Approaching the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

Home > Book of Abraham Sandbox > Joseph Smith's "Incorrect" Translation of the Book of Abraham Papyri > The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham > Approaching the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

Approaching the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Summary: Joseph Smith's explanations of the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham pose a conundrum for faithful students of the Book of Abraham: scholars of the Book of Abraham have no agreed-upon method for interpreting the explanations. Scholars Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson have outlined various approaches in an article for BYU Studies Quarterly, and this page summarizes their work.

---

1. The illustrations were original to Abraham

This approach suggests that we interpret the explanations by looking at how Egyptians in Abraham’s day, or Abraham himself, would have understood them. This approach is certainly the most straightforward way of approaching the Facsimiles. However, it is severely complicated by the fact that the Joseph Smith Papyri (the papyri that is extant today) dates to the Ptolemaic Period of Egyptian history.

Furthermore, hypocephali (like the one depicted in Facsimile 2) were not in use in Egypt until the Late Period lasting from 664 BC to 332 BC. This is long after Abraham is traditionally thought to have lived.

2. The illustrations were original to Abraham but were modified over time for use by the ancient Egyptians

This approach suggests that the illustrations we have, as preserved in the facsimiles, are much later and altered copies of Abraham’s originals. To interpret them, we should consider the underlying Abrahamic elements and compare them with the Egyptians' understanding of these images. This approach avoids some of the potential pitfalls of the first approach, but is complicated by the search for similar artwork that dates to the time of Abraham that was then altered by a sequence of later, Egyptian redactors.

3. The illustrations were connected to the Book of Abraham when the Joseph Smith Papyri were created in the Ptolemaic period (circa 300–30 BC). To interpret them we should look to what Egyptians of that time thought these drawings represent.

This is the approach suggested by Dr. John Gee, a Latter-day Saint Egyptologist. This approach can account for some but not all of the evidence that supports Joseph Smith's explanations.

4. The illustrations were connected to the Book of Abraham for the first time in the Ptolemaic period, but to interpret them we should look specifically to what Egyptian priests who were integrating Jewish, Greek, and Mesopotamian religious practices into native Egyptian practices would have thought about them

This is the approach taken by Dr. Kerry Muhlestein, another Latter-day Saint Egyptologist. This approach can also account for some but not all of the evidence that supports Joseph Smith's explanations.

5. The illustrations were connected to the Book of Abraham in the Ptolemaic period, but to interpret them we should look to how Jews of that era would have understood them

This approach is taken by Kevin Barney, a Latter-day Saint scholar and apologist. Barney's approach can likewise support some but not all of the evidence for Joseph Smith's explanations.

6. The illustrations were never part of the ancient text of the Book of Abraham, but instead were adapted by Joseph Smith to artistically depict the ancient text he revealed/translated

We can make sense of Joseph’s interpretations by expanding our understanding of his role as a “translator.” This approach is taken by Terryl L. Givens, a Latter-day Saint theologian, literary scholar, and historian.

This approach is complicated by the fact that Joseph Smith's explanations are, in many instances, consistent with how ancient people would have interpreted the same figures. Also, Joseph Smith seems to be pulling his explanations from the ancients themselves when he says things like "[o]ne day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh" (Fac. 2, Fig. 1). Thus, clearly Joseph Smith is not merely depicting his revealed text with the Facsimiles.

7. The facsimiles were never part of the Book of Abraham, but Joseph Smith, by revelation, perceived the meaning of the figures in their ancient Egyptian context and based on similarities syncretized many of them to details within the context of Abraham’s life.

This is the most recently-articulated approach, espoused by Dr. John Thompson: another Latter-day Saint Egyptologist. Thompson's theory is promising, but further investigation is necessary to validate its utility.

8. Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is fraudulent, so who cares?

This is the approach preferred by our critics. The problem with their theory is that, in many instances, Joseph Smith's explanations have significant resonance or, in other cases, perfect resonance with how the ancients would have understood the same figures. There is simply no way Joseph Smith would have been able to get so many things right about his explanations.

Regardless of the approach one uses, they will eventually encounter problems. With our commentary on the Facsimiles, FAIR has attempted to provide a broad range of considerations about the ancient world that will enable readers to assess the level of resonance Joseph Smith's explanations hold with the ancient world. However, it should be kept in mind that the level of support for Joseph Smith's explanations is, in some cases, dependent on how one interprets the explanation.

Interpreting Joseph Smith's Explanations

How Egyptologists Arrive at Their Interpretations of the Figures

When looking at the Facsimiles and trying to derive their interpretations of the same, modern Egyptologists are left with a bit of a problem. The Facsimiles are copies of ancient Egyptian drawings. Because the papyrus Facsimile 1 was likely damaged at the time it arrived to Joseph Smith, and because we do not have the originals of Facsimile 2 and 3, modern scholarly interpreters of the Facsimiles have to resort to comparing the Facsimiles to other Egyptian scenes that contain similar elements as the Facsimiles and then see how those scenes are interpreted by mainstream Egyptology.

This is a big deal. We should be weary of modern Egyptology's interpretation of the Facsimiles for this reason. Ancient Egyptians rendered different interpretations of the same drawings. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the original papyri that contained Facsimiles 1, 2, and 3 resembled the scenes that Egyptologists compare them to.

Intepretation is Not Always Clear. Depending on Intepretation, Ancient Support Increases or Decreases

Joseph Smith's explanations of the Facsimiles can be interpreted in different ways. Depending on how one interprets the explanations, the support for the explanation can become weaker or stronger.

For example, take Fac. 2, Fig. 3: "Fig. 3. Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed." When Joseph begins the clause "representing also," does he mean to say that the whole figure represents the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, or that the crown of eternal light on the head of the figure is made to represent that, or that there's another aspect of the figure that can represent the Key-words? It's unclear. The only intepretation we'd be able to provide evidence for is the third one just mentioned. We discuss that more on our page on Facsimile 2.

Readers should be aware of some of these interpretive complications as they proceed.

Represent, Signify, and Make to Represent

Joseph Smith's explanations contain some interesting earmarks that might denote a deviation from typical interpretation of any given figure. For example, in Fac. 1, Fig 11, Joseph Smith says that it is "[d]esigned to represent" the pillars of heaven. The word "represent" and its derivatives show up in Figure 11 of Facsimile 1, Figures 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Facsimile 2, and Figures 1 and 5 of Facsimile 3. In Fac. 2, Fig. 3, Joseph Smith says that the figure "made to represent God, sitting upon his throne."

In Fac. 3, Fig 3, Joseph Smith says that a libation table "[s]ignifies Abraham in Egypt." The word "signify" or one of its derivatives also shows up in Fig. 12 of Facsimile 2, Figs. 1 and 4 of Facsimile 2, and in Fig. 3 of Facsimile 3.

The varying use of these words and terms may suggest that the original author of the explanations is indicating that their explanation differs from a mainstream Egyptian's interpretation of the same figure.

Ruben Hedlock's Copying Reliability

A lot of our interpretaion of the Facsimiles relies on the how well those Facsimiles were copied. The copies were most likely made by a man named Ruben Hedlock. Hedlock's copy of the originals is fairly reliable. He did a decent job. In some cases, however, his reproduction produces questions.

For example, Joseph Smith's explanation of Facsimile 3, Figure 2 says that the figure is "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head." Figure 4 is "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand." Finally, Figure 5 is "Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand." However, when examining the characters, it is unclear whether they are intelligible and whether they should be translated in the same manner as modern Egyptologists translate them. For these two simple reasons, modern Egyptologists' translations of the characters and correlative interpretations of the characters should be taken with a grain of salt.

Ancient Author's Composition Reliability

Just like Ruben Hedlock's copy of the Facsimiles might not be fully reliable, there is even a question as to whether the ancient artist that produced the drawings did a good job. This should also be kept in mind when evaluating the Facsimiles.

Notes

BACK TO TOP