Hauglid’s new critical text of the Book of Abraham manuscripts

Last updated on: March 8, 2011 at 3:31 pm by bhodges

Hauglid’s new critical text of the Book of Abraham manuscripts 2011-03-08T15:31:18-05:00 bhodges

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Brian M. Hauglid’s A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions is the latest volume in the Studies in the Book of Abraham Series from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. A full review is available here, and my podcast interview with Hauglid is available here. In this post I briefly compare Hauglid’s project to Royal Skousen’s project on the Book of Mormon manuscripts.

A few differences between his project and Hauglid’s are immediately apparent.

First, Skousen worked with a partially extant original manuscript and a nearly complete printer’s manuscript, in addition to the subsequent English editions. As with the Book of Mormon, a single hand-written manuscript of the entire Book of Abraham is not known. Manuscript evidence exists only for Abraham 1:1-2:18; Abraham 3:18b-26a; and explanations for Facsimiles 1 and 2 (21, this and all page references below refer to Hauglid’s A Textual History). Hauglid relies on the first published edition of the BoA in the 1842 Times and Seasons to fill the gap. According to Hauglid, Joseph Smith oversaw the T&S publication but, as far as can be seen, Smith “had no [direct] influence on the text after this publication and up until his death in June 1844” (22). Overall, Skousen had much more to work with given the respective lengths of the texts. Thus, his multi-page books do not include scanned images of the manuscripts alongside the transcription as Hauglid’s book does (in a similar fashion to the Joseph Smith Papers Revelations and Translations, Manuscript Revelation Books volume).

Second, Skousen argues that the original manuscript of the BoM shows definite signs of being a dictated text. Hauglid argues that such signs are absent in the extant BoA manuscripts. Thus, he argues they are not the results of dictation because they bear the marks of being copies from a now-unknown “earlier exemplar” he calls “Ab0” (7, 21). Through textual analysis, comparison of spelling, handwriting, punctuation, evolution of the text, etc., Hauglid lays out his evidence. The full transcriptions of each manuscript which appear in the book can be used to check out his theory, and the introduction describes the best specific evidence.

As with Skousen’s project, folks will probably be interested in the textual variants in various editions, which Hauglid identifies. Given the length of the texts it isn’t surprising that the BoA has far, far fewer substantive variations compared with the BoM. Some of the biggest changes were actually made by James E. Talmage, who used his 1888 edition of the BoA to update the text for the 1902 edition of the Pearl of Great Price. Hauglid’s 5th Appendix consists of full color images of Talmage’s 1888 edition, showing his annotations. Talmage divided up the text into the now-familiar verse structure, inserted paragraphs, changed some spelling and grammar, and made other minor adjustments.

Some of his contemplated changes were not used. For instance, Abraham 3:26 reads: “and they who keep not their first estate, shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate….” Talmage crossed out “keep” and wrote “kept” in the margin in blue pencil. “Kept” was subsequently crossed out of the margin with black pencil and today the text still reads “keep” (299).

A puzzling change was made to Abraham 1:19. In the current edition, based on Talmage’s change, God tells Abraham:

As it was with Noah so shall it be with thee; but through thy ministry my name shall be known in the earth forever, for I am thy God.

As seen in the manuscript, this originally read:

As it was with Noah, so shall it be with thee, that through thy ministry my name shall be known in the earth forever, for I am thy God (289).

Evidently, Talmage wanted to differentiate Abraham from Noah in that he felt God’s name was not known in the earth forever through Noah, although I know of no specific explanation for the change.

Hauglid hopes that his new “volume will increase appreciation for the rich textual history of the Book of Abraham” (ix). I’ve already had a bit of fun with it. It’s a meticulously compiled source book for future researchers, and an interesting volume which Latter-day Saints can use to read the Book of Abraham in a different light. It’s pricey, but very well produced and highly recommended.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 7, 2011

BYU's honor code, implications of racism, and journalistic rhetorical structures

Next Post

March 8, 2011 Blessed are the virgins?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2013 Scriptures Administrative Apologetics Atonement Bible Book of Mormon Book Review BYU Doctrine Extra-Biblical Literature Family Feminism Guests History LDS Church History Leadership Marginalia Metaphysics Mormon Culture Mormon Studies Personal Issues Political Philosophy Politics Scripture Sexuality Speculation Spotlights Studying Religion Ten Tidbits The Tenure Track Theology Tips on Applying Series Tips on Being an Independent Scholar Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz