Talk:Criticism of the Book of Abraham

Proposed deletion
As it stands right now, it might as well be deleted. Perhaps a split would solve some of the issues of the Book of Abraham article, but I doubt it. Andrewa (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When the editor created this page, I expected that it would grow rapidly. But since it hasn't been expanded since it has been created, I agree that it should be deleted. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely should be deleted. The Book of Abraham article is where the criticism should be - the BOA article needs to be cleaned up.Descartes1979 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the consensus is that this article shouldn't exist, I was going to change this article to a redirect, but I see that it has already been done. I guess that this issue has been solved. &mdash; Val42 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Article title
I would suggest that what is contained in the article is a critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham. Analyzing a document isn't criticizing it, it's analyzing it. I think "Critical analysis of the Book of Abraham" might be more appropriate. I'd also be cautious about removing too much of that analysis from the article on the Book of Abraham proper, unless we retitle that article "Religious views on the Book of Abraham"... Leave the details here if they don't fit comfortably there, but that article still needs a good synopsis of what's here. - Nunh-huh 02:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I just resurrected an old article that was just redirected. I do think that might be a better title. I feel like all that I was going to cut out of the main article I have, but if you see anything that you think belongs there, or should be expanded, just let me know and I'll see to it. The main reason I made this article is that previously most of the info was just about the criticism and analysis.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know you resurrected an old title, but felt that perhaps it wasn't the best title for the current contents. I don't have any strong objection to what you've done with the main article, but did think it important that all the factions continue to be represented there. I think it's fair to say, for example, that Egyptologists consider Smith's "translation" fraudulent, but now the word "fraud" appears nowhere in the "Book of Abraham" article.  Moving uncomfortable truths to criticism articles is an old tradition here for people who want their viewpoints to prevail in the main article, and to have the viewpoints of others minimized, and I didn't want things to move too far in that direction. - Nunh-huh 04:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to your last point, I didn't know that was a trend. I merely did this based on a suggestion from someone in the Egyptology WikiProject; the Book of Abraham page, they argued, should mostly be about the theology and implications of the work within the religion. Now, I think it definitely should feature criticism, but I do agree that a new page should have probably been created (i.e. this one) that showcases most of that criticism, otherwise the parent article because extremely weighted towards one thing (that is, tearing it apart). Like I said, I'll try to move some stuff around and get it a little more 'balanced' (is that the right word?)-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   04:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not so much a trend as an old Wikipedia tradition :) And yes, balance is the right word, but the balance should seek to represent the more commonly held beliefs in greater detail, and fringe, minority beliefs with less emphasis. Which is tricky when the subject of the article is "fringy", like, say, a belief that homeopathy is effective treatment for any illness, or that the Book of Abraham contains am actual translation of an Egyptian papyrus. An article about something that is not correct should contain mostly information illustrating that it's incorrect, and would appear unbalanced if balance meant representing all views as though they were equally valid and had equal support.  This is a frequent complaint about homeopathy, and if done correctly, should be a frequent complaint about Book of Abraham. You're doing fine, but I didn't want you to go too far slanting the other article toward the minority viewpoint. - Nunh-huh 07:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050528104119/http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/original.htm to http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/original.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051029182326/http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id3.htm to http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id3.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added tag to http://signaturebooks.com/a-response-to-translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham-by-dr-robert-ritner/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060330072200/http://www.bookofabraham.com/ to http://www.bookofabraham.com/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Remove/Merge background section
I'd like to delete the background section. It takes up a good portion of the article and has nothing to do with critical analysis. You do not find an extensive background section like this on any other 'critical analysis' type page for any other article. The content is good, and should be merged with Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham. Thoughts? Epachamo (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving some of it around would be fine by me, although I think some of it should stay, just to provide a bit of background. Maybe a paragraph?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  20:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I was thinking of following the pattern set forth by Criticism of the Book of Mormon, and Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I think a good solid paragraph or two of background information would be useful.  I'll wait a couple weeks to give others a chance to chime in and then make the changes if nobody is opposed.  In the meantime, I will fill out the background sections on the Joseph Smith Papyri and Book of Abraham articles with the information found here, so that none of it is lost (it should be in those articles anyway). Epachamo (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. A paragraph of background including the relevance to current church doctrine and the fact that there's an uncertain amount still missing, would help a casual reader make sense of the rest of the page. Pastychomper (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I should note that part of this problem is because I originally wrote this article at Book of Abraham. However, it was suggested that because the criticism took up too much room, I should move it here. I grabbed some text that I thought established a solid background for the page, but totally recognize that I may have been a little overzealous in what I took.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  14:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In your defense, there wasn't a ton of background in those articles back then, so a solid background was probably called for. Epachamo (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Note on this being "Essay-like"
Yesterday, this article was tagged with, and I'd just like to defend my revision of said tag. First, I have no real 'religious dog' in the fight, to mangle an idiom (in other words, I am neither Mormon, nor anti-Mormon). I’ve just found the topic fascinating, given my interest in anthropology, linguistics, alternative archeology (e.g., Archaeological interest of Pedra da Gávea, Tucson artifacts) and Christian (re)interpretation of non-Christian works (e.g., Christian interpretations of Virgil's Eclogue 4, Cup of the Ptolemies). Second, the sources in this article are reputable and arguably balanced. For instance, one of the major books I used was a book written by Robert K. Ritner—a respected and reputable Egyptologist who currently works at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute. On the other hand, I have also included a number of apologetic works so that this isn't some "anti-Mormon polemic"—in fact, my handling of balance was explicitly highlighted during the GA review, wherein my approach was complimented. As for how the article is organized and arranged, there were three critical factors that led to how it all appears: First, this topic has engendered much scholarship. Second, much of that scholarship has been critical. Third, much of the apologetic research has come from explicitly pro-Mormon quarters. Given all of this, I think this is a very fair treatment of the topic.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  16:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this as a religious issue but purely stylistic. My reasons for seeing it as an essay include the use of the word "finally" several times in your text. That alone makes it look like an essay to me. A longer example:


 * This correlation found in the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" between Abraham 1:11–2:9 and the Small Sensen papyrus has thus led many critics to assert that all of the Book of Abraham text most likely came entirely from Smith's interpretation of the Small Sensen papyrus, rather than a hypothetical lost section (as is often asserted by apologists) . This means, however, that Smith likely used a single Egyptian character to derive dozens of words. Jerald Tanner, for instance, wrote "Joseph Smith apparently translated many English words from each Egyptian character. The characters from fewer than four lines of the papyrus make up forty-nine verses of the Book of Abraham, containing more than two thousand words. If Joseph Smith continued to translate the same number of English words from each Egyptian character, this one small fragment would complete the entire text of the Book of Abraham. In other words, the small piece of papyrus [i.e. the fragment known as Fragment XI] appears to be the whole Book of Abraham!"


 * That looks like original research, which is appropriate for an essay but not here. The "many critics" bit may be ok if one of the two sources cites others or says many, but "This means, however, that Smith likely used a single Egyptian character... is OR. It's your interpretation of Tanner. You're probably right but it's still your view, not directly cited.  Doug Weller  talk 16:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * That's not OR; that's just a paraphrase of what the citation(s) say (it's literally just a rewording of the direct quote "Joseph Smith apparently translated many English words from each Egyptian character"), which we're encouraged to do here on Wikipedia. I recognize that this is far from a perfect article and can indeed be improved (all articles can), but it's very similar to other articles that comment on a broad topic rather than a clearly delineated one (e.g., see below for some links to similar articles that focus on religious articles).-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  16:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * All that said, I will try to clean up some of the "likely" and "finally" bits so as it make it less vague.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham → Criticism of the Book of Abraham – I recommend the change to conform to what seems to be a standard naming practice on Wikipedia. For examples: Criticism of the Bible, Criticism of the Quran, Criticism of the Book of Mormon, etc. Epachamo (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am fine either way (I believe it originally was "criticism", but it was changed to "critical appraisal" to be a little less inflammatory), but if this is standard practice, I support the move.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  19:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nomination. Standard Wikipedia form. This entry was created (as Criticism of the Book of Abraham) on November 24, 2007 and was redirected to Book of Abraham five days later. It was restored and greatly expanded nine years later, on August 20, 2016. Five weeks later, it was unilaterally moved to its present main title header, Critical appraisal of the Book of Abraham. Although this recent title may well be more specifically descriptive than the previous one, it stands alone as far as Wikipedia titling forms are concerned. On the other hand, since the form "Criticism of..." is standard, the header should be returned to that form. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as standardised form.--Astral Leap (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remodeling
I'd like to propose re-formatting this article similar to Criticism of the Bible and other "Criticism of ..." articles. When this article was written, the Book of Abraham article and Joseph Smith papyri article were very sparse, and the context and format of this page was necessary for a reader. With the maturation of these other articles, I think it best if this article was arranged by topic, i.e., "Historicity", "Literary Dependence", "Translation", "Anachronisms", "Ethics", "Astronomy", etc. I am not proposing that any of the content be deleted. Specifically tagging for comment as a significant contributor to this article. Epachamo (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out and for contacting me! I don't have any issues with this remodel whatsoever; in fact, I think it would be a good idea to have this in line with similar articles. Alas, I don't have a ton of free time atm to really help. That said, if you were wanting to take the lead on an overhaul, I wouldn't protest! (And I can likely help out here and there, e.g., with sourcing and the like, since I have a lot of the books I used when writing this.)-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits are looking really good! Keep it up!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  18:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Updating topic to include more recent developments
I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so please forgive my learning curve.

Criticism of the Book of Abraham is a very intriguing topic. I've been studying Book of Abraham issues for a while, and recently (a few weeks ago), I began reading (and comparing) Larson (1992), Ritner (2013), and Vogel (2021). Vogel is a historian with years of experience publishing on topics in the LDS Movement, and is among the most recent to publish a book on Book of Abraham criticism and apologetics. Yet, only one of his older YouTube videos is cited in this article (and no way to find the reference within the video).

After attempting to add a minor edit to this article (a statement referenced to Ritner), I carefully reviewed Wikipedia guidelines (citations, verification, NPOV, equal weight, religious topics, and so on), and then, again, carefully reviewed the article, and I feel we should update it. I hope to begin by adding several references to Vogel's 2021 Book of Abraham Apologetics: A Review and Critique, by Signature Books. If there's anything I need to be aware of before I spend time, please let me know. Thanks

(My first two editing attempts were almost immediately removed, I don't exactly understand that, but am excited to learn, and don't want to offend, misrepresent, or waste time.)

Also, since I'm not sure how talk works, and since I noticed that Gen. Quon is a significant contributor to this page, I'm including a shorter, hopefully more clear version of my reply to his comments to me (relating to removing my 2nd ever Wikipedia edit). I didn't feel it was a major edit, and am fine with leaving it as is, but am sharing this in case anyone wants to discuss.


 * Hi Gen. Quon, thanks a ton, I really appreciate your help. I do need it! Still learning.
 * You may have misunderstood, my edit wasn’t disagreeing that Smith said the papyrus “...contained the writings of Abraham and Joseph…” As you note, this is implied in the contemporary handwritten and published documents recorded by Whitmer; it was also recorded by Richards who, as per current BoA criticism published by Signature Books (Vogel, with help from Marquardt, etc.), relied on Phelps and/or Smith for the hindsight 1843 JS History entry (for July 6th, 1835). It’s also likely, but, as far as I know, not yet verifiable, that JS dictated something about Katumin. Still, I don’t see any reason to leave the parenthetical mention of Katumin out, but I do feel we should add a reference to Ritner 2013, pp. 15-17, where Whitmer and Phelps are cited by Marquardt. However, I’ll leave that up to you, since you seem to disagree that those pages are a better reference vs uncited p. 2?
 * Second, my edit wasn’t a complaint that Ritner 2013, is biased. Wikipedia acknowledges that we can’t eliminate bias, but, as I understand, we’re to report on, or describe disputes with equal weight, and not defend or oppose one side or the other, and not assume, in Wikipedia's voice, that one side or the other is correct.
 * In that light, when I said (in reference to having my addition of "According to Robert Ritner..." removed for not being a NPOV): “There may be a great reference somewhere in his many writings, but pages 1 and 2 do not provide. Assuming that anything said by Dr. Ritner is true, isn't really neutral,” I wasn’t claiming biases on the part of Ritner, UChicago, BYU, or etc. My original feelings were that, by referencing Ritner’s uncited introductory notes (to be built upon), we were asking readers to just believe such and such (in this case, that "Smith said" something) simply because someone distinguished, accepted, published, or so on, said so. I guessed other readers would have experiences similar to mine. I checked p. 2 of Ritner 2013 expecting to find Ritner quoting Smith saying such and such, and I found only Ritner saying something a bit different (perhaps disputed by more current Book of Abraham criticism, but it's unclear, and that’s a different subject). The issue was that, without searching beyond your reference to p. 2, readers who question authority, and so on, might wonder about Wikipedia’s balanced treatment of the dispute, as well as Ritner. In my opinion, we could better represent Ritner by citing one of his “great references somewhere” else, e.g. p. 15-17.
 * Thanks again so much for your help!

Seekingtime (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to respond, and I apologize if my reverts seemed aggressive (this page has received a lot of vandalism in the past, so I'm a little jumpy sometimes to prevent that sort of thing). Your point about Dan Vogel is a good one. His work likely should be added to this article. Adding a citation to pages 15-17 of Ritner is also a solid point; once again, I apologize if I misunderstood your initial point. Since I don't WP:OWN this page, feel free to make changes that you think will improve it! (I might jump in here and there to tweak citation formatting and the like to ensure that everything matches aesthetically, but I'll refrain from making any revisions and the like without conferencing with you first.)--Gen. Quon[Talk] 18:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and also for fixing my attempted addition to the Bibliography. I was just trying to figure out how to do that, and noticed you cleaned it up! Seekingtime (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)