 2 ed. (Oxford, 1971), 159; E.nd

Fisher in Judaism, 22 (Winter 1973), 21-22; R. A. Nisbet, Social Change and History: Aspects of theWestern Theory of Development (Oxford, 1969); see also n. 5, above.


here to cover the problem in detail. Suffice to point out that the basic Documentary Hypothesis12

is yet operational as a starting point in any serious biblical analysis. Hence, it is necessary tosurvey the LDS Book of Abraham by the “objective” criteria of Graf-Wellhausen, assubsequently modified by the scholars who have successfully employed such criteria.

Tradition

Most biblical scholars recognize that a great deal of ancient literature was handed downorally and that, where written tradition existed, it did not replace, but acted as a control on oraltradition. There has been disagreement as to the relative import of each mode of transmission13

and on the lengths of time involved. However, an impressive list of scholars support a very14

long oral transmission period for the Genesis sagas or “patriarchal narratives” (originating ca.2400-1500 B.C.): Noth, Speiser, Bright, Freedman, Nyberg, Birkeland, Engnell, Gunkel, and15 16 17

Albright, among others. Speiser referred to this “traditional” oral corpus as T, the “common18

base” postulated by Noth as G (Grundlage), from which the later written versions were quitefaithfully culled. But how may T, J, E, D, and P relate to the Book of Abraham? Or to each19

other?

The traditional narrative portions of the Pentateuch framed or redacted by the hand of Pare certainly as old as those in J, and both should probably be seen as older epic traditions20

See the excellent summary by C. R. North, “Pentateuchal Criticism,” in H. H. Rowley, ed., The12

Old Testament in Modern Study (Oxford, 1951), 48-83; but cf. C. H. Gordon, “Higher Critics andForbidden Fruit,” Christianity Today, 4 (1959), 131-134.

J. Bright, A History of Israel, 2 ed., 71, citing Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity,13 nd

64-81.

R. Harrison, IOT, 65-69,163.14

E. A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964), XXXVIII.15

Bright, A History of Israel, 2 ed., 71-75.16 nd

Harrison, IOT, 36,66-69,163, citing G. E. Wright, ed., Bible and the Ancient Near East (N.Y.,17

1961), 204.

Albright, YGC, 79-85.18

Speiser, Genesis, XXXVIII-XL, XLV; despite divergence in the order of events and details of19

parallel accounts (recensions), Bright, AHI, 2 ed., 72.nd

H. F. Hahn, The Old Testament in Modern Research, 2 ed. (Fortress, 1966), 30, citing Sellin20 nd

and Welch; G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed., trans. J. Marks (Phila.: Westminster, 1973),25; from 9 German ed. (1972).th


assuming normative form – apparent in our written tradition (ca. 10 century B.C.) – during theth

periods of Moses and the Judges. It is with the rise of the Israelite monarchy that a professional21

scribal class comes to the fore and that a true historiography appears in the Bible. Prior to thattime the forms of transmission employed, though foreign to modern history-writing, were themost appropriate and dependable under the then prevailing circumstances. All of this is well in22

line with what the Tradition-historical (Traditiongeschichtliche) school has been urging for overa generation.

Thus, when R. Pfeiffer sees P as written composition and J as oral tradition, he may be23

correct, but when he insists that J’s story of Abraham in Egypt is mere “invention,” and when24

he refers to Genesis 2:4b-25 as composed from two S documents (“South” or “Seir”), it is25

interesting, though hypercritical and unjustified. In some cases, we may have to drop standarddocumentary distinctions, i.e., when some pentateuchal sections are divided by most critics, yetseem to be poetic units, Pfeiffer suggests that they might be older than the basic documents. 26

The “Priestly” character of Genesis 1 has even been called into serious question, though there is27

a suggestion that parts of it are far more ancient than commonly supposed. As Cross sees it, “P28

was directly dependent on Epic tradition,” and “there can be little doubt that the Priestly editor29

Cross, CMHE, ix, 167, 293-295, 301, 306, 324; Speiser, Genesis, XXXVII-XXXVIII.21

Bright, AHI, 2 ed., 71; A. S. Yahuda, The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to22 nd

Egyptian, I (Oxford, 1933), 48-49, agreed in substance on the basis of the pentateuchal nonspecificity inPharaonic name use; during and after the Solomonic period, however, both Egyptian and biblicalliterature specify the Pharaoh by name.

R. Pfeiffer, IOT, 203; cf. R. E. Bee, VT, 23:266, 270-271; Journal of the Royal Statistical23

Society, series A, 134:611-622; 135:406-421.

Pfeiffer, IOT, 171.24

Pfeiffer, IOT, 159-160.25

Pfeiffer, IOT, 273, observing that, when Gen 27:27-29 (Isaac’s blessing of Jacob) is divided by26

most critics, yet seems to be a poetic unit, it may simply be older than either J or E.

L. R. Fisher, “An Ugaritic Ritual and Genesis I, 1-5,” Ugaritica, VI (Paris, 1969), 203-205,27

hinting that Genesis 1 may originally have been of a liturgical or cultic Gattung; cf. S. E. Loewenstamm,“The Seven Day-Unit in Ugaritic Epic Literature,” IEJ, 15 (1965), 121ff.; Gordon, UT, §17.6, p. 294; G.M. Landes in H. D. Bream, et al., eds., A Light unto My Path (1974), 289 n. 30.

L. R. Fisher, “Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament,” VT, 15 (1965); A. R. Millard, “A28

New Babylonian ‘Genesis’ Story,” Tyndale Bulletin, 18 (1967), 3-18; C. F. Whitley, “The Pattern ofCreation in Genesis, Chap. 1,” JNES, 17 (1958), 32-40; cf. R. E. Simoons-Vermeer, “The MesopotamianFloodstories: A Comparison and Interpretation,” Numen, 21 (April 1974), 17-34.

Cross, CMHE, 295.29


drew on poetic sources in composing Genesis 1,” i.e., catachetical (iterative) poetry. It is quite30

likely, therefore, that we are dealing in Genesis 1 with ancient liturgy on a par with the Assyro-Babylonian Epic of Creation, commonly called Enûma eliš – which was the centerpiece of thespringtime New Year Festival in Babylon – which has systematic parallels with Genesis 1.31 32

Poetry is more easily memorized than prose, and memorization is inseparable from oraltradition. A major concern for us, then, must be for identifying the cast and character of theoriginal sagas, and for assessing relative value or efficacy toward memorization. Everyoneadmits that poetry is better than prose for oral transmission accuracy, i.e., poetry in the broadsense. Some see the original as metrical, while C. Pfeiffer said that “Semites did not consider33 34

rhyme or meter essential to poetic expression. Instead they used the phenomenon ofparallelism.” This emphasis on parallelism is true of most of ancient Near Eastern literature,35

and it is certainly true of the Book of Abraham with its chiastic, direct parallel, refrain, and key-word structure. Indeed, M. Dahood saw parallelism as an argument in favor of unity ofauthorship. In the biblical version of the Abraham story, moreover, the important chiastic36

reference points of the LDS Book of Abraham are all but absent. The biblical version is alsomuch shorter (in direct textual correlation), which is just what one usually expects from a lateredition – or later stage in the oral transmission. Furthermore, as pointed out by George37

Cross, CMHE, 167 (n. 87), 301 (n. 32), citing John Kselman, “The Poetic Background of30

Certain Priestly Traditions,” doctoral dissertation (Harvard, 1971).

S. Dalley, Myths of Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, 231-232.31

Speiser, Genesis, LIV, not only is there “a demonstrable relationship with abundant cuneiform32

sources,” but there is “a far-reaching correspondence in detail with the Babylonian account of Creation aspresented in Enûma eliš” (cf. his comments on pp. 8-13, citing esp. A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis).

Bright, AHI, 2 ed., 71.33 nd

Bright, AHI, 2 ed., 73, n. 13; R. C. Culley, “Metrical Analysis of Classical Hebrew Poetry,”34 nd

in J. Wevers and D. Redford, eds., Essays on the Ancient Semitic World (Univ. of Toronto, 1970), 12-28;results are not yet conclusive.

C. F. Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible (Baker, 1962), 64; cf. Albright, YGC, 31; M. A.35

Murray, Egyptian Religious Poetry (London, 1949), 50; M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I (U.C. Press, 1973), 11-12.

M. Dahood, Psalms, III, Anchor Bible 17A (Doubleday, 1970), 276,336; cf. R. E. Brown,36

Gospel According to John, 2 vols., Anchor Bible 29A (Doubleday, 1970), II:725.

The tendency was to lose material – P. W. Skehan, “The Scrolls and the Old Testament Text,”37

in D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield, eds., New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Doubleday,1969), 92-93, though he also cites “expansionist” exceptions which prove the rule; W. J. Adams makesthe same point in J. A. Tvedtnes’ “Internal Evidences for an Abrahamic Oral Tradition,” Book of


Reynolds in 1879, the dischronologized and disjointed structure of the Book of Abraham is alsoan argument in favor of its authenticity.38

Composition

Thus, the original story, as conceived by Abraham himself, may have been composed inEgyptian in verse form “to be sung or to be chanted to the accompaniment of musicalinstruments,” and with an already familiar melody in mind – although its possible connection39

with the text of Papyrus Joseph Smith XI, i (post-600 B.C.), makes it possible that we are dealingwith a late (sectarian) redaction of Abraham’s story. There should be nothing surprising orupsetting in this. Nor does it invalidate the superscription to the book. After all, the Bible andthe Book of Mormon have long been taken to be the work of later editors or tradents, and to befaithful representations of the intentions of supposed original composers or groups. As James R.Clark has pointed out, there was a good deal of talk during the last century about the actualtransmission of, and additions to the Abrahamic papyri by Joseph, Moses, Aaron, and others. 40

Abraham himself used the records of predecessors and contemporaries (Abraham 1:12, 14, 28,31). Excerpts from such separate records may be discerned and described as follows:41

I. Abraham 1:21-27II. Abraham Facsimiles 1 & 3III. Abraham Facsimile 2IV. Abraham 3 - 5

I. Abraham 1:21-27 treats of the matriarchal origin and genealogy of the first dynastic house ofa united Egypt – the blessings and curses borne by that house. The matriarch herself, Egyptus (orZeptah in some MSS), not only bears in her name the correct association and pedigree among

. .the gods and partriarchs of the ancient world as daughter(-in-law) of Noah-Ptah, but also fits theremarkably similar 2 century B.C. story of the Babylonian or Jewish sibyl named Sambçthçnd

Abraham Symposium, April 3, 1970 (Salt Lake LDS Institute of Religion, 1971), 45-46, citing JCS, 5(1951), 1-17, on the condensed Akkadian version of the Sumerian “Descent of Inanna.”

Reynolds, The Book of Abraham (Deseret, 1879), 48-49; cf. W. J. Martin, “‘Dischronologized’38

Narrative in the Old Testament,” VTS, 17 (1969), 179-186, with examples from the Bible, Sinuhe,Thutmosis III (Gebel Barkal), Annals of Sennacherib, etc.; cf. also J. C. Exum, ZAW, 85 (1973), 57.

Albright, “Impact of Archeology in Biblical Research,” in Freedman & Greenfield, eds., New39

Directions of Biblical Archeology, 12; see also A. Sendrey, Music in Ancient Israel (London, 1969), 160,on the singing of poetry in the preliterate stage, citing R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, 272.

Clark, The Story of the Pearl of Great Price (Bookcraft, 1955), 111, 113-114, 137-138, 165.40

Clark, Story of the Pearl of Great Price, 114, 235-236.41


(Sambathis, Sabbe), a daughter-in-law of Noah, who travels to Egypt after the great Deluge. 42

This fits very well both the apocalyptic nature of the Book of Abraham (the sibyl is a prophetess),as well as Marvin Pope’s and William F. Albright’s identification of this basic complex ofmother-goddesses with the conflate Atargatis-Cybele (sister-wife of Attis-Adonis-Apollo). 43

These verses are inserted into the midst of a first chapter which appears to be a composition byAbraham himself, separate from the remainder of the book and not attested biblically. Chaptertwo is likewise separate in nature, though attested biblically in large part.

II. Facsimiles 1 & 3 – Described at Abraham 1:12,14, the vignette originally employed byAbraham as Facsimile 1 was probably hieroglyphic in nature, though it need not have been themuch later Papyrus Joseph Smith I (part of the same papyrus on which Facsimile 3 appeared), acopy of which is used in the current Book of Abraham. Moreover, it need not have been an44

Egyptian vignette. Note, for example, that a putative Aramaic (Chaldean) term is used todescribe it, and that

Sibyline Oracles, III:809,823-827 (R. H. Charles, Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha of the Old42

Testament, II:392-393; J. H. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I:380), from the oldest andmost certainly Jewish section of OrSib (Encyclopaedia Judaica, 14:1490); Alexander Polyhistor of the 1st

century B.C., quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, IX, 17, 30-34, 39; cf. Pausanias, Graec., X,12, 9; Pseudo-Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Graecos, 37:3, 7; Aelian, Varia Hist., XII, 35; Pliny, HistoriaNaturalis, VII, 37; Plutarch, De Pyth Or., VII; Epiphanius, Adv. Haer., 26 §8; discussed in H. C. Youtie,“Sambathis,” Harvard Theological Review, 37 (1944), 213-217; see also V. Tcherikover, et al., CorpusPapyrorum Judaicarum, III:47-52; W. Bousset, ZNW, 3 (1902), 23-49; C. C. Torrey, The ApocryphalLiterature (London/Hamden, Conn., 1945/1963), 109; nonbiblical stories about Abraham, alsoremarkably parallel to the LDS Book of Abraham, are found in literature from this same period (esp. fromEgypt) – see below.

Albright, YGC, 128-135; J. Kaster, Wings of the Falcon, 66,69, n. 6; M. H. Pope in J. A.43

Sanders, ed., Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck: Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century(Doubleday, 1970), 178-196; matriarchy is discussed below, and the genealogical data is too extensivefor this paper.

Papyrus Joseph Smith I is the beginning and illustration to the Snsn-text in P. JS X and XI (and44

fragments in IV), and concludes with the unrecovered illustration known as Facsimile 3 – the latter beingparalleled in the Book of the Dead 125 vignette of P. JS III; this is made clear by K. Baer in Dialogue,III/3 (Aut 1968), 111-128; cf. Nibley in Ensign, 6 (Mar 1976), 34-36; whether the Book of Abraham wasencoded in P. JS XI, i, as a cue-word list for example, is yet an open question – B. Urrutia, Dialogue,IV/2 (Summer 1971), 130-134; R. Crapo and J. A. Tvedtnes, SEHA Newsletter, 109 (Oct 25, 1968), 1-6;114 (June 2, 1969), 6-13.


Menant has shown that on certain early Babylonian cylinders we find arepresentation of human sacrifice. The victim, however, is a man who is alwaysabout to be struck by the sacrificing priest in the presence of a god.45

We also know that

Egyptian settlers and garrisons abroad built sanctuaries there to their own gods,but towards the native gods they behaved as they so often did in Egypt towards thegod or goddess of another town: they simply considered them as different namesand forms of their own Egyptian deities.46

Finally, when H. O. Thompson finds “Egyptians worshiping a Sumerian god in Canaan,” or47

when the palace of Cyrus sports a winged figure dressed as an Elamite wearing an Egyptiancrown, it seems reasonable to suggest later, syncretic versions of vignettes contemporary with48

Abraham.

III. Facsimile 2. Like the other two facsimiles, the hypocephalus is borrowed from Egyptiandocuments and used as an independent theological adjunct and illustration to the Book ofAbraham. It deals with the cosmogony of Abraham 3 - 5, and specifically points to the “first49

A. H. Sayce, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion Illustrated by the Religion of the45

Ancient Babylonians, 5 ed., Hibbert Lectures, 1887 (Williams & Norgate, 1893), 78-79, n. 4, citingth

Menant, Catalogue de la collection de Clerq, I:18,112ff; plate xix, no. 181, for cylinder seal; Sayce, The“Higher Criticism” and the Verdict of the Monuments, 4 ed.(London: SPCK/ N.Y.: E. & J. B. Young,th

1894), 185 n. 1, for the quote; cf. W. J. Adams, BYU Studies, IX:473-480; A. Ben-Tor, Cylinder Seals ofThird Millennium Palestine (Scholars Press, 1978), giving the context of glyptic art in the ancient NearEast; H. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals (London: Macmillan, 1949); A. Green,

J. Èerný, Ancient Egyptian Religion (London, 1952), 41; see also p. 128.46

Biblical Archaeologist, 30 (Dec 1967), 122 – the god is identical with Abraham’s Mahmackrah47

and/or Shagreel; see also Thompson, Mekal: God of Beth-Shan (Leiden: Brill, 1970).

J. M. Myers, I & II Esdras, Anchor Bible 42 (Doubleday, 1974), facing page 168 (figure 174 in48

R. Girshman, Persia: From the Origins to Alexander the Great), bas relief of winged spirit.

See M. Rhodes’ analysis of the hypocephalus written for the 1975 Nibley Festschrift (= “A49

Translation and Commentary of the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus,” BYU Studies, 17 [Spring 1977], 259-274), and my own 1975 “Joseph’s Explanations: Facsimile Two of the LDS Book of Abraham” (part ofmy larger Commentary on the Book of Abraham, forthcoming); cf. Edith Varga, Acta Orientalia, 12:1-3(1961), cited by C. Veteto, SEHA Newsletter, 101:32 (May 1, 1967), 5-7.


creation” (Facsimile 2:1,10-11, Egyptian sp tpy). However, the Hypocephaus of Sheshaq (the50

original so far unrecovered) need not be the original document employed by Abraham here.

IV. Abraham 3 - 5. Though couched in terms of a vision, most of these three chapters can beclosely paralleled in ancient Near Eastern creation texts contemporary with and more ancientthan the Abrahamic period: Cuneiform and Egyptian documents have already been compared51 52

within biblical archaeology, and the LDS version is generally more coherent and provides greatercontinuity with the ancient documents than does the biblical version. That Abraham used53

“Urim and Thummim” in producing this section does not explain its relationship to similardocuments certainly unknown to Joseph Smith Jr, though our sibyl was known to make use of akind of “seer stone” (Greek pétra).54

The Book of Abraham is a planned and purposeful assemblage of documents, someincomplete, tied together by refrains, key-words, literary structure, etc. It is entirely possible thatsuch a compilation was transmitted orally and in writing among Egyptian Jews down to theGreek and Roman periods. One should not be perplexed at the disappearance of specific55

S. Morenz, Egyptian Religion, trans. A. E. Keep (Cornell, 1973), 166-167, from the 3 ed.50 rd

(1960); see discussion and examples in John Huddlestun, “Who Is This That Rises Like the Nible?” in A.Beck, et al., eds., Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1995), 342, 356-357, nn.14, 67, 75.

Speiser, Genesis, 9-13, compares Babylonian Enûma eliš, “When on High” (ANET, 60-72),51

noting the striking parallels in the same order as in Genesis, starting with “coexistent” and “coeternal”cosmic matter, citing A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 1 ed. (Univ. of Chicago, 1942); 2 ed. (1951),st nd

129; see also Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, 1 ed. (Univ. of Chicago, 1946);st

Albright, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 116 (June 9, 1972), 234-235; A. S.Kapelrud, VT, 24 (April 1974), 178-186; contra G. F. Hasel, Andrews Univ. Seminary Studies, X (Jan1972), 1-20; VT, 22 (1972); B. Mazar, JNES, 28 (1969), 73-83; Hartman, JBL, 91:31.

Sayce, “The Egyptian Background of Genesis I,” in S. R. K. Glanville, ed., Studies Presented52

to F. Ll. Griffith (Oxford, 1932), 419-423; E. A. E. Reymond, Mythical Origin of the Egyptian Temple(Manchester Univ., 1969), passim; J. Èerný, Ancient Egyptian Religion, 45-46,58, on creation by intellectand fiat (cf. the Shabaku Stone 2John 1); the Book of Abraham is more Hermopolitan than Heliopolitan;see also J. Wilson in J. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3 ed., 3-8,31,368-369; cf. ZÄS,rd

67:34ff.

Cf. J. L. McKenzie, CBQ, 14 (1952), 323-335; 21 (1959), 277ff.53

Pausanias, Gr., XII, 1; Plutarch, De Pythiae oraculis, IX; cf. Coptic Gospel According to54

Thomas, logion 19, “these stones will serve you”; cf also John 1:42 in KJV and Inspired Revision.

Ptolemaic Egypt was “a center of world Jewry,” Bright, A History of Israel, 2 ed., 346; V.55 nd

Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” in Tcherikover & Fuks, eds., Corpus papyrorum Judaicarum, I (Harvard,1957), 1-93; the Jews involved may have been an apocalyptic (and Hassidic) sect, some of whose


portions of the Abrahamic tradition from Jewish lore (requiring revelatory restitution in certaincases), though, in fact, many of the unfamiliar points in the Book of Abraham do appear in littleknown apocryphal and talmudic sources. With the Hellenization of Egyptian and Judaic56

intellectual life, the newer doctrines of divine transcendence, ex nihilo creation, geometric logic,etc., would hardly tolerate the continued above-board existence of certain older Abrahamictraditions.57

Transmission

Precisely where, how, and by whom the transmission of the Book of Abraham waseffected is not at all clear, though major Jewish settlements in Egypt, at Elephantine, Tahpanhes,Memphis, Migdol, etc., are known to have begun no later than the time of Jeremiah (Jeremiah43:7, 44:1), and probably much earlier in some cases, as well as under Pharaoh s Psamtik II58

. .Hophra, and Ahmose II. Later, a Jewish settlement at Thebes is known to be contemporary59

with the Joseph Smith Papyri, but it is difficult to know how many other places mightsimultaneously have been involved, or whether the transmission had been effected entirely60

within Egypt. The Jewish revolt of 115-117 A.D., at the close of the reign of Trajan, had a

traditions are to be found in apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and the aggada; R. Pfeiffer mentions the oraltradition of the elders (cf. Matthew 15:2-3,6; Mark 7:3,5,8-9,13; TB Pirqê-‘Abôt 1:1), Pfeiffer, Intro. tothe OT, 134; G. W. Buchanan studied the key-words in this process in To the Hebrews, Anchor Bible 36(Doubleday, 1972), XXVI, 38, 227, and passim.

H. Nibley, Improvement Era, 72 (Jan-Nov 1969); 73 (Jan-Apr 1970); see the marginal56

objections of W. P. Walters in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 16:39, n. 58 (cf. Nibley,Improv. Era, 73 [March 1970], 86).

Cf. Philo Judaeus, De opficio mundi, 7 (II, 367M), versus the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon,57

11:17; R. Pfeiffer notes that the 2 century A.D. Babylonian Targum Onqelos avoids anthropo-nd

morphisms (Intro. to the OT, 78).

Bright, AHI, 2 ed., 346-347; C. H. Gordon, “The Origin of the Jews in Elephantine,” JNES,58 nd

14 (1955), 56-58; F. E. Peters, Harvest of Hellenism (N.Y., 1970), chapter VII; on earlier settlements, seeJeremiah 24:8.

H. I. Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Liverpool, 1953/1954), 25-32,106; the59

.Jewish temple at Elephantine (Yeb) was apparently completed during the reign of Ahmose II (570-525B.C.), and the colony there was not eliminated until about 399 B.C.

V. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, CPJ, I:3-47; note also the Jewish temple of the High Priest Onias60

ò(Honyo) IV at Leontopolis of the Heliopolites (Tell el-Yahudiya), Lower Egypt, from the 2 centurynd

B.C. till its closure under the Romans in 71/73 A.D. (M. Bietak in K. A. Bard, ed., Encyclopedia of theArchaeology of Ancient Egypt [Routledge, 1999], 791-792; Peters, Harvest of Hellenism, 269; S.Sandmel, Herod: Profile of a Tyrant [Phila./N.Y.: Lippincot, 1967], 48; Josephus, Antiquities of theJews, XIII, 3, 1ff.; 65, 70; Jewish War, VII, 427).


disastrous affect on the lives of Jews in Egypt, and this may have quashed the independent61

survival of the complete tradition – partially restored by Joseph Smith Jr.

Aside from one of the recovered facsimiles, no direct papyrological link with the Book ofAbraham as published in the Times and Seasons for March of 1842 is known, i.e., the originalEgyptian papyrus supposed to have given Joseph his main text for translation has not beenrecovered, although some apparently deny that it ever existed and find Joseph’s work to be62

pseudepigaphic and deceptively based on the “Breathing Certificate Usage Instructions” (theSnsn-text of P. JS XI, i). However, the possession and use of late documents does not at all ruleout the continuous recopying of far older documents, as the copying of Pyramid Texts on a Bookof the Dead papyrus in Roman times clearly demonstrates. In any case, later texts were merely63

versions and condensations of the earlier, e.g., Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts (including the Bookof Two Ways), the Book of the Dead, the Book of Breathings, etc., constitute a continuum oftradition, and even pre-Christian Jews are thought to have illustrated their biblical manuscripts64

via otherwise pagan iconography – just as they decorated their synagogues.65

The late date called for by the evidence is made more reasonable in light of Cross’version of the New Documentary Hypothesis: As we have noted, Cross sees J and E as differingversions of the Epic tradition maintained by competing priesthoods within the Israelite triballeague. Thus, J was transmitted by the Aaronides of Hebron, Jerusalem, and Bethel, and E by anold Mushite-Levite-Qenite coalition of Shiloh, Nob, Anathoth, Qadesh-Naphtali, Dan, Qadesh-Barnea, and Arad. So saying, it is also possible to show that D is northern and closer to E,66

Tcherikover & Fuks, CPJ, I:xx; that independent traditions were maintained among the Jews is61

certain – I Chronicles 2 for post-Exilic data from the centuries in Egypt before Moses, and upon whichthe Bible is otherwise silent (K. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World, 75).

Roberts, ed., History of the Church, VI:476 (June 16, 1844).62

A. Szczudlowska, “Pyramid Texts Preserved on Sêkowski Papyrus,” ZÄS, 99 (1972), 25-29;63

this was not an uncommon thing, and copyists regularly reproduced Old Kingdom texts upon, or attachedto later documents.

E. A. T. W. Budge, Book of the Dead: Papyrus of Ani (London, 1895/ N.Y., 1967), ix-xlvii; cf.64

Cambridge Ancient History, 3 ed., I/2:522; H. Nibley, BYU Studies, IX:72-78; XI:163; the Book of therd

Dead fragments among the Joseph Smith Papyri reproduce parts of Coffin Texts contemporary withAbraham (CT 90, 93, 151-152, 179, 218, 223, 355, 358-362, 404-405, 431, 969, 1075, 1184, etc.).

M. E. Stone, Scientific American, 228 (Jan 1973), 87; cf. C. H. Kraeling, The Synagogue, in65

The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report, VIII, part 1 (Yale Univ. Press, 1956), 394-395, citedand doubted in C. A. Moore, Esther, Anchor Bible 7B (Doubleday, 1971), 115; K. Weitzmann, AncientBook Illumination, Martin Classical Lectures 16 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1959).

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 71-74,86,197-201,204-205,211,293.66


while P appears to be southern and nearer to J, though P “never had existence as an67

independent narrative source,” but only created a framework for “the received Epic tradition ofIsrael” during the Exilic or post-Exilic periods. Parsimony asks us to search for just such a68 69

period of flux in the Hebrew Canon. For only once cast in Egyptian form and buried might weexpect such a text to survive later sacerdotal-theological assault, and we cannot ask that the finalredaction be earlier than circumstances allow.

Yahwist and Sacerdotal

The Book of Abraham is strongly Yahwist (J), but it is not only Yahwist. There is in facta good deal of what was normally handled by P (Sacerdotal), as well as material of unknownorigin, i.e., by the established rules of documentary analysis. The case for Yahwism is not madesimply by the two instances of “Jehovah” (Abraham 1:16, 2:8, aside from Facsimile 2:1 “Jah-oh-eh”), though the word “Lord(s)” occurs 44 times in the Book of Abraham, and could reflectoriginal Yahweh-Jehovah, i.e., either as Hebrew YHWH (the Tetragrammaton), or as70

translated by Egyptian nb “lord; Lord” (dual nbwy “Lords”). Actually, Yahweh presents noserious problem. It appears as YhwÇ in Egyptian toponyms of South Palestine during the 14th

and 13 centuries B.C., and it appears as a name-element in Old Canaanite and Amorite textsth

from Mari and Ebla nearly contemporary with Abraham, though it has yet to be proved to havebeen an independent name at so early a date. However, Joseph Smith’s New Translation71

(“Inspired Revision”) of Exodus 6:3, as if an elliptical interrogative in Hebrew, is supported byMartin (and utilized by the NIV Bible in a note), while Mowinkel, Speiser, Haran, and72

Andersen have all seen “Yahweh” as pre-Mosaic. The following analysis indicates the73

Cross, CMHE, 73-74,207, 233, n. 62; C. R. North in H. H. Rowley, ed., OT and Modern Study,67

67,69,82 n. 1; cf. F. R. McCurley, Jr., “The Home of Deuteronomy Revisited,” in Bream, ed., A Lightunto My Path, 295-317.

Cross, CMHE, 306; von Rad, Genesis, 27-28.68

Cross, CMHE, 294-295 (possibly from documents in the Jerusalem Temple archives), 323-324;69

von Rad, Genesis, 25; Kapelrud, VT, 24:180.

Hebrew Yhwh is an epithet meaning “He-who-creates (that which comes into existence),” and70

was later substituted for by Hebrew &Adonai “My-Lords; Lord” (an honorific dual Qere).

Cross, CMHE, 60-75; the Ebla texts require careful analysis.71

W. J. Martin, Stylistic Criteria and the Analysis of the Pentateuch (London, 1955), 18ff., cited72

in Harrison, Intro. to the OT, 399-400.

C. R. North in Rowley, OTMS, 54; Speiser, Genesis, 37-38 (cf. Genesis 4:26); M. Haran, “The73

Religion of the Patriarchs,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, IV (1965), 39; F. I. Andersen,Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 231 (Hague: Mouton, 1974), 1-2.


complete absence of the E document, and that the Book of Abraham, by standard criteria, mightbe a redaction of J, P, and some traditional material (R ).JPT

The Book of Abraham is characterized by these Yahwistic items: “Canaanites,” though74 75

occasionally employed by P, appears 6 times (instead of the “Amorites” common to E) ; Haran76

(the city) 8 times, and Nehor once ; “behold” appears 11 times; “now” 14 times; “famine” 777

times (though J uses this only in the story of the Descent to Egypt); the textual correspondencesare listed in Table I – the J story of the problem with Pharaoh in Egypt (against the same problemwith King Abimelech in E), Sarai, not regarded by J as Abraham’s sister, is agreeable toAbraham 2:2 (though E thinks she is his sister, Genesis 20:12), primeval history, etc. Other78

basic qualities of J include revelation, and an “anthropomorphic” God who is concerned withpeople (Abraham 3:11,23-28), and a higher order in apparent chaos. E’s interest, on the otherhand, lies in a transcendent, distant God, and prophetic mediation. Von Rad found J to be79

“spiritual” and to contain “the freshness of the joy of a new discovery,” and that is the Book of80

Abraham heart and soul.

The P tradent, meanwhile, generally avoiding artistry and revelation, is obsessed with81

priesthood and genealogy – purity of line : “record(s)” 4 times; “seed(s)” 10 times; “descent”82

and “descendant” 3 times; “race,” “lineage,” and “chronology” each once. P is also noted for itsconcept of foreordination (Abraham 3:23,27), and, while it uses the name “Elohim” (like E), italso employs archaic “Almighty” (Abraham 1:15; Vulgate Omnipotens, and LXX Pantokrator

Following throughout the list of S. R. Driver, Genesis, 10 ed. (London, 1916), vii-xxv,74 th

recommended by Speiser, Genesis, XXIV.

Cf. von Rad, Genesis, 140,142; cf. Genesis 10:6.75

J. Van Seters rejects this distinction in JBL, 91 (1972), 182.76

Haran is used by both J and P (Bright, AHI, 2 ed., 77,85-86); neither is ever mentioned by E;77 nd

cf. von Rad, Genesis, 156.

Von Rad, Genesis, 158,227; cf. T. W. Mackay, “Abraham in Egypt: A Collation of Evidence78

for the Case of the Missing Wife,” BYU Studies, X (Summer 1970), 429-451.

E has no Primeval History; von Rad, Genesis, 25-27; cf. also Cross, CMHE, 343-344.79

Von Rad, Genesis, 29-31.80


R. Pfeiffer, IOT, 197-198, “racial purity.”82


being the conventional, and erroneous translations of Hebrew Šadday; cf. Exodus 6:3). At83

òtimes parallel texts disagree, e.g., the age of Abraham on leaving Haran (Abraham 2:14-152Genesis 12:4b-5), but the overall textual correspondences leave no question as to the standardsources for the predominantly Mesopotamian creation story in Abraham 4:1 - 5:4a (2Genesis 1:1- 2:4a), which is really only a part of that material which Speiser saw as a broad introduction to84

the saga of Abraham. The second section too is, as Albright has noted, Mesopotamian in origin85

(Abraham 5:4b-21 2Genesis 2:4b-25). Here one finds “Lord” (whether YHWH or nb) wholly86

absent, though the section is regularly considered Yahwistic in the biblical version.

The occurrence of “God(s)” (in non-pagan contexts) 73 times, even if seen as reflectingHebrew &Elohim, does not indicate the presence of the E source (indeed, “God” or “Gods”mayreflect Egyptian ntr, ntrw; thus nb ntrw “Lord-of-the-gods” 2Hebrew YHWH-&Elohim). As87

noted, “Elohim” is equally characteristic of P, and von Rad took its appearance in Genesis 2ff. asevidence of a final P redaction there. Abraham 5 takes us a step further in eliminating “Lord”88

(YHWH, or its equivalent), but it is still combined with a document of a differing style andvocabulary (Abraham 4).

Although the Elohist does interpose angels and is less direct than the Yahwist, this is amatter of emphasis and can only be taken along with other evidence – of which there is an utterand complete lack – not to mention the close personal relationship with God which the Book ofAbraham generally indicates (anathema to E). The twin instances of “Potiphar” (Abraham1:10,20) are unrelated in time and space to the biblical Potiphar of E, though they do function aschiastic key-words in the Book of Abraham (as in Genesis 37:36, 39:1-20, 41:45,50, 46:20). Since the biblical Abraham story includes E sections (possibly merely a northern recension ofJ), the singular absence of E in the Book of Abraham might be considered evidence of the89

E. F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth, Anchor Bible 7 (Doubleday, 1975), 76-77, saying that Shadday83

“seems to have had a special connection to judging, and to the conferring of deliverance or punishment,blessing or curse” (cf. Abraham 2:11, 3:14; Genesis 49:25, Numbers 24:4, 16, etc.).

Albright, YGC, 91-92,97; Kapelrud, VT, 24:178-186.84

Speiser, Genesis, 9.85

Albright, YGC, 91-97.86

A. de Buck, Egyptian Readingbook, 2 ed. (Leiden, 1963), 49:5, from the Punt Expedition of87 nd

Queen Hatshepsut; K. A. Kitchen, “Egypt and the Bible: Some Recent Advances,” Faith and Thought,91/2 (Winter 1959), 189; 91/3 (Summer 1960), 190; the Akkadian and Egyptian masculine plural are herevirtually identical.

Von Rad, Genesis, 77, i.e., supplementing the J material.88

So Albright, YGC, 34; Bright, AHI, 2 ed., 72.89 nd


authenticity of Joseph Smith’s “translation.” Such selectivity would constitute an incredible“accident.”

The Matrix

This cursory survey of the Book of Abraham results in he following tentativeassignments: Abraham 1:2-31, and 4:1 - 5:4a seem primarily Priestly in character, while 2:1 -3:28, and 5:4b-21 (though using “Gods” in place of biblical “Lord God”) are traditionallyYahwist. For chapters 1 and 2, such a view merits support due to the separate integrity of thetwo large chiasms and key-word overlays. Yet, as can be understood from Table I (below), thisis gross oversimplification. For the entire book is an interdependent matrix of chiastic and directparallel structuring, while traditional P and J are inextricably mixed in four of the 5 chapters (aswell as in the larger chiasms) of the book, and, while a document possibly making use of such anadmittedly late papyrus (Papyrus Joseph Smith XI, i) as a mnemonic aid or cue-word list mightbe expected to mix the sources – other matrices had developed in Egypt, Palestine, andBabylonia – we are faced with the possibility that the entire Documentary Hypothesis, as90

presently conceived, must be reevaluated in light of biblical parallels with the LDS Canon.

Abraham 1 has an overarching concern for Priestly matters, and even promises moredetail (1:28), though, as James R. Clark has observed, Joseph Smith did not “translate” all of theAbrahamic record. At the same time, it bears the unmistakable characteristics of J. In91

Abraham 1:16, for example, a direct quote includes “Jehovah,” making us reluctant to assignother portions of the same quote to P. In addition, when we observe how the quote is in chiasticparallel with Abraham 1:15-18, or when we note that “Shagreel” in 1:9 is certainly related to theHebrew term for the personified “gates” of a J Psalm (Ps 24:7,9; cf. Ps 118:19-20), our mood92

for equivocation is enhanced. Moreover, traditional J is not entirely unconcerned with purity oflineage, or with priestly functions (cf. Genesis 13:4, 24:3-4), though it is easiest in all such casesto claim that P simply redacted older J material.93

G. E. Wright, “Biblical Archaeology Today,” in Freedman & Greenfield, eds., NDBA, 153,90

citing HTR, 57:181-199, IEJ, 16:81-95, and BANE, 140-169, the Babylonian text being chosen as ourpresent MT circa 100 B.C., and the LXX representing the Egyptian Hebrew recension; cf. R. Pfeiffer,IOT, 68,105-106.

Clark, The Story of the Pearl of Great Price, 113, 235; cf. Facsimile 2:8-21.91

See M. Dahood, Psalms, I, Anchor Bible 16 (Doubleday, 1966), ad loc.; C. H. Gordon,92

Ugaritic Textbook (Rome, 1965), Text 1018:1, and Glossary 2468, 2721; Gordon, The Living Past, 125,seal 15; Cross, CMHE, 91-92,98.

S. E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (Rome, 1971).93


In Abraham 2 we have much the same problem, though with much clearer perspective –thanks to direct parallels with Genesis – and the apparent muddling of sequence (Abraham 2:3-4;cf. 5:20-21) accords well with what we know of the needs inherent in the creation of inclusionsand chiasms. Abraham 2:14-15 is commonly attributed to P, and the syntax of 2:6 (in dual94

chiasm with 2:19) can only be found in Genesis 17:8, which is also P (cf. Genesis 17:1). Onecan even be sure of some of the Hebrew vocabulary – at least in the minds of those Jews whomay have passed on the tradition in Egyptian: Abraham 2:9 would have employed the Hebrewgoy of J for “nation” (with a territorial base), rather than the )am common to P, while the95

Shaddai (“Mountain-One,” or “Twin-Breasts”; instead of conventional LXX “Almighty”) of P issurely to be assumed for Abraham 1:15, though such terms may have been rendered by96

Egyptian equivalents in the text translated by Joseph Smith Jr.

One must note the absence of the P-rubric of Genesis 11:27 at the beginning of97

Abraham 2. References to “Ur of the Chaldeans” (not in southern Mesopotamia ) are usually98

.attributed to P, since J knows only Haran. Von Rad claimed that only P originally used99

Abram, purposely shortening the name in the text prior to Genesis 17, but new texts from Ebla100

use Abramu – making the short-form likely the more original. The first publication of the Bookof Abraham contained the short-form “Abram” at Abraham 1:16,17, 2:3,6,14, and 17, thoughseveral earlier Kirtland manuscripts employed it also at Abraham 2:2. This, like the age101

Note the placement of the creation story; cf. Peter F. Ellis, The Yahwist: The Bible’s First94

Theologian (Notre Dame: Fides, 1968), 123-127; W. F. Albright & C. S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible26 (Doubleday, 1971), CLXVI, on key-words as a mnemotechnique; see also J. W. Welch, “Chiasmus inUgaritic,” Ugarit-Forschungen, VI (1974), 421-436.

JBL, 79 (1960), 157ff.95

Cross, CMHE, 59-60,322-323; see n. 80 herein, above.96

Cross, CMHE, 301-304; but see on Abraham 5:4a, below.97

Dahood, Psalms, I:223.98


Von Rad, Genesis, 157,199-200, suggesting that Abram is merely a shortened form of100

popular Mesopotamian Abamram; cf. p. 202 on Sarah/Sarai.

See Times and Seasons, III/9 (March 1, 1842), 703-706; III/10 (March 15, 1842), 719-722;101

III/14 (May 16, 1842), 783-784; Book of Abraham MSS 2 and 3 (MSS 1 - 4 employ the short-form atAbraham 2:2); these short-forms were lengthened in the July 1842 Millennial Star (likewise in Roberts,ed., History of the Church, IV:520-534, and in the Pearl of Great Price); Walter L. Whipple, “AnAnalysis of Textual Changes in ‘The Book of Abraham’ and in the ‘Writings of Joseph Smith, TheProphet’ in the Pearl of Great Price,” master’s thesis (BYU, 1959), 52; cf. H. Nibley, BYU Studies, XI(Summer 1971), 350-399; though they are incomplete, the Book of Abraham MSS 1 - 4 agree in using the


differential at Abraham 2:14 (62 years old versus biblical 75), attests to the independent traditionpreserved here.

Abraham 3 is difficult to assign with confidence. On the one hand, it is clearly part of thecreation story in the following chapter (at least from 3:23), apparently reflecting some pristine P-work; on the other hand, the “Lord (thy God)” appears 17 times in chapter 3, and the use of theone-thousand-to-one metaphor (3:4, Facsimile 2:1) matches two J Psalms (84:10, 90:4). Both Jand P closely follow the basic Mesopotamian cosmogony. J’s “anthropomorphic” God is there102

(Abraham 3:11, 19-28), but so is the foreordination of P (3:23,27). Abraham 3:14 seems similarin language to a wide variety of J and E texts, making the comparative techniques, “sands of thesea,” “stars of the sky,” etc., common enough – Yahuda listed numerous such instances inEgyptian.103

Most intriguing of all is the description of the Heavenly Council in Abraham 3:21-28. Itconjures up the rîb-pattern (lawsuit oracle) and apocalyptic of Psalms 82, 89, and Daniel 7,which have very archaic Canaanite and Mesopotamian associations, and Lichtheim even104

discerns Egyptian parallels. That stars should play so prominent a role in this chapter is also105

completely appropriate. P never hesitated to preserve such material in its “archaic garb.”106 107

short-form from Abraham 1:16 - 2:17 (MSS 2 & 3 cease before this point); Aramaic &nh &brm “I Abram”is characteristic of the Genesis Apocryphon from Quman Cave 1 (1QapGn), and “Abram” is used as aname ca. 137/138 B.C. at Ptolemais in Egypt (SB, 6184, cited in Tcherikover & Fuks, CPJ, I:xvii, n. 2).

Albright, YGC, 91-97; the preference of “Gods” over “Lord God” provides a veneer of P to102

the usual J of Genesis 2:4b-25 2Abraham 5:4b-21.

A S. Yahuda, Language of the Pentateuch, I:76-78.103

Albright, YGC, 191-193; Cross, CMHE, 345-346 n. 13; M. H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible 15104

(Doubleday, 1965), 134-135, 219; M. Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly; An Interpretation ofPsalm 82,” Hebrew Union College Annual, 40-41 (1969-1970), 123-137; E. T. Mullen, Jr., The Assemblyof the Gods, Harvard Semitic Monograph 24 (Scholars Press, 1980); Albright & Mann, Matthew, XCVI.

Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I:73,79, n. 59.105

Albright, YGC, 232 n. 69; Èerný, Ancient Egyptian Religion, 51-52; Pyramid Texts 405, 733,106

782, etc.; Ed. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Presbyterian & Reformed Publ., 1964), 93 – geocentrismcannot be inferred from normal modes of speech.

Von Rad, Genesis, 28.107


The first thing to observe about the creation story in Abraham 4 (2Genesis 1) is that it isprogressive and climactic. Although it is generally believed that Genesis 5:1 was the original108

continuation of the document handled by P at Genesis 1 - 2:3, note how the present109

combination of the two chapters produces a unified, even chiastic emphasis on the creation ofman: In Abraham 4 (2Genesis 1) man is the climax and conclusion of creation; in Abraham 5(2Genesis 2) man is the first and central creation following the subordinate and conditionalclauses in verses 4b-6. This dual creation story is in addition an example of prototypic patterns110

(Abraham 4) and their fruition (Abraham 5). Mormonism would appear to favor such a view111

(Abraham 5:2). The transition effected at Abraham 4:1, from “Lord” to “Gods,” is logical112

following the Heavenly Council. Indeed, both Sayce and von Rad heartily approved of a franklyplural meaning attached to &Elohim.113

In comparing Abraham 4 with Genesis 1, it is noteworthy that the days in the former areeven-to-even (as in the Gospel of John) while the latter is believed by Keil and Young to be114 115

See nn. 26-27, 48, above, on the possible origin of Genesis 1; cf. F. Hvidberg, “The Canaanite108

Background of Gen I-III,” VT, X (1960), 284-295; however, B. Urrutia, “The Structure of Genesis,Chapter One,” Dialogue, VIII/3&4 (Aut/Winter 1973), 142-143, is too narrowly based to be of any usehere, and ignores ternary groupings in his S 5, 6, and 8 (far from being an afterthought, “stars” are alwayspresent in ancient creation myths); see, rather, on the essential heptaemeron, N. C. Habel, LiteraryCriticism of the Old Testament (Phila.: Fortress, 1971), 69-70.

Von Rad, Genesis, 68; Genesis 2:4a and 5:1 being the usual P rubrics or transitional109

superscriptions (63); Albright, YGC, 91-92, sees Sumero-Akkadian formulae here, as does Simoons-Vermeer elsewhere, Numen, 21:31.

Von Rad, Genesis, 75-77; cf. B. Porten, HUCA, 38:95; Albright, YGC, 93; McEvenue,110

Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, 63.

See n. 49, above; Albright, PAPS, 116:234-236; R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Anchor Bible 18111

(Doubleday, 1965), 70.

PGP Moses 3:5 (IV Genesis 1:5,9), Doctrine & Covenants 77:2, 131:7-8; Joseph Smith in112

Roberts, ed., History of the Church, VI:50 (Oct 9, 1843); cf. Ellis T. Rasmussen, Ensign, I (Nov 1971),37; II Enoch 25:1-3, Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:16.

Sayce, HCVM, 84-85; von Rad, Genesis, 58-59; cf. Psalm 82.113

Genesis 1:16-18 (but see Speiser, Genesis, 5, on Genesis 1:5 as even-to-even); cf. Leviticus114

23:27,32, Psalms 55:18 (KJV 5:17), Mark 1:21,32 = Luke 4:31,40, John 20:1; even-to-even was theGreek and Mesopotamian mode; the Romans, on the other hand, followed a midnight-to-midnightscheme – Finegan, Light From the Ancient Past, 2 ed. (Princeton, 1959), 553-554, 597.nd

Young, Studies in Genesis One, 89, citing Keil, 51.115


morn-to-morn (as in the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts). This may be another indication of the116

sectarian, independent nature of the tradition preserved in the Book of Abraham. Another odditem is the “great waters” mentioned in Abraham 4:10, 22 (not in Genesis 1:10, 22). This may bean Egyptian term.117

In Abraham 5:4b-21 it is important to note the absence of the names of the rivers of Edenin Genesis 2:11-14, and the apparent insertion of Genesis 2:21-25 between the verses of Genesis2:18-19 – it is likely that the biblical rivers are a later gloss – and Abraham 5:15-19 was moved118

biblically to a position following Abraham 5:21, thus destroying a nice chiasm (see Table I). Abraham 5:18 (2Genesis 2:24) may preserve “something from a time of matriarchal culture,”119

as could also be said for Abraham 1:23-25. Whatever one’s point of view, the hand of the120

redactor of the Book of Abraham is evident in such trivia as the mention of “Adam” in only thefirst and final chapters. Indeed, “Adam” is a key-word in the first and final chiasms of thebook.121

There is much that has not been examined here, e.g., variant traditions in the Book ofMoses, Joseph Smith’s “New Translation” of the Bible, etc., but the Book of Abraham is the oneLDS “standard work” besides the Book of Mormon which claims to be a textually based

Cf. Genesis 1:16-18, 19:34, Mark 11:11-12, 16:1-2, Matthew 28:1, Luke 23:56 - 24:1, Acts116

4:3; morn-to-morn reckoning was the Galilean as well as Egyptian mode – Finegan, Light From theAncient Past.

ZÄS, 59:47, mw )Çw “great waters.”117

LDS belief favors the Yellowstone, Missouri, Platte, and Little Missouri Rivers here, with118

Eden as the Great Plains (= Sumerian EDIN); cf. Albright, AJSL, 35 (1919), 161-195; 39 (1922), 15-31.

Von Rad, Genesis, 84-85; cf. Ohio Journal of Religious Studies, II (Apr 1974), 79-82; J. J.119

Bachofen, Myth, Religion and Mother Right (London: Routledge, 1967), translated from his Mutterecht(Stuttgart: Kries, 1861). For a negative view, see David R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage: A SociologicalStudy (London: Epworth, 1953), 81ff. (opposing A. Lods); Wilhelm Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das HoheLied, Die Klaglieder, in Kommentary zum Alten Testament, 2 ed., XVII, 1-3 (Güttersloh: Mohr, 1962),nd

on Ruth 1:8 vs Genesis 38:11, Leviticus 22:13, Numbers 30:16, Deuteronomy 22:21, Judges 19:2-3; yetSongs 3:4, 8:2, and Genesis 24:28 support Ruth 1:8 (see discussion by Campbell, Ruth, 64-65); cf. alsoE. Baumgartel, JEA, 61:28-32, on the matriarchy in Naqada I Egypt, and patriarchy in Naqada II.

Cf. J. Lindsey, Daily Life in Roman Egypt (Barnes & Noble, 1963), 19-20, on the ancient120

matrilineal system of inheritance.

A source-analysis is not the place in which to lay out the formal structure of the book. I have121

done so elsewhere (Smith, “Joseph’s Explanations: Facsimile Two of the LDS Book of Abraham,”1975). The word “chiasm” is used here for want of a better term (see Welch, UF, VI:421-436), and onemight better view this phenomenon of recursion as a palistrophic form, as does McEvenue, NarrativeStyle of the Priestly Writer, 27, n. 18.


translation, and therefore more directly testable on a secular academic basis. Whither suchtesting as I have presented here may lead is an open question, but those who have handled thetransmission of this document have left their tell-tale, archaic “fingerprints.” It is only a matterof time until we discover more about them and the source of their sectarian, apocalyptic, and

.sacerdotal beliefs. For now it is only possible to hint at an apocalyptic, Hasidic Jewishconnection which later found expression at Qumran, in Maccabees, in Johannine literature, etc.,but which – to judge from Abraham 2:14 in particular – must have been the product of a groupdissenting from the great chronological recalibration and systematization of the main parts of theHebrew Canon ca. 235-230 B.C. (possibly rendered via the Jewish Great Assembly to coincidewith the Egyptian Canopus Decree of October 22, 238 B.C.). The LXX Greek Bible, the122

Samaritan Pentateuch, the Book of Jubilees, Ethiopic and Slavonic Enoch, the Book of Abraham,etc., each have their variants from this standard chronology. The entire matter deserves a closerlook than it is getting.

See Gerhard Larsson, The Secret System: A Study of the Chronology of the Old Testament122

(Leiden: Brill, 1973); Larsson, “Is Biblical Chronology Systematic or Not?” Revue de Qumrân, VI/24(March 1969), 499-515; Knut Stenring, The Enclosed Garden (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1966);Larsson speaks of this as the “C” redaction of the OT. On the place of “P”, see Chayim Cohen, “Was theP Document Secret,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University, I (1969), 39-44 (esp. for Akkadian scribal disciplina arcana).


Table I. DOCUMENTARY CLASSIFICATION

Times &Seasons Book of Genesis Themes DocumentsIII:704- Abraham706

1 1:1 2 priesthood P 3 “ P

2 4 “ ; seed; Adam P 5 righteousness, holy; Lord-God P? 6 P? 7 P

3 8 now; altar P? J? 9 P 10 Potiphar’s Hill P 11 now, royal descent; Ham P? J?

4 12 P? 13 P? 14 P?

5 15 behold; Lord...God; Almighty P? J? 16 (cf. 12:1) Jehovah J 17 J? P? 18 behold; priesthood J? P? 19 Noah J? P?

6 20 royal; Potiphar’s Hill; altar P 21 (cf. 17:7 Canaan) Canaanites; descendent P 22 (cf. 9:26, 17:7) ” “ P

7 23 forbidden P 24 (9:26) race P 25 patriarchal P 26 (9:26) priesthood; Adam P

8 27 lineage P 28 chronology P

9 29 famine, Chaldea J? P? 30 “ ” J? P? 31 stars; records P?

10 2:1a J? 1b 11:28 J 2 11:29 J 3 12:1 J 4a J?


Times &Seasons Book of Genesis Themes DocumentsIII:704- Abraham706

2: 4b 11:31 (cf. 12:5) P 5 (cf. 11:32) famine; Haran J? P?

11 6a J? 6b (cf. 17:1,8; 24:7) Lord appeared P? J? 6c J? 6d cf. 17:8 (24:7) seed P? J? 6e J? 7 8 (cf. Ex 6:3) Jehovah J 9a 12:2 nation J 9b 10 (cf. 12:2) J? 11a 12:3a (cf. Num 24:9) J 11b 11c 12:3b J 11d

12 12 13 14a 12:4a J 14b cf. 12:4b 62 vs 75 years P? 15 12:5 P 16 J?

13 17 famine J? 18a 12:6a J 18b

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ T&SIII:719- Abraham Genesis Themes Documents722

14 2:19 12:7a (cf. 24:7) seed J 20a 12:7b J 20b 12:8 J

15 21a 12:9 (1QapGn 19:9) J 21b 12:10 famine (1QapGn 19:10) J 22 cf. 12:11 J 23 cf. 12:12 (1QapGn 19:19) J 24 cf. 12:13 (1QapGn 19:20) J


T&SIII:719- Abraham Genesis Themes Documents722

2:25 12:13 (1QapGn 19:20) J16 3:1 Urim & Thummim

2 stars J? 3 Kolob (Fac 2:1) J? 4a J? 4b (cf. Pss 84:10, 90:4) Kolob; 1000 yrs = 1 day J

17 5 J? 6

18 7 8 9 Kolob 10 stars

19 11 anthropomorphic God J 12 (cf. Abr 2:7) J? 13 star, stars 14 J

20 15 16 Kolob 17 star 18 star

21 19 20 21

22 22 intelligences 23 foreordination P? 24 anthropomorphism J? 25 26 estates

23 27 cf. 22:1,11 foreordination P?3:28 estate-fall4:1a 1b 1:1 P 2a 1:2a P 2b 2c 1:2b P 2d 2e 1:2c P

24 3 1:3 P 4a 1:4a P



4:4b 4c 1:4b P 5a 1:5a P 5b 5c 1:5b P 5d

25 6 1:6 P 7 1:7 P 8a 1:8a P 8b 8c 1:8b P 8d 8e 1:8c P 8f

26 9 1:9 P 10 1:10 KJV “seas” vs Abr “great waters” P 11 1:11 P 12a 12b 1:12a P 12c 12d 1:12b P 12e 12f 1:12c P 13a 1:13a P 13b 13c 1:13b P 13d 13e 1:13c P

27 14 1:14 P 15 1:15 P 16a 1:16a P 16b 16c 1:16b P 17a 1:17 P 17b 1:18a P 18a 1:18b P 18b 18c cf. 1:18c P 19a 1:19a P



4:19b 19c 1:19b P

28 20 1:20 P 21a 1:21a P 21b 21c 1:21b P 22a 1:22a P 22b great waters 22c 1:22b P 23a 1:23a P 23b 23c 1:23b P

29 24 1:24 P 25 1:25 P 26a 1:26a P 26b 26c 1:26b man-theomorphic P 27 1:27 P 28 1:28 P 29 1:29 P 30 1:30 P 31a 1:31a P 31b 31c 1:31b P

30 5:1 2:1 P 2a 2b 2:2 6 (LXX, Syriac) vs 7 (MT) Pth th

3a 2:3 P 3b 4a 2:4a rubric P 4b 2:4b KJV “Lord God” vs Abr “Gods” passim J 5 2:5 J 6 2:6 J 7a 2:7a J 7b 7c 2:7b J

31 8a 2:8a J 8b 8c 2:8b J



5:9 2:9 J 10 2:10 J 11 2:15 J 12 2:16 J 13a 2:17 J 13b Lord’s time; Kolob; Gods

32 14 2:18 J 15 2:21 Adam J 16 2:22 J 17 2:23 Adam J 18 2:24 J 19 2:25 J 20 2:19 Adam J 21 2:20 Adam J

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cf. Dan Wilcox, A Study Aid for a Comparison of the Books of Moses, Genesis and Abraham(SLC: Deseret Book, 1963).


Table II. ABRAM / ABRAHAM IN THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

Abr T&S T&S III:9-10 Book of Abraham Manuscripts (KEP) 1:1 - 2:19Saints’ Herald 1:1 - 2:18 1:4 - 2:6 1:4 - 2:2 3:18-26

III:1 1 2 3 4

1:1 1 I, Abraham I, Abraham I, Abraham

1:16 5 Abram! Abram! Abram, Abram Abram, Abram Abram, Abram Abram! Abram!

1:17 Abram Abram Abraham?? Abram Abram

2:2 10 I, Abraham I Abram I, Abram I, Abram I, Abram

2:3 Abram Abram Abram Abram(Abram)

2:6 11 I, Abram I, Abram Abram I, Abram??

2:14 12 I, Abram I, Abram I, AbramI, Abram I, Abram I, Abram

2:17 13 I, Abram I, Abram I, Abram

2:20 14 I, Abraham

2:21 15 I, AbrahamI, Abraham

2:25 I, Abraham

3:1 16 I, Abraham

3:6 17 Abraham

3:11 19 I, Abraham

3:15 20 Abraham

3:22 22 Abraham Abraham

3:23 Abraham Abraham---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------