Apologists for the LDS Church have proposed a theory, the Catalyst Theory, to explain the translation of the Book of Abraham. This theory suggests that the Egyptian papyri Joseph Smith obtained were merely a spiritual trigger, or “catalyst,” for receiving inspired scripture. In other words, the physical texts weren’t actually translated in the traditional sense; rather, they sparked a revelatory process that produced a text unrelated to their actual content.
The Catalyst Theory
The Catalyst Theory suggests that the Egyptian papyri Joseph Smith acquired in 1835, while admittedly not containing the text of the Book of Abraham, served as a spiritual “catalyst” that inspired or triggered a divine revelation. In other words, Joseph Smith did not translate the papyri directly, as he and early church leaders claimed, but rather received the text of the Book of Abraham through revelation, using the papyri as a prompt or symbolic artifact to initiate the process.
Why This Theory Was Proposed
This theory gained popularity among LDS apologists in the late 20th century, especially after the rediscovery of some of the original papyri fragments in 1967, which Egyptologists translated and found to be common Egyptian funerary texts, not writings by Abraham or anything close to the Book of Abraham’s content. The name Abraham did not appear anywhere in these texts. This linguistic translation directly contradicted Joseph Smith’s direct claims that he had “translated” the Book of Abraham from the papyri.
From all appearances, the selection of Dr. Nibley for the project seemed an excellent one. An intense, deeply committed scholar, Nibley was perhaps more thoroughly versed in the study of ancient scripture than any of his LDS contemporaries. He was on familiar ground with the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Babylonian, Russian, French, German, Arabic, and Coptic languages. More importantly, he had produced a number of impressive books dealing with the interpretation of LDS scripture, doctrine, and responses to various “problem areas” raised by critics of the Church. However, Dr. Nibley was not an Egyptologist, as he himself was the first to admit. The ancient Egyptian language is a unique area of study that is extremely difficult to master. Nibley must have realized his expertise with other ancient languages would be of little help in working with the papyri, for shortly after learning of their existence (and long before their discovery was publicly announced) he had begun to study Egyptian in Chicago with Dr. John A. Wilson.2 This “head start” in the ancient tongue was doubtless helpful to Nibley, but it was nevertheless quite inadequate, and he found himself unqualified to deal with the papyri on his own.
Fortunately, help was soon to appear from within the Church. Sometime early in 1967, Nibley had started corresponding with a Mormon elder named Dee Jay Nelson. Nelson explained that he had been involved in the study of Egyptology for some twenty years and that he had acquired an excellent functional knowledge of ancient Egyptian through years of field work under the late Egyptian Egyptologist Zakaria Goneim. For many years Goneim had been Keeper of Antiquities at the Necropolis of Saqqara. It was obvious to Nibley that Elder Nelson was probably the only available Latter-day Saint with sufficient expertise to translate the papyri…
Which is just what they did, the two men finally meeting at BYU early in January 1968, where they examined the original papyri. By this time Dr. Nibley had probably been able to develop a sufficient background knowledge in elementary Egyptian to be a fair judge of Nelson’s abilities. Apparently pleased and satisfied with Nelson, Nibley sent him, with a written recommendation, to meet with LDS Apostle N. Eldon Tanner at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City. There Nelson was to obtain one of the special sets of papyri photographs which were then being selectively released for Church-related purposes only.
Confident that a translation would soon be forthcoming, the editors of the Church’s lmprovement Era magazine prepared the February 1968 issue, complete with an impressive collection of photographs of the Book of Abraham papyri, and the promise that in future articles Dr. Nibley would reveal “the meaning of the hieroglyphics and illustrations on these valuable manuscripts.”
Meanwhile, two things were becoming clear to those working with the papyri. First, two key papyri fragments belonged together to form one piece. And second, these fragments could be linked to the Book of Abraham. However, Nelson, who by now was close to finishing his translations, was learning something which greatly disturbed him: not only did the papyri (including Facsimile No. 1 and the Small Sensen fragment) not contain the Book of Abraham, there was not even the remotest connection between their contents and Abraham. They were simply ordinary Egyptian funeral documents; nothing more and nothing less.
Nelson said as much when he submitted the results of his work to the LDS Church, sending copies by mail to both Nibley and Tanner.
The church declined the offer to publish Nelson’s findings, however, unless substantial revision or explanation of them was made beforehand, conditions Nelson felt he could not accept. Still, Dr. Nibley praised Nelson’s work (and even quoted a portion of it) in the Spring 1968 issue of the publication Brigham Young University Studies, calling it a “conscientious and courageous piece of work,” and pointing out that it supplied students with “a usable and reliable translation of the available papyri that once belonged to Joseph Smith.” But when pressed as to why a translation was not forthcoming from the Church — indeed, why they had not proceeded with all haste to produce such a translation — Nibley puzzled his readers by admitting that “it is doubtful whether any translation could do as much good as harm.”
Such comments from Nibley, and his remarks concerning Nelson, were probably prompted by the fact that Nelson’s translation work had been in print since the first of April, despite the fact that the LDS Church had refused publication. When his own church had refused his work, Nelson offered his translation and conclusions to Jerald and Sandra Tanner, who were pleased to publish this work, as they had the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, earlier. While it would have been pointless for Nibley or anyone else to challenge a translation certain to be verified by others as time passed, it was still a sore spot among many LDS people that a press considered “hostile” to the Church had been the first to publish a translation of the papyri. Even publication by neutral, non-Mormon scholars would have been preferable to that!
Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri
https://archive.org/details/ByHisOwnHandUponPapyrusByCharlesB.Larson/page/n77/mode/2up
https://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Hand-Upon-Papyrus/dp/0962096326?tag=circubstu-20
The Catalyst Theory sidesteps the problem by saying:
- The papyri weren’t meant to contain Abraham’s literal writings.
- God used the physical scrolls to help Joseph receive a revelation, so a translation match isn’t necessary.
The gospel topic essay promotes the idea that the Book of Abraham is not a literal translation of the ancient papyri, which they also admit contains nothing related to Abraham or anything contained in the Book of Abraham.
Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.
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?lang=eng&id=p24#p24
Problems with the Catalyst Theory
The catalyst theory addresses some issues with the translation not being a translation, which Joseph thought was a translation, and he and the church said was a translation. The theory forces us to accept that even though Joseph thought he was translating the papyri, he was not, and he couldn’t tell that he was receiving revelation versus translating ancient text. But there are still issues and problems with the Book of Abraham, even if the catalyst theory were accurate.
This mental gymnastics contradicts Joseph Smith’s own claims. Joseph and his associates stated repeatedly that he was translating the Book of Abraham from the papyri, not receiving unrelated revelation. He studied ancient Egyptian and took notes on the language, which he claimed to use to aid in translating the Book of Abraham. Early eyewitness accounts and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers show Joseph Smith attempting to directly match characters from the papyri to English interpretations, suggesting he believed he was doing a literal translation.
This also contradicts the text in the heading of the Book of Abraham itself. The book claims to be “a translation of some ancient records… written by [Abraham’s] own hand upon papyrus.” The heading is not part of the original, though, so perhaps it could be wrong, in a similar way as the introduction to the Book of Mormon which has been changed to acknowledge that the Nephits and Lamanites are “among” the ancestors of the Native Americans, rather than how it used to claim the “primary” ancestors.
This theory also creates theological and historical confusion. If the text was not on the papyrus, why present it as such for nearly two centuries? And why create grammar and alphabet documents purporting to decode the Egyptian characters? Why does the book contain these facsimiles, which have been altered to complete the missing pieces and then offer translations?
Facsimilies
Perhaps the biggest issue with the catalyst theory is how it side steps the facsimiles. This catalyst theory collapses when we consider the facsimiles included in the Book of Abraham.
On the back of the papyri were “drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area,” so experts were certain this was the original document from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham… Both LDS and non-LDS scholars agree the pieces of papyrus scroll we have today were those possessed by Joseph Smith and used to produce the Book of Abraham. A positive identification is possible because one of the rediscovered scroll pieces, now called Papyrus Joseph Smith 1 (PJS 1), matches the picture in the Book of Abraham called Facsimile No. 1. According to the Book of Abraham chapter 1, verses 12-14, this picture or “representation” came at the beginning of the “record” (the papyrus scroll).
Scholars pored over the papyri, examining their contents and illustrations, comparing these to Smith’s translation. Joseph copied three drawings from the Egyptian scrolls while creating the Book of Abraham, and he labeled them Facsimile No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. He placed these drawings in the Book of Abraham and provided explanations for what they represented…
Cold-Case Christianity: How the Book of Abraham Exposes the False Nature of Mormonism, J. Warner Wallace, December 23, 2015
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-the-book-of-abraham-exposes-the-false-nature-of-mormonism/
These facsimiles—three ancient Egyptian illustrations taken directly from the papyri—were not only reproduced in the Pearl of Great Price, but Joseph Smith also provided detailed interpretations for each. These explanations claim to identify figures like Abraham, Pharaoh, and God, and describe concepts like the pre-existence and the cosmos, none of which align with Egyptological understanding. Egyptologists, both LDS and non-LDS, universally agree that the facsimiles are misidentified and have no connection to Abraham.
More problematic for the catalyst theory is the fact that the Book of Abraham text references the facsimiles explicitly. For instance, Abraham 1:12 and 1:14 directly refer to the scenes in Facsimile 1:
12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.
13 It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.
14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.
Abraham 1:12-14
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?id=p12-p14#p12
This indicates that Joseph Smith believed the facsimiles were directly connected to the narrative—that they were illustrations of the events he claimed were historical. That’s not a spiritual metaphor or symbolic trigger—it’s a literal reference. If the text itself treats the facsimiles as part of the source material, the catalyst theory becomes untenable. Apologists want to take the facts and then rehash the story to make the facts fit, but to do this, they even admit that they must throw out these prophetic translations and text from Joseph Smith:
Since the papyri come from the Ptolemaic period, about 1,500 years after Abraham, the style of the pictures will not have been the same style as was current in Abraham’s day. Abraham may not have included any illustrations in his original account. The references to the facsimiles within the text of the Book of Abraham seem to have been nineteenth-century editorial insertions. The earliest manuscript we have shows that the phrase “I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record” from Abraham 1:12 was squished in two lines of smaller handwriting in the space at the end of the paragraph between Abraham 1:12 and 1:13. Similarly, Abraham 1:14 was added in a smaller hand squeezed into the margin at the top of the page, above the header, ignoring the ruled left margin. 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.
John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, The Facsimiles, 2017
https://rsc.byu.edu/introduction-book-abraham/facsimiles
Regardless of whether the original “translated” text directly refers to these facsimiles, Joseph said that they did, approved of the idea, and provided thorough interpretations for 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.
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, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Latter-day Saint scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. 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.
Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples. Moreover, documents initially composed for one context can be repackaged for another context or purpose. Illustrations once connected with Abraham could have either drifted or been dislodged from their original context and reinterpreted hundreds of years later in terms of burial practices in a later period of Egyptian history. The opposite could also be true: illustrations with no clear connection to Abraham anciently could, by revelation, shed light on the life and teachings of this prophetic figure.
Some have assumed that the hieroglyphs adjacent to and surrounding facsimile 1 must be a source for the text of the book of Abraham. But this claim rests on the assumption that a vignette and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning. In fact, it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.
Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith explained the process of translation of the book of Abraham…
Gospel Topics Essays: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&id=p18-p22#p18
The entire premise of the catalyst theory rests on the assumption that Joseph Smith didn’t perform a literal translation. But his detailed interpretations of the facsimiles, paired with the Book of Abraham’s own internal references to those images, demonstrate the opposite. This makes the facsimiles the clearest evidence against the catalyst theory. The illustrations are inseparable from the text, and the interpretations are demonstrably incorrect. The only reasonable conclusion is that Joseph Smith believed he was translating these images and papyri literally and got it wrong. Even if Joseph only thought he was translating, but was receiving revelation instead, how do the facsimiles fit into that theory?
Facsimile 1
Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham presents a striking example of how Joseph Smith filled in missing portions of an ancient image based on his own interpretations—interpretations that Egyptologists universally regard as incorrect. The original papyrus fragment from which the facsimile was taken was visibly damaged, particularly around key figures. Rather than acknowledging these gaps, Smith reconstructed the image to support his claimed narrative of Abraham being bound and nearly sacrificed by an idolatrous Egyptian priest. However, modern Egyptological reconstructions of the original scene contradict every major element of Smith’s rendering.
The extant portion of the papyrus shows damage, particularly where the head of the standing figure would be. Joseph Smith’s reconstruction depicts this figure with a human head and a knife, identifying him as “the idolatrous priest of Elkenah.” High-resolution images of the papyrus indicate that the original head of the standing figure was likely that of a jackal, consistent with depictions of Anubis. The human head in Smith’s facsimile appears to be a reconstruction, possibly influenced by the head of the reclining figure. The item held by the standing figure, interpreted by Smith as a knife, is more accurately an embalming tool or ointment jar, aligning with typical funerary practices depicted in similar Egyptian scenes. The outstretched hand of Anubis is often portrayed as not holding anything, but simply blessing the deceased. Never is Anubis holding a knife however, as this wouldn’t make any sense because those on this Lion-couch are already deceased. The figure on the lion couch is traditionally Osiris, not Abraham. The presence of an erect phallus and the hovering bird (Isis) are standard elements symbolizing resurrection, not human sacrifice.
Perhaps no discovery in recent memory is expected to arouse as much widespread interest in the restored gospel as is the recent discovery of some Egyptian papyri, one of which is known to have been used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham.
The papyri, long thought to have been burned in the Chicago fire of 1871, were presented to the Church on November 27, 1967, in New York City by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, more than a year after Dr. Aziz S. Atiya, former director of the University of Utah’s Middle East Center, had made his startling discovery while browsing through the New York museum’s papyri collection.
Included in the collection of 11 manuscripts is one identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith obtained Facsimile 1, which prefaces the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Accompanying the manuscripts was a letter dated May 26, 1856, signed by both Emma Smith Bidamon, widow of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and their son, Joseph Smith, attesting that the papyri had been the property of the Prophet…
… of equal interest is the story of Dr. Aziz S. Atiya’s discovery of the papyri in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which is best told in his own words:
“I was writing a book at the time, one that I had started while a professor of world Christianity and eastern Christianity, and I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art looking for documents, papyri, pictures, and illustrations to serve the book. It must have been in the early spring of 1966. I really forget the date. My book was ready for the press, and I was looking for supplementary material.
“While I was in one of the dim rooms where everything was brought to me, something caught my eye, and I asked one of the assistants to take me behind the bars into the storehouse of documents so that I could look some more. While there I found a file with these documents. I at once recognized the picture part of it. When I saw this picture, I knew that it had appeared in the Pearl of Great Price. I knew the general format of the picture. This kind of picture one can find generally on other papyri, but this particular one has special peculiarities. For instance, the head had fallen off, and I could see that the papyrus was stuck on paper, nineteenth century paper. The head was completed in pencil, apparently by Joseph Smith, who must have had it when, that part fell off. He apparently drew the head in his own hand on the supplementary paper. Also, the hands of the mummy, raised as they are, and the leg, raised as it is — usually the mummies lie straight forward — are very peculiar. This papyrus is Egyptian, true enough, but what it stands for, I really don’t know.
“Now when I saw this, I began to search further. I saw more pieces of papyri stacked together and suspected that Providence had assisted. Another document was found with these documents, signed by Joseph Smith’s wife, his son, and someone else, testifying that these papyri were treasured and owned by Joseph Smith…
The Improvement Era, January 1968: Egyptian Papyri Rediscovered
https://archive.org/details/improvementera7101unse/page/12/mode/2up?view=theater
Because of the unprecedented interest generated throughout the Church by the recovery of 1 1 pieces of papyrus that were once the property of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Improvement Era is reproducing here in color all of the known papyri now in the possession of the Church. There are 12 pieces in all; 11 of these are included in the recent find (see January Era) and one has been in the Church Historian’s Office over the years. The 12 pieces of papyrus have now been numbered and labeled by Dr. Hugh Nibley, who has been assigned by the Church to direct the investigation and research being done on the material. (See the second in his series of articles, “A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price,” page 14.)
Fragment 1 is the section of the papyrus manuscript from which the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained Facsimile No. 1, which is reproduced in the Book of Abraham.
Fragments 2, 3A and 3B are unclassified, illustrated fragments.
Fragments 4-9 — these include the one from the Church Historian’s Office— are from the Book of the Dead.
Such books, which were written to assist in the safe passage of the dead persons into the spirit world, were commonly buried with Egyptian mummies. The writings on the recently recovered fragments show that all of these Book of the Dead papyri belonged to the lady Taimin Mutninesikhonsu. Thus, we probably now know the name of the female mummy that was in Joseph Smith’s possession and on whose person it was reported the papyrus was originally found.
The Improvement Era, February 1968, New Light on Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri
https://archive.org/details/improvementera7102unse/page/40/mode/2up?view=theater
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…
Joseph Smith said Facsimile No. 1 depicted a bird as the “Angel of the Lord” with “Abraham fastened upon an altar,” “being offered up as a sacrifice by a false priest.” The pots under the altar were various gods “Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Pharaoh,” etc. But Egyptologists translated the original papyri and discovered it was “an embalming scene showing the deceased lying on a lion-couch.” Facsimile No. 1 actually “depicts the mythical embalming and resurrection of Osiris, Egyptian god of the underworld. Osiris was slain by his jealous brother Set, who cut up his body into 16 pieces and scattered them….The jackal-headed god Anubis is shown embalming the body of Osiris on the traditional lion-headed couch so that he might come back to life…” (By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, Institute for Religious Research, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1992, p. 62)
In the original papyri, Facsimile No. 1 is attached to hieroglyphics from which Joseph created the beginning of the Book of Abraham. It begins with the words, “In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence” (BoA 1:1). In reality, however, the hieroglyphics translate: “Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons — and likewise Osiris Hor, justified, born to Tikhebyt, justified — after his arms have been placed on his heart and the Breathing permit (which [Isis] made and has writing on its inside and outside) has been wrapped in royal linen and placed under his left arm near his heart; the rest of the mummy-bandages should be wrapped over it. The man for whom this book was copied will breath forever and ever as the bas of the gods do.”
The document is not the writing of Abraham in Egypt, but is instead the opening portion of an Egyptian Shait en Sensen, or Book of Breathing, a late funerary text derived from the earlier and more complex Book of the Dead. This particular scroll was examined by experts (including Mormon experts who agreed with the findings) and after analyzing handwriting, spelling, content, and other contextual issues, they determined the papyri were written sometime during the Late Ptolemaic or Early Roman Period (circa 50 B.C. to A.D. 50). This is problematic for Mormons, however, for if the papyri are only about 2,000 years old, they are far too new to have been “written on by the hand of Abraham”…
It’s fairly clear, therefore, the picture shown as Facsimile No. 1 (JSP I) belongs at the start of the papyrus scroll, and Joseph Smith was claiming to translate from the very next portion of the papyrus (JSP XI). The text of the Book of Abraham demonstrates the drawing appearing as Facsimile No. 1 (JSP I) was located at the beginning of the scroll. A larger piece of papyri (JSP X) follows the smaller JSP XI. While the name “Abraham” does not appear on any of the three pieces of papyri, the Egyptian name “Hor” appears on every piece, connecting them contextually. The name can be seen in at least nine places. Although the original piece of papyrus Joseph used to prepare Facsimile No. 3 is missing, Egyptologists have also found the name “Hor” on the printed facsimile Joseph inserted in the Book of Abraham. “Hor” is seen everywhere on the existing papyri and also on Joseph’s reproduction of Facsimile No. 3. It is reasonable to infer the scene shown in Facsimile No. 3 ended the original series of papyri (which have now been translated properly and are known to be a Book of Breathing).
Cold-Case Christianity: How the Book of Abraham Exposes the False Nature of Mormonism, J. Warner Wallace, December 23, 2015
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-the-book-of-abraham-exposes-the-false-nature-of-mormonism/
Lanny Bell Reconstruction
One such reconstruction by Lanny Bell, a respected Egyptologist, correctly identifies the central standing figure as the god Anubis, traditionally depicted with a jackal head. In Smith’s facsimile, this head is missing and replaced with a crude human head, which he labels as “the idolatrous priest of Elkenah.” Smith also interprets the object in Anubis’s hand as a knife, to support the sacrifice narrative. Bell’s analysis, by contrast, shows that the priest was likely holding an ointment jar, a standard symbol of embalming in funerary scenes.
Graphic reconstruction of a damaged scene or text is a very useful exercise. When one actually has to commit pen to paper, unsightly gaps and embarrassing inconsistencies appear starkly in black and white; the errors of preconceived notions become apparent, and alternative possibilities must be found. As the work progresses, one thing leads to another, since the composition was a unified whole — piecemeal solutions do not yield satisfactory results. Figure 4 represents my new attempt to reconstruct the essential elements of the vignette of P. JS 1. Stephen Thompson 1995, p. 144, n. 5, suggests adding a pot in Anubis’ outstretched hand, citing Davies 1953, pi. 3 (V.20); Cruz-Uribe 1988 describes this vessel as an “ointment jar.” At Dendera, Anubis holds an unguent container in several lion-bier scenes associated with the Ritual of Embalming. He also holds this vessel in bier scenes found, for example, in Roman period tombs at Kom el-Shuqafa (Alexandria), Ezbet Bashendi and el-Muzauwaqa (Dakhla Oasis), as well as on coffins, shrouds, and funerary stelae. The arrangement advocated here now leaves sufficient space to postulate the original presence of at least one additional short column of hieroglyphs between columns I/3 and I/4 (as they are numbered by Ritner). As for the clothing and jewelry worn by the deceased in P. JS I, he clearly sports a pleated kilt accessorized with ankle bracelets. Facsimile No. 3 represents him with a different garment, but wearing armlets in addition to the anklets. The closest parallel to the P. JS I Osiris is the one at Dendera wearing a pleated chest-high “kilt” or tunic, strapless and cinched with a belt; his costume is complemented by bracelets and armlets. In my reconstruction I have chosen to combine anklets, armlets, and bracelets. The deceased may or may not have had a collar around his neck. Because Hor’s left arm seems to have crossed his chest, I think the possibility that he wore a “kilt” extending above his waist can safely be eliminated as too complicated for the needs of our provincial artist.
Lanny Bell, The Ancient Egyptian “Books of Breathing,” the Mormon “Book of Abraham,” and the Development of Egyptology in America. Egypt and Beyond, Pages 29-30, 2008
https://archive.org/details/BookOfBreathingsArticleLannyBell/page/n13/mode/2up?view=theater
Charles Larson Reconstruction
Another reconstruction by Charles Larson (author of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus) also places Anubis with a jackal head at the center of the scene. But perhaps more controversially, Larson—along with other Egyptologists—identifies the figure lying on the lion couch not as Abraham, but as Osiris, the Egyptian god of the afterlife. In traditional depictions of this scene, Osiris is shown with one hand outstretched while the other holds his erect phallus, symbolizing resurrection and fertility. Above him, his wife Isis is represented in the form of a kite (a bird), engaged in a symbolic act of reviving Osiris.
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 (notice the beard stroke coming down from the chin in front of the hair in the picture, and compare this with Smith’s Facsimile No. 1). 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—this is explained further on page 102.
Before Joseph Smith’s reconstmction of the drawing was published in the Mormon periodical Times and Seasons, he took special pains to insure that those portions missing from the papyrus itself were depicted exactly as he intended. He supervised the preparation of the woodcut, approved the cut when it was completely finished, and provided the “inspired” explanation of the scene—including explanations of the parts he had restored. All this indicates the drawing of Facsimile No. 1 as it appears in the Book of Abraham is precisely as Joseph wanted it to be.
The rediscovery of the original papyrus has confirmed what Egyptologists had long suspected—that Joseph Smith produced Facsimile No. 1 by copying a scene from a genuine but damaged Egyptian papyrus, and that the errors in Facsimile No. 1 correspond to the missing portions of the original, which Joseph Smith incorrectly filled in. None of the reconstructions supplied by Smith are vindicated by the study of Egyptology. Instead, all of them have been shown to be erroneous.
Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri
https://archive.org/details/ByHisOwnHandUponPapyrusByCharlesB.Larson/page/n77/mode/2up
https://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Hand-Upon-Papyrus/dp/0962096326?tag=circubstu-20
Here is a proper reconstruction where we can actually see Anubis’s head is a jackal, not a human. You will notice his arm is extended, it does not have a knife, and you will notice that what is above him is actually a bird’s wing that is extended off to the right-hand side above his one hand raised, not two. His other hand is attached to his penis. He’s holding an erect penis because what you are actually seeing is an X-rated scene of Osiris rising from the dead and impregnating his wife, the goddess Isis, who has taken the form of a kite (a bird), and she is thus engendering her son, the god Horus, who will avenge his father who was slain by the god Seth. This is all a critical moment in Egyptian mythology. In Egyptian mythology, every person who dies wants to be revived like Osiris was revived, by the god Anubis, the god of embalming.
So the figure of Osiris on the embalming bed who is receiving blessing and embalming from Anubis—protecting him not killing him—protecting him. This is enabling not only Osiris but you after death to become a form of Osiris, and so you too will revive and be alive in the underworld just like Osiris was. Which is why the surrounding hieroglyphic text has nothing to do with Abraham, it is entirely about a man by the name of Hor, a priest whose funerary papyrus this was and it belonged to his mummy which was one of those mummies and this contains funerary blessings for him, asking that he be revived like Osiris in the picture. It contains an invocation to the gods of the north south east and west that they induct Horus like Osiris into the underworld safely, as shown in the picture with Anubis embalming Osiris who equals Horus and this is the moment where, this is not what you typically find in most of the book of the dead papyri, this is a much more specialized arcane ritual scene in which Osiris is shown impregnating his wife, which you otherwise find on temple walls which I’ll be able to show you in amoment. We get scenes just like this.
Robert Ritner desribing Charles Larson’s Reconstruction
An Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham – Dr. Robert Ritner Pt 1 | Mormon Stories Podcast Ep. 1339
These scholarly reconstructions illustrate not only the inaccuracy of Joseph Smith’s interpretation, but also that the facsimile is a standard scene from the Egyptian Book of Breathings or other funerary texts, designed to portray resurrection and divine healing—not human sacrifice. The alterations and labels introduced by Smith reflect a reinterpretation driven by his theological narrative rather than by any understanding of ancient Egyptian culture or language.
Robert Ritner
If you took a painting of Madonna and Child and you tore off the heads of both figures and you replaced them with a dog and a cat, it would be as obvious to us now that this is as wrong as the replacing of the clearly jackal head with a human head on this Egyptian piece because we know what these images actually look like. In the same way, we know that those figures (from Facsimile 1) would – never under any circumstance – hold a knife. And that’s critical to the text itself (Book of Abraham) because it’s not merely decoration for this text. It goes to the core of the supposed story that accompanies it. If you take the knife away, you take away the story as well. And clearly the knife had no reason to be there.
Dr Robert Ritner, Expert Egyptologist
https://www.mormonstories.org/robert-ritner/
The Smith explanations are untenable, and as the images are directly cited in the narrative itself, the underlying text of the Book of Abraham has been found and Smith’s interpretation disproved. There can be no question of any “lost” section of the papyrus that contained an ancient text composed by Abraham, since the author of the supposedly pre-existent Book of Abraham both claims and depicts the Ptolemaic vignette as his own addition (Facsimile 1) to the tale. Abraham cannot have lived as late as the Ptolemaic era, the papyrus illustration of Hôr cannot be dated earlier than the Ptolemaic era, and no rational defense of the narrative is possible. Except for those willfully blind, the case is closed.
Robert K. Ritner Ph. D, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, Page 94
https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Egyptian-Papyri-Complete-ebook/dp/B00FJ63LQU?tag=circubstu-20
The published text of the Book of Abraham is accompanied by three woodcut
Dr Robert K. Ritner, “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” — A Response
“Facsimiles” with explanations authored by Joseph Smith himself. The facsimiles are all
based on ancient Egyptian documents, and the Egyptian texts of all three can now be
deciphered. In addition, the representations on all three conform to well-known Egyptian
models. Facsimiles 1 and 3 represent sections of one papyrus: the “Breathing Permit of
Hôr” (P. JS 1), part of the group of Egyptian texts purchased by Smith in 1835 and long
thought lost in the Chicago fire of 1871. These papyri were rediscovered in the
collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 1967 and quickly
transferred to the LDS church, which published the first photographs of the texts the next
year in the church magazine The Improvement Era. Comparison of the surviving initial
vignette of the Hôr papyrus with Facsimile 1 proves beyond doubt, as the LDS web post
agrees, that it was “the vignette that became facsimile 1.” However, neither Facsimile 1
nor 2 is a true copy, and both contain added forgeries, including the human-head and
knife of the supposed “idolatrous priest of Elkenah” (Fig. 3 on Facsimile 1) as can be
seen in the crude pencil additions to the original papyrus sheet as mounted and “improved” for publication by the LDS church in 1842. Facsimile 2 derives from a
separate burial, for an individual named Sheshonq. Large portions of this published
“facsimile” were improperly inserted from unrelated papyri. All of Smith’s published
“explanations” are incorrect, including the lone example defended by the new web
posting: the water in which a crocodile is swimming (Fig. 12 of Fascimile 1), supposedly
a representation of “the firmament over our heads … but in this case, in relation to this
subject, the Egyptians meant it to be to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens.”
Although Egyptians might place heavenly boats in the sky, that is not relevant “in this
case” where the water is placed below the figures and represents the Nile, not the sky.
The selective defense of these explanations by the church is telling, and all other
explanations are simply indefensible except by distorting Egyptian evidence. In
Facsimile 3, Smith confuses human and animal heads and males with females. No
amount of special pleading can change the female “Isis the great, the god’s mother”
(Facsimile 3, Fig. 2) into the male “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters
above his hand,” as even the LDS author Michael D. Rhodes accepts. Here Smith also
misunderstands “Pharaoh” as a personal name rather than a title meaning “king,” so he
reads “king king” for a goddess’s name that he claims to have understood on the papyrus!
https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/Research_Archives/Translation%20and%20Historicity%20of%20the%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20final-2.pdf
The only parallels between the Book of Abraham and the papyri are found in the Facsimiles (Ptolemaic in date [352-30 BCE.]) that are specifically described and referenced within the text of the [Book of Abraham (BoA hereafter)] itself. There is thus no possibility that the scenes, reworked from the papyri for the BoA, can be considered separate from the source of the BoA itself. Obviously, the papyrus containing the scenes is equally linked. The BoA just as clearly misunderstands these Facsimiles/Vignettes, with multiple confusions of standard imagery (for example: male vs. female vs. animal, specific deity images) and distorted interpretations of easily legible Egyptian text.
Interview: Dr. Robert Ritner
https://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2012/03/complete-translation-of-joseph-smith.html
These visual and scholarly analyses show extreme differences between Joseph Smith’s interpretations and established Egyptological understandings. The reconstructions by Bell and Larson, grounded in Egyptological scholarship, provide a more accurate representation of what the original scene would look like if reconstructed. These align with the same common funerary motifs as are found on the papyri, rather than the narrative presented in the Book of Abraham.
Facsimile 2
The second illustration in the Book of Abraham is another example of how Joseph Smith’s interpretations diverge sharply from mainstream Egyptological understanding. Facsimile 2 is a hypocephalus, a small, circular disk placed under the head of a deceased person in ancient Egyptian burial practices, particularly during the Late Period and into Greco-Roman times. The term hypocephalus comes from the Greek meaning “under the head.” These objects were believed to protect the deceased, keep the body warm, and aid in resurrection by symbolically linking the deceased with the god Osiris and the divine light of the sun. Hypocephali are inscribed with spells from the Book of the Dead, especially Spell 162, and contain a range of standard motifs:
- Standard hieroglyphic inscriptions designed to bless, protect, and empower the deceased in the afterlife.
- The god Re or Khnum-Re seated on a throne, representing the daily rising sun.
- Four sons of Horus, often depicted in canopic form.
- A cow representing Hathor, goddess of motherhood and fertility.
- Wedjat eyes, symbolize protection.
- A central figure with four ram heads, often interpreted as a syncretic solar deity.
Major Misinterpretations
Here are some of the more striking claims made by Smith, compared with what Egyptologists identify:
Figure 1
- Smith’s Explanation: “Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God.”
- Egyptological View: This is the seated god Re or Khnum-Re, holding a scepter and an ankh, symbols of life and power. There is no mention of “Kolob” or anything analogous in any known Egyptian texts.
Figure 2
- Smith’s Explanation: “Stands next to Kolob … the governing power … of the second fixed planet which is called Oliblish.”
- Egyptological View: Typically, this figure is part of the cosmic scene and may represent a deity or a priest offering to Re. The names and cosmology described by Smith are unknown and not found in Egyptian sources.
Figure 3
- Smith: “Is made to represent God sitting upon his throne … revealing the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood.”
- Egyptologists: The figure with four ram heads is a composite solar deity symbolizing aspects of creation, resurrection, and light. It does not refer to the priesthood or divine keywords.
Figure 7
- Smith: “Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing the grand Keywords of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham.”
- Egyptologists: This figure is often identified as Min, the Egyptian fertility god, frequently portrayed with an erect phallus—an aspect Joseph Smith ignored or repurposed. The “sign of the Holy Ghost” is a Christian theological term with no connection to Egyptian belief or symbolism.
Other Small Inscriptions
Many of the hieroglyphs in the original hypocephalus are poorly copied or even missing. In some places, Smith or his engravers filled in gaps with unrelated symbols, including characters from other papyri fragments (now known not to be connected to the hypocephalus at all). Scholars like Robert Ritner have emphasized that many of these added symbols are completely meaningless or misappropriated in this context.
Facsimile No. 2, as it is described by Joseph Smith and included in the Pearl of Great Price, contains different scenes interpreted by Joseph Smith. They vary considerably in content: “Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God.” “Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides.” “God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority.” “…this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key…”
But again, the experts discovered Joseph’s translation did not match the evidence. “It is actually a rather common funerary amulet termed a hypocephalus, so-called because it was placed under (hypo) a mummy’s head (cephalus). Its purpose was to magically keep the deceased warm and to protect the body from desecration by grave robbers.” This type of amulet was very common, and several similar amulets have been recovered and translated over the years, confirming their nature and the fact they contradict Joseph’s translation. None of the content translated by Joseph for the Book of Abraham appears on the amulet. It is not what Joseph claimed.
Cold-Case Christianity: How the Book of Abraham Exposes the False Nature of Mormonism, J. Warner Wallace, December 23, 2015
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-the-book-of-abraham-exposes-the-false-nature-of-mormonism/
Even with the evidence, LDS Apologists and BYU professors will still say these are proof that “is clear that Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about,” and that “every honest person can learn” that “Joseph Smith received these things from God.” In order to make these generalizations, the apologists must ignore everything the world knows about Egyptology and boil both the Egyptian mythology and Mormon mythology into basic concepts that can be found in nearly any religion or mythology: life, death, and a hope in life after death.
The text as well as the figures and illustrations of the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus all point toward the Egyptians’ hope in a resurrection and life after death as a divine being. Although to our modern way of thinking, this message is conveyed by a strange assortment of gods, animals, and other bizarre figures, it is important to remember, that to the Egyptians, who always tried to express abstract ideas with concrete representations, these were all aspects of the One God who manifested himself in many forms.
It is especially significant to recognize that knowledge of these things was unavailable even to the best scholars of Joseph Smith’s day… Joseph Smith simply could not have acquired the understanding he had of these things from the world. Nevertheless, as this study has shown, many of the prophet’s explanations of the hypocephalus illustrated in Facsimile 2 are supported by our present understanding of ancient Egyptian religion, and are in fact especially typical of Late Egyptian religious writings. One or two could conceivably be dismissed as mere chance or lucky guessing, but the many correct interpetations taken together are impossible to ignore. It is clear that Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about. This only reaffirms what every honest person can learn in earnest prayer, that Joseph Smith received these things from God, even as he claimed.
Michael D. Rhodes, Associate Research Professor (Emeritis), Department of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University, The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus . . . Twenty Years Later, 1997
https://web.archive.org/web/20151002101710/http://home.comcast.net/~michael.rhodes/Joseph%20Smith%20Hypocephalus.pdf
Prominent Egyptologists including Robert Ritner, Lanny Bell, and Klaus Baer have all concluded that:
- The facsimile is a standard funerary hypocephalus.
- Joseph Smith’s interpretations have no basis in Egyptology.
- The names, places, and cosmology (Kolob, Oliblish, etc.) are not Egyptian but rather reflect 19th-century theological speculation or invention.
Robert Ritner, in The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, states plainly that the hypocephalus used in Facsimile 2 “has no connection whatsoever with the biblical Abraham” and that “every explanation Smith gives is incorrect.” Facsimile 2, like the other illustrations in the Book of Abraham, provides a stark example of how Joseph Smith’s “translations” are fundamentally at odds with the reality of ancient Egyptian religion and funerary practice. His explanations retrofit 19th-century religious ideas onto a clearly identifiable ancient object with an entirely different purpose. The hypocephalus is not a map of the cosmos as Smith imagined, but a symbol of resurrection and divine light designed to comfort and empower the dead—not to convey secret knowledge of Kolob and priesthood rituals.
Facsimile 3
Facsimile 3 is a standard “presentation scene” common in ancient Egyptian funerary texts, particularly from the Book of the Dead. These scenes typically depict the deceased being led into the presence of Osiris, the god of the afterlife, and presented by deities like Isis, Ma’at, or Anubis. The deceased is often given symbols of eternal life and power as they prepare to be judged or enter paradise.
In this facsimile, a central figure (the deceased) is being introduced by gods to Osiris, who sits enthroned. There are clear, readable hieroglyphic captions above each figure, identifying the characters and their roles.
Joseph Smith claimed Facsimile No. 3 depicted “Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood…King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head…Signifies Abraham in Egypt…Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince…” But this is contrary to the true translation of the hieroglyphic. The facsimile actually depicts “the deceased being led before Osiris, god of the dead, and behind the enthroned Osiris stands his wife Isis.”
Cold-Case Christianity: How the Book of Abraham Exposes the False Nature of Mormonism, J. Warner Wallace, December 23, 2015
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-the-book-of-abraham-exposes-the-false-nature-of-mormonism/
Joseph Smith’s Interpretations vs. Egyptological Consensus
Here are Smith’s identifications contrasted with what the inscriptions and iconography actually say:
Figure 1
- Joseph Smith: “Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand presidency in heaven…”
- Egyptology: The figure is clearly Osiris, enthroned, wearing the atef crown, holding the crook and flail—standard iconography. The hieroglyphic label above him literally names him: “Osiris, the great god, lord of the west.” This is not Abraham, and he is not a mortal man, let alone a Hebrew patriarch.
Figure 2
- Joseph Smith: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”
- Egyptology: The figure is Isis, a goddess, not a king. The hieroglyphs name her as “Isis the great, the god’s mother.” The presence of a goddess misidentified as a male monarch is a major flaw in Smith’s interpretation.
Figure 3
- Smith: “Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile 1”
- Egyptology: This is a libation table (wine, oils, etc.)
Figure 4
- Smith: “Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.”
- Egyptology: This is the (female) goddess Ma’at, identifiable by the feather on her head, a symbol of truth and justice. The inscription names her as such. Smith again mistakes a female deity for a male human.
Figure 5
- Smith: “Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.”
- Egyptology: This is the deceased person, the Egyptian for whom the papyrus was made. The name above reads “Hor, the justified” (sometimes transliterated as Hôr), and this figure is being welcomed into the afterlife—not serving Pharaoh. He is wearing the traditional cone of perfumed grease and lotus flower on his head.
Figure 6
- Smith: “Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.”
- Egyptology: This figure is Anubis, the jackal-headed god of mummification and the afterlife. The text above his head names him, and the iconography is unmistakable. Again, Smith has turned a major deity into a minor mortal servant.
Scholarly Consensus
All reputable Egyptologists who have reviewed the facsimile agree that the identifications by Joseph Smith are wrong in every single case. They also understand that hieroglyphs are not secret names, but standard captions that identify common deities and funerary roles. The scene found in facsimile 3 is not unique or revelatory, and although the original illustration in the papyri has yet to be found, scholars recognize it as but an ordinary presentation scene found in many funerary papyri.
Robert Ritner, a leading Egyptologist, stated that this facsimile “represents the deceased Hor being presented to Osiris by the gods, not Abraham being honored by Pharaoh.” Klaus Baer and John Gee, though at different ends of the apologetic spectrum, both acknowledge the major mismatch between Smith’s identifications and standard Egyptological understanding.
Facsimile 3 is not ambiguous. The hieroglyphs are legible and translated consistently by every modern Egyptologist. The iconography is standard and well-documented. Joseph Smith’s explanations are not just inaccurate—they directly contradict the primary source texts above each figure. Unlike the catalyst theory (which tries to claim the text was inspired, not literal), or apologetic claims about damaged papyri, Facsimile 3 leaves no wiggle room. Joseph Smith claimed the figures were Abraham, Pharaoh, and waiters. The facsimile itself literally labels them as Osiris, Isis, Ma’at, Hor (the deceased), and Anubis in Egyptian which can be read today. The fact that this facsimile also references Hor, the deceased, we can conclusively state that the illustrations were all part of the same collection of writings.
Facsimile 3 thus stands as direct evidence that Joseph Smith either could not translate Egyptian or deliberately misrepresented what he saw—a fact increasingly difficult to reconcile with the claim of prophetic translation. Knowing what we do about the Reformed Egyptian Joseph also claimed to “translate” by the power of God, and that he was nearly fooled by the Kinderhook plates which he identified as authentic and ancient, we see Joseph’s claims fall incredibly short.
Facsimiles Are Part of Book of Abraham Translation
The facsimiles each contain explanations and translations. These are presented as translations, not as revelations. How could a revelation about a diagram be about something other than the diagram? Apologists claim that this is normal and nothing to worry about, since text doesn’t always appear next to facsimiles, but it’s the text that references them!
Many Mormon apologists, after investigating this evidence, have come to the conclusion we actually do have all the papyri Joseph used for the Book of Abraham. They also admit Smith’s rendition does not reflect the accurate translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics on these papyri. As a result, they now claim Joseph obtained his Book of Abraham by way of direct revelation and not from a translation of the papyrus. They claim God inspired Joseph and revealed the text of the Book of Abraham, using the papyri only as an inspirational tool. The words came to Joseph directly from God, independent of the papyri. According to these apologists, the papyri simply served as the visual foundation from which God miraculously revealed something entirely different.
This explanation contradicts everything Joseph Smith ever wrote (or allowed to be published) about the subject. It is clear from Joseph’s own writing he translated the Book of Abraham from the characters he found on the papyri:
“The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the Ancients.” (History of the Church, vol 2, page 238)
“October 1.–This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet… during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter.” (Ibid., page 286)
“Tuesday, [Nov.] 24.–…In the afternoon we translated some of the Egyptian records… Thursday, 26.–Spent the day in translating Egyptian characters from the papyrus…” (Ibid, page 320)
At the beginning of the handwritten manuscript of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith asserted it was a “Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his (Abraham’s) own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs of Egypt.” The introduction to the Book of Abraham still maintains it was “Translated From The Papyrus, By Joseph Smith” (Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Abraham, Introduction). Current claims the Book of Abraham was not translated from the papyri deny over 150 years of Mormon teaching on the subject (and the very words of Joseph himself). His Alphabet and Grammar clearly describes Smith translating the papyri character for character…
Despite the efforts of Mormons to restore the reliability of the Book of Abraham, it appears to be a demonstrably false book, errantly translated and misrepresented as scripture by the LDS Church. It undermines the claims of Joseph Smith related to other allegedly divinely inspired translations, including the Book of Mormon.
Cold-Case Christianity: How the Book of Abraham Exposes the False Nature of Mormonism, J. Warner Wallace, December 23, 2015
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-the-book-of-abraham-exposes-the-false-nature-of-mormonism/
We can’t have it both ways. Either the text was translated, or it wasn’t. If he included the facsimile material, which he got completely wrong from the original intent of these funerary texts, then the translation was thought to be a translation at the time, and if Joseph Smith didn’t even know he wasn’t translating, then why would God fool him? Why would God include drawings in his scripture that are clearly not what they say they are.
If you’re wrestling with the implications of this history, you’re not alone. Many former and transitioning Mormons have come to terms with difficult facts like these by sharing their stories. Consider adding your voice at wasmormon.org, where your experience can help others navigate their own path of inquiry and faith.
More reading:
- Book of Abraham Anachronism: Chaldeans
- Reformed Egyptian The Caractors on the Anthon Transcript – Deformed English
- Joseph Smith’s Kinderhook Plates Kinder-Surprise Translation Redaction
- Joseph Smith’s Rock in Hat Translation of the Book of Mormon
- Joseph Smith’s Peep Stone Translation Method Renders The Gold Plates Useless
- Church Reveals What To Do With Disturbing Anti-Mormon Literature?
- Playing Church History Whack-a-Mole
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?id=p12-p14#p12
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-1
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-3
- https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/book-of-abraham-and-egyptian-material
- https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/how-the-book-of-abraham-exposes-the-false-nature-of-mormonism/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1af5u8r/comment/koawxhf/
- https://www.worldhistory.org/Anubis/
- https://archive.org/details/BookOfBreathingsArticleLannyBell/page/n7/mode/2up
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H70IdpLHhZE
- https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/abraham-translation
- https://www.churchistrue.com/book-of-abraham/
- https://mrm.org/charles-m-larsons-endorsement-of-glm-video-on-the-book-of-abraham
- https://mit.irr.org/his-own-hand-upon-papyrus-part-1
- https://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Hand-Upon-Papyrus/dp/0962096326?tag=circubstu-20
- https://www.isitso.org/guide/papyri.html
- http://nowscape.com/mormon/kolob-defined3.htm
- https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/fragment-of-book-of-breathing-for-horos-a-between-238-and-circa-153-bc/1
- https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/copy-of-hypocephalus-between-circa-july-1835-and-circa-march-1842/1
- https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-and-facsimiles-1-march-16-may-1842/1
- https://www.mormoninfographics.com/2012/08/book-of-abraham-facsimile-1-examined.html
- The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition by Robert K. Ritner
- http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm
- An Egyptologist Translates the Book of Abraham – Dr. Robert Ritner Pt 1 | Mormon Stories Podcast Ep. 1339