Assessment of Claimed Anachronisms in the Book of Abraham

Book of Abraham > Book of Abraham Anachronisms > Assessment of Claimed Anachronisms in the Book of Abraham

Assessment of Claimed Anachronisms in the Book of Abraham

Summary: This page contains responses to all claimed anachronisms in the Book of Abraham.

---

Abraham as a Historical Figure

Many scholars today deny that Abraham ever existed. How can someone believe that the Book of Abraham is authentic and written by Abraham if Abraham never existed?

Historical Plausibility

One thing to keep in mind when approaching this question is that the existence of biblical characters can actually never be proven nor disproven. It can only be made more plausible or more implausible. This is the basic notion of historical plausibility.

As explained by John Gee and Stephen Ricks:

Historical plausibility relies on the aggregate of information to provide a consistent picture of events and processes. It assumes that historical conditions at a given time and place are consistent and that change over both time and place varies consistently. That is, documents and artifacts produced at a given time and place have a certain commonality that may vary as both time and place change . . . Documents also follow certain patterns in layout, language, script, paleography, vocabulary, genre, specificity, onomastics, and cultural referents (including governmental, social, and religious institutions and practices). To the extent that a document matches others in these areas, it is historically plausible.

There is no consensus about whether Abraham was real

If there is no consensus of scholars on whether Abraham was real, then we can be assured that there is no definitive reason to rule out Abraham's existence.

Modern revelation is a valid source of knowledge

Sometimes Latter-day Saints forget (or even deliberately discard) that modern revelation is a valid source of knowledge. The majority of biblical scholars do not accept this assumption and operate only on what they can determine from the archaeological record.

Modern revelation, for a Latter-day Saint, must be a kind of evidence, and offers us strong reasons to believe in the historicity of Abraham.

Chariots

On March 18, 2022, Dr. John Gee, the foremost expert on the Book of Abraham and a professor in the Department of Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University, had a paper published in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship entitled “‘The Wind and the Fire to be My Chariot’: The Anachronism that Wasn’t.”

In the paper, Dr. Gee points out that no critic since the translation and publication of the Book of Abraham has pointed out the apparent anachronism of the chariot. In Abraham 2:7, God tells Abraham in Haran that he will “cause the wind and the fire to be [his] chariot.”

Is the chariot an actual anachronism in the Book of Abraham?

Dr. Gee responds to his own criticism and shows that both linguistic and archaeological data point to the chariot existing during the span of time typically thought of to be Abraham’s lifetime. One can read the paper by following this link.

The Dating of the Papyri

In 1967, the Church acquired some surviving fragments of the papyri from which the translation of the Book of Abraham was rendered from the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art through the help of Dr. Aziz Atiya, a professor at the University of Utah.

As papyrological work was done, scholars discovered that the papyrus dated to at least 1700 years (Between 300 BCE – 100 CE) after the prophet Abraham is traditionally claimed to have lived (2000 BCE).

Many have naturally asked the question of how can the papyri date to such a late time and record genuinely historical events from the life of the supposedly historical Abraham.

Examples of Texts that have Survived for Long Periods of Time

In response to the above criticism, it may be noted that we do have knowledge of texts that record historical events and survive scribal transmission for a long period of time.

For example, The Book of the Dead was copied from the New Kingdom period of ancient Egyptian history clear down to the end of the Ptolemaic Period. That's 1000+ years of transmission.

Additionally, the oldest portions of the Pentateuch (e.g. the Song of Moses in Exodus 15) were passed through scribal transmission for well over 1,500+ years.

What's more, narrative texts from the Middle Kingdom period in Egyptian history like the Story of Sinuhe were preserved in copies belonging to the New Kingdom period, which would be around 700+ years of transmission.

Perhaps our best parallel would be the Holy Bible. It has a pretty long manual transmission history from autographs penned in the Iron Age all the way down to when they were placed in print editions of the Bible starting in the 1500s. In other words, people were hand-copying these texts with a fair degree of accuracy for over 3,000 years and yet we hold their texts as fairly accurate historically speaking.

Elements of the Book of Abraham that Date to the Time of Abraham

Elements from the Book of Abraham that can definitively place it in the time that the historical Abraham is claimed to live can help us construct the historical core of the Book of Abraham and bolster the claim of historical authenticity. Some of these elements that can more than plausibly date to Abraham’s day include:

• Human sacrifice
• The God of Elkenah
• Olishem
• The idolatrous gods represented by the canopic jars in facsimile 1.
• Stating that autographs are “written in the hand” of that person.
• Identification of Shinehah as “the sun”.
• The name "Shulem" as reference to the king's waiter.
• The astronomy of the Book of Abraham.
• The identification of a crocodile as "The God of Pharoah".

Stephen Smoot and Kerry Muhelstein’s Paper on the Transmission of the Book of Abraham

Stephen O. Smoot—a PhD student in Egyptian and Semitic Languages and Literature—and Dr. Kerry Muhelstein (PhD Egyptology, UCLA)—a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University—have outlined a plausible scenario in which a text containing the autobiographical writings of Abraham could have been preserved and transmitted for that long of time and on the type of papyrus that Joseph Smith claimed to translate from. We strongly encourage readers to review their paper published in BYU Studies on the subject.

These and other elements can combine to help us understand that, even though a text does have a very, very long transmission history, it can still plausibly preserve literal historical events from the lives of the first authors. That does not mean that the text as it has been preserved to us today must have originated entirely from the mind of the historical Abraham. Scribes and redactors could have made inspired emendations to the text over the years and we would still have a text that dates originally to the time of Abraham. In sum, we have no reason to believe that the dating of the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated threatens the possibility of being genuine writings from the prophet Abraham and no reason to believe that the dating of the papyri threatens the core theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"By His Own Hand, Upon Papyrus"

But our critics still won't be satisfied. They'll point out that when the Book of Abraham was first published in the Times and Seasons in March 1842, the title read as follows: "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

How could the Book of Abraham have carried "by his own hand, upon papyrus" in its title, date to long after Abraham lived, and still be authentically from the prophet Abraham?

There are two ways to deal with this issue, either of which works with Latter-day Saint commitments.

One could believe that "by his own hand, upon papyrus" is an Egyptian title. There is some evidence for this. "By the hand" can indicate authorship of a text and not a specific copy of that text.

One could also believe that "by his own hand, upon papyrus" is a modern title given to the text by Joseph Smith or one of his associates. Given that the text is about Abraham and written in the first person, it would be natural for Joseph Smith to assume that the text was written by Abraham himself. That belief could indeed be true and the text could still have undergone copy and revision over many hundreds of years.

Either option is open to a Latter-day Saint.

Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson outline this issue in more detail here. Also, see Stephen Smoot's post on the FAIR Blog on this issue here.

Depiction of Angels

One critic has argued that the depiction of angels saving Abraham (Abraham 1:15) is anachronistic. According to some biblical scholars, the concept of angels as benevolent, semi-divine beings did not develop in Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.

However, why could it not be the case that the Book of Abraham is authentic and carries this conception? Why could it not be the case that angels are real, appeared to Abraham, and he recorded his experience?

If we are to accept this anachronism as real, it seems to be easily explained by a later redactor or copyist of the Book of Abraham who may have overlaid their conception of angels onto the Book of Abraham narrative.

The Documentary Hypothesis

The Documentary Hypothesis is the theory that the first five books of the Bible were created by combining four separate documents written at different times. These documents are typically named after the ideologies of the authors who wrote them. The four sources are the J (Jahwist), P (Priestly), E (Elohist), and D (Deuteronomist) sources.

Critics argue that certain content in the Book of Abraham combines material from the Jahwist (dated to the 9th–10th century) and Priestly (dated to the 7th–6th century) sources, which were written hundreds of years after Abraham is traditionally thought to have lived.

Priestly Source	Jahwist Source	KJV Genesis 2:4	Abraham 5:4
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created."	"In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."	"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."	"And the Gods came down and formed these the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were formed in the day that the Gods formed the earth and the heavens."

There are two different approaches that one can take to the identification and dating of the sources and reconcile them with the Book of Abraham.

One approach might be to point out that the once-tight consensus surrounding the Documentary Hypothesis has begun to unravel in recent years. Scholars are no longer certain about the identification and dating of the sources that make up the first five books of the Bible. This approach would deny any anachronistic material in the Book of Abraham.

Another approach might be to suggest that the Book of Abraham, like the first five books of the Bible under the Documentary Hypothesis, could be a composite work, created by multiple individuals over many years, rather than by one person. There could indeed have been a text initially composed by Abraham that was then edited by inspired prophets and seers after Abraham lived. This would simultaneously preserve the Book of Abraham's status as genuine, ancient, and originally authored by Abraham, while providing a convenient and simple explanation for the seemingly anachronistic material that exists within it.

Readers will decide for themselves which approach they will take. Either perspective is open to a Latter-day Saint without threatening any core commitment of their faith.

Regardless of the approach, it is clear that the translation of the Book of Abraham is modeled after the structure and style of the KJV's translation of Genesis. This is not a problem, however, because we know that God speaks to men in the manner of their language, unto their understanding, so that they can receive greater light (Doctrine & Covenants 1:24). This model of revelation easily applies to Joseph Smith's revelatory translations like the one in the Book of Abraham.

Hebrew Not Old Enough for Abraham

Stephen O. Smoot, a Latter-day Saint scholar of the Book of Abraham, addressed this issue in a 2025 paper.

Smoot explains that the Book of Abraham does not require Abraham himself to have written in Hebrew. Scholars agree that Hebrew as a full language did not exist in Abraham’s time, even though older related languages were spoken then. So, a perfectly preserved Abrahamic text written in later Hebrew would be unlikely. Smoot points out, however, that the issue is much smaller than it first seems. Smoot provides three potential explanations for the presence of Hebrew in the Book of Abraham.

1. Only three Hebrew-like words appear in the actual text of the Book of Abraham, and those words also appear in older Semitic languages that existed long before Hebrew. This means Joseph Smith could have been expressing very ancient ideas using Hebrew words he knew, rather than inserting something completely out of place.
2. Ancient writings were often copied and updated by later scribes. Over many centuries, a text connected to Abraham could have been rewritten in ways that reflected the languages of later copyists, including Hebrew, even though Abraham himself never used it.
3. Finally, Smoot suggests that the Hebrew words may have been used by Joseph Smith as explanations to help readers understand important religious ideas. The words are introduced with phrases like “which is” or “which means,” suggesting that the Hebrew words might be serving as clarifying notes or what scholars might call "translator's glosses." Because Joseph studied Hebrew later in his life, he may have used Hebrew to explain ancient ideas.

Ultimately, it is likely that Joseph Smith's knowledge of Hebrew influenced the final composition or editing of the Book of Abraham before its publication. In this way, the Book of Abraham reflects both divine revelation and Joseph Smith’s learning.

Human Sacrifice

Some scholars doubt the existence of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt.

Smoot, Gee, Muhlestein, and Thompson explain that the beginning of the Book of Abraham tells how Abraham’s own family tried to offer him up to their “strange gods” in a ritual that looked like human sacrifice or ritual killing, and that the text says this practice was done “after the manner of the Egyptians,” with a priest involved (Abraham 1:7–11). They then look at ancient Egyptian history and archaeology and show that, although scholars use terms like "ritual slaying," "sanctioned killing," or "sacred violence" instead of simply “human sacrifice,” there is evidence that ancient Egyptians sometimes killed people in ritual or religious contexts, especially for offenses against sacred space or religious norms, and that this kind of sanctioned killing happened during the time Abraham is thought to have lived. This ancient evidence matches many details of the Book of Abraham’s story about Abraham nearly being killed, suggesting that the narrative fits with what we know about ancient Near Eastern practices rather than being just a modern invention. For Latter-day Saints, the article can be used to show that the Book of Abraham’s dramatic opening accounts of ritual killing are connected to real ancient religious beliefs and rituals, helping readers understand the story in a historical and cultural context instead of seeing it as only a symbolic or made-up scene.—(Click here to read more)

The Name "Egyptus"

Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson have addressed this here. The name "Egyptus" would indeed have been anachronistic to Abraham's day. However, the name of Ham's wife in all three Kirtland-era Book of Abraham manuscripts is "Zeptah" instead of Egyptus. As Smoot, Gee, Muhlestein, and Thompson explain, "The name Zeptah is striking because it could very likely be a rendering of the Egyptian name Siptah (sꜣ Ptḥ), meaning 'son of [the god] Ptah.' This name, as well as its feminine equivalent 'daughter of [the god] Ptah' (sꜣt Ptḥ), is attested during the likely time of Abraham. It is also the name of an Egyptian king who lived many centuries after Abraham."

"Since Egyptes/Egyptus is a Greek name that would be anachronistic for Abraham’s day, it might reflect the work of ancient scribes transmitting the text who 'updated' the name centuries later. This may likewise have been the case with the name Zeptah as well."

More information can be found by reading Smoot's, Gee's, Muhlestein's, and Thompson's essay.

The Name "Pharaoh"

Several critics allege that calling someone "Pharaoh" is anachronistic to the time of Abraham.

It should be noted that the functional equivalent of the office of Pharaoh does indeed extend to the time of Abraham. The title "Pharaoh" began to be applied to the Egyptian ruler beginning around the 18th dynasty (1500 BC). It is true that the title "Pharaoh" does not range back to the traditional dating of Abraham's life. After the 18th dynasty, the title was retroactively applied to all monarchs of Egypt.

If there was a person who could be called the monarch in Abraham's day, Joseph Smith and his contemporaries would likely have called that person "Pharaoh." Since God speaks to men unto their understanding and in their language (Doctrine & Covenants 1:24), and since virtually anyone today would call any Egyptian monarch "pharaoh," it is unsurprising that the name Joseph Smith and God selected for an Egyptian monarch was "pharaoh."

Prophetic Figure Writing Scripture

David Bokovoy, a scholar of the Bible and a disaffected Latter-day Saint, wrote, "The notion of an ancient prophetic figure or patriarch writing scripture is historically anachronistic. Though traces of Moses as author exist in the Book of Deuteronomy, this view of scripture did not develop fully in Judean thought until the Hellenistic era (321–31BC)."

Bokovoy's claim is largely an assertion and does not merit much response. However, we might point out that an ancient inscription by a king named Idrimi from about 1500 BC shares some similarities with the Book of Abraham, because both texts are written in the first person and tell of the writer’s life, travels, connection to their ancestors, and relationship with God or divine promises. In the ancient Near East, people sometimes wrote about their own lives in this way, and the Idrimi inscription is one example of that kind of writing that archaeologists have found long after the Book of Abraham was published. Smoot, Gee, Muhlestein, and Thompson argue that because these kinds of autobiographical texts existed in the ancient world, this supports the idea that the Book of Abraham could also reflect an ancient literary tradition rather than being purely a modern creation. For Latter-day Saints, this article can be used to suggest that the style and form of the Book of Abraham fit with real ancient Near Eastern writings, helping readers see the Book of Abraham in a broader historical and cultural context.—(Click here to read more)

Potiphar's Hill

Some critics contend that the name "Potiphar" is anachronistic to the time of Abraham.

Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson addressed this issue:

Although the name Potiphar itself is only currently attested after Abraham’s day, the grammatical formula used in the name (pꜣ-­dỉ-­[X]; “the one whom [such-­and-­such god] has given”) appears to be based on an earlier formula that is found plentifully in Egyptian names from Abraham’s day. The Re element in the name Potiphar links the name (and thereby the cult site in the Book of Abraham) with solar worship, inasmuch as Re was the chief solar deity of ancient Egypt. This explains why the idolatrous priest in the Book of Abraham is depicted in the text as making an offering to the god of Shagreel, which is identified as a sun deity (Abr. 1:9). The veneration of this deity in Egypt predates Abraham’s day by many centuries, so it is not at all inconceivable that the name could have been as old as Abraham, even if it is not yet attested.

Ur of the Chaldees

The Chaldeens are mentioned a number of times in the Book of Abraham (Abraham 1:1, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 30, 2:4 and 3:1.) Abraham 3꞉1 states:

And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees

The phrase "Ur of the Chaldees" appears in the Old Testament in Genesis 11꞉26-28 in connection with Abraham (Abram) and his father Terah:

26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
27 ¶Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

It is claimed that the mention of "Ur of the Chaldees" in the Book of Abraham is an anachronism. According to Stephen Thompson, "scholarly estimates for the age of the patriarchs range from 2200 to 1200 B.C." The Chaldeans, on the other hand, did not appear until hundreds of years later. Thompson notes that, "anything occurring after 1500 B.C. is definitely anachronistic to Abraham's lifetime." An additional complication is that scholars today place "Chaldea" in southern Mesopotamia, which is too far away to have any Egyptian influence.

Scholars have long debated where “Ur of the Chaldees,” Abraham’s homeland, was located. The issue ultimately remains unresolved. While many modern scholars place it in southern Iraq, Latter-day Saint scholars have given careful attention to a northern location in Syria or southern Turkey. Their work matters because it helps explain details in the Book of Abraham that are difficult to account for if Abraham came from southern Mesopotamia.

Early religious tradition often placed Abraham’s home in the north, near modern-day Urfa in Turkey. This view existed centuries before modern archaeology and fits well with the biblical story of Abraham traveling first to Haran and then to Canaan. Latter-day Saint scholars note that this older tradition should not be ignored, especially since it matches the travel routes described in both Genesis and the Book of Abraham.

Latter-day Saint researchers have also shown that a northern location helps explain cultural details in the Book of Abraham. The book describes ideas and practices that show Egyptian influence. This influence makes more sense in the northern Near East, where Egypt had contact through trade and politics during Abraham’s time. In contrast, there is little evidence that Egypt had meaningful influence in southern Iraq that early. A northern Ur therefore fits better with the cultural world described in the Book of Abraham.

Another important point is geography. The Book of Abraham mentions specific regions and place names, such as Olishem, that some Latter-day Saint scholars connect to known northern locations. If Abraham lived in the north, his journey to Haran and then to the land of Canaan follows a natural and logical path. A southern location would require a much longer and less direct journey, raising questions the northern model answers more easily.

By pointing to a northern Ur of the Chaldees, Latter-day Saint scholars help show that the Book of Abraham fits well within the real ancient world. Their research suggests that the book reflects accurate geography and cultural knowledge rather than modern invention. While the question of Ur’s exact location remains open, the northern approach helps answer important questions about the Book of Abraham’s authenticity and shows why its details continue to make sense when studied carefully.—(Click here to read more)

The Use of the Hypocephalus

The vignettes or scenes portrayed in the Facsimiles date to after the time of Abraham.

The use of the hypocephalus (such as portrayed in Facsimile 2) dates back only to about the 7th century BC.

This data point suggests that a later copyist or redactor adapted the narrative of Abraham to his surrounding culture and embedded it within the hypocephalus.

Notes

BACK TO TOP