FACSIMILE #1

Book of Abraham

INTRODUCTION

Let's explore Facsimile #1

CES LETTER CLAIM

The graphic below shows the rediscovered papyri placed on top of Facsimile 1. The red circles denote the filled-in sections of facsimile 1 that respected modern Egyptologists say is nonsense.

In contrast with the canonized version of Facsimile 1, the following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like, based on Egyptology and the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt:

CES Letter, Page __

DEBUNKING REPLY

The claim in The CES Letter that the lion couch scene in is "the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt" is misleading. With or without the penciled changes, the lion couch vignette in Facsimile 1 is different from other lion couch drawings.

Numerous differences can be identified including the fact that the figure in Facsimile 1 is alive and dressed and the position of the priest is unique in that he is between the legs of the supine figure and the lion couch table.

If another similar lion couch hieroglyph had been found, it is like that those hostile to Joseph Smith would have already published it.

Consider these examples obtained from the Internet.

Whether restored with the penciled additions or according to some Egyptologist's speculations, Facsimile 1 is unique. The unique elements in Facsimile 1 demand careful methodological considerations before we begin interpreting the scene.

See:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson "restoration" of Facsimile 1

The Religious and Cultural Background of Joseph Smith Papyrus I

The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri

CES LETTER CLAIM

The following is a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile 1 and what it actually says, according to Egyptologists and modern Egyptology:

	JOSEPH SMITH'S INTERPRETATION	MODERN EGYPTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
1.	The Angel of the Lord	The spirit or “ba” of Hôr (The deceased fellow)
2.	Abraham fastened upon an altar	The deceased: His name was “Hôr”
3.	The idolatrous priest of Elkenah	Anubis. (see original image, this figure was originally portrayed with the head of a Jackal)
4.	The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharoah	A common funeral bier or "lion couch"
5.	The idolatrous god of Elknah	Canopic jars containing the deceased’s internal organs. They represent the four sons of the god Horus, who are: #5: Qebehseneuf #6: Duamutef #7: Hapy #8: Imsety
6.	The idolatrous god of Libnah
7.	The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah
8.	The idolatrous god of Korash
9.	The idolatrous god of Pharaoh	This is the god “Horus”
10.	Abraham in Egypt	A libation table bearing wines, oils, etc. Common in Egypt
11.	Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by Egyptians	A palace facade, called a “serekh”
12.	Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be hig, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word Shaumahyeen	This is just the water that the crocodile swims in

CES Letter, Page __

DEBUNKING REPLY

WORDS

The claims in The CES Letter regarding what “Egyptology” would say about Egyptian vignettes are problematic because Egyptology is a changing discipline with multiple interpretations often advanced by researchers.

An Egyptologist may assert what Facsimile 1 is “really supposed to look like,” but it would constitute only an opinion.

Recent Egyptological analysis has shown that the matter of identifying and interpreting Egyptian art and iconography is much more complex than The CES Letter author lets on.

Critics are quick to point out understandable inconsistencies with his explanations of the Facsimiles. However, they do not attempt to deal with these significant instances of consistency. Each of the three Egyptian representations in the facsimiles that Joseph Smith said were associated with Abraham actually was associated with him by ancient Egyptians. This reality does not prove the Prophet to be correct, but it should give critics pause.

A candid evaluation of the known facts reveals that a number of elements about the Facsimiles and text of the Book of Abraham are puzzling, a number are quite plausible, and a number are compelling.

British Egyptologist Ian Shaw recently wrote, “If ancient Egyptian culture as a whole is often difficult to comprehend, then Egyptian religion is among the most difficult of the topics that Egyptologists have tackled. A great deal of surviving Egyptian art is connected with religion, but usually it is much easier to describe and to categorize than to analyze or interpret effectively.” Given this, some level of epistemological humility is therefore wise.

While The CES Letter alleges the penciled portions are inaccurate, it fails to evaluate the importance of those alleged inaccuracies. It ignores the possibility that Joseph Smith was transforming the drawing to conform to the Book of Abraham, which he received by revelation much as he had received the Book of Moses while “translating” the Old Testament.

Latter-day Saint scholars have stressed the importance of using sound methodological tools in any reconstruction of the facsimiles. This includes taking into consideration historical evidence such as eyewitness accounts of the papyri, comparing Facsimile 1 with other known lion couch scenes from the same time period (Ptolemaic Egypt) and location (in and around ancient Thebes) and not, as the author of The CES Letter has done, to random times and places from ancient Egypt (thus maintaining some sense of historical and iconographic propinquity), and accounting for differences between Facsimile 1 and other lion couch scenes.

See:

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri/Larson “restoration” of Facsimile 1

The Religious and Cultural Background of Joseph Smith Papyrus I

The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri

Jeremy Runnells and the Book of Abraham by Brian Hauglid

Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri

Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Facsimiles/Missing portions

CES LETTER CLAIM

words

CES Letter, Page __

DEBUNKING REPLY

Words

More Details

Egyptologists do not agree how to restore this illustration.

Non-Mormon Egyptologist Lanny Bell rejects the presence of the phallus and a second bird hovering above the figure on the lion couch in his reconstruction of Facsimile 1.

Iconographic considerations and eyewitness statements that describe the state of the original papyri cast serious doubt over the validity of the The CES Letter's reconstructed image of Facsimile 1 (which, in turn, is relying on an outdated reconstruction made in the 1970s).

It is unknown whether Joseph believed he was restoring missing portions, or if those portions were known to him, but lost after coming into his possession.

Another possibility is that he received the text by revelation and repurposed the incomplete facsimilie by adding elements so it corresponded to the events in the Book of Abraham.

The condition of the papyri when it came into Joseph's hands is unknown.

It is unknown whether the portions now missing were absent when they came into Joseph's possession.
It is unknown when the papyri was mounted on paper or who was responsible. It could have been prior to Joseph's possession, during his possession, or after his death.
It is unknown when the penciled elements were added or who was responsible. It could have been prior to Joseph's possession, during his possession, or after his death.
Eyewitness descriptions of the papyri seem to indicate that some of the elements in Facsimile 1 thought to have been penciled in were actually present in the original papyri.
The author of The CES Letter is simply asserting a claim with no substantiating evidence, and is glossing over the real difficulties we have in reconstructing the original state of the papyri.