CHAPTER EIGHT
The Book of Joseph?
It will be remembered that when Joseph Smith first examined his
new papyri collection in 1835, he reported that it included
writings of the Hebrew patriarch Joseph:
... I commenced the translation of some of the characters or
hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls
contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of
Joseph of Egypt, etc., -- a more full account of which will
appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.1
Recent discoveries have shown conclusively that the roll of
papyrus Joseph had represented as the Book of Abraham was
actually the "Book of Breathings for the priest Hor." But what
of the "writings of Joseph of Egypt?" Is there any indication of
what that scroll may have been?
The answer is yes. In fact, there is every indication that the
scroll Joseph Smith identified as the "Book of Joseph," was in
fact the "Egyptian Book of the Dead for the lady Ta-shert-Min,
daughter of Nes-Khensu."
Joseph Smith apparently never produced any "translation"
material for the "Book of Joseph" (as he did with his Book of
Abraham),2 but fortunately we do have Oliver Cowdery's
observations on the scroll that the Prophet identified as the
Book of Joseph. Cowdery, longtime associate of Joseph Smith and
one of the principle scribes involved with the papyri, gave an
excellent description of this scroll in a letter that appeared
in a Mormon publication of the day. He writes:
The language in which this record is written is very
comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly
striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face that they were
written by persons acquainted with the history of creation, the
fall of man, and more or less the correct ideas or notions of
Deity.
The representation of the god-head -- three, yet in one, is
curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the
writer's views of that exalted personage.* The serpent,
represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to
walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure, is to me,
one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper,
or a writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing
the rational mind of the correctness and divine authority of the
holy scriptures ... as to carry away, with one mighty sweep, the
whole atheistical fabric ... Enoch's Pillar, as mentioned in
Josephus, is upon the same roll ... The inner end of the same
roll, (Joseph's record,) presents a representation of the
judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his
throne, crowned, and holding the sceptres of righteousness and
power; before him are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel and
all the kingdoms of the world; while Michael the Archangel holds
the keys to the bottomless pit in which Satan has been chained .
. . (From a letter of Oliver Cowdery to William Frye, dated
December 25, 1835, and published in the Latter Day Saints'
Messenger and Advocate of the same month.)
A comparison of Cowdery's descriptions with scenes found on the
recovered fragments of the Book of the Dead for Ta-shert-Min
appears on the following pages. In addition, an important
section of this scroll which is now missing, but which would
surely have been included in the last part (inner end) of the
Book of the Dead, is the scene from Chapter 125, where the
deceased is led into the presence of Osiris (compare photo and
examination of Papyrus Joseph Smith IIIA and IIIB on pp. 70,71;
see also the color foldout on p. 34, which shows a large section
of the Book of Joseph scroll). Cowdery's description of "the
Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the scepters
of righteousness and power," along with the other details he
mentions associated with this scene, correspond very well to the
major elements found in numerous similar scenes depicting the
Court of Osiris.
It is quite apparent from the evidence Cowdery left us that he
was indeed describing a typical scene from the Egyptian Book of
the Dead rather than a story penned by the patriarch Joseph, as
he had been led to believe. Still, Cowdery's interpretation
should not be considered unusual for the period, as he was
dealing with then indecipherable manuscripts of undetermined
origin and date (there being no true understanding of Egyptian
mythology or funerary texts available during Joseph Smith's
lifetime). Cowdery's impressions are merely common-sense
speculations by a person with no expertise regarding the
esoteric subject matter at hand. Joseph's scribe could easily
have been describing almost any Book of the Dead scroll. Joseph
Smith's papyri collection included at least one other Book of
the Dead manuscript (that of Amon-Re Neferirnub)3 and possibly
still another (according to notes made in the Egyptian Alphabet
and Grammar material). But he was most likely referring to one
that had been made for Ta-shert-Min. The picture of the
''serpent with legs standing near a female figure,'' for
example, that had so impressed Cowdery, had been copied from
Papyrus Joseph Smith V into the pages of a small notebook
(included among the Grammar material) bearing the handwritten
title "Valuable Discovery of hidden records that have been
obtained from the ancient burying place of the Egyptians,"
followed by the signature of Joseph Smith, Jr.4
Also significant is the presence of rubrics on the Ta-shert-Min
scroll. Again, it is Cowdery who identifies this feature for us
in the article previously cited:
Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings
of Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This record is
beautifully written on papyrus with black, and a small part red,
ink or paint, in perfect preservation. (emphasis added)
Cowdery's understanding that two of these "records" were the
"writings of Abraham and Joseph" must be attributed to the fact
that Joseph Smith identified them as such, since the Mormon
leader never felt it was necessary to correct Cowdery's
published descriptions. However, it should also be noted that
some of the key phrases in Cowdery's description were derived
from the published placard Michael Chandler used to help promote
his traveling mummy exhibition. According to a statement by
several prominent Philadelphia doctors who had viewed Chandler's
exhibit, the placard read in part:
The features of some of these Mummies are in perfect expression.
The papyrus, covered with black or red ink, or paint, in
excellent preservation, are very interesting.5 (emphasis added)
It can be seen, then, that Cowdery's reference to "a small part
red" does not mean to say that throughout the entire collection
of papyri there was uniformly scattered a small number of
rubrics, but rather, that of the two rolls, just one had this
feature of writing in red. Regarding this collection, which did
include some papyri with black and red writing, he believed one
roll to contain the writings of Abraham, and a different roll
the writings of Joseph. The crucial point is that of these two
rolls, there was only one with black and red writing.* Since the
"Book of Breathings for the priest Hor" (the scroll identified
by Joseph Smith as "writings of Abraham") does not contain
rubrics, the scroll identified by Smith as the "writings of
Joseph" should. And, indeed, it does. The "Book of the Dead for
Ta-shert-Min," which matches so perfectly Cowdery's detailed
description of the Book of Joseph is the only text among the
recovered papyri that has these rubrics.* (The rubrics are
clearly visible in the color foldout picture of the Book of
Joseph scroll on p. 34.)
Conclusions
As this chapter has demonstrated, the papyrus fragments which
Joseph Smith identified as the writings of the biblical
patriarch Joseph correspond perfectly to the six papyri in the
Joseph Smith Papyrus collection rediscovered in 1967: Papyrus
Joseph Smith II, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII (shown together in the
composite photograph on p. 34). In light of Joseph Smith's
identification of these papyri as the writings of the Hebrew
patriarch Joseph, it is remarkable that the Mormon Church has
failed to translate them through its self-proclaimed gift of
Seer -- described by Apostle Orson Pratt as a unique sign of the
One True Church, the ability to translate ''ancient records in
any language'' by the gift and power of God, just as Joseph
Smith had done (see p. 37). Surely any manuscript of such
antiquity and authored by such an illustrious person would be of
inestimable archeological and spiritual significance. In Mormon
Doctrine, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, writing before the Joseph
Smith Papyri were rediscovered, predicted that, ''But the day
shall come when the Book of Joseph shall be restored and its
contents shall be known again.''6 Since the papyri which Joseph
Smith identified as the Book of Joseph are now available, it is
fair to ask, Why does the Book of Joseph remain untranslated
through the gift of Seer which is claimed to reside in the First
Presidency of the Mormon Church?
CHAPTER NINE
Translating Egyptian: A Comparison
As mentioned earlier, the ancient Egyptian language was a
virtually unbroken code to all but a handful of scholars in
Joseph Smith's day. Half a continent and an ocean away from the
Mormon prophet, a painstaking effort was underway that would
unlock the secrets of the Rosetta Stone (a trilingual
Egyptian-Greek inscription discovered in 1799 which played a key
role in the deciphering of ancient Egyptian), and rediscover the
grammatical elements of hieroglyphic language. As the decades
passed and scholars persisted in their efforts, the
understanding of the ancient Egyptian language took on more
precise definition.
Before any comparison can be made between Joseph Smith's methods
of translation and those used in the science of Egyptology, it
will be helpful to understand a little about how the Egyptian
language works.
Ancient Egyptian writing is composed of both phonograms
("sound-signs") and ideagrams (signs that convey their meaning
pictorially). In this language a word was usually expressed by
using one or more phonograms, followed by an ideagram. In this
arrangement the ideagram is called a determinative, because it
"determines" the meaning of the foregoing sound-signs and
defines their meaning in a general way.1
To illustrate this, examine the word "sensen" as it appears in
Papyrus Joseph Smith XI (picture below). To read this word one
must start at the right side and read to the left.2 The first
letter that appears is a phonogram [ ], and has the sound
corresponding to the letter "s" The next letter, written below
the first, is also a phonogram [ ], and represents the sound of
the letter "n". These two letters are then repeated, resulting
in "snsn.'' There are no written vowels in Egyptian, so
Egyptologists usually insert the letter "e" when appropriate.3
Thus, we have the word sensen, which means "breathe." (On this
papyrus it is used as part of the name of the scroll, i.e., Book
of Breathings). The last part of the word is an ideagram-determinative
[ ], in this case a picture of a sail. It does not enter into
the sound of the word, but is supplied merely to show that the
word has something to do with wind, breath, or air.
While some Egyptian words need no determinative, many have more
than one; some words even require as many as three
determinatives to express a single thought. Egyptian writing was
thus cumbersome to use, and lacked any true depth of
abstraction. That it was able to survive for more than three
millennia was due more to its use within a stagnant society,
than to any special merit of its own. Eventually its vast
inferiority to other forms of writing, such as Greek or Hebrew,
led to its disuse and ultimate disappearance.
But no one realized any of this in Joseph Smith's time. The
whole matter of Egyptian language was a blank book, where one
theory, speculation, or dogmatic pronouncement regarding the
translation of an ancient Egyptian document would have seemed as
valid as another.
In order to appreciate the methods of "translating" Egyptian
used by Joseph Smith, remember that this was not the first time
he claimed experience in working with Egyptian writing. The
golden plates of the Book of Mormon, wrote Smith in 1842, had
been "filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters."4
According to an account within the Book of Mormon (Mormon
9:32,33) the language which appeared upon the plates was more
properly called "reformed Egyptian," for it had been modified
somewhat by the Nephites "after their manner of speech." A man
named Mormon explains in this passage that if their plates had
been larger they would have preferred to write in Hebrew. From
an LDS understanding, then, this passage,
... suggests that it must have required less space to write
reformed Egyptian than to write Hebrew. This helps us to better
appreciate just how efficient the reformed Egyptian language
must have been. Compared to English and many other Western
languages, Hebrew is very compact. A typical English sentence of
fifteen words will often translate into seven to ten Hebrew
words ... We have no indication of what size characters Mormon
or Moroni wrote, but obviously if they rejected Hebrew because
the plates were not 'sufficiently large' (Mormon 9:33), then
reformed Egyptian must have been a language remarkable for its
ability to convey much information with few words. (From Book of
Mormon Student Manual, prepared by the Church Educational
System, published by the LDS Church, 1979, pp. 13-14.)
Thus, "reformed Egyptian" has always been regarded among
Latter-day Saints as a remarkably efficient and compact writing
form, a kind of ancient shorthand.5 But did Joseph Smith
attribute this same characteristic of compactness to the older
Egyptian of his papyri as he did to the "reformed Egyptian" of
the gold plates from which he claimed to have translated the
Book of Mormon? At least two collections of early LDS documents
-- Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar material and his Book
of Abraham translation manuscripts -- illustrate that he
definitely did.
First, consider briefly the Grammar material. The opening page
bears the heading "Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language,"
and it begins by expounding a few of the basic "rules" for
Egyptian, giving a symbol on the left side of the paper, with an
explanation to the right, a format that is followed throughout
the notebook.6 With spelling and punctuation corrected, it
reads:
This is called Za Ki-oan hiash, or chaslidon hiash. This
character is in the fifth degree, independent and arbitrary. It
may be present in the fifth degree while it stands independent
and arbitrary. That is, without a straight mark inserted above
or below it. By inserting a straight mark over it thus, (2) it
increases its significance five degrees; by inserting two
straight lines thus, (3) its signification is increased five
more. By inserting three straight lines thus, (4) its
signification is again increased five more degrees than the
last. By counting the number of straight lines, or considering
them as qualifying adjectives, we have the degrees of
comparison. There are five connecting parts of speech in the
above character, called Za Ki-on hish. These five connecting
parts of speech [are] for verbs, participles, prepositions,
conjunctions, and adverbs. In translating this character, the
subject must be continued until there are as many of these
connecting parts of speech used as there are connections, or
connecting points, found in the character. But whenever the
character is found with one horizontal line, as at (2), the
subject must be continued until five times the number of
connecting parts of speech are used, or the full sense of the
writer is not conveyed. When two horizontal lines occur, the
number of connecting parts of speech are continued five times
further -- or five degrees. And when three horizontal lines are
found, the number of connections are to be increased five times
further. The character alone has 5 parts of speech increased by
one straight line thus: 5 x 5 is 25; by two horizontal lines
thus: 25 x 5 =125; and by three horizontal lines thus: 125 x 5 =
625. When this character has a horizontal line under it reduces
it to the fourth degree, consequently it has but four connecting
parts of speech. When it has two horizontal lines, it is reduced
into the third degree and has but three connecting parts of
speech, and when it has three horizontal lines it is reduced
into the second degree and has but two connecting parts of
speech.
As may be surmised from the above, almost any symbol could be
(and was) given virtually any depth of interpretation, depending
on which supposed "step," "degree," or "class" the translator
decided the symbol belonged to. From this same notebook,
consider the following figure with its five progressive
"degrees" of meaning:
First Degree (p.21)
Iota toues Zip Zi: "The land of Egypt"
Second Degree (p.18)
Iota toues Zip Zi: "The land which was discovered under water by
a woman"
Third Degree (p.14)
Iota toues Zip Zi: "The woman sought to settle her sons in that
land. She being the daughter of Ham"
Fourth Degree (p.1)
Iota toues Zip Zi: "The land of Egypt discovered by a woman who
afterwards settled her sons in it"
Fifth Degree (p.5)
Iota toues Zip Zi: "The land of Egypt which was first discovered
by a woman while under water, and afterwards settled by her
sons, she being a daughter of Ham -- Any land over flown by
water -- A land seen when over flown by water - land over flown
by the seasons, land enriched by being over flown -- low marshy
ground"
Compare this "fifth degree interpretation" with verses
twenty-three and twenty-four of the first chapter of the Book of
Abraham text. Joseph Smith actually incorporated many of the
explanations of symbols as they appeared in his Grammar material
into the text of the Book of Abraham. A number of the symbols
appearing in the Grammar notebook were transcribed, in order,
directly from the sides of the vignette on Papyrus Joseph Smith
I (i.e., the ''fifth part of the first degree,'' pages F and V*,
is taken from column 5, Papyrus Joseph Smith I; the ''fourth
part of the first degree,'' pages E,O, and U*, is taken from
column 1, Papyrus Joseph Smith I; the ''third part of the first
degree,'' page E, O, and U*, is taken from column 2, Papyrus
Joseph Smith I, and so forth). In the same way, most of the
symbols that appear in the translation manuscripts were taken
from the first four lines of Papyrus Joseph Smith XI, column 1
(except for three or four symbols which occur where gaps are
present in the papyrus, and which appear to be imaginary
reconstructions -- but which were translated, nevertheless).7
Joseph Smith clearly took his Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar
material very seriously. His numerous diary entries (recorded in
History of the Church) 8 mention the considerable labor he
devoted to it, and he often quoted from it to demonstrate his
understanding of Egyptian before various public and private
audiences.9 Also, Smith used many of the Egyptian "words" from
the Grammar, along with their "interpretations," in his inspired
explanations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. Words
such as Kolob, Jah-oh-eh, Oliblish, and Enish-go-on-dosh, were
used, indicating that he presented such words and meanings to be
equally as God-given and correct as the Book of Abraham text he
produced. (In light of this clear evidence, a statement in the
1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism that, "the purpose of the
Alphabet and Grammar is obscure,"10 is difficult to understand.
See pp. 137, 138 for further comment on this point.)
Joseph Smith made it clear that the text of the Book of Abraham
was to be considered an actual translation of the Egyptian
writing contained in his papyrus collection, and not information
he received by some supernatural, visionary means. This fact is
established by many of his own diary entries from the latter
half of 1835, later transcribed during his lifetime (1843) into
the official History of the Church. It is further supported by
personal remarks he made over a period of years to close
associates, visiting dignitaries, and family members, which were
recorded in letters, journals, newspapers, books, and magazines
(see examples on pp. 124-126), and even the published references
to the first installment of the Book of Abraham as it appeared
in Times and Seasons in 1842, edited by Joseph, himself. All of
these records show that he intended the text of the Book of
Abraham to be regarded as nothing less than a direct, literal
translation, which he had taken from Abraham's own papyrus
record.
On this crucial point the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism
apparently disagrees. It comments that,
it was principally by divine inspiration rather than his
knowledge of languages that [Joseph Smith] produced the English
text of the book [sic]* of Abraham. His precise methodology
remains unknown.11
This statement unfortunately deflects attention away from the
clear implications of the evidence: namely, that while Joseph
Smith presented himself as able to translate and understand
ancient languages, and specifically, while he claimed to have
produced the Book of Abraham by translating the ancient Egyptian
text from one of his papyrus scrolls, we now know that the
Joseph Smith papyri are in fact pagan Egyptian documents
unrelated to the biblical Abraham (see pp. 137,138 for further
comment on this point). Furthermore, if, as the 1992
Encyclopedia of Mormonism maintains, Joseph Smith received the
Book of Abraham by revelation, not translation, why did he and
his followers pay the then enormous sum of $240012 -- over
$28,000 in 1992 U.S. dollars13 -- for pagan Egyptian papyri that
have nothing to do with the biblical Abraham?
For the papyrus record, according to the Book of Abraham
translation manuscripts still in existence, was, in reality, the
Book of Breathings for the priest Hor. The photos on page 94
compare all the figures from translation Manuscript No. 1 with
those found on Papyrus Joseph Smith XI.
It is impossible to ignore the decidedly different methods and
results of Joseph Smith's approach to translating ancient
Egyptian and that of the science of Egyptology. Fortunately, we
can compare the results of both methods as regards a single
Egyptian text, Papyrus Joseph Smith XI.
The charts on pages 97-99 show, on the left side, a number of
figures taken from the margin of translation Manuscript No. 1,
along with photographs of the characters they correspond to on
Papyrus Joseph Smith XI to the right. The English translation of
Egyptologists appears above them. The right side gives the text
from the Book of Abraham, presented by Joseph Smith as a
translation of the same characters.
As can be seen, on some occasions Joseph Smith separated a
single Egyptian word to derive characters for his "translation,"
while at other times he combined more than one Egyptian word
into a single set of characters. In all cases his translation
attributes a far more complex explanation to the Egyptian
letters and words of Papyrus Joseph Smith XI than do
professional Egyptologists, and Smith ascribes meanings to words
which are totally unrelated to their actual denotation. Thus,
Joseph Smith's "translation" is completely incorrect in both
method and content.
These results have obviously proved disappointing to those
Latter-day Saints who had been expecting the vindication of
their prophet. Perhaps the first great wave of frustration they
felt was best expressed by Dr. Nibley, who, as soon as the
results were in, wrote defensively:
... Did he [Joseph Smith] really think he was translating? If
so, he was acting in good faith. But was he really translating?
If so, it was by a process which quite escapes the understanding
of the specialists and lies in the realm of the imponderable . .
. Today nobody claims that Joseph Smith got his information
through ordinary scholarly channels. In that case one wonders
how any amount of checking ordinary scholarly channels is going
to get us very far (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Summer, 1968, p. 101).
CHAPTER TEN
A Close Look at the Facsimiles
The Mormon people have always had a high regard for scriptural
writings, as well they should, for they have many of them.
Besides recognizing the sixty-six books of the Bible, they also
accept as inspired scripture the fifteen books within the Book
of Mormon, the one hundred and thirty-eight sections now found
in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the three books which make up
the Pearl of Great Price. The ninth LDS article of faith states:
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now
reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and
important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Most Latter-day Saints interpret this as an "open door" to an
ever-increasing supply of scripture, be it through new
revelation, or the discovery of older writings. Many even
consider some of the ancient apocryphal works, including
portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, to be scriptural in nature.
But among all of these various texts, one interesting feature
sets the LDS Book of Abraham apart. It alone features
illustrations, it alone has inspired pictures.
These pictures were supposed to have accompanied the original
manuscript, being intended by the ancient author to help clarify
his writings.2 Translated, the three pictures, known as
"facsimiles," are considered an inspired portion of the Book of
Abraham as a whole.
Scholars since Deveria's day (1856) have challenged Joseph
Smith's ''inspired'' explanations of these drawings. This
chapter gives some idea of just how much disagreement there is.
Joseph Smith identified the drawing shown on page 103 (Facsimile
No. 2) as "Facsimile from the Book of Abraham," and offered with
it the elaborate "inspired explanation" shown. 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. According to
Dr. Nibley, as of 1968 there were "about a hundred" such
hypocephali known, a good many of which can be traced to the
sun-worship cults centered around Heliopolis during the seventh
century B.C. and later.
Egyptologists recognize Facsimile No. 2 as simply a hypocephalus,
but there are also problems with that identification. As with
the drawing of Facsimile No. 1, the restored parts of the Mormon
hypocephalus do not correspond to genuine ancient Egyptian
hypocephali.3 Also, just as with Facsimile No. 1, an incorrect
restoration (by Smith) of a damaged original was suspected as
the explanation for the differences.
While no photograph of the original papyrus from which Facsimile
No. 2 was taken is presently available, it is still possible to
determine whether Joseph's hypocephalus was damaged at the time
it came into his possession. This is so because when the
collection of Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar papers was
first published in 1966, one page was found to contain a fairly
good pen and ink drawing of the Facsimile No. 2 hypocephalus.
However, there was one important distinction, for this drawing
showed a damaged, incomplete hypocephalus, with much of the
right edge left blank, including a wedge-shaped empty space on
the upper right that extended to the object's center. Just as
with Facsimile No. 1, those portions of Facsimile No. 2 which
had long been questioned as being "wrong" or "suspicious" were
found to match the areas of this sketch where the original
papyrus was either damaged or missing.
Some of these differences may seem minor to the inexperienced,
but they are very noticeable to an expert. References to
numbered "Figures" (i.e., Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.) correspond
to the reproduction of Facsimile No. 2 found in the Pearl of
Great Price. Joseph Smith numbered each section or figure to
serve as a guide for his explanation (see caption of Facsimile
No. 2 on p. 103).
The round faced creature in (upside-down) Figure 7 lacked a
definable body, for instance, so the stylized body of a bird was
innocently provided (it should have been an ithyphallic serpent
with legs). The central seated figure (Figure 1) ordinarily has
four rams heads, but perhaps only enough of the damaged papyrus
flakes remained here to show Joseph that more than one head
belonged, so it must have seemed logical for him to simply copy
the profile of the two-headed Egyptian god Par (Figure 2)
directly above it. Possibly a trace of a boat showed in the
space where Figure 3 is. Two boats -- a small one above a larger
one -- belong here; but not knowing this, Joseph copied the boat
figure found at the bottom of Papyrus Joseph Smith IV (see
comparison on p. 105). This, however, is a drawing of the
sun-god in his solar bark, and is improper for a hypocephalus.
The most dramatic error found on Facsimile No. 2 though, is the
restoration of the missing writing. While never offering an
actual translation in his ''explanation,'' Smith nevertheless
implies that this writing contains great and mysterious secrets
pertaining to God and the Temple (see caption of Facsimile No.
2, Figs. 8-10;12-21, on p. 103). We now know the restored
writing to be a mixture of two unrelated texts from different
works written hundreds of years apart. The restored text
includes different styles of handwritting, one being
hieroglyphic, and the other hieratic, and some characters are
even placed upside down in relation to one another! In all cases
figures from the right column of Papyrus Joseph Smith XI (the
''Small Sensen'' text) were used indiscriminately to fill in the
missing area (see comparison on p. 106).
Variations of the scene shown on page 109 (Facsimile No. 3) are
probably the single most common form of Egyptian funerary scene
known -- the deceased being led into the presence of the Court
of Osiris, god of the underworld. Eventually the major elements
became standardized into chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead,
and the particular version in the Joseph Smith papyri is from a
later, simplified text. The deceased, wearing the traditional
perfumed cone and lotus flower on his head, is led by Maat,
goddess of justice (identified by the plume within the orb on
her head) into the presence of Osiris. He is supported from
behind by Anubis, guide of the dead, who has helped him complete
his journey (and assisted him in the use of the spells that were
contained in his funeral book). Osiris wears his double-plumed
crown, holds the royal flail and crook across his chest, and
sits before the ever present libation platform that is common in
nearly all drawings containing major god-figures. It is topped
by the customary stylized papyrus blossom. Behind him stands his
wife Isis, identified by her solar disc and cow horn. The object
in her hand is probably an ankh, symbol of life and
resurrection.
There are no glaring discrepancies or false reconstructions
evident in this drawing. And, allowing for the slightly
different style expressed by the person responsible for copying
it, the scene is probably represented much as it originally was
on the papyrus, indicating there was little damage to it. This
could be expected, since it was located on the innermost end of
the scroll where it would be the least likely to suffer damage.
Enough of the hieroglyphics depicted here are legible to
determine that this scene comes from the same scroll as the
Facsimile No. 1 drawing -- the Book of Breathings for the priest
Hor, son of the priest Osower and the lady Tikhebyt. The lines
of characters below the scene read, as closely as can be made
out: "O gods of ... gods of the caverns, gods of the south,
north, west, and east, grant well-being to Osiris Hor, justified
... "5
As the preceding pages have shown, when properly interpreted,
none of the Book of Abraham facsimiles (or the papyrus drawings
from which they were adapted) make any mention of Abraham, his
life, travels, teachings, religion, or anything even remotely
resembling the detailed explanations given of them by Joseph
Smith. Instead, all three are common examples of well-known,
late Egyptian funeral texts. The only points of difference are
those portions of the facsimiles which Smith mistakenly
reconstructed by guesswork, and inserted in places where the
original papyri were already damaged when he obtained them.
Some LDS writers6 have recently attempted to lay blame for these
differences or errors on Reuben Hedlock, the Latter-day Saint
who prepared the original woodcut engravings of the scenes in
1842. (His hallmark -- ENG. BY R HEDLOCK -- appears on two of
the three drawings as they were originally published in Times
and Seasons; this signature was absent from all editions of the
Pearl of Great Price until quite recently, when it was
restored.) Such reasoning is difficult to accept, however, in
light of Joseph Smith's own statements of responsibility for
their accuracy:
Thursday, March 1, 1842 - During the forenoon I was at my office
and the printing office, correcting the first plate or cut
[note: this would be "Facsimile No. 1"] of the Records of Father
Abraham prepared by Reuben Hedlock, for the Times and Seasons .
. . (History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 519) Friday, March 4,
1842 -- At my office exhibiting the Book of Abraham in the
original to Brother Reuben Hedlock, so that he might take the
size of the several plates or cuts, and prepare the blocks for
the Times and Seasons; and also gave instructions concerning the
arrangements of the writing on the large cut, illustrating the
principles of astronomy [this would be Facsimile No. 2] (Ibid.,
p. 543).
The three Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham -- errors included
-- and their interpretations, appear in the Pearl of Great Price
exactly as Joseph Smith directed.