CHAPTER FIVE
An Identification and the Critical Link
Several weeks after the LDS Church officially acquired the
Joseph Smith papyri, it allowed sepia-toned photographs of all
eleven fragments to be published in the Improvement Era magazine
(February 1968). Though prior to this photographs of the papyri
had been made available to selected Church scholars and some
others,1 this was the first real exposure of these historic
documents to the general membership and the public at large. The
effect of this public unveiling -- for the members of the LDS
Church at least -- was spectacular. Readers were brought
face-to-face with page after page of impressive documents, and
an article that seemed to completely answer even the most
persistent critic. Thus, the membership was reassured that the
Mormon Church and all that it taught had to be true. Why else,
Mormons could reason, would the Church be willing to lay these
things out before the world, unless, as they had always
believed, there was absolutely nothing to hide? Recent events
caused many Mormons to be grateful for this type of assurance
from the Church. In what amounted to the latest round in the old
"Could-Joseph-Smith-really-translate-ancient-Egyptian-or-was-he-just-faking"
debate, an obscure document had come to light that had been
nearly forgotten for a hundred and thirty years. Joseph had
called it his ''Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.''
Smith's ''Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar,'' as it has come to be
called, had never really been lost or missing. For a long time
it was simply ignored, and more recently it had been considered
restricted. It was among that portion of early Church records
the Mormons managed to take with them when they left Nauvoo in
1846, and it was included in the list of materials recorded in
the Church Historian's Office Journal as having been deposited
in the Historian's fireproof vault in Salt Lake City in 1855.
There the manuscript lay, apparently all but forgotten for
eighty years, before being "rediscovered" in 1935 during the
course of some historical research by Dr. Sidney B. Sperry of
Brigham Young University, James R. Clark, a student of Sperry's,
and A. William Lund, Assistant Church Historian at the time.2
These documents were not released for public examination or
study, however. For the time being their discovery was not even
announced.3 It was not until 1938 that Dr. Sperry was allowed to
publish a pair of rather indistinct photographs of two pages
from the Alphabet and Grammar notebook which contained part of a
translation manuscript from the Book of Abraham. The existence
of the entire Grammar was still only hinted at for many years,
and only a select handful of scholars and authorities within the
LDS Church were allowed access to the material.4 This, despite
the great historical significance attached to it by LDS writers
like William Berrett, who proudly described it as Joseph Smith's
"most notable achievement . . . the development of a Grammar for
the Egyptian hieroglyphic form of writing," and "the first
Egyptian Grammar in America."5
Curiously, even as late as 1960 (by which time it had been known
for some twenty-five years that the "Alphabet and Grammar" had
survived and was in the Church's possession) Dr. Sperry remarked
at BYU's Pearl of Great Price Conference that he did not know
whether or not the Church authorities would yet allow it to be
published, adding that he thought "it would be a little
premature, perhaps, to do it now, until we can really do a good
job of it."6
Others who had occasion to come into contact with the material
apparently disagreed with the Church's reluctance in the matter.
Late in 1965 a microfilm copy of the entire work was "leaked" to
Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Modern Microfilm Company (now Utah
Lighthouse Ministry). The Tanners were former Mormons who were
rapidly gaining a reputation for printing documents relating to
Mormonism that, though authentic, made Church officials
uncomfortable. By 1966 the Tanners had produced the first
complete photomechanical reprint and transcription of the entire
Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.7
But contrary to what most Mormons evidently expected,
publication of the Alphabet and Grammar in no way substantiated
Joseph Smith's ability to translate ancient Egyptian. Quite the
opposite, for the book turned out to be nothing but page after
page of nonsensical gibberish. Though it had apparently
succeeded at one time in impressing unsophisticated minds, the
work was unable to withstand the scrutiny of experts.
Professional Egyptologists to whom the Alphabet and Grammar was
submitted for examination were quick to point out that the
material in Joseph Smith's notebook bore no resemblance at all
to any correct understanding of the ancient Egyptian language.
As one of them, I. E. Edwards, put it, the whole work was,
"largely a piece of imagination and lacking in any kind of
scientific value." He added that it reminded him of "the
writings of psychic practitioners which are sometimes sent to
me."8 There were many similar verdicts, all confirming that the
person responsible for what Berrett had glowingly called "the
first Egyptian grammar in America" could not possibly have
understood the ancient Egyptian language.
Small wonder then that the timely appearance of the papyri
(especially the one containing Facsimile No. 1), and the
apparent willingness with which the Mormon Church displayed them
to the world, helped to bolster the sagging confidence of those
who were perhaps still shaken by the Grammar episode. But things
were not as simple as they used to be, and they were soon to
become more confused. Up to this point, a small number of people
within the Church had for many years been intrigued by what were
apparently Egyptian characters written on the margin of a number
of the original Book of Abraham manuscripts.*
Speculation as to their significance occasionally surfaced,9 but
the figures were somewhat crudely drawn and it was apparently
felt that little could be achieved by devoting much attention to
them outside of scholarly circles. But with the growing number
of people being exposed to the photographs of certain pages from
the Grammar, it would now be only a matter of time before
something startling was noticed: The figures on one of the
Church's newly recovered papyrus fragments matched -- in order
-- those found on the translation manuscripts! In other words,
the original source (or at least part of it) from which Joseph
Smith had translated the Book of Abraham had been identified!10
But perhaps it was best to be cautious, for no one could say
with certainty who had drawn what appeared to be Egyptian
characters in the margin of the manuscripts, when they had done
so, or why they had chosen the figures from this particular,
unadorned scrap of papyrus over the other samples available.11
Perhaps there was no real connection; if so, to proceed on such
an assumption would invite a wild goose chase. Was there any
other evidence to show that the fragment the Improvement Era
article had labeled "Small Sensen Papyrus" could be
unquestionably linked to the Book of Abraham? As it happened,
there was.
Of the eleven papyri fragments, only one at first glance had any
apparent connection to the Book of Abraham (that is, the
original from which Facsimile No. 1 was copied). But now, with
attention drawn to the "Small Sensen" papyrus as well, it became
obvious to at least one of the professional non-Mormon
Egyptologists studying the material, Dr. Klaus Baer of the
University of Chicago Oriental Institute, that the two fragments
had once been joined to form a single, larger section of a
scroll. "They seem to have been cut apart after being mounted
[on the backing paper]," Baer wrote after studying the
photographs closely. Soon afterward he was able to confirm his
theory by a physical examination of the fragments themselves. He
found that the right edge of the "Small Sensen" papyrus (Papyrus
Joseph Smith XI) had indeed originally been joined to the left
edge of the fragment from which Facsimile No. 1 (Papyrus Joseph
Smith I) had been copied.
In fact, Dr. Baer's discovery fits perfectly with descriptions
of the Book of Abraham papyrus scroll that occur in the Book of
Abraham, itself:
. . . and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will
refer you to the representation [picture] at the commencement of
this record (Book of Abraham 1:12).
A similar reference to Facsimile No. 1 is found two verses
later:
That you may have an understanding of these gods [before which
stood the altar just mentioned ], I have given you the fashion
of them in the figures at the beginning [of the book] (Book of
Abraham 1:14).
To appreciate the significance of these statements one must keep
in mind that, in contrast to English, ancient Hieratic Egyptian
(like Hebrew) was written from right to left, so that the story
or message in a scroll begins at the right end and moves toward
the left. Thus, the above statements tell us that a
''representation,'' or drawing, of an Egyptian altar and gods
occurs at the of beginning, or right edge of the Book of Abraham
scroll (the ''commencement of the record''), with the story then
proceeding from right to left across the piece of papyrus
material.
A look at the composite photographs of the Book of Abraham
papyrus scroll on pages 33 and 51 shows that fragments I and XI
of the Joseph Smith Papyri do in fact dovetail perfectly, as Dr.
Baer discovered, and that piecing them back together results in
just such an arrangement as is described in the Book of Abraham
quotations above, with a drawing at the beginning, or right end,
of the scroll.
Clearly Papyrus Joseph Smith XI -- the "Small Sensen" papyrus --
was as much a part of the Book of Abraham scroll as the
Facsimile No. 1 fragment.
CHAPTER SIX
The Beginning of Disappointment
The stage was finally set for resolving the long, puzzling story
of the Book of Abraham papyri: the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic
language had been deciphered by scholars, Joseph Smith's
original papyri had been rediscovered and were available for
study, and the three translation manuscripts pinpointed the
specific fragment from which the Book of Abraham text had been
taken, as well as providing a guide to how the Prophet related
the Egyptian symbols to the English translation. All of the
requirements for validation which both LDS Church apologists and
the critics had insisted on for the last hundred years had been
met. The question of whether or not Joseph Smith was telling the
truth could at last be determined.
But more was at stake than Joseph Smith's reputation; more even
than the validity of the Book of Abraham. Hanging in the balance
was the entire religious system established by Joseph Smith.
Mormonism could at last be proven to be either true or false.
Opinions within the Church were divided at this point as to the
best direction in which to proceed. Since, unfortunately, there
seemed to be no qualified Egyptologists within the Church, Dr.
Sperry and Dr. Clark from Brigham Young University both
recommended a professional be consulted to work with the papyri.
The University of Chicago's Dr. John A. Wilson, a brilliant man
who had twice served as director of the University's Oriental
Institute, was suggested, but LDS leaders were uncomfortable
with allowing a non-Mormon scholar to do the translation. The
papyri would remain under the Church's control at Brigham Young
University, and by the end of 1967 the task of studying and
translating them had fallen chiefly to BYU's Dr. Hugh Nibley.
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.1 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.3
In a letter dated June 27, 1967, Dr. Nibley told Nelson,
I see no reason in the world why you should not be taken into
the confidence of the Brethren if this thing ever comes out into
the open; in fact, you should be enormously useful to the Church
. . . As you know, there are parties in Salt Lake who are
howling for a showdown on the P.G.P. [Pearl of Great Price, of
which the Book of Abraham is a portion]; if they have their way
we may have to get together . . . 4
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.5
Confident that a translation would soon be forthcoming, the
editors of the Church'sImprovement 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."6
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.7
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!
It was at this point, and with this thought in mind, that the
editors of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, decided to
approach a number of renowned Egyptologists, requesting their
interpretations of the Joseph Smith papyri.8 This was a dramatic
and daring step, for Dialogue is not an official publication of
the LDS Church. Rather, it is a privately controlled magazine
used as a vehicle by Mormon "intelligentsia" to discuss
controversial topics not explored in depth by Church-controlled
publications, such as the Improvement Era. On more than one
occasion in the past Dialogue had presented articles dealing
with "touchy" subjects such as polygamy and the Adam-God
teachings of Brigham Young, and in doing so had focused the
displeasure of various General Authorities on members of its
editorial board. (One of Dialogue's editors later admitted that
he had feared just such a confrontation with Church authorities
over the plan to publish translations of the Joseph Smith
papyri. As it turned out, the Church remained silent on the
matter and the article was not opposed.9)
Just the same, Nibley was quick to caution the Saints against
attributing too much significance to the interpretations of the
scholars. When the reports began to come in -- from Dr. John A.
Wilson (University of Chicago), confirming the identification of
all the fragments as funerary texts, and from Dr. Klaus Baer
(University of Chicago) and Professor Richard Parker (Brown
University), each providing translations of the "Small Sensen"
papyrus, they agreed in all essentials with Nelson's. At this
point Nibley began to shift the focus of his own work. Instead
of stressing an objective study of the papyri themselves, he
began to develop various theories on how the Book of Abraham
could have been produced other than as the result of "a
'translation' in any accepted sense of the word."10 After Wilson
and Parker's translations and comments were published, Nibley
wrote in an article in the Summer 1968 issue of Dialogue,
Today nobody claims that Joseph Smith got his information
through ordinary scholarly channels. In that case, one wonders
how any amount of checking along ordinary scholarly channels is
going to get us very far.
Nibley's articles in the Improvement Era ran for more than two
years (January 1968 - May 1970). In them, his rather lavish
display of scholarship portrayed him as confident and capable,
and this created many favorable expectations within the Church.
But contrary to what LDS readers were promised, Nibley never
provided a translation of any of the papyri in these Improvement
Era articles. Meanwhile Nelson, armed with his published
translations, a flair for public speaking, and a penchant for
showmanship, began lecturing on his exclusive work with the Book
of Abraham papyri. And the longer he lectured the more he
embellished his list of credentials and past accomplishments.11
Thus, while Nibley and Nelson set out on very different courses,
the actions of both men served to obscure the one vital issue in
the controversy that mattered: the actual evidence of the papyri
themselves.
CHAPTER SEVEN
The Evidence of the Papyri
When the opportunity was extended to several Egyptologists to
examine and comment on the eleven papyrus fragments from the
Metropolitan Museum, the same papyri that once belonged to
Joseph Smith and from which he claimed to have translated the
Book of Abraham, each of them arrived at the same conclusion:
the papyri were common funeral texts, all clearly dating after
500 B.C.,1 fifteen-hundred years or more later than Abraham's
time, and having no connection whatever with the biblical
patriarch Abraham. Dr. Baer of Chicago's Oriental Institute
identified the eleven fragments (and also an additional fragment
from the Church Historian's office that had been included with
Smith's Alphabet and Grammar material, for a total of twelve) as
belonging to portions of three original papyrus volumes:2
Book of Breathings (also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing
permit" for the priest Hor, son of the priest Osorwer and the
lady Tikhebyt, as found on Papyrus Joseph Smith I, X and XI.
Book of the Dead belonging to the lady Amon-Re Neferirnub, as
found on Papyrus Joseph Smith IIIA and IIIB.
Book of the Dead for the deceased Tshenmin (or Ta Shert Min; Ta-Shere-Min),
daughter of Nes-Khensu, as found on Papyrus Joseph Smith II, IV,
V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX (the fragment from the Alphabet and
Grammar).
Photographs and examinations of all twelve of the Joseph Smith
papyrus fragments appear on the following pages. The piece
labeled Papyrus Joseph Smith I (the Facsimile No. 1 fragment) is
given first, followed by Papyrus Joseph Smith XI (the "Small
Sensen" text fragment), since the two were originally directly
adjoining pieces of a single scroll, identified by Joseph Smith
as ''the writings of Abraham.'' Papyrus Joseph Smith X, another
fragment from the same scroll, is given next. Next is Papyrus
Joseph Smith IIIA and IIIB, and finally the remainder of the
papyri. The numerical designations used are those which were
originally given the papyri by Dr. Hugh Nibley in the February
1968 Improvement Era.
(The color foldout on pp. 33, 34 shows how a number of the
fragments originally fit together to make up sections of two
papyrus scrolls, identified by Joseph Smith as ''the writings of
Abraham," and ''the writings of Joseph of Egypt," respectively.
These are the first published, color photographs of the Joseph
Smith papyri.)
Papyrus Joseph Smith I
This fragment (p. 64) bears a mortuary vignette, flanked by
hieroglyphic writing. It is the opening portion of an Egyptian
Shait en Sensen, or Book of Breathings. The Book of Breathings,
a late and abbreviated funerary text that grew out of the
earlier and more complex Book of the Dead, first appeared
sometime near the beginning of the Ptolemaic (Greek) Period, in
the late fourth or early third-century B.C. Written on a scroll,
sealed with bitumen, and placed inside the coffin with the
deceased, the Book of Breathings contained a series of magic
spells to be recited by the spirit of the corpse after burial in
order to teach itself to "breathe," and thus be prepared for its
existence in the afterlife.
This particular scroll was prepared (as determined by
handwriting, spelling, content, etc.) sometime during the late
Ptolemaic or early Roman period (circa 50 B.C. to A.D. 50).3
When it was originally unrolled in Kirtland in 1835, major
portions of the book were damaged, as may be seen in the
photograph. (Egyptologists have been critical of Joseph Smith's
interpretation of this vignette, and have pointed out that there
are serious errors in his reconstructions of missing portions. A
professional reconstruction is compared to that of Smith, on pp.
64, 65.)
The five vertical columns of hieroglyphic figures on the papyrus
confirm the funeral nature of the vignette (see p. 102 for an
explanation of the Egyptian mythology represented here), giving
titles, name, and parentage of the man for whose benefit the
scroll was originally prepared. Translated by Dr. Baer,4 from
right to left they read:
Lines 1 - 3 -- ". . . the prophet of Amonrasonter, prophet [?]
of Min Bull-of-his-Mother, prophet [?] of Khons the Governor . .
. Hor, justified, son of the holder of the same titles, master
of secrets, and purifier of the gods Osorwer, justified [?] . .
. Tikhebyt, justified. May your ba live among them, and may you
be buried in the West . . ."
Line 4 -- too little remaining to translate.
Line 5 -- "May you give him a good, splendid burial on the West
of Thebes just like . . .''
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 reconstruction 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,5 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.
Papyrus Joseph Smith XI
This single fragment is unquestionably the most significant of
the eleven recovered by the LDS Church in 1967-- more important
than even the instantly recognizable "Facsimile No. 1" fragment.
It was from the Egyptian characters on the right hand side of
this "Small Sensen" papyrus that Joseph Smith claimed to derive
the translated text of the Book of Abraham.
The right edge of this papyrus was once connected to the left
edge of the "Facsimile No. 1" papyrus (see foldout, p. 33). The
larger scroll section they formed was cut apart after it was
glued to backing paper in the nineteenth century. A translation
shows it to be the opening portion of a first-century A.D. Book
of Breathings that had been prepared for Hor, a deceased priest
of the Egyptian God Amon.
Divided into two columns, the figures on the right half give
instructions to those embalming Hor's body on how to properly
wrap up the collection of magic spells (that is, the Book of
Breathings) so they are included in the mummy wrappings over his
breast. (Translation by Richard A. Parker.)6
Line 1 -- [. . . .] this great pool of Khonsu
Line 2 -- [Osiris Hor, justified], born of Taykhebyt, a man
likewise.
Line 3 -- After (his) two arms are [fast]ened to his breast, one
wraps the Book of Breathings, which is
Line 4 -- with writing both inside and outside of it, with royal
linen, it being placed [at] his left arm
Line 5 -- near his heart, this having been done at his
Line 6 -- wrapping and outside it. If this book be recited for
him, then
Line 7 -- he will breathe like the soul[s of gods] for ever and
Line 8 -- ever.
The left side of the fragment begins the series of spells to be
recited.
Papyrus Joseph Smith X
Usually referred to as the "Large Sensen" papyrus, this fragment
is a continuation of the same Book of Breathings scroll just
examined (Papyri Joseph Smith I, XI; see foldout, p. 33).
Prepared for a priest of the Egyptian god Amon, named Hor, son
of the priest Osorwer and the lady Tikhebyt, it continues the
spells begun in the second column of Papyrus Joseph Smith XI.
The entire text deals with common themes from pagan Egyptian
mythology and bears no similarity whatever to the subject of
Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham.
Much of the right-hand portion of this brittle fragment has now
flaked away from the backing paper to which it was mounted.
There is, however, an impression of the papyrus that remains in
the outline of glue, which allows us to see how much of it was
originally present when it was unrolled. When all three
fragments (Papyrus Joseph Smith X, XI and I) are lined up in
order, an outline of their top edge shows a perfectly repeating
pattern of dips and gouges, demonstrating that these missing
portions once overlapped each other when the scroll was rolled
up, and that they broke off and were lost together when the
scroll was first unrolled. This point is particularly important
since the major differences between Joseph Smith's version of
the scene in Papyrus Joseph Smith I and the expert restoration
are all found in the areas reconstructed by Smith. Joseph Smith
could not have seen what was on those missing pieces, so that
responsibility for the rendition of Facsimile No. 1 is entirely
his own.
Papyrus Joseph Smith IIIA and IIIB
These two fragments are simply one scene cut into two pieces.
Shown is an illustration from the Egyptian Book of the Dead,
Chapter (or Spell) 125 -- Osiris judging the dead. The deceased
woman for whom this book was prepared, a female musician named
Amon-Re Neferirnub,7 is being led before the throne of Osiris,
god of the underworld, by Maat, goddess of justice, while Toth
(bottom center) is weighing her merit against her fault, on a
balance. The deceased wears a perfumed cone and lotus flower on
her head, in accordance with Egyptian festival attire. Osiris
sits before a libation platform topped by a stylized papyrus
plant and bearing jars of wines and oils, wearing the
double-plumed crown and holding the royal flail and crook. This
is a very common Egyptian funerary scene.
It is not known whether Joseph Smith ever made any particular
identification of these fragments, or any other portions of this
copy of the Book of the Dead.
Papyrus Joseph Smith IV
This fragment and the six remaining fragments which follow, are
all part of a single scroll, an illustrated Egyptian Book of the
Dead prepared for a woman named Ta-shert-Min, daughter of
Nes-Khensu, sometime in the second half of the Ptolemaic
period.8 This was after hieratic writing had evolved from the
more elaborate hieroglyphic form, but before the Book of the
Dead was generally replaced by simpler funeral texts (such as
the Book of Breathings). The book is divided into many short
chapters, or "spells," which are readily identifiable and often
accompanied by vignettes to illustrate them. The scenes contain
the same basic material and occur in the same order typical of
the Book of the Dead during this late period. For example, shown
on this fragment are portions of Chapters 99, 100, 101, 103,
104, 105, and 106. In addition, several small fragments from a
completely different work -- the later "Book of Breathings for
the priest Hor" -- have been glued haphazardly over stains and
gaps that appear on the original fragment, apparently as a
cosmetic measure to make the fragment appear more attractive. It
is not known who may have done this or when, but it appears that
whoever attached these additional flakes had more of the Book of
Breathings scroll available to him than the three fragments from
the Metropolitan Museum collection. While at least two major
flakes can be traced to Papyrus Joseph Smith X and at least one
to Papyrus Joseph Smith XI, the large flake in the upper left
corner (which is upside down) comes from neither, though it
unquestionably has its origin in the Book of Breathings. Also, a
tiny flake atop the large flake directly in the center (also
glued on upside down) appears to contain design elements similar
to the upper border of "Facsimile No. 3 from the Book of
Abraham" (the papyrus original of this scene has not been
located).
Papyrus Joseph Smith VI
Another portion of the Egyptian Book of the Dead for Ta-shert-Min,
this fragment contains chapters 83, 86, 87, 88, and 89. It fits
between Papyrus Joseph Smith V on the right, and Papyrus Joseph
Smith IV on the left, and contains several sets of rubrics, or
writings in red. A large flake with writing from a different
papyrus has been glued upside-down over a bare spot in the upper
right corner of the backing paper.
Papyrus Joseph Smith VII
This is actually two small, unconnected fragments, though they
were once very close together on the original scroll. The
fragment on the left attaches along the upper right-hand edge of
Papyrus Joseph Smith V. Egyptian Book of the Dead for Ta-shert-Min,
Chapters 53, 54, 63, and 65. Rubrics are visible on the left
fragment only.
Papyrus Joseph Smith VIII
Egyptian Book of the Dead for Ta-shert-Min, Chapters 57, 67, 70,
and 72. This fragment fits into the scroll on the lower right
edge of Papyrus Joseph Smith V, immediately below the portion of
Papyrus Joseph Smith VII. It also contains rubrics.
Papyrus Joseph Smith IX
It is unclear how the LDS Church came to be in possession of
this fragment, since no papyrus fragments were believed to have
been taken west by the Mormons when they left Nauvoo. Some
believe that this mounted fragment may have been given to an
Indian chief as a token of respect by Joseph Smith while he was
still living, and later returned to Brigham Young by the same
Indian when the Mormons were moving west after Joseph's death.9
In any case, it found its way long ago into the collection of
notes and manuscripts that made up Joseph's Egyptian Alphabet
and Grammar material in the Church Historian's Office. There its
existence was known of at least since Sperry's "rediscovery" in
1935, though scholars coming across it were instructed by the
Church Historian's office to keep it as "a matter of
confidence." This they apparently did until a microfilm of the
Grammar material reached the Tanners of Modern Microfilm Company
(now called Utah Lighthouse Ministry) in 1965 and was published
by them in 1966. The existence of this fragment was finally
acknowledged by the LDS Church two years later in the February
1968 Improvement Era. The article announced as an "interesting
development," the "locating of another fragment in the vaults at
the Church Historian's Office."
Known as the "Church Historian's fragment," this badly damaged
papyrus is also a part of the Egyptian Book of the Dead
belonging to Ta-shert-Min, and was located on the original
scroll somewhat nearer the beginning of the book (to the right)
than the other, better preserved fragments recovered from the
Metropolitan Museum