The Book of Abraham Translation is Fraudulent

For generations, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been taught that the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price was translated from ancient Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith, “written by his own hand upon papyrus.” This claim lies at the heart of the book’s authority within LDS scripture — but modern evidence shows that it simply doesn’t hold up.

The Book of Abraham
Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith
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.
The Book of Abraham, Pearl of Great Price, LDS Scriptures
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/1

“The Book of Abraham - Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith - 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.” - The Book of Abraham, Pearl of Great Price, LDS Scriptures | wasmormon.rg — “The Book of Abraham – Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith – 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.” – The Book of Abraham, Pearl of Great Price, LDS Scriptures

Joseph Smith’s Claims vs. The Papyrus Reality

When Joseph Smith first published the Book of Abraham in 1842, the prefatory text presented the work as a literal translation from Egyptian papyri: records written by Abraham himself and preserved for Smith to reveal to the world. Yet, when the surviving parts of those papyri were rediscovered in the 1960s and examined by trained scholars, the results were starkly contradictory.

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham... Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived." - Gospel Topic Essay: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham, The Papyri | wasmormon.org — “None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham… Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.” – Gospel Topic Essay: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham, The Papyri | https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham

Today, both non-Mormon Egyptologists and even Mormon scholars and apologists agree that none of the characters on the existing papyrus fragments mention Abraham or recount the events described in the Book of Abraham. The text on the papyrus corresponds to well-known Egyptian funerary literature. They are common “Books of Breathing” intended to assist the deceased in the afterlife, and date to centuries after Abraham’s supposed lifetime.

As the LDS Church itself acknowledges, “the characters on the papyrus fragments do not match the translation given in the Book of Abraham.”

The “Missing Scroll” Theory

Faced with this discrepancy, some defenders of the Book of Abraham have adopted what’s known as the “missing scroll theory” — the idea that the parts of the papyrus Smith actually translated were lost, and that the existing fragments aren’t the true source.

This theory runs into several difficulties:

The Book of Abraham itself refers to the facsimiles included in the text, tying the narrative text directly to the papyrus fragments for which we have legitimate translations.
Modern scholarship shows that even these surviving Egyptian images and characters are standard funerary material, not ancient Abrahamic writings.
The missing portion of the papyrus — even if it existed — is far too small to account for an extensive text like the Book of Abraham.

The Catalyst Theory

Another apologetic response is the “catalyst theory,” which suggests the papyri merely inspired Joseph Smith to receive revelation, rather than being directly translated. Even here, the evidence counters Smith’s original records and the book itself, which depict literal translation from papyrus, not a mystical inspiration untethered from the text.

Facsimiles, Egyptology, and Translation Errors

“Experts examined the illustrations on the papyri and looked closely at Facsimile No. 1. They discovered the complete illustration was not actually in the original papyri. There were two critical areas missing in the original Joseph inserted into Facsimile No. 1. The areas related to the head and hands of the Anubis character, the very areas experts identified many years earlier, were missing. It was now obvious Joseph reconstructed the facsimile on his own, lacking an accurate understanding of Egyptian practice and theology.” - J. Warner Wallace, How the Book of Abraham Exposes the False Nature of Mormonism, 2015 | Official Joseph Smith Reconstruction of Facsimile 1 | wasmormon.org — “Experts examined the illustrations on the papyri and looked closely at Facsimile No. 1. They discovered the complete illustration was not actually in the original papyri. There were two critical areas missing in the original Joseph inserted into Facsimile No. 1. The areas related to the head and hands of the Anubis character, the very areas experts identified many years earlier, were missing. It was now obvious Joseph reconstructed the facsimile on his own, lacking an accurate understanding of Egyptian practice and theology.” – J. Warner Wallace, How the Book of Abraham Exposes the False Nature of Mormonism, 2015 | Official Joseph Smith Reconstruction of Facsimile 1

“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... None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham.” - LDS Website, Gospel Topics Essays: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham | churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham | wasmormon.org — Facsimile Problems with the Book of Abraham Translation Theory of Papyri as Catalyst

“The differences between these final two drawings are significant. In Smith's version, a human-headed figure holds a knife; in the professional reconstruction this is a jackal-headed figure without a knife. Also, in Smith's reconstruction the flying bird at the right has a bird's head, while in the professional reconstruction the bird has a man's head... In Smith's the man lying down has both hands raised; in the other a bird is hovering over a man who has one hand raised, there being too many lines in the upper hand in the photograph to represent fingers. The man lying down is also shown as an ithyphallic figure in the professional reconstruction.” - Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, 1992 | wasmormon.org — Facsimile Problems with the Book of Abraham Translation Theory of Papyri as Catalyst

One of the most revealing pieces of evidence is Joseph Smith’s explanation for the facsimiles included in the Book of Abraham. He interpreted these images as depicting specific events from Abraham’s life — including, famously, an attempted sacrifice. But trained Egyptologists have consistently shown that these images are funerary scenes, often involving Egyptian gods like Osiris, and have nothing to do with Abrahamic stories.

Non-Mormon Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the facsimiles uniformly agree that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist, who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians would have. For example, in the famous pamphlet compiled by the Reverend Spalding in 1912, James H. Breasted, the first person to hold a chair devoted to Egyptology in America, stated, “Joseph Smith’s interpretation of [the facsimiles] … very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.” More recently, Klaus Baer, speaking of Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the original of Facsimile 1 and the accompanying text, noted that “the Egyptologist interprets it differently, relying on a considerable body of parallel data, research and knowledge.”
Stephen E. Thompson, Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 28, No. 1, Spring 1995
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/issues/spring-1995/

James Henry Breasted, one of the first American Egyptologists, noted that Smith’s interpretations “very clearly demonstrate[d] that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of the documents” and was “absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”

What This Means for the Book of Abraham

Taken together, the physical evidence, the papyrus translations, the Egyptological context, and the historical analysis show that:

The papyri do not contain the Book of Abraham.
Joseph Smith’s translation does not match the actual hieroglyphs.
His explanations of the facsimiles were inaccurate.

In light of these facts, the most plausible conclusion is that the Book of Abraham, as published, is not an authentic ancient document but rather a 19th-century creation shaped by Smith’s interpretation and imagination rather than the content of the papyri themselves.

This doesn’t mean the Book of Abraham lacks meaning as a cultural or religious artifact. Contemporary scholars like Robert K. Ritner describe it as “perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous,” and only valuable for understanding the history of American religion rather than any ancient history.

Dishonest Origins

If Joseph Smith was not honest about the origins and translation of the Book of Abraham—and if the Church today still reframes or minimizes that problem rather than confronting it plainly—it raises an unavoidable question: what else have members not been told honestly? The Book of Abraham is not an isolated issue; it fits a broader pattern in which foundational truth claims were presented with confidence, only to be later qualified, reinterpreted, or quietly corrected when evidence became unavoidable. For many members, discovering one major deception becomes a gateway to noticing others, prompting a deeper re-examination of what they were taught to trust without question. Just a few of these controversies include:

The Book of Mormon translation – taught as a literal translation from gold plates using the Urim and Thummim, but later acknowledged to have been produced largely by dictation while Joseph Smith used a common seer stone placed in a hat.
Multiple and conflicting First Vision accounts – early versions differ significantly on key details (who appeared, why Joseph prayed, what he was told), contradicting the simplified, correlated narrative taught for decades.
Polygamy and polyandry – Joseph Smith secretly married dozens of women, including teenagers and women already married to other men, while publicly denying the practice.
The priesthood and temple ban – Black members of the church were banned from full participation until 1978, justified by racist theology later quietly disavowed without apology or accountability.
Kinderhook Plates – Joseph Smith appeared to translate a known hoax as ancient scripture, undermining claims of divine translation ability.
The Book of Abraham facsimiles – canonized depictions and explanations demonstrably contradict modern Egyptology, yet remain unchanged in scripture.
Changes to doctrine and ordinances – temple ceremonies, priesthood offices, and theological teachings have shifted repeatedly while being presented as eternal and unchanging.
Financial secrecy – the Church’s investment arm amassed tens of billions of dollars while members were taught sacrifice and transparency, later leading to SEC penalties for deceptive reporting structures.
Treatment of dissenters and historians – scholars, and members raising legitimate historical concerns have often faced discipline rather than engagement.

When viewed together, these issues suggest not a few innocent mistakes, but a recurring reluctance to tell the full truth until forced by evidence. For many former members, the Book of Abraham is not just a problem—it is the moment when the pattern becomes impossible to ignore.

Your Story Matters

For many former members of the LDS Church, confronting the dissonance between faith claims and historical evidence like this has been a pivotal part of their journey. If the Book of Abraham played a role in your own story — whether as a source of belief, doubt, or transformation — we invite you to share your experience. Visit wasmormon.org and submit your story. Your voice helps others feel less alone, fosters honest exploration, and builds community around truth, empathy, and critical thinking.

More reading:

The Book of Abraham Translation is Fraudulent

The Book of Abraham

Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith