Book of Abraham Facsimiles

What are the Book of Abraham facsimiles?

They are three illustrations that have accompanied the text of the Book of Abraham in each of its major editions.[1]

Who drew the facsimiles?

Ancient Egyptian artists drew the original illustrations.[2] The identities of these ancient artists are unknown.

In early 1842, shortly before the Book of Abraham was first published,[3] Joseph Smith[BIO] commissioned Reuben Hedlock[BIO] to make modern copies, or facsimiles, of these illustrations for publication.[4]

Wait, didn't Abraham originally draw the facsimiles?

No, at least not these particular drawings.[5] The papyri Joseph Smith obtained are dated to the Ptolemaic Period of Egyptian history (circa 330–30 BC).[6] This is too late for the biblical prophet Abraham[BIO] to have drawn the facsimiles himself.[7]

Why did Joseph Smith include the facsimiles with his translation of the Book of Abraham?

It's unclear. The text in verses 12 and 14 of Abraham 1 make a reference to Facsimile 1,[8] but these verses appear to have been inserted and aren't original,[9] which suggests that Joseph or others working on the project saw a connection between the facsimile image and the text.[10]

However there is no historical record from Joseph explaining his decision to include the facsimiles with the Book of Abraham.

Related Question

Where did Joseph Smith obtain the papyrus?

Read more in Book of Abraham Translation

Who wrote the explanations for the facsimiles?

Probably Joseph Smith, since he directly oversaw the publication of the facsimiles[11] as the editor of the Times and Seasons.[12]

It's also possible that other clerks contributed to the explanations of the facsimiles, such as Willard Richards[BIO] and Wilford Woodruff,[BIO] who helped scribe and publish the Book of Abraham in early 1842.[13]

Can Egyptologists read the characters in the facsimiles today?

Mostly, yes. Egyptologists are able to read most of the hieroglyphs in Facsimiles 2 and 3.[14] However, the hieroglyphs in Facsimile 3 were poorly copied from the original by Reuben Hedlock and aren't very legible.[15]

**Facsimile 1** of the Book of Abraham in the 1981/2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price. There are no hieroglyphic characters in this facsimile for Egyptologists to translate; it is simply a picture.[16]

**Facsimile 2** of the Book of Abraham in the 1981/2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price. Figures 2–3, 8–21 contain some hieroglyphic and some hieratic writing. Egyptologists have offered translations of these characters.[17]

**Facsimile 3** of the Book of Abraham in the 1981/2013 edition of the Pearl of Great Price. Columns of hieroglyphic writing are above the standing figures in this facsimile. Egyptologists have offered translations of these hieroglyphic characters.[18]

Do Egyptologists agree with Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles?

No, not really.[19] Egyptologists have disagreed with Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles since at least the mid-nineteenth century.[20] Latter-day Saint Egyptologists acknowledge that the explanations Joseph Smith provided do not match the modern Egyptological interpretation.[21]

Table of Joseph Smith's and Egyptologists' interpretations of the facsimiles.

Facsimile	Description	Joseph Smith's Interpretation	Egyptological Interpretation
Facsimile 1	Lion-couch scene[22]	An attempted sacrifice of Abraham by an idolatrous priest of the god Elkenah.[23]	A representation of the god Anubis assisting the deceased owner of the papyrus, Hor, in the process of resurrection.[24]
Facsimile 2	Hypocephalus (funerary amulette)[25]	A cosmological map depicting the hierarchy of heavenly bodies as they relate to temple and priesthood themes.[26]	A funerary amulette that served to guide the deceased through the process of becoming a god in the afterlife and to give the body heat and warmth with magical fire.[27]
Facsimile 3	Presentation scene[28]	"Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of astronomy, in the kings Court."[29]	A representation of the deceased owner of the papyrus, Hor, being brought into the presence of the god Osiris, seated on his throne.[30]

So they don't really match—isn't this a problem for Joseph Smith?

Yes or no, depending on your assumptions on the purpose of Joseph's explanations. Various theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancies (see chart below).

Table of assumptions and corresponding explanations

Possible Explanation(s) or Conclusion(s)	Assumption(s)
Joseph was a poor translator of Egyptian and the Lord permitted the mistakes to be made,[31] or Joseph was a deliberate fraud and/or delusional.[32]	Modern Egyptologists are generally correct in their interpretations. Joseph Smith interpreted the facsimiles by secular methods.
Joseph was a poor secular translator of Egyptian and had difficulty discerning revelation as it related to the facsimiles, and the Lord permitted the poor translation and revelation to be published.[33]	Modern Egyptologists are generally correct in their interpretations. Joseph Smith interpreted the facsimiles with secular and revelatory methods.
Joseph's competence as a translator of Egyptian is not important because he did not intend to translate the facsimiles into their original meaning.[34] He repurposed the original meaning of the facsimiles in an expansive, prophetic way to illustrate the Book of Abraham text;[35] or he interpreted them how Abraham's descendants would have interpreted them.[36]	Modern Egyptologists may or may not be generally correct in their interpretations. Joseph Smith interpreted the facsimiles with secular and revelatory methods.
Joseph was a competent translator of Egyptian through revelation, and the reason for the incongruence is that modern Egyptologists do not have a complete understanding of the ancient context and meaning of the facsimiles.[37]	Modern Egyptologists are generally incorrect or incomplete in their interpretations. Joseph Smith interpreted the facsimiles with revelatory methods.

How has the Church attempted to explain this problem?

The Church hasn't taken any "official" position on the problems related to the facsimiles.[38] However, the Church has published research in official sources like the Ensign that support the idea that Joseph's interpretations can be correlated with modern Egyptological interpretations.[39]

The Church's 2014 Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Abraham briefly discusses the facsimiles but doesn't elaborate on the problems related to translation.[40]

What is the relationship between the facsimiles and the text of the Book of Abraham?

The facsimiles illustrate some elements in the Book of Abraham. For example, Facsimile 1 depicts Abraham 1:12–19.[41] Facsimile 2 illustrates the cosmology in Abraham 3.[42] However, Facsimile 3 depicts Abraham teaching astronomy in Pharaoh's court,[43] which is not included in the published Book of Abraham.[44]

Did Joseph Smith make any alterations to the facsimiles?

Yes, Facsimiles 1 and 2 have had alterations made to them.

A hand-copy of Facsimile 2 drafted sometime between 1835 and 1842 shows missing portions in the original that Joseph Smith had apparently filled in for publication.[45] It appears as though they were filled in with symbols borrowed from other papyrus fragments.[46]

A side-by-side comparison of an undated draft copy (left) of the hypocephalus (Facsimile 2) and the version that appeared in print in the *Times and Seasons* in 1842 (right).[47]

The original papyrus to Facsimile 1 also appears to have been altered.[48] The surviving papyrus fragment (see below) has large gaps in the middle and running along the top of the scene.[49]

The original illustration of Facsimile 1 (Book of Breathing of Horos Fragment A/Joseph Smith Papyrus I).[50]

It's unknown, however, how much of this papyrus fragment was damaged before the March 1842 publication of Facsimile 1.[51]

Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham as it appeared in print in the *Times and Seasons* on March 1, 1842.[52]

Shouldn't the "priest" figure in Facsimile 1 have a jackal head instead of a bald human head?

Yes, probably. The figure is most likely the jackal-headed god Anubis, based, among other reasons, on the black skin of the figure in the original papyrus.[53]

Side-by-side comparison of Figure 3 of Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham in the original papyrus (left) and the version published in 1842 in the *Times and Seasons* (right).[54]

If there was a jackal head on the man, wouldn't it be wrong to refer to him as an "idolatrous priest" like Joseph did?

Possibly. However, non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists have identified this figure as either a priest or the god Anubis,[55] and Latter-day Saint Egyptologists have noted that examples exist of priests wearing masks of gods.[56]

Were there any revisions made to the facsimiles after they were first published?

Yes, minor revisions.[57] Each time the facsimiles were redrawn for various editions of the Pearl of Great Price there have been some slight alterations.[58]

Changes made in the different major editions of Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham.[59]

Is it true that one of the facsimiles has a pagan Egyptian fertility god in it?

Yes. Egyptologists have identified Figure 7 of Facsimile 2 as an ancient Egyptian fertility deity.[60] The ancient Egyptians recognized fertility deities which commonly represented concepts such as sex, pregnancy, childbirth, the growth of crops, etc.[61]

Are there any portions of the facsimiles that Joseph may have interpreted correctly?

Yes, some elements of Joseph's explanations of the facsimiles are supported by Egyptology.[62] For example, Joseph Smith's interpretations of Figure 6 in Facsimile 2 as representing "this earth in its four quarters" has Egyptological support.[63] Another example is Joseph Smith's interpretation of Figure 9 in Facsimile 1 as "the idolatrous god of Pharaoh."[64]

Other elements of Joseph's explanations of the facsimiles have plausible support when placed in a broader ancient Egyptian or Semitic context.[65]

The Facts

Three facsimiles have accompanied the text of the Book of Abraham in each of its major editions since 1842.
Joseph Smith probably provided the "explanations" to these facsimiles, offering interpretations of the figures and connecting them with the text of the Book of Abraham.
The explanations published in the facsimiles are sometimes referred to as "translations" or text that has been "revealed."
These explanations generally do not match modern interpretations provided by Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists.
Some individual elements of Joseph's explanations of the facsimiles do have justifiable support from an Egyptological perspective.
The Church has acknowledged the problems related to the translation of the facsimile explanations but has not offered an explanation.

Our Take

One of the biggest tests of Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the whole Restoration he started, is the new scripture given through him. The facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are a unique part of that new scripture and serve as a type of illustration for the revelations.

But when modern Egyptology work seems to contradict how Joseph explained the facsimiles, it could challenge a faithful understanding of Joseph's work. Did Joseph understand what the facsimiles were? Did Joseph translate them incorrectly or make up what they were about?

While some elements of Joseph's explanations of the facsimiles do have support from an Egyptological perspective, in general, the explanations don’t match modern interpretations. The Church has acknowledged this problem, but they maintain that the Book of Abraham is inspired revelation and have not offered any explanations for the secular discrepancies.

Potential answers to the discrepancies depend on our assumptions. If Joseph was adapting the Egyptian images rather than directly translating them, then the secular translations wouldn’t match his explanations. Or perhaps Joseph could have translated these poorly or misunderstood the revelations he received, and the Lord permitted them to be published anyway. Or Egyptologists could lack a complete understanding of the facsimiles, and perhaps Joseph's explanations are reasonable.

Unfortunately, because of the lack of information on the translation process and the historical fuzziness both in Joseph's day and Abrahamic times, people looking for a simple resolution to this problem may be disappointed. Similar to other restored scripture like the Book of Mormon, understanding the history and context of the facsimiles is supplemental to a spiritual confirmation that comes by study and faith.

What's Your Take?

Mark M
“The Book of Abraham discusses things like pre earth life, the Priesthood Covenant, ancient ties between Egypt and Chaldea and a near sacrifice of Abraham. If we wait, scholars will discover other accounts that verify these things, just like they have with the BOM objections.”
McB
“What about the removal of the “physalis” from the individual laying down shown in other ancient versions of facsimile 1?”
Anonymous
“The Lord revealed the original truth of these ancient papers, regardless of what the current secular text says. The Book of Abraham and its facsimiles have never posed a problem to me.”
Joey F
“David is correct!”
Nathan C.
“My understanding has been that Joseph translated portions of the papyrus (that we no longer have) to produce the BoA. Then , feeling like he'd obtained a decent grasp of the language attempted a 'secular' interpretation of the facsimiles. He got some right and some wrong.”
David C.
“I think the scrolls acted as a catalyst to open the door way to the BoA. That’s why the facsimile doesn’t match. Similar to the seer stone. It opened the door for revelation to translate”

Read More Difficult Questions

248 Primary Sources

Footnotes

BIOJoseph Smith, Jr.
Joseph Smith (1805–1844) organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Born in Sharon, Vermont, he began to experience visions of deity and angels at a young age. One vision featured the Angel Moroni, who revealed the location of gold plates with an account of ancient Americans. He translated this record and published it as The Book of Mormon. He continued to receive revelations throughout his life which serve as the foundation for the Church's doctrine today. He led the Latter-day Saints across the country from New York to Illinois. In 1844, he was martyred while awaiting trial in Carthage, Illinois.
BIOReuben Hedlock
Reuben Hedlock (1809–1869) was a printer and mission president. Hedlock joined the Church sometime in 1836 and was ordained an Elder later that year. Hedlock served in the Kirtland Elder's Quorum and held stock in the Kirtland Safety Society. He later moved to Missouri and then to Illinois. He was called to be a Seventy and served a mission in Britain from 1840–41. In 1842, Hedlock prepared the woodcuts used to print the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham. From 1843–46, he was president of the British mission. Hedlock was excommunicated in 1846. He died in England.
BIOAbraham
Abraham (c. nineteenth century BCE) was born in Ur and was a central figure in biblical history. He was the first of the patriarchs whom God entered into a covenant to inherit a promised land for his descendants. Abraham spent much of his life as a nomad in the Levant, staying for a while in Egypt (Genesis 11:27–Genesis 12:20). He had two sons with his wife Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac. Abraham had children with Hagar and Katurah as well. Abraham was told to sacrifice his son Isaac but was stopped by an angel and told to sacrifice a ram instead (Genesis 22).
BIOWillard Richards
Willard Richards (June 24, 1804 – March 11, 1854) was born in Hopkinton, Massachusetts. He was a physician and served as Second Counselor to Brigham Young in the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1847 until his death. Richards was present at the shooting of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. He also served as the first editor-in-chief for the Deseret News.
BIOWilford Woodruff
Wilford Woodruff (1807–1898) was the fourth president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He joined the faith in 1833 and became an apostle in 1839. He served as an apostle until he became President of the Church in 1889.
[1]↩︎
Facsimile 1 was first published on March 1, 1842, along with Abraham 1:1–2:18.
Facsimile 2 was first published on March 15, 1842, along with Abraham 2:19–5:21.
Facsimile 3 was first published on May 16, 1842, with no accompanying text from the Book of Abraham.
When Parley P. Pratt reprinted the Book of Abraham in the July 1842 issue of the Millennial Star, he only included Facsimile 1.
The three facsimiles were republished in the 1851 first edition of the Pearl of Great Price and with each major edition of this book up to the modern 1981/2013 edition of the text.
[2]↩︎
Facsimiles 1 and 3 are believed to have been drawn on the same papyrus scroll. The name of the owner of the scroll, Hor, can be read in the hieroglyphs at the bottom of Facsimile 3 and in the hieroglyphs to the right of the original illustration of Facsimile 1. These two facsimiles likely had the same ancient artist.
Facsimile 2, what Egyptologists call a hypocephalus, was most likely drawn by a different ancient Egyptian artist than the one who drew Facsimiles 1 and 3, since it was its own separate text written for a man named Sheshonq, whose name appears in Figure 8 of Facsimile 2.
Only the original illustration to Facsimile 1 has survived. The originals of Facsimiles 2 and 3 are presumed lost after Joseph Smith's papyri and mummies were separated into different collections after his death.
[3]↩︎
The Book of Abraham was originally published in three installments of the Times and Seasons:
1. Abraham 1:1–2:18 and Facsimile 1 on March 1, 1842.
2. Abraham 2:19–5:21 and Facsimile 2 on March 15, 1842.
3. Facsimile 3 on May 16, 1842.
[4]↩︎
Joseph Smith worked with Hedlock in late February and early March 1842 on preparing the facsimiles for publication in the Times and Seasons. Hedlock's signature also appears in Facsimiles 2 and 3.
[5]↩︎
Egyptologist Michael D. Rhodes has hypothesized that what Abraham originally drew was corrupted over time. In 2003, he wrote:
What about the association of facsimiles 1 and 3 with the Hor Book of Breathings? The likely explanation here is that the original illustrations done by Abraham had been modified and adapted for use by Hor, the owner of the papyrus. What Joseph Smith did with the facsimiles is similar to what he did with the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible—he gave the original meaning of the Abraham illustrations, correcting the distortions that had taken place over nearly two millennia. The same, of course, holds true for facsimile 2.
- Rhodes publishes on BoA Facsimiles; lays out method for approaching them.
[6]↩︎
The papyri have been dated to this period by both LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists such as Michael D. Rhodes and Robert K. Ritner, respectively.
There is universal agreement that the fragments do not date to circa 2000 BC, which is roughly when Abraham would have lived.
- Michael D. Rhodes translation of the Hor Book of Breathings among the JS Papyri.
- Translation of JS Papyri by RKR.
[7]↩︎
Abraham is conventionally dated to have lived around the twentieth or nineteenth centuries BC. This dating is reflected in the current official Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
- Bible chronology chart in 2013 LDS edition of the Bible.
[8]↩︎
The text from the 1835 manuscript makes two references to "representations" or "figures":
. . .and that you might have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation, at the commencement of this record.
. . .that you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fassion of them, in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Kahleenos.
An explanation for the word "Kahleenos" was added in the first publication of the text in 1842:
by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies Hyeroglyphics.
[9]↩︎
The Joseph Smith Papers editors of the Book of Abraham manuscripts have noted the likelihood that these verses were inserted into the text.
- JSP volume on BoA manuscripts notes the likelihood that Abraham 1:12, 14 are insertions.
[10]↩︎
John Gee observes how,
The references to the facsimiles within the text of the Book of Abraham [at Abraham 1:12, 14] seem to have been nineteenth-century editorial insertions. . . The Book of Abraham actually reads smoothly without these additions. Thus, these statements in the text seem to be nineteenth-century additions approved by, if not made by, Joseph Smith.
Stephen O. Smoot has made similar observations.
- John Gee discusses the signifcance of Abraham 1:12, 14 as insertions.
- Stephen O. Smoot argues that Abraham 1:12, 14 are interlinear insertions, not original to the BOA text.
[11]↩︎
On February 23, 1842, for example, Joseph "gave R. Hadlock [Reuben Hedlock] instructions concerning the cut for the altar & gods in the Records of Abraham."
One week later, just as the Book of Abraham and Facsimile 1 were going to press, Joseph was at "the printing office correcting the first plate or cut of the Records of father Abraham. prepared by Reuben Hadlock [Hedlock] for the Times & Season."
- Joseph prepares facsimiles for publication.
- Joseph prepares Facsimile 1 for publication.
[12]↩︎
Joseph Smith assumed editorial responsibility of the Times and Seasons beginning with the same issue of the paper where the first serial installment of the Book of Abraham appeared.
- Joseph notifies readers of T&S that he is the new editor of the paper.
[13]↩︎
Willard Richards acted as scribe for Joseph Smith in composing the explanations of the facsimiles.
Likewise, Wilford Woodruff assisted in setting the type for the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons printshop.
[14]↩︎
Egyptologist Michael D. Rhodes, for instance, has offered a transcription and translation of the hieroglyphic characters in Facsimiles 2 and 3. A non-LDS Egyptologist, Tamás Mekis, has more recently transcribed and translated Egyptian characters from Facsimile 2.
[15]↩︎
As of 2021, Quinten Barney's 2019 MA thesis is the most comprehensive treatment of Facsimile 3. In it (especially chapter 2), Barney explained how some of the hieroglyphs in Facsimile 3 are more legible than others, and how Egyptologists have sometimes struggled to agree on how to read them as a consequence of this.
- Barney writes MA thesis on Facsimile 3.
[16]↩︎
This image of Facsimile 1 was published in the 2013 edition of the standard works.
- 2013 official text of the BOA.
[17]↩︎
This image of Facsimile 2 was published in the 2013 edition of the standard works.
- 2013 official text of the BOA.
[18]↩︎
This image of Facsimile 3 was published in the 2013 edition of the standard works.
- 2013 official text of the BOA.
[19]↩︎
Joseph Smith's interpretations generally don't agree with modern interpretations of the facsimiles. However, there are some instances where Joseph Smith's interpretation of Facsimile 2 does match modern Egyptological understanding.
- Rhodes gives translation and commentary of Facsimile 2.
[20]↩︎
Early Egyptologists such as Théodule Deveria and Gustav Seyffarth published their own interpretations of the facsimiles in the mid-nineteenth century that disagreed with Joseph Smith's explanations.
In 1912, an Episcopalian bishop, Franklin Spalding, collected statements from Egyptologists who also disagreed with Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles.
More recently, Egyptologist Robert K. Ritner has strongly criticized Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles.
[21]↩︎
In a 2013 interview, Latter-day Saint Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein acknowledged:
There are aspects of Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the facsimiles that match what Egyptologists say they mean. Some aspects are quite compelling, especially for Facsimile 1. However, as we look at the entirety of any of the facsimiles, an Egyptological interpretation does not match what Joseph Smith said about them.
John Gee, another Latter-day Saint Egyptologist, also acknowledged that "the interpretations of the Egyptologists typically do not match either those of the ancient Egyptians (Z=Y) or Joseph Smith (Z=X)."
- Smoot interviews Muhlestein on issues related to the Book of Abraham and the facsimiles.
- J Gee discusses methods for studying facsimiles, cautions about taking underlying assumptions for granted.
[22]↩︎
This name comes from the distinctive lion shape of the funerary bier or couch in the center of the scene (as seen in the original papyrus illustration and in Facsimile 1). Egyptologist Michael D. Rhodes explained:
Lion-couch scenes are common in the Book of the Dead and other funerary papyri, but normally the person on the couch is shown as a wrapped mummy.
[23]↩︎
This explanation for Facsimile 1 was published on March 1, 1842, alongside Abraham 1:1–2:18.
- T&S 1842 Facsimile 1.
- First published text of Book of Abraham (Abraham 1:1–2:18), "purporting" to be a translation of the writings of Abraham.
[24]↩︎
This is the interpretation given to the scene by Rhodes in his 2002 translation of the Hor Book of Breathings published by FARMS (drawing from parallel scenes in other funerary papyri and temple walls). As Rhodes explained in another publication,
The original of facsimile 1 of the book of Abraham is found at the beginning of the Hor Book of Breathings papyrus, and the hieroglyphic writing on it associates the figure on the couch (figure 1) with Hor, the owner of the papyrus, who is portrayed as being resurrected by the god Anubis, who stands over him. Above and to the right of Anubis, Hor's soul is represented as a human-headed falcon.
- Rhodes discusses two vignettes on the Hor Book of Breathings (Facs. 1 and 3).
- Rhodes publishes on BoA Facsimiles; lays out method for approaching them.
[25]↩︎
This name comes from the Greek meaning "under the head." The most comprehensive current analysis of the ancient Egyptian hypocephalus is that of Tamás Mekis, published in 2020.
- Mekis gives exhaustive Egyptological discussion of the hypocephalus.
[26]↩︎
This explanation for Facsimile 2 was published on March 1, 1842, alongside Abraham 2:19–5:21.
- T&S 1842 publication of Facsimile 2.
- Second installment of first published text of BOA (Abraham 2:19–5:21).
[27]↩︎
Michael Rhodes's1997 translation and commentary of Facsimile 2 offered a brief overview of the function and purpose of hypocephali and explained the symbolism of the individual figures.
A more exhaustive examination of Facsimile 2 and the various functions of the hypocephalus has appeared in Hugh Nibley's magnum opus One Eternal Round.
In his brief overview of the facsimiles, John Gee explained:
Facsimile 2 is . . . an object placed at the head of a mummy in order that its possessor "will be like a fire after his enemies on earth. If it is placed for you at the throat of a man after his death, he will be a god on the god's property, and he will not be held back at the gates of the next life" (Book of the Dead 162, rubric).
[28]↩︎
Some have claimed Facsimile 3 is a scene "similar to, but not identical with scenes showing the judgment of the deceased before Osiris." John Gee disagreed with this idea in a 2005 article, noting Facsimile 3 is missing several key elements found in judgment scenes.
- Gee discusses Facsimile 3 of BOA, disputes idea that it is a judgement scene.
- Klaus Baer discusses the facsimiles in the Hor Book of Breathings among the Joseph Smith Papyri.
[29]↩︎
This caption was published with Facsimile 3 on May 16, 1842.
- T&S 1842 printing of Facsimile 3.
[30]↩︎
Michael Rhodes explained:
In this facsimile, Hor (figure 5), having been judged and found worthy, is being ushered into the presence of Osiris (figure 1), the god of the dead, who is seated upon his throne. Behind Osiris is his wife/sister Isis (figure 2). Hor is being escorted by the god Anubis, guide of the dead (figure 6), and Ma'at, the goddess of truth (figure 4).
In his 2019 Master's thesis, Quinten Barney compared Facsimile 3 with other presentation scenes that show the deceased being ushered into the presence of a seated deity.
- Rhodes publishes on BoA Facsimiles; lays out method for approaching them.
- Barney writes MA thesis on Facsimile 3.
[31]↩︎
One anti-Mormon book from the nineteenth century said:
After the disclosures we have just made, if the Mormons persist in believing that their Prophet cannot lie, they will at least allow that the divining faculty of the Urim and Thummim is not infallible. But at the worst they may console themselves with the reflection that there is more than one brilliant name in the Christian hagiology answerable for equally remarkable frauds of the kind, by common consent styled pious.
- English translation/reprint of JR's Voyage au pays des Mormons; JR discusses BOA; cites TD on BOA facsimiles; TD interprets them differently than JS.
[32]↩︎
Since the nineteenth century, critics of Joseph Smith have generally reached this conclusion.
[33]↩︎
In a 2016 article for BYU Studies Quarterly, Latter-day Saint Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein discussed three different models for approaching the facsimiles and the Book of Abraham.
The third model assumed that there was partial inspiration in how Joseph handled the Egyptian antiquities. Muhlestein argued:
Model Three proposes that God inspired Joseph Smith in matters that concerned important doctrinal concepts but not in all things, not even in all things connected with the ancient artifacts about which he did receive some revelation. Under this paradigm, when Joseph Smith followed through with his ideas to the point of official publication, he was inspired.
- Kerry Muhlestein discusses models for evaluating the BOA and Joseph's interpretation of the facsimiles.
[34]↩︎
Facsimile 3 complicates this idea since some of the interpretations indicate that they are to be derived from hieroglyphic characters in the scene above the figures (e.g., "King Pharaoh; whose name is given in the characters above his head."). This does support the idea that Joseph Smith was attempting to read hieroglyphic characters in the facsimile.
In Facsimile 2, the explanation uses the word "translation" ("The above translation is given. . . ."). However, the word "reveal" is also used in some of the explanations (e.g., "Ought not to be revealed at the present time.") which could imply revelation as opposed to translation.
- T&S 1842 publication of Facsimile 2.
- T&S 1842 printing of Facsimile 3.
[35]↩︎
Terryl Givens, a Latter-day Saint scholar, expressed this idea in his 2019 book The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism's Most Controversial Scripture:
Instead of evaluating Smith’s work by looking back through the lens of contemporary Egyptology, we may learn the workings of Smith’s prophetic imagination and his own unique cultural moment by entering more fully into his nineteenth-century context. By doing so, we move the question of seership and translation out of the domain of linguistic proficiency altogether.
- Givens reviews BOA history and reception, argues for expansive understanding of Joseph Smith as translator.
[36]↩︎
This theory (sometimes called the "Semitic Adaptation Theory") was first suggested by Latter-day Saint scholar Kevin Barney in 2005.
- Barney outlines a theory for "Jewish Redactor" of the BOA Facsimiles.
[37]↩︎
Egyptologist John Gee, in a 2007 article, stressed the point that how modern Egyptologists interpret ancient Egyptian artwork and iconography is often incomplete.
He explained that modern Egyptological approaches can sometimes be deficient since they often neglect to account for how the ancient Egyptians themselves understood the symbolism.
In another article, Gee maintained:
While not all details of the facsimiles have been worked out yet, for those that have, the explanation of the figures attributed to Joseph Smith is generally in the range of interpretations found among the ancient Egyptians.
Hugh Nibley and Michael D. Rhodes also commented on this approach to Joseph Smith's explanations in their extensive commentary on Facsimile 2.
[38]↩︎
The Church's current Institute manual for the Pearl of Great Price explains:
The Prophet Joseph Smith’s explanations of the three facsimiles in the book of Abraham are scripture and should be studied along with the rest of the book. There are no official Church explanations for the Abraham facsimiles besides the Prophet Joseph Smith’s explanations that accompany them.
- Institute Manual for POGP explaining Church's position on the BOA Facsimiles.
[39]↩︎
In March 1976 the Ensign published Hugh Nibley's approach to the facsimiles that emphasized the antiquity of the elements found in Joseph Smith's explanations.
The July 1988 and 1992 issues of the Ensign, respectively, also contained research by Michael D. Rhodes and John Gee arguing for authentic ancient elements in Joseph Smith's explanations to the facsimiles.
Two years later, in the January 1994 issue of the Ensign, Daniel C. Peterson published the article "News From Antiquity" that argued for the historicity of the Book of Abraham and the plausibility of Joseph Smith's explanations to the facsimiles.
[40]↩︎
The essay acknowledged the controversy surrounding the facsimiles:
The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.
Another part of the essay claimed "Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles of the book of Abraham contain additional earmarks of the ancient world" and offered a few examples to support this but did not go into much more detail.
- Gospel Topics essay on the BOA.
[41]↩︎
Facsimile 1 depicts visually the near-sacrifice of Abraham at the hands of an idolatrous Egyptian priest. The name of the priest, the names of the idolatrous gods, and other elements mentioned in Facsimile 1 are all present in the narrative at Abraham 1:12–19.
Additionally, Abraham 1:12, 14 may refer to Facsimile 1 which indicates a relationship between the facsimile and the text.
Though scholars have argued that these verses (12 and 14) in Abraham 1 were inserted after the text was composed, suggesting that the relationship between the text and the facsimiles was created by either Joseph or his scribes working with the Egyptian papyri after the fact, and may reflect their own assumptions about the source of the Book of Abraham.
[42]↩︎
Many of the astronomical entities and concepts depicted in Facsimile 2, most notably Kolob, appear in Abraham's cosmic vision depicted in chapter three of the Book of Abraham.
- T&S 1842 publication of Facsimile 2.
- Second installment of first published text of BOA (Abraham 2:19–5:21).
[43]↩︎
Facsimile 3, according to its accompanying explanation, illustrates Abraham "reasoning upon the principles of astronomy, in the kings Court."
- T&S 1842 printing of Facsimile 3.
[44]↩︎
In an unpublished editorial dating to circa early March 1842, Joseph indicated his desire to translate and publish more Book of Abraham material.
About a year later, John Taylor, who took over as editor of the Times and Seasons after Joseph Smith, also informed readers that Joseph wanted to publish more content for the Book of Abraham.
However, Joseph never wrote or published any further content.
- Joseph says the Book of Abraham was "penned by hand of Father Abraham"; will translate more when possible.
- John Taylor says Joseph promised to translate more of the Book of Abraham.
[45]↩︎
Joseph gave Reuben Hedlock specific instructions in preparing Facsimile 2 for publication:
. . . also gave instruction concerning the arrangement of the writing on the Large cut. illustrating the principles of Astronomy.
Joseph was probably directly involved in how Facsimile 2 appeared in print, including the restorations of the missing portions.
- JS prepares Facsimile 2 for publication with RH.
[46]↩︎
Michael Rhodes explained:
An ink drawing of the hypocephalus in the Church Historian's office shows these [damaged] areas as being blank. It is likely that these portions were destroyed on the original hypocephalus and someone (the engraver, one of Joseph Smith's associates, or Joseph himself) copied the lines from the Book of Breathings papyrus for aesthetic purposes.
- Rhodes gives translation and commentary of Facsimile 2.
- Hand drawn copy of hypocephalus produced between 1835–1842.
[47]↩︎
Both images were published by the Joseph Smith Papers website.
- T&S 1842 publication of Facsimile 2.
- Hand drawn copy of hypocephalus produced between 1835–1842.
[48]↩︎
The original manuscript of the facsimile contained missing pieces.
In 2002, scholar Michael Rhodes discussed both missing parts and alterations to Facsimile 1.
[49]↩︎
Michael Rhodes described how the top of the head was missing on Facsimile 1, and there were gaps throughout the scene.
- Rhodes discusses two vignettes on the Hor Book of Breathings (Facs. 1 and 3).
[50]↩︎
Image published by the Joseph Smith Papers website.
- Original lion couch vignette on P. Joseph Smith I (Facsimile 1) from the fragment of Book of Breathing for Horos.
[51]↩︎
Henry Caswall, an Anglican clergyman and critic of the Latter-day Saints, visited Nauvoo in 1842 and was shown the papyrus prior to publication of the facsimiles. He wrote:
Pointing to the figure of a man lying on a table, he said, "That is the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed. That man standing by him with a drawn knife is an idolatrous priest of the Egyptians. Abraham prayed to God, who immediately unloosed his bands, and delivered him."
It's unclear if the Caswall account was referencing the sketch in the surviving papyrus or if he was referencing an undamaged papyrus that may have had a bald man or jackal-headed man.
- Henry Caswall describes seeing the vignettes of the papyri before publication of BOA.
[52]↩︎
Image published by the Joseph Smith Papers website.
- T&S 1842 Facsimile 1.
[53]↩︎
Egyptologists have recognized that in its original funerary Egyptian context, the figure is most likely the deity Anubis with a jackal head.
However, John Gee has cautioned that this is not necessarily definitive evidence for the figure being Anubis, observing how "a jackal-headed figure might be Anubis, but in the [time period of the Joseph Smith Papyri], jackal-headed figures might be Osiris, or Shesmu, or Isdes, or the Khetiu, while Anubis might have a human or lion head."
[54]↩︎
Images published by the Joseph Smith Papers website.
- Original lion couch vignette on P. Joseph Smith I (Facsimile 1) from the fragment of Book of Breathing for Horos.
- T&S 1842 Facsimile 1.
[55]↩︎
In 1860, for example, Théodule Devéria identified figure 3 as "the god Anubis (who should have a jackal's head) effecting the resurrection of Osiris."
Klaus Baer followed this interpretation in 1968 and wrote this figure is "Anubis (3), the jackal-headed god who embalmed the dead and thereby assured their resurrection and existence in the hereafter."
However, James H. Breasted, Friedrich Freiherr von Bissing, and Edward Meyer all identified this figure as a priest in 1912, as did George R. Hughes in 1959.
[56]↩︎
For example, John Gee argued that Figure 3 of Facsimile 1 could be a priest even with a jackal head.
Gee noted this is in part because of ancient deity masks, such as the jackal masks of the god Anubis, recovered at archaeological sites believed to have been worn by priests in a ritual setting.
In 2002, Michael D. Rhodes noted the figure might be both the god Anubis and a priest at the same time. He wrote:
Another criticism leveled against the interpretations of facsimile 1 is that the standing figure is not a priest but is, in fact, the Egyptian god Anubis. As represented on the papyrus, the figure is indeed Anubis. However, there are examples from Egypt of priests wearing masks of gods when carrying out their priestly duties.
[57]↩︎
For example, when the 1851 first edition of the Pearl of Great Price recopied the facsimiles, it introduced some minor stylistic changes (e.g., making the knife being held by Figure 3 in Facsimile 1 flat and straight and not curved like it is in the 1842 printing).
[58]↩︎
In his book, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, John Gee highlighted the changes made to Facsimile 2 over time (especially figures 2, 3, and 7). He wrote:
While the original facsimiles of the Book of Abraham were made directly from the papyri, later copies were not and have progressively deteriorated, as illustrated here by Facsimile 2. Lines and figures that are missing from each edition are marked in color. Figures missing from the 1878 edition are also not on the 1907 edition. The illustration does not show distortions in the proportions in various editions.
- Gee highlights the changes made to Fac 2 in the various editions of the Pearl of Great Price.
[59]↩︎
John Gee included this image in his book A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri. He said:
While the original facsimiles of the Book of Abraham were made directly from the papyri, later copies were not and have progressively deteriorated, as illustrated here by Facsimile 2. Lines and figures that are missing from each edition are marked in color. Figures missing from the 1878 edition are also not on the 1907 edition. The illustration does not show distortions in the proportions in various editions.
- Gee highlights the changes made to Fac 2 in the various editions of the Pearl of Great Price.
[60]↩︎
Michael D. Rhodes identified the figure as the god Min or Min-Horus:
A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail, holding aloft a flail. This is a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative forces of nature, perhaps combined with Horus, as the hawk's tail would seem to indicate.
Hugh Nibley explored the significance that this figure held to the ancient Egyptians in his book One Eternal Round.
- Rhodes gives translation and commentary of Facsimile 2.
- Nibley and Rhodes explain significance of Figure 7 of Fac 2 from ancient Egyptian perspective.
[61]↩︎
For example, Scholar Ann Macy Roth has discussed how the ancient Egyptians recognized several divinities that were associated with "creative fertility."
Both Nibley and the "Book of Abraham Insight" have also explored how the identity of this figure to the ancient Egyptians converges with Joseph Smith's interpretation.
- Nibley and Rhodes explain significance of Figure 7 of Fac 2 from ancient Egyptian perspective.
- Ann Macy Roth explains that there are ancient Egyptian divinities connected with fertility.
[62]↩︎
Latter-day Saint Egyptologists Michael D. Rhodes and John Gee have written papers placing some of the facsimile explanations in an Egyptological context.
Both have, for example, pointed out how certain words and concepts in the explanations find parallels from ancient Egypt and even how the figure of Abraham might be connected to the types of scenes illustrated in the facsimiles.
[63]↩︎
The interpretation of Figure 6 in Facsimile 2 appeared in the original 1842 printing of the facsimile.
A Pearl of Great Price Central "Book of Abraham Insight" has collected Egyptological data showing plausible confirmation of Joseph Smith's interpretation of this figure in Facsimile 2. For instance, these four figures are represented in another ancient Egyptian text "as birds flying out to the four corners of the cosmos."
- POGP Central highlights evidence for Joseph's interpretation of Facsimile 2, Figure 6.
- T&S 1842 publication of Facsimile 2.
[64]↩︎
This interpretation of Figure 9 in Facsimile 1 appeared in the original 1842 printing of the facsimile.
Quinten Barney published a study in 2013 showing the Egyptological plausibility of this interpretation of the crocodile figure. He noted it might be the deity Sobek, who was closely associated with the pharaoh. Hymns to this god by the pharaoh Amenemhat III show how important he was during Abraham's likely time period.
- T&S 1842 Facsimile 1.
- Barney argues for the plausibility of Joseph's interpretation of Figure 9 in Facsimile 1.
[65]↩︎
Kevin Barney has compared Joseph Smith's interpretations of these figures with ancient Semitic symbolism, arguing that a hypothetical "Jewish Redactor" may have been involved in the process of the ancient transmission of the facsimiles.
John Gee has worked on reassessing Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles in light of the broader Egyptian culture of the time period the Joseph Smith Papyri were composed.