Solving the Mystery of the Joseph Smith Papyri

A book analyzing Joseph Smith's translation of the "Book of
Abraham" has caused a real stir in Utah. It is written by Charles M.
Larson and is entitled, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look At The
Joseph Smith Papyri. We understand that before the book was offered for
sale, about 30,000 copies were sent without charge to members of the
Mormon Church. Almost all the homes in one stake received a free copy.
One man told us that his bishop was so upset with the book that he
warned members of his ward not to read it. This, of course, made the man
very curious and he came to our bookstore to purchase a copy.

Mormon scholars seem to be very worried that Larson's book will
cause members to lose faith in the Book of Abraham. The Mormon apologist
John Gee, a researcher for the Foundation for Ancient Research and
Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.), has written a review of this book which is
published in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, vol. 4, 1992.
While Mr. Gee tries very hard to find some way to belittle Mr. Larson
and undermine his work, we do not feel that he has successfully answered
the major issues. He, in fact, has made his own mistakes.

For example, on pages 93-94 of his article, Mr. Gee quotes from
a cover letter which was sent out with copies of Larson's books. He
notes that the letter says that the book contains "the first ever
published color photographs of the Joseph Smith papyri collection." Gee
then asserts that this claim is not true and goes on to state: "...the
publishers... are mistaken in thinking that they are publishing the
first color photographs of the Joseph Smith papyri. They are nearly a
quarter century too late for that, for The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints published a complete set of color photographs of the
Joseph Smith papyri in the February 1968 Improvement Era."

While the photographs in the Improvement Era give the
appearance of being "color" reproductions of the papyri (we ourselves
once thought they were full-color photographs), the printing was
apparently done with sepia ink, a dark brown or reddish-brown ink. This
worked fairly well because papyrus is basically brown. Unfortunately,
however, some of the papyri contain "rubrics"--portions written in red
ink. Wherever rubrics appeared on the papyrus, the characters did not
reproduce well in the church's magazine, Improvement Era. Instead
of being red, they appear to be a very light brown and sometimes fade
out to the point that they are hardly readable. In the photographs found
in Larson's book, however, real color printing has been used.
Consequently, the rubrics come out red and are very readable.

While Michael Marquardt believes John Gee is wrong about the
Feb. 1968 issue of the Improvement Era having real color photographs
of the papyri, he feels that the cover of another issue did have a color
photograph of one fragment of papyrus, Fac. No. 1.

It is interesting to note that when the church received the
papyri on Nov. 27, 1967, church leaders only allowed four or five black
and white pictures to be published. Reed Durham, an instructor at the
LDS Institute of Religion at the University of Utah asked if we could
furnish photographs of all eleven pieces of papyri for the library at
the Institute. We replied we could not obtain copies and wondered why he
was not able to obtain them from his own church. He stated that when he
contacted the church's Deseret News, he was told they had a large
number of copies of photographs of all the papyri, but had been ordered
not to release them. Later however, Grant Heward was able to obtain
photographs from another source after being refused by the Mormon
Church. When the Deseret News learned that Mr. Heward had the
photographs, it caused a great deal of excitement, and word went out
that photographs had fallen into the hands of the enemies of the church.
Mormon leaders knew that if they did not release all the photographs, we
would print them.

Evidence seems to indicate that there were originally no plans
for any pictures of the papyri to appear in the Feb. 1968 issue of the
Improvement Era and that the publication of the photographs of the
papyri were inserted at the last minute in a hasty and peculiar manner.
In the table of contents on page 1 we read that pages "33-48" are
devoted to a section called "Era of Youth." In the midst of this
section, beginning at page 40, the Era of Youth abruptly ends and ten
pages of photographs of the papyri are inserted. After this the Era of
Youth starts again and continues to page 48 as the table of contents
indicated. Two pages of the Era of Youth were deleted at the place where
the 10 pages of photographs were added. This, of course, created a
problem in the page numbers. To solve this the photographs of the papyri
are numbered as pages 40, 40-A, 40-B, etc.

This unusual method of producing the February issue of the
church's magazine seems to show that once word got out that our friend
Grant Heward had photographs, the church rushed to get them into print.
Church leaders certainly did not want these photographs to appear first
in the Salt Lake City Messenger! This hasty attempt to get the
pictures into print may have made it expedient to use sepia ink instead
of going through the added trouble of making full color pictures.

Although we do not have the space here to deal in depth with
John Gee's arguments, we will examine some of his work and also his
sensational claim that papyri have been found that contain the name
Abraham. Some of Gee's other arguments about Joseph Smith's translation
of the Book of Abraham have already been refuted in our book Mormonism
--Shadow or Reality? Chapter 22.

4,000 YEARS OLD?

According to Mormon writers, the "Book of Abraham" was supposed
to have been written on papyrus by the Biblical patriarch Abraham about
4,000 years ago! Mormon apologist Sidney B. Sperry said that "the Book
of Abraham will some day be reckoned as one of the most remarkable
documents in existence... the writings of Abraham... must of necessity
be older than the original text of Genesis." (_Ancient Records Testify
in Papyrus and Stone_, 1938, page 83) Mormon leaders felt the Book of
Abraham was so important that they canonized it as scripture and
published it in the _Pearl of Great Price_--one of the four standard
works of the church.

The evidence shows that while Joseph Smith had the Egyptian
papyri, he allowed many people to freely examine them. This was entirely
different from the secretive attitude he had with regard to the "gold
plates" from which he translated the Book of Mormon. He was very careful
to keep those plates concealed from the general public. Although Joseph
Smith let some of his close associates look at the plates, he never
allowed experts to examine them. Naturally, this caused many people to
wonder if the Mormon prophet really had the plates he described. Others
suggested that he may have had some plates which were fabricated to fool
his friends and family but that they were neither ancient nor made of
gold. In any case, Smith claimed that he eventually returned the plates
to the angel who had brought them. Consequently, there is no way to
check Smith's claim that he translated the Book of Mormon from gold
plates.

While one has to depend upon Joseph Smith's own story and the
testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses concerning the plates, in the
case of the Book of Abraham it can be established with certainty that
Joseph Smith had some ancient Egyptian papyri which were purchased from
Michael Chandler while he was in Kirtland, Ohio. While there is no
question about the papyri's authenticity, many people have had serious
reservations regarding the accuracy of Smith's translation.
Unfortunately, while Joseph Smith had the papyri in his possession the
science of Egyptology was in its infancy. Therefore, Joseph Smith's work
as a translator could not be adequately tested. To make matters worse,
after Smith's death the Mormon Church lost control of the papyri and it
was believed that they were destroyed in the Chicago fire.

Since neither the gold plates nor the Egyptian papyri were
available, it appeared that Joseph Smith's ability as a translator would
never be tested. However, on November 27, 1967, the church's _Deseret
News_ announced one of the most significant events in Mormon Church
history:

"NEW YORK--A collection of pa[p]yrus manuscripts, long
believed to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, was
presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here
Monday by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.... Included in the papyri
is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph
Smith had copied the drawing which he called 'Facsimile No. 1' and
published with the Book of Abraham."

After the papyri were recovered by the church, many Mormons felt
that Joseph Smith's work would be vindicated. Church apologist Hugh
Nibley, however, was not optimistic about the matter and warned his
people that there was trouble ahead. On Dec. 1, 1967, the _Daily
Universe_, published at Brigham Young University, reported these
statements by Dr. Nibley: "The papyri scripts given to the Church do not
prove the Book of Abraham is true,' Dr. Hugh Nibley... said Wednesday
night. 'LDS scholars are caught flat footed by this discovery,' he went
on to say." Since Nibley was supposed to be the Mormon Church's top
authority on the Egyptian language, such a pessimistic assessment must
have jolted Mormons who read his comments. After all, anyone could see
that there were three rows of hieroglyphic writing on the right side of
the papyrus which Joseph Smith used as Facsimile No. 1 in his Book of
Abraham. In addition, another row of hieroglyphic writing appeared on
the left side of the papyrus. Since the papyrus was surrounded by
Egyptian writing, how could it fail to prove the Book of Abraham? If
Joseph Smith really knew how to translate Egyptian, the writing would
prove that the scene found in Facsimile No. 1 showed "The idolatrous
priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice."

As it later turned out, when the writing found on the papyrus
was translated by Klaus Baer, Associate Professor of Egyptology at the
University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, it became clear that the
papyrus was a pagan document which had absolutely no relationship to
Abraham. The translation, in fact, revealed that the papyrus was really
made for a dead man named "Hor"--after the Egyptian god Horus. Experts
who have examined this papyrus agree that it is drawing of Osiris, the
Egyptian god of the dead, being prepared for burial by the god Anubis.
The fact that this is a funerary papyrus is made clear in Dr. Baer's
translation of the line on the left side of the papyrus: "May you give
him a good, splendid burial on the West of Thebes just like..."
(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, page 117) Since the
text of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham says that Abraham survived the
attempt to take his life, there would have been no reason to speak of
burial. Furthermore, the Egyptians would not have given a sacrificial
victim a "splendid burial on the West of Thebes."

Since the Egyptian papyri did not support Joseph Smith's Book of
Abraham, Hugh Nibley was not anxious for a translation to come forth. In
the Spring 1968 issue of _Brigham Young University Studies_, page 251,
Dr. Nibley made this revealing comment: "We have often been asked during
the past months why we did not proceed with all haste to produce a
translation of the papyri the moment they came into our possession....
it is doubtful whether any translation could do as much good as harm."

We were very disappointed with Hugh Nibley's attempt to make
light of the importance of the Joseph Smith Papyri. We turned to Grant
Heward who was studying Egyptian at the time. Mr. Heward had been
excommunicated from the Mormon Church because he dared to question the
authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Heward was convinced that the
papyrus Joseph Smith identified as the Book of Abraham was In reality
the Egyptian "Book of Breathings"--a pagan document which was actually a
condensed version of the "Book of the Dead." We were impressed with
Heward's argument and printed his observations in the March 1968 issue
of the _Salt Lake City Messenger_. It seemed like a bold move to make at
the time, but within a few months the identification was confirmed by
leading Egyptologists.

In addition, Mr. Heward prepared the first rendering of some of
the text from the Joseph Smith Papyri which we printed in the same issue
of the Messenger. The portion he used was taken from what Joseph Smith
identified as the Book of Joseph. In reality, however, Mr. Heward
demonstrated that it was taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It
related to a dead woman "Transforming into a Swallow."

It is interesting to note that even though the original Joseph
Smith Papyri had been found, leaders of the Mormon Church seemed to have
had no desire to produce a translation of the papyri for their people.
Like Dr. Nibley, they must have felt that it was "doubtful whether any
translation could do as much good as harm." The three Egyptologists who
allowed their work to be published by _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon
Thought_ were not commissioned by the church. _Dialogue_ is actually an
independent publication which is not controlled by the church and often
prints articles that are disturbing to some of the top leaders of the
church.

A DEVASTATING FIND

While the discovery that the papyri Joseph Smith believed
contained the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph were nothing but
pagan Egyptian funerary texts came as a great blow to church leaders, a
far more distressing development occurred. Within six months from the
time the Metropolitan Museum gave the papyri to the church, the Book of
Abraham had been proven untrue! The fall of the Book of Abraham was
brought about by the identification of the actual fragment of papyrus
from which Joseph Smith claimed to translate the book. The
identification of this fragment was made possible by a comparison with
_Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar_--handwritten documents we
photographically reproduced in 1966. Charles M. Larson gives this
information about this matter:

"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 vault in Salt Lake City in 1855.... as late as 1960...
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.'

"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_.

"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.'" (_By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus_, pages
4243)

When characters in the original Egyptian papyri were compared
with those copied into the translation manuscripts of the Book of
Abraham, found in _Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar_, it
became apparent that one piece of papyrus supplied the characters which
Joseph Smith claimed to translate as the Book of Abraham! This papyrus
was identified in the Mormon Church's publication _Improvement Era_,
Feb. 1968, p. 40-I, as "Xl. Small 'Sensen' text (unillustrated)." We
presented photographic evidence that Joseph Smith used the "Sensen' text
to create his Book of Abraham in the March 1968 issue of the _Salt Lake
City Messenger_. In _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ we have additional
proof that Smith used this papyrus. Surprisingly, _Dialogue: A Journal
of Mormon Thought_, asked us to work with Grant Heward to prepare an
article presenting the evidence. This article, "The Source Of The Book
Of Abraham Identified," was published in _Dialogue_, Summer 1968, pages
92-98.

Egyptologist Klaus Baer accepted this identification without
question. Speaking of the "Sensen" papyrus, Dr. Baer wrote: "Joseph
Smith thought that this papyrus contained the Book of Abraham." (Ibid.,
page 111) In footnote 11 of the same article, Professor Baer observed:
"This identification is now certain." Mormon scholar Richley Crapo spoke
of "the startling fact that one of the papyri of the Church collection,
known as the Small Sen-Sen Papyrus, contained the same series of
hieratic symbols, which had been copied, in the same order, into the
Book of Abraham manuscript next to verses of that book! In other words,
there was every indication that the collection of papyri in the hands of
the Church contained the source which led to a production of the Book of
Abraham." (Book of Abraham Symposium, LDS Institute of Religion, Salt
Lake City, April 3, 1970, p. 27)

Although Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley later reversed his
position in a desperate attempt to save the Book of Abraham, in 1968 he
frankly admitted that Joseph Smith used the "Sensen" papyrus for the
text of the Book of Abraham. At a meeting held at the University of Utah
on May 20, 1968, Dr. Nibley made these comments:

"Within a week of the publication of the papyri,
students began calling my attention... to the fact that, the very
definite fact that, one of the fragments seemed to supply all of the
symbols for the Book of Abraham. This was the little 'Sensen' scroll.
Here are the symbols. The symbols are arranged here, and the
interpretation goes along here and this interpretation turns out to
be the Book of Abraham. Well, what about that? Here is the little
'Sensen,' because that name occurs frequently in it, the papyrus in
which a handful of Egyptian symbols was apparently expanded in
translation to the whole Book of Abraham. This raises a lot of
questions. It doesn't answer any questions, unless we're mind
readers."

At one point Dr. Nibley became so desperate to save the Book of
Abraham that he suggested the "Sensen" text may have a second meaning
unknown to Egyptologists (see Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? pp. 319-20).

In his article in _Dialogue_, pp. 111-113, Egyptologist Klaus
Baer set forth another serious problem confronting those who would try
to save the Book of Abraham: the papyrus Joseph Smith identified as
Facsimile No. 1 from the Book of Abraham was originally part of the
same scroll which contained the "Sensen" text--i. e., they were both
part of the Book of Breathings. The two pieces had been cut apart in
Joseph Smith's time and mounted on paper, but Dr. Baer demonstrated that
they fit together perfectly. Dr. Hugh Nibley later acknowledged that
they were both part of the Book of Breathings: "It can be easily shown
by matching up the cut edges and fibres of the papyri that the text of
the Joseph Smith 'Breathing' Papyrus (No. XI) was written on the same
strip of material as Facsimile No. 1 and immediately adjoining it." (The
Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: an Egyptian Endowment, 1975, page
13)

The text of the Book of Abraham itself demonstrates that the
drawing appearing as Facsimile No. 1 was supposed to be at the beginning
of the scroll just as Professor Baer's research has revealed. The
original manuscripts of the Book of Abraham, as they appear in _Joseph
Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar_, reveal that Joseph Smith was
using characters from the "Sensen" papyrus when he "translated" the
first chapter of the Book of Abraham. In Abraham 1:12 the patriarch
Abraham was supposed to have said the following: "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." It is clear, therefore, that the picture
shown as Facsimile No. 1 was the start of the papyrus scroll, and that
Joseph Smith was claiming to translate from the very next portion--the
Small "Sensen" text.

A larger "Sensen" text follows the Small "Sensen" text. The name
"Abraham" does not appear on any of the three pieces of papyri. On the
other hand, the Egyptian name Hor appears on every piece. We have found
it in at least nine places. Although the original piece of papyrus
Joseph Smith used to prepare Facsimile No. 3 is missing, Egyptologists
have also found the name "Hor" on the printed facsimile. Professor Baer
believes the scene shown in Facsimile No. 3 ended the Book of Breathings
which was prepared for the man Hor who had died and needed the magical
papyrus which contained the charms which were necessary to reach the
"world of the hereafter."

Hugh Nibley was willing to concede that Facsimile No. 3 was
probably part of the original Book of Breathings scroll:

"For the Book of Breathings is before all else, as
Bonnet observes, a composite, made up of 'compilations and excerpts
from older funerary sources and mortuary formulas.'...

"Of particular interest to us is the close association
of the Book of Breathings with the Facsimiles of the Book of
Abraham.... the text of Joseph Smith Pap. No. XI was written on the
same strip of material as Facsimile Number 1, the writing beginning
immediately to the left of the 'lion couch' scene. The British Museum
Book of Breathing[s], 'the Kerasher Papyrus,' has both the 'lion
couch' scene... and a scene resembling our Facsimile Number 3... This
last stands at the head of the 'Kerasher' text, and suggests that our
Fac. No. 3 was originally attached at the other end of the Joseph
Smith Papyrus, coming after the last column, which is missing.... the
Book of Breathings... contains the essential elements of the Egyptian
funerary rites from the earliest times... The Book of Breathings is
not to be dismissed, as it has been, as a mere talisman against
stinking corpses; it is a sermon on breathing in every Egyptian sense
of the word." (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1971, pp.
158, 160, 162, 164, 166)

All of the evidence adds up to the inescapable conclusion that
although Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham from the
papyrus he had in his possession, the words that he dictated came from
his own imagination. That papyrus, in fact, contains a pagan text having
nothing to do with Abraham or his religion. We have counted the names of
at least fifteen Egyptian gods or goddesses which appear on the papyrus,
but it contains absolutely nothing regarding the God of the Bible.

Since the Joseph Smith Papyri were rediscovered and translated
by Egyptologists, a number of prominent Mormon scholars seem to have
been living in a fantasyland with regard to the Book of Abraham. Instead
of facing the truth about Joseph Smith's work, they have come up with a
number of incredible explanations. Dr. Hugh Nibley has led the parade by
setting forth all sorts of reasons why a person should go on believing
the Book of Abraham even though the evidence clearly shows it is the
work of Joseph Smith's own imagination. Since the discovery of the
papyri in 1967, Professor Nibley has stubbornly fought against the truth
with regard to the Book of Abraham. Although he put up many smoke
screens to try to divert attention from the real issues he has not been
successful in silencing the opposition. In _Sunstone_, Dec. 1979, Edward
Ashment, a Mormon Egyptologist who has worked in the Translation
Department of the church, demonstrated that Dr. Nibley's work on the
Joseph Smith Papyri was filled with serious errors. He, in fact,
demolished Nibley's arguments at every turn.

In a response, published in the same issue, Hugh Nibley
acknowledged that "Since hearing Brother Ashment I have to make some
changes in what I have said already." (Ibid., p. 51) On page 49 of the
same article, we find this startling statement coming from the church's
chief apologist for the Book of Abraham: "I refuse to be held
responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago."

GEE'S MAGICAL PAPYRI

One of the more desperate attempts to save the Book of Abraham
is the attempt to link it to late magical papyri. John Gee, the Mormon
apologist who has criticized Charles Larson's book, has been trying very
hard to promote this view. On page 116 of his rebuttal to Larson, John
Gee reported: "David Cameron discovered an Egyptian lion couch scene
much like Facsimile 1 explicitly mentioning the name Abraham." Mr. Gee
has provided research on this subject for an article published by
F.A.R.M.S. and has also prepared an article for the church's magazine,
_The Ensign_.

The "lion couch scene" Gee speaks of is found in the Leiden
Papyrus I 384. The F.A.R.M.S. article concerning this matter caused some
Mormons to be very excited because it stated that the "lion couch scene"
shows "Anubis standing over a person..." (Insight: An Ancient Window,
September 1991, page 1) Many were undoubtedly led to believe that the
"person" on the couch must be Abraham as shown in Facsimile No. 1 of the
Book of Abraham. Unfortunately for Mormon apologists, this has not
turned out to be the case. Mormon Egyptologist Edward Ashment claimed
that it was actually a woman who was lying on the couch. In his article
published in _The Ensign_, July 1992, p. 61, John Gee acknowledged that
this is the case: "The figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a
woman."

While many Mormon apologists have argued that Facsimile No. 1
shows a priest with a human head attempting to sacrifice Abraham, it has
been obvious to Egyptologists for many years that the standing figure is
really the jackal-headed god Anubis preparing the deceased for burial.
The rediscovery of the Joseph Smith Papyri shows that the head was
missing on the original papyrus, and it is clear that Joseph Smith made
an imaginative restoration which is incorrect. In the papyrus John Gee
speaks of it is obvious that the woman is being attended by the
jackal-headed god. As we have shown, the article in _Insights_ plainly
states that it is "Anubis standing over a person..."

In _The Ensign_, Mr. Gee reveals that even the text speaks of
the jackal-headed god: "Later in the text we read, 'I adjure you spirits
of the dead, [by] the dead (pharaohs) and the demon Balsamos and the
jackal-headed god and the gods who are with him.'... The 'jackal-headed
god' is most likely Anubis, who usually officiates in lion couch
scenes..." It is obvious, then, that this papyrus provides no support
for the sacrificial scene found in Facsimile No. 1.

If this papyrus were dated 2,000 years earlier, the discovery of
the name Abraham on it might be significant. It, of course, would not
prove the Book of Abraham to be true, but would merely establish that
the name "Abraham" was known in Egypt at that time.

One of the problems with the Book of Breathings Papyrus--the
text Joseph Smith believed was the Book of Abraham--is that it is not
old enough to have been written by Abraham. According to Josiah Quincy,
Joseph Smith claimed that the papyrus he had contained the very
handwriting of Abraham himself: "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the
father of the Faithful..." (See _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ page 321
for additional evidence concerning this matter). A number of Mormon
scholars feel that Abraham lived in the twentieth century B.C.

When the Joseph Smith Papyri were rediscovered, it soon became
obvious that they were not nearly old enough to support Joseph Smith's
claims concerning the Book of Abraham. Dr. Hugh Nibley admitted that the
Book of Breathings only dated back to the first century: "...It has now
become apparent... that our Joseph Smith Book of Breathings is one of a
very special and limited and uniquely valuable class of documents
clustering around a single priestly family of upper Egypt in the first
century A.D." (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian
Endowment, 1975, p. 3) Since the Book of Breathings--which, of course,
contains the drawing Joseph Smith used for Facsimile No. 1 in his Book
of Abraham--was written about 2,000 years after the time of Abraham, the
Mormon Church is faced with a serious dilemma.

The magical texts which John Gee uses as evidence for the Book
of Abraham present an even greater problem. In the article published in
_Insights_, p. 1, it is claimed that the texts "date to about the same
time as the Joseph Smith papyri." According to Edward Ashment, however,
they were not written until the third century A. D. In his article
published in _The Ensign_, p. 60, Mr. Gee agrees they date "to the third
century A. D...." As we will show, they are so far removed from the time
of Abraham that they are of no value.

In 1978 Morton Smith published a book entitled, _Jesus The
Magician_. While we disagreed with his conclusion that Jesus was a
magician (see Salt Lake City Messenger, Jan. 1986), Professor Smith
presented a great deal of material concerning the type of magical papyri
we are dealing with here.

Although we know that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, the
Bible indicates that many of them desired to return. By the fifth
century B. C. there was a colony of Jews living at Elephantine in Egypt.
Even though these Jews built a temple, it "has been argued by some
scholars that the Jerusalem priests regarded the Jews in Egypt as
semi-heretical, and therefore did not encourage them in their apostasy."
(The Bible and Archaeology, by J. A. Thompson, 1962, page 226)

In any case, we know that by the time of Jesus there was a large
Jewish population in Egypt, which was at that time a Roman province.
Jesus, himself, was brought to Egypt by his father and mother to escape
the rage of Herod. On page 62 of his book, _Jesus The Magician_, Morton
Smith says that "There was a long standing legend that the god of the
Jews was a donkey, or donkey-headed.... The Jews were among the largest
groups of foreigners in Egypt, so their god, Iao, was identified with
Seth."

F.F. Bruce says that "Philo of Alexandria estimated about A.D.
38 that there were at least a million Jews in Egypt and the neighboring
territories. We may subject this figure to a substantial discount, but
the Jewish population of Egypt was certainly very great. In Alexandria
itself at that time one out of the five wards of the city was entirely
Jewish and a second was very largely so." (New Testament History, 1980,
page 136) Bruce felt that "Christianity had found its way to Alexandria
by A.D. 41." (Ibid., p. 294)

It is obvious that there would have been a good deal of
information available in Egypt concerning the God of Israel and
important Biblical characters long before the magical papyri were
written. It is no surprise, then, that the names of prominent
individuals mentioned in the Bible turn up in the magical texts written
in the third century A. D. Many of those who practiced magic wanted to
use the names of as many gods and religious leaders as possible and
seemed to have little concern about mixing the Hebrew God and Biblical
characters with Egyptian gods. C.K. Barrett observed: "Those in
particular who practiced magic were willing to adapt from any source
names and formulas which sounded impressive and effective." (The New
Testament Background: Selected Documents, by C.K. Barrett, 1987, page
34)

On pages 34-35, Barrett quotes from the _Paris Magical Papyrus_,
written about A.D. 300. This text tells how to exorcise demons. We cite
the following from this lengthy text:

"The adjuration is this: 'I adjure thee by the god of
the Hebrews Jesu [Jesus], Jaba, Jae, Abraoth, Aia, Thoth, Ele, Elo,
Aeo, Eu, Jiibaech, Abarmas, Jabarau, Abelbel, Lona, Abra Maroi... I
adjure thee by him who appeared unto Osrael [Israel] in the pillar of
light and in the cloud by day, and who delivered his word from the
taskwork of Pharaoh and brought upon Pharaoh the ten plagues because
he heard not. I adjure thee, every daemonic spirit, say whatsoever
thou art. For I adjure thee by the seal which Solomon laid upon the
tongue of Jeremiah and he spake.... I adjure thee by the great God
Sabaoth, through whom the river Jordan returned backward..."

The reader will notice that the author mixed Jesus in with the
Egyptian god Thoth. It is hardly surprising, then, that we would find
the name Abraham--one of the most important characters in the
Bible--mentioned in the magical papyri. On page 114 of his book, Morton
Smith pointed out that, "Jesus' name was used in spells as the name of a
god. So were the names of Adam (PGM III. 146), Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, and of Moses and Solomon who were famous as magicians."

On page 63, Morton Smith quotes _PGM_ IV, line 1233: "'Be
blessed, God of Abraham. Be blessed, God of Issac. Be blessed, God of
Jacob. Jesus Christ, holy spirit, son of the Father, who art under the
Seven and in the Seven, bring Iao Sabaoth. May your power increase...
until you drive out this evil demon, Satan.'" On page 69, we find this
statement by Smith: "The Jews's God, Yahweh... was particularly famous
for his usefulness in magic. In the magical papyri (which contains a
sprinkling of Jewish spells, but are mainly pagan documents) his name
outnumbers that of any other deity by more than three to one." Smith
quotes the following from "an invocation of the world ruler the Good
Demon": "For I have taken to myself the power of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob and of the great god-demon Iao Ablanathanalba." (page 102)

In the article published in _The Ensign_, page 60, John Gee
notes that there is a similarity between a verse in the Bible and what
is found on the papyrus with the "lion couch scene": "The first
reference occurs in a chapter on how to make a signet ring. One of the
steps is to 'bring a white stone' and 'write this name upon it...:
Abraham, friend of m[an].'" This, of course, is similar to Revelation
2:17, which speaks of "a white stone, and in the stone a new name
written..." It is interesting to note that this is the only mention of
"a white stone" in the entire Bible.

The fact that both documents mention "a white stone" with a
"name" written on it seems too close to be a coincidence. The book of
Revelation, of course, was not written until about A.D. 90. This would
be around 2,000 years after the time of Abraham. The implications of
this quotation from the book of Revelation in the papyrus are clear: the
author of the text in the magical papyrus must have either seen or heard
someone read from the book of Revelation. Once it is conceded that the
author was acquainted with the book of Revelation, then it is also easy
to believe that he or she had access to other information contained in
Bible manuscripts and would have known about Abraham. It should also be
noted that the magical papyrus speaks of "Abraham, friend of m[an]."
This sounds like a quotation from the book of James, which speaks of
Abraham as "the Friend of God." (James 1:23)

Speaking of the same papyrus, John Gee says that the "second
instance of Abraham's name occurs in a description of how to use a ring
to obtain 'success and grace and victory.' As a part of his invocation,
the petitioner says, 'O mighty god, who surpassest all powers, I call
upon thee, Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai, Elohim, [six other names], Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, [82 more names].' The first four names are Hebrew for
'LORD of hosts, my Lord, God.'" (The Ensign, July 1992, page 60)

The brackets found in the quotation above appear in the original
publication. From this it is clear that the name Abraham in this section
of the text was only one of ninety-five names that were being invoked!
It would appear, then that the name Abraham was just one of many magic
names needed so that the person who recited the spell would be able to
use "a ring to obtain 'success and grace and victory.'"

There seems to be no evidence that the name Abraham came from
any ancient Egyptian source or that it had anything to do with the Book
of Abraham. Although John Gee's writings may have given some members of
the Mormon Church the idea that evidence had been found to support
Joseph Smith's translation, when the facts are known, it is clear that
the magical papyri, dating to the third century A.D., provide absolutely
no support for the Book of Abraham. Mr. Gee's attempt to make a case
from these second-rate papyri tends to show how empty-handed Mormon
apologists are when it comes to defending the Book of Abraham. Mormon
scholars cannot find the name of Abraham on any part of the papyrus
which Joseph Smith claimed was written by Abraham himself and even
contained Abraham's own signature. Therefore, they have turned to
magical papyri which were written two centuries after the text Smith
translated as the Book of Abraham. We find it especially strange that
they would make an issue of the name Abraham on other papyri, when it
cannot be found on the papyrus scroll Joseph Smith designated as the
Book of Abraham.

On page 62 of his article in _The Ensign_, John Gee acknowledges
that the texts he has cited do not really inform us about Abraham or his
history: "Though these texts tell us nothing directly about Abraham,
they do tell us that there were traditions circulating in Roman Egypt.
Traditions we must remember, often stem from older truths.... Even if we
had a manuscript for the book of Abraham in Egyptian, dating to
Abraham's time, the critics still would not accept the book of Abraham.
Those who seek to know the truth of the book of Abraham will have to
wait upon the Lord."

MICHAEL RHODE'S WORK

Although the Mormon Egyptologist Michael D. Rhodes translated
Facsimile No. 2 of the Book of Abraham, he found nothing regarding
Abraham. Nevertheless, he has still tried to defend Joseph Smith's
work. Writing in the church's magazine, _The Ensign_, July 1988, pp.
51-53, Rhodes tried to answer the following question: "Why doesn't the
translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the
Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?" In this article Michael
Rhodes clearly laid out the problem which faced the church: "First of
all, from paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of
Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60--much too
late for Abraham to have written it.... when one compares the text of
the book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they
clearly are not the same."

Rhodes then proceeds to give "possible explanations why the text
of the recently discovered papyri does not match the text in the Pearl
of Great Price." One of Rhode's suggestions is that the "copy of
Abraham's record" which Joseph Smith used "possibly passed through the
hands of many scribes and had become editorially corrupted to the point
where it may have had little resemblance to the original..." For this
reason Joseph Smith may have used the "Urim and Thummim, or simply
through revelation" revealed what Abraham had originally written.

Michael Rhodes was chosen to write two articles for the
_Encyclopedia of Mormonism_. In vol. 1, page 136, Rhodes set forth the
idea that Joseph Smith chose pagan drawings as illustrations for his
Book of Abraham: "In summary Facsimile 1 formed the beginning, and
Facsimile 3 the end of a document known as the Book of Breathings, an
Egyptian religious text... The association of these facsimiles with the
book of Abraham might be explained as Joseph Smith's attempt to find
illustrations from the papyri he owned that most closely matched what he
had received in revelation when translating the Book of Abraham."

In a letter to a member of the Mormon Church who was troubled
with regard to the origin of the Book of Abraham, Michael Rhodes spoke
of a theory he proposed in his article in the _Ensign_, July 1988, page
51. Rhodes had stated that it was possible that the Book of Abraham "may
have been taken from a different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph
Smith's possession." In the letter, however, Rhodes made it clear that
he no longer considered that as a very promising option. He went on to
give more information concerning the idea that the Book of Abraham did
not really come from the papyrus scroll in Joseph Smith's possession:

"Before I start, let me say that I... like you,
definitely favor the second; namely that Joseph Smith did not have
the actual text of the Book of Abraham before him, but that it was
revealed to him... The first option I proposed seems pretty unlikely
to me now. There is no doubt that the original Papyrus of Facsimile
Number 1 belongs to the Book of Breathings text. The name of the
owner of the Papyrus, Hor son of Userwer, is found both on this
papyrus and in the text of the Book of Breathings... although we do
not have the original of Facsimile Number 3, the name Hor can clearly
be read in the hieroglyphs on this facsimile, and it seems very
probable that this illustration was originally located at the end of
the Book of Breathings papyrus now in the Church's possession. I am
not ruling it out completely, but I think it is unlikely that Joseph
Smith ever had the actual text of the Book of Abraham in his
possession....

"This still leaves us with the problem of how Facsimile
Number 1, a commonly found representation of the god Anubis preparing
the body of Osiris (or the deceased) for burial, that is part of an
Egyptian funerary document that was produced nearly 2000 years (about
60 A. D.) after Abraham, can possibly be the illustration Abraham
refers to in his book. The best explanation I have for this is that
in the original papyrus Abraham, had drawn an illustration of himself
being sacrificed on an altar by the priest of Elkenah. In the process
of translation, this illustration was revealed to Joseph Smith and he
saw that it was similar to the one found at the beginning of the Book
of Breathings. Joseph Smith therefore used it (with some
modifications) as Facsimile Number one. One of the most obvious
modifications is the changing of the head of the god Anubis (who has
a jackal's head) to that of a man. Another is putting a knife in the
standing figures hand. (Both the head and the knife are missing in
the papyrus as it exists today.)

"Joseph Smith may have used the other facsimiles found
in the Book of Abraham similarly.

"I certainly don't claim this is the only possible
explanation; it is simply the best I have been able to come up with
so far." (Letter by Michael D. Rhodes, dated July 10, 1988)

This extraordinary letter gives the reader an idea of how far
some Mormon scholars will go in their attempt to save the Book of
Abraham. It is also interesting to note that after writing this letter,
Michael Rhodes seems to have changed his mind again concerning the
question of whether Joseph Smith really had the Book of Abraham papyrus.
In his article published in _The Ensign_, July 1988, p. 51, Rhodes had
held out the hope that the Book of Abraham may "have been taken from a
different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith's possession" --
a portion which has since disappeared.

By the time he wrote the letter cited above, however, he had
decided that Smith probably "did not have the actual text of the Book of
Abraham before him... I think it is unlikely that Joseph Smith ever had
the actual text of the Book of Abraham in his possession." To our
surprise, when we read an article by Michael Rhodes printed in _Review
of Books_, vol. 4, 1992, we discovered that he seems to have reverted to
the idea that Joseph Smith may have had a roll of papyrus. On page 122,
Rhodes claimed that "a contemporary source indicates that the scroll of
the book of Abraham was not part of the papyri fragments now in the
possession of the Church."

He cites from a letter written by Charlotte Haven in 1843. Haven
claimed that Joseph Smith's mother "opened a long roll of manuscript,
saying it was 'the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and
Sanscrit,' and she read several minutes from it as if it were English."
Because the papyri the church now has in its possession were supposed to
have been cut into sheets by this time and therefore could not have been
a "long roll of manuscript," Rhodes seems to conclude that there was a
third roll of papyrus which has been lost. This interpretation, which is
also held by John Gee, is erroneous. significant evidence points to the
conclusion that there were only two rolls of papyrus. Joseph Smith's
History contains this information: "On opening the coffins, he [Mr.
Chandler] discovered... something rolled up... which, when examined,
proved to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. Two or three
other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs,
&c., were found with others of the mummies." (History of the Church,
vol. 2, page 349)

Although the text mentions that there were "Two or three other
small pieces of papyrus," Joseph Smith never identifies a third roll of
papyrus. Furthermore, while Charlotte Haven's statement contains some
interesting information, it contains a number of factual errors. She
says that Mother Smith told Haven that the roll contained the "writing
of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit." Mormon leaders
have never claimed that the Book of Abraham was written in "Hebrew and
Sanscrit." Joseph Smith's History makes it abundantly clear that the
Book of Abraham was supposed to be written in "Egyptian characters."
(History of the Church, vol. 2, page 320)

While Haven's account says that the roll was written by "Abraham
and Isaac," to our knowledge, Joseph Smith did not claim that Isaac
wrote anything in the Book of Abraham. As early as 1969, the Mormon
scholar Jay M. Todd saw the discrepancies in Haven's account and made
this observation: "One wonders if Sister Smith were not just throwing
out names of languages she had heard; or, one wonders if Charlotte is
reporting accurately. Until more evidence is gathered, the sum and value
of Charlotte's report remains clouded on several issues." (The Saga of
the Book of Abraham, by Jay M. Todd, page 249)

Jay Todd also noted the discrepancy with regard to Haven's claim
that Lucy Smith opened a roll of papyrus. The preponderance of the
evidence shows that both rolls had been cut up by the time Charlotte
Haven saw them. Her statement, of course, could be reconciled by
claiming that what she meant was that Lucy Smith laid out the various
pieces of the document side-by-side so that it appeared in the same
order as when the roll was first opened up.

In our book, _The Case Against Mormonism_, vol. 2, pages
121-122, we give four different accounts by people who saw the original
papyri in Nauvoo. Besides citing the letter by Charlotte Haven, we have
included accounts by Josiah Quincy, Henry Caswall and an account
appearing in a newspaper known as _The Quincy Wig_. These accounts are
written in the period from 1840 to 1844. Charlotte Haven's account is
the only one which talks of "a long role of manuscript" being opened.
Because the manuscripts were so very fragile (a number of pieces had
already broken off), it would not seem reasonable that Lucy Smith would
unroll them time after time to display them to the many visitors who
came to see the papyri.

As early as 1840, _The Quincy Wig_, reported that there were
"numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus" which were in "several frames,
covered with glass." The same paper reported that Joseph Smith said:
"'These ancient records... have been unrolled and preserved with great
labor and care." (The Quincy Wig, Oct. 17, 1840, as cited in Ancient
Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, pp. 51-52)

When Caswall examined the papyri in 1842, he found the rolls had
been cut into "sheets of papyrus" and were kept in "glazed slides, like
picture frames." (The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in
1842, pp. 22-23)

Both these accounts were written before Charlotte Haven's letter
was penned in 1843. The other account, however, was written by Josiah
Quincy, who visited Joseph Smith in 1844. He also claimed that the
papyri "were preserved under glass and handled with great respect."
(_Figures of the Past_, 1883, as cited in _Among the Mormons_ page 136)

In his article in _Review of Books_, pp. 121-122, Michael Rhodes
used a statement made by Caswall to support his argument that there may
be a third role of papyrus containing the Book of Abraham: "In 1842, the
fragments we now have were described as being mounted in 'a number of
glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with
Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics.'" He then proceeded to quote
Charlotte Haven's letter to support his thesis of a third roll. If
Rhodes had cited more of Caswall's statement, his argument would have
fallen apart. Henry Caswall made it very clear that the very sheets that
had been cut up contained the Book of Abraham. We quote the following
from Caswall's book, pp. 22-23:

"The storekeeper... drew forth a number of glazed
slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with
Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics. These had been unrolled from
four mummies, which the prophet purchased at a cost of twenty-four
hundred dollars. By some inexplicable mode, as the storekeeper
informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets contained the
writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in Egypt.
Pointing to the figure of a man lying on a table, he said, 'that is
the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed. That man
standing by him with a drawn knife is an idolatrous priest of the
Egyptians."

It seems obvious from this that Joseph Smith did not possess
another roll of papyrus.

John Gee uses the exact argument found in Rhodes' article on
page 107 of his review of Larson's book. Like Rhodes, Gee fails to
provide the important context. He does, however, use the last two
sentences of the quote we have cited from Caswall five pages earlier in
his article while trying to prove another point (see page 102).
Unfortunately, however, even on page 102 he uses ellipsis signs (dots)
to omit the statement that "Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets
contained the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in
Egypt." Because of the amount of material between the two quotes and the
omission of the important portion regarding the fact that the Book of
Abraham roll had been cut into sheets, it is doubtful that one person in
a thousand would ever know that Gee's quotation actually refuted what he
was trying to prove.

Many Mormon scholars would probably charge us with dishonesty if
we did this sort of thing. In any case, an examination of some of the
wording in Gee's quotation with that found in Rhode's article seems to
show that one scholar borrowed from the other. Below is a comparison:

"In 1842, the fragments we now have in the Joseph Smith
Papyri were mounted in 'a number of glazed slides, like picture
frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and
hieroglyphics.' The next year, in 1843, a nonmember named Charlotte
Haven visited Lucy Mack Smith and wrote a letter to her own mother
about it: 'Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a long table..." (John
Gee, _Review of Books_, page 107)

"In 1842, the fragments we now have were described as
being mounted in 'a number of glazed slides, like picture frames,
containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and
hieroglyphics.' The next year, in 1843, Charlotte Haven, a nonmember
visited Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith and wrote a letter to
her own mother about it, saying: 'Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a
long table..." (Michael Rhodes, _Review of Books_, pages 121-122)

It would appear from the comparison above that one of these two
authors did the original research on this quotation but failed to
realize that if the quote from Caswall was taken in its entirety, it
would refute the entire argument that there was another roll of papyrus.
The other author then blindly followed the first into the ditch. We, of
course, do not know who made the original mistake, but feel that it
resulted from an overzealous attempt to save the Book of Abraham.

Even if Rhodes and Gee could have established that there was a
third papyrus, it would not have solved the serious problem faced by the
church. The reader will remember that in the Book of Abraham, 1:12,
Abraham was supposed to have said that he included a drawing of the
attempt to slay him "at the commencement of this record" Now, it is
obvious to all who examine the matter that the drawing in the Book of
Abraham matches the drawing found in Hor's Book of Breathings. Both John
Gee and Michael Rhodes acknowledge this to be true.

If, then, Joseph Smith had another roll of papyrus which really
contained the Book of Abraham, why did he not use the drawing which
Abraham himself said he placed at the beginning of that roll? Why would
Smith switch over to the pagan Book of Breathings and use an
illustration (Fac. No. 1) from that roll? The problem goes even deeper:
why would the prophet include Fac. No. 3 at the end of the record? The
reader will remember that Michael Rhodes said that "the name Hor can
clearly be read in the hieroglyphs" on Fac. No. 3 and that this drawing
was probably "originally located at the end of the Book of Breathings
papyrus." In addition, Smith added Fac. No. 2 in the middle. As we have
shown, this is also a pagan document. In the first printing of the Book
of Abraham in the _Times and Seasons_, Joseph Smith called every one of
these drawings "A Facsimile From The Book of Abraham."

The thesis set forth by Rhodes and Gee would actually lead one
to believe that the prophet rejected the drawing Abraham himself put at
the beginning of his record and added a substitute and two other
drawings created by idol worshipers! This in itself would show that
Joseph Smith was not inspired when he produced the Book of Abraham.

Brigham Young University scholar James R. Harris concluded that
the papyri rediscovered in 1967 did not vindicate Joseph Smith's work
and turned to the idea that the Book of Abraham came through revelation,
not through a translation of the papyrus scroll. He even warns members
of the church against holding out the hope that a papyrus manuscript may
yet be found that will confirm Joseph Smith's work:

"Facsimiles 1 and 3 were created from separate vignettes
of a single Sensen text. Facsimile 2 was created from a disk-shaped
amulet that was placed under the head of the deceased...

"It is important to understand, precisely speaking, that
in their original context, these illustrations have no connection
with the Book of Abraham. The three facsimiles are, in fact,
reproductions of real Egyptian documents." (The Facsimiles of the
Book of Abraham, A Study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, 1990,
page 5)

"These two scrolls appear to have been regarded by
Church leadership as scrolls of Abraham and Joseph. An understanding
of the content of the papyrus fragments and the manner in which they
were used by Joseph and Oliver, makes it very improbable that there
are now or ever were any other Abraham or Joseph scrolls in the
Joseph Smith Egyptian collection.

"If we had some of the missing fragments of these
documents there is every reason to believe that they would contain
more of the same material as that on the present fragments: spells
and formulas to protect the deceased and insure his or her
continuation in the future state....

"As a caution, if the hope of acquiring an Egyptian text
of Abraham is perpetuated as a major possibility, the perpetrators
may be guilty of leaving future generations of Latter-day Saints with
the same vulnerability that has resulted in many spiritual casualties
in this generation. It is to the end that such casualties be
diminished that I have undertaken this study." (Ibid., pages 86-88)

The suggestion that Joseph Smith may have obtained the Book of
Abraham by way of direct revelation and not from the papyrus is now held
by a number of prominent Mormon scholars. The problem with this attempt
to escape the serious implications of the evidence furnished by the
papyri is that it flies in the face of everything Joseph Smith ever
wrote or allowed to be published about the subject. In the _History of
the Church_, Smith made it clear that he had the very writings of
Abraham and Joseph in his possession. He even claimed that he received
this material through translating the hieroglyphs:

"Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland
purchased the mummies and papyrus... 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..." (History of the Church, vol. 2, page
236)

Joseph Smith not only said that he was going to translate the
records, but he also maintained he produced a "correct translation" of
the documents:

"The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the
mnmmies [sic] is beautifully written... I have given a brief history
of the manner in which the writings of the fathers, Abraham and
Joseph, have been preserved, and how I came in possession of the
same--a correct translation of which I shall give in its proper
place." (History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 348, 350-51)

In his History, Joseph Smith indicated that in 1835 he spent a
good deal of time working on his translation of the Egyptian 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--...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 that it was a "Translation of the Book of
Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs
of Egypt." (see photograph of the first page of the manuscript in
Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? page 312)

The introduction to the Book of Abraham still maintains that it
was "Translated From The Papyrus, By Joseph Smith" (Pearl of Great
Price, The Book of Abraham, Introduction).

In spite of Joseph Smith's many statements that he translated
the Book of Abraham from the Egyptian language, Mormon apologist Hugh
Nibley made this astounding assertion: "Joseph Smith neither pretended
to understand Egyptian, nor that the Book of Abraham was a work of his
scholarship..." (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1968, page
176) In the same article Nibley said that he had "never spent so much as
five minutes with the Egyptian Grammar"--i.e., Joseph Smith's _Egyptian
Alphabet and Grammar_.

A PAGAN BOOK?

The attempt by Mormon scholars to escape Smith's own statements
that he translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus appears to be a
flight from reality. It is clear that they realize there is no way to
defend Smith's work as a translator of Egyptian writing. Consequently,
they are forced to resort to some kind of a theory that allows Smith to
be a prophet even though his translation does not coincide with what is
found on the papyrus. The idea that there was another papyrus scroll
which Joseph Smith never had in his possession and that God revealed the
text of that papyrus to Smith by revelation seems to stretch one's
credulity beyond the breaking point.

Even if a person could accept this theory, it raises another
insurmountable problem: why would God allow his prophet to use three
pagan documents (the facsimiles) to illustrate his Book of Abraham? The
facsimiles are filled with pictures of and praises to these heathen
gods. For example, Mormon scholar Michael Rhodes has translated
Facsimile No. 2 and admits that the text "seems to be an address to
Osiris, the god of the Dead, on behalf of the deceased..." (Brigham
Young University Studies, Spring 1977, page 274) On page 270 of the same
article, Rhodes acknowledges that the same facsimile has a drawing of
the "Hawk-headed Re"--the Egyptian sun god. Numerous other gods and
pagan scenes are shown on the facsimiles. Rhodes himself admits that
there is a "strange assortment of gods, animals, and mixtures of both"
on Facsimile No. 2. (Ibid., page 273) To have such an array of pagan
gods and activities in a book purporting to have been written by Abraham
appears to be in direct contradiction to the first commandment:

"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no
other gods before me." (Exodus 20: 2-3)

Charles Larson makes some interesting observations concerning
this matter in his new book:

"Quite early in the game Dr. Nibley had given the
impression that he felt that Mormon people ought to be willing to
accept any association that could be found--even to pagan Egyptian
mythology if need be--so long as it left open possibilities.

"However, Nibley's approach in this regard is certainly
in sharp conflict with the Bible, one of the four LDS standard works.
Throughout the Old Testament it is abundantly clear that God took
great pains to dissuade the children of Israel from any contact with
the false gods and idolatrous practices of their pagan neighbors....
God specifically admonished his people to repudiate and completely
forsake the gods of Egypt, to whom they had been exposed during their
years of captivity there (Joshua 24:14). The Old Testament records
that every time the children of Israel fell into pagan idolatry, they
experienced God's chastening (Judges 2:2. 3, 11-15).

"The New Testament likewise teaches the same principle
that God does not use pagan or ungodly vessels to bear His truth....

"Since the Joseph Smith Papyri have been identified with
absolute certainty as prayers to pagan Egyptian gods that, by
biblical definition are ripe with occultism, it is inconceivable,
given the holy character of God, that he would associate Himself or
His revelation in any way with these pagan religious documents. This
fact alone is ample grounds for totally rejecting the Book of Abraham
as a revelation from the one True and Living God." (By His Own Hand
Upon Papyrus, pages 119-120)

John Gee argues that the Book of Breathings "is addressed to no
Egyptian gods; rather, it is addressed to a human individual and reminds
him of promises made to him and things he has experienced." (_Review of
Books on the Book of Mormon_, vol. 4, p. 100) While this diversionary
tactic may be technically correct, those who take the time to read the
text will find that the deceased is promised help from Re (the sun god),
Uto (the cobra goddess), Nekhbet (the vulture goddess), Geb (the earth
god), Shu (the god of air), and other gods and goddesses. (See Klaus
Baer's translation in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_, Autumn
1968, pp. 116-126.) As noted earlier, we found at least fifteen pagan
gods and goddesses mentioned on this papyrus!

Moreover, we have shown that the Mormon scholar Michael Rhodes
has translated Facsimile No. 2 of the Book of Abraham and acknowledges
that the text "seems to be an address to Osiris, the god of the Dead, on
behalf of the deceased..." In addition, the rest of the Joseph Smith
Papyri contains prayers to pagan deities.

We have to agree with Charles Larson's statement on page 166 of
his book: "...It is surely inconceivable that the God of the Bible would
compromise his exclusivity as the one, true God by co-mingling His
revelation with the idolatrous pagan teachings and rites of Egypt as
expressed in the Joseph Smith Papyri."

RELIGIOUS PORNOGRAPHY ?

Figure 7 of Facsimile No. 2 of the Book of Abraham has caused
some embarrassment to Mormon officials. In fact, it was considered so
"explicit" that it was falsified in some printings of the _Pearl of
Great Price_. In 1981, however, it was restored to match the original
woodcut prepared under Joseph Smith's direction. (In Mormonism--Shadow
or Reality? pp. 341-43, 369-D, we discuss this pornographic drawing in
detail and give photographic evidence of the falsification.) Joseph
Smith stated that "Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne,
revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as,
also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove."
It is actually an extremely crude representation of the pagan fertility
god Min!

We have previously spoken of a letter written to Michael Rhodes
by a member of the LDS Church who was troubled with regard to the
authenticity of the Book of Abraham. In this letter, dated June 30,
1988, we find the following: "...how do you account for the Explanation
of the Facsimiles?... Figure 7 of Facsimile 2 is described by Joseph as
being Heavenly Father (with an erection?), whereas it is really the
Egyptian god Min."

Michael Rhodes did not mention the problem with regard to Fig. 7
in his response. However, in his article published in _BYU Studies_ in
1977, he gave a very honest explanation of this part of Facsimile No. 2:

"7. A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail, holding
aloft the divine flail.... The seated god is clearly a form of Min,
the god of the regenerative, procreative forces of nature, perhaps
combined with Horus as the hawk's tail would seem to indicate.... The
procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout the
representation, may stand for many divine generative powers, not
least of which might be conjoined with the blessings of the
priesthood in one's posterity eternally." (Brigham Young University
Studies, Spring 1977, page 273)

The Mormon writer Ian Barber responded to our work with regard
to the god Min. He tried to defend the Book of Abraham but had to admit
that Fac. 2, Fig. 7, shows an "ithyphallic" god:

"The seated god Min in Figure 7... is an ithyphallic
deity. The Tanners call this 'a pornographic representation,' and
remark that it is 'hard to believe that Abraham would draw an obscene
picture of God.'... For the Egyptians, the ritual portrayal of the
phallus was not understood to be obscene, but rather symbolic of the
divine, regenerative powers, and it was even respectfully mummified
on occasion. The Tanners are correct in implying that such an
emphasis would be inappropriate in our contemporary Western culture,
and that the explicit portrayal offended Mormon sensibilities is
evidenced by the fact that the phallus has been removed from several
printings of the Pearl of Great Price..." (_What Mormonism Isn't_,
page F-5)

In his book, _Abraham in Egypt_, Dr. Hugh Nibley acknowledges
that Min was an Egyptian sex god who indulged in promiscuity and incest
with his family and even his own mother:

"As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves
with shocking promiscuity. 'The Egyptians,' wrote Plutarch, 'are
accustomed to call Horus "Min" meaning visible,' referring to the
symbol of reproduction publicly paraded at his festival.... The
Greeks identified him with the lustful Pan... His sacred plants were
aphrodisiacal... and he is everywhere represented as indulging in
incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family.... The
rites of Min were secret, and the Chief Priest was 'the Director of
the Mysteries of the god in his character of Kamutef,' literally the
Bull of His Mother.... His special bull titles always denote his
too-intimate relationship with his mother.... For he is the divine
beast, the irrepressible rampart bull ready for anything. In this
regard he is the double of Seth, the two occupying prehistoric
shrines directly opposite each other... Their outstanding
characteristic, as Te Velde describes it, is their insistence on
going 'beyond the bounds' of discretion and morality, completely
unrestrained in their appetites and passions....

"The whip that the Min-images hold with upraised arm is
always viewed as a fertility symbol... some Egyptologists have
maintained that it signifies that Min took advantage of his mother by
brute force, seizing the matriarchal rule of the land by violence and
incest... What suggested that was his commonest epithet, Ka-mut-ef,
'Bull of his Mother,' the title that the youthful successor to the
throne went by at the coronation..." (Abraham in Egypt, 1981, pages
210-211)

That Joseph Smith would identify this promiscuous god who
engaged in incest with his own mother as "God sitting upon his throne"
shows a complete lack of inspiration.

Unfortunately for Mormon apologists trying to save the Book of
Abraham, the problem with regard to the ithyphallic-god Min spills over
onto Facsimile No. 1. As we have shown, Dr. Nibley has pointed out that
the expression "Bull of his Mother" is applied to the god Min. When the
Egyptologist Klaus Baer translated the original papyrus from which Fac.
No. 1 was taken, he found these words: "Min Bull-of-his-Mother. "
(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon thought, Autumn 1968, page 116)

The problem may even go much deeper: Egyptologist Richard A.
Parker pointed out that the portion of the original papyrus which was
missing when the Mormons obtained it was incorrectly restored by Joseph
Smith. According to Professor Parker, the papyrus really contained a
sexual scene before the papyrus was damaged:

"This is the well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries,
with Anubis, the jackal-headed god, on the left ministering to the
dead Osiris on the bier. The pencilled (?) restoration is incorrect.
Anubis should be jackal-headed. The left arm of Osiris is in reality
lying at his side under him. The apparent upper hand is part of the
wing of a second bird which is hovering over the erect phallus of
Osiris (now broken away). The second bird is Isis and she is
magically impregnated by the dead Osiris and then later gives birth
to Horus..." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968,
page 86)

The Egyptologist Klaus Baer agreed with Professor Parker: "He
[Osiris] was almost certainly represented as ithyphallic, ready to beget
Horus, as in many of the scenes at Dendera." (Dialogue: A Journal of
Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, page 119) Since Facsimile No. 2 shows the
ithyphallic god Min, it seems possible that a sexual scene would be
shown on Facsimile No. 1. Dr. Hugh Nibley argues against this
interpretation, but we have shown that his reasoning is fallacious (see
_Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? page 350). Nibley acknowledges, however,
that there are "a number of procreation scenes in which the mummy is
begetting his divine successor or reincarnation" (Improvement Era,
October 1968, page 78).

In his book, _By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus_, page 102, Charles
Larson restores the scene according to the interpretation given by
Egyptologists. Below his restoration, he comments as follows: "Isis,
meanwhile, has taken the form of a falcon and hovers over the groin of
Osiris who holds his phallus (hence this is known as an ithyphallic
drawing) in anticipation of the procreative act which will make Isis
pregnant with their son Horus."

John Gee argues that the reconstructed drawing appearing in
Charles Larson's book makes no sense: "Not only is his restoration of
Joseph Smith Papyrus I obscene, it is impossible... the reconstruction
is too crude to have been done by a good artist." (_Review of Books on
the Book of Mormon_, vol. 4, pp. 101-102) While Mr. Gee labels Larson's
reconstruction as "obscene" and "impossible," he neglects to mention the
fact that it was based on the statements of two noted Egyptologists,
Klaus Baer and Richard A. Parker. (It is interesting to note that when
Professor Parker translated the important portion of the Book of
Breathings, Dr. Hugh Nibley publicly stated that he was "the best
[Egyptologist] in America for this particular period and style of
writing."

As to Gee's statement that the drawing in Larson's book is
obscene, most Christians would feel that it is more obscene even
blasphemous, to have a drawing of the ithyphallic god Min identified in
the Book of Abraham as "God sitting upon his throne" (see Facsimile No.
2, Figure 7)

Instead of attacking Larson's restoration, John Gee should be
discussing the false restorations in the facsimiles found in the Book of
Abraham. The fact that Joseph Smith instructed Reuben Hedlock to make
incorrect restorations in the woodcuts of the Book of Abraham facsimiles
is acknowledged by noted Mormon scholars. James R. Harris, who felt that
Joseph Smith sometimes operated under the power of inspiration, admitted
that this was not always the case: "When he was not inspired, and
consequently operated on his own wisdom, Joseph Smith did not
demonstrate an ability to interpret or to make appropriate restorations
of damaged portions of the documents." (The Facsimiles of the Book of
Abraham, A Study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, page 4)

We have already quoted Michael Rhodes concerning the "obvious
modifications" in Facsimile No. 1. Edward H. Ashment also frankly
discussed Joseph Smith's false restorations:

"It can be clearly ascertained that portions of Reuben
Hedlock's Facsimiles 1 and 2 were conjecturally restored. Moreover,
according to the diary entry for Friday, March 4, 1842, in the
_History of the Church_, it is apparent that the prophet was
connected with their production.... he probably was not as concerned
with having historically accurate restorations of Facsimiles 1 and 2
as he was with having complete pictures to publish in the Times and
Seasons. Neither he nor Reuben Hedlock would have known that a
standing human body would have a dog's head (Facsimile 1, Fig. 3),
nor that a bird would have a human head (Facsimile 1, Fig. 1).... It
seems that they completed each damaged section with what was to them
logical or important for whatever reason: a man's head on a man's
body... a bird's head on a bird's body..." (Sunstone, Dec. 1979, page
44)

The evidence against the Book of Abraham is absolutely
devastating. That Mormons would continue to endorse the Book of Abraham
in the face of this evidence is almost beyond belief. Charles M. Larson
made this comment concerning the sad state of affairs which now exists:

"Sometime during the mid-1850s... an LDS Apostle named
Orson Pratt confidently laid a dramatic challenge before the world:
"...convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason,
by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever
grateful for the information, and you ever will have the pleasing
reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of
redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see
enveloping their minds."

"Orson Pratt was no doubt confident that a successful
case against the claims of Mormonism would never be presented because
one simply did not exist. Over a century-and-a-half of close
scrutiny, though, has proven the opposite to be the case. It is this
fact which probably best explains why the contemporary LDS Church has
shifted from the bold, confrontational stance of Pratt's day, to one
of cautioning members to 'rely on faith and not on historical
fact'... The message coming from LDS spokesmen today appears to be
more and more one of accommodation: If facts fail to justify faith
(what one wishes to believe), then faith should overrule facts. This
sort of thinking is evasive, and must be set aside if any real
reckoning with the facts is to take place.

"But going back to Pratt, the challenge he made is a
valid one, and the tendency of contemporary LDS figures to
rationalize away problems instead of confronting them only underlines
the fact that serious problems do exist. If error or falsehood within
a religious system exists, it should be exposed, and using reason and
the Word of God to do so makes a great deal of sense. Exposing error
is the right thing to do, as only good can be the ultimate result of
people learning the truth.

"We are not only justified, then, in examining the
evidences challenging the truth of the Book of Abraham which God has
graciously allowed to come forth, we are firmly obligated to do so.
And it is quite possible that the case against the Book of Abraham is
the strongest evidence ever provided to test the truthfulness of
Joseph Smith's claims....

"One by one, virtually every Mormon belief about the
Book of Abraham once considered essential to its support and regarded
as faith promoting, has been shattered by the facts.

"Not one trace of reliable evidence has appeared that
would support the LDS view of the Book of Abraham as an authentic
scripture, while an enormous amount of evidence is available to show
that it is a man-made production of the nineteenth century, created
by Joseph Smith to support his claim among his people to be a
'prophet, seer, and revelator.'... When an individual fails to
respond openly and honestly to such a problem it only passes the
problem--and the pain of dealing with it--to someone else,
multiplying ignorance and hurt in the process....

"So much potential pain to loved ones and future
generations could be avoided! How? By placing truth ahead of
convenience, by being honest with ourselves and with others.

"The question of meeting challenges to our faith really
does matter, because truth matters. The Bible gives us the promise
that 'the truth shall make you free' (John 8: 32)--and that includes
being free from delusion." (By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, pages 169,
171, 175, 181)

We highly recommend Charles Larson's new book. We feel that he
has done a very good job of presenting the case against the Book of
Abraham. He has also examined and refuted some of the theories Mormon
scholars have brought forth in their attempts to save Joseph Smith's
work. Besides taking a very close look at mistakes made by Dr. Hugh
Nibley, he also deals with misrepresentations and errors in the book
written by Robert and Rosemary Brown. This is the first full-size book
devoted almost entirely to presenting the evidence against the Book of
Abraham. In addition, it contains beautiful color photographs of nine
pieces of the Joseph Smith Papyri. _By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New
Look At The Joseph Smith Papyri_ is available from Utah Lighthouse
Ministry.