By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
In a letter, dated September 15, 1968, the Mormon Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson wrote:
Does it not impress you that the fact against the Book of Abraham are coming one on the heels of another? I believe that God has decided that the time is right that these untruths (Book of Abraham) be unmasked (in this decade). Do you not also think that God is blessing us greatly by giving us this chance to serve His purposes!
We feel that we would be very ungrateful if we did not acknowledge the hand of God in this work, for he has blessed it in a wonderful way. We are able to testify that God “is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us” (Ephesians 3:20).
Dee Jay Nelson has completed another pamphlet concerning the Book of Abraham. It is entitled, A Translation and Study of Facsimile No. 3 in the Book of Abraham. On page 26 of this study, Dee Jay Nelson states: “. . . Joseph Smith’s explanation attached to Facsimile No. 3 is almost totally incorrect.” On page 5 of the same pamphlet, we find this statement by Mr. Nelson:
I am, per consequence, torn between two philosophic extremes . . . what I have been urged to believe as an Elder of my church and what I have been urged to believe as an Egyptologist. There is no reconciling the two!
If Joseph Smith, Jr. correctly interpreted the Pearl of Great Price illustrations we must conclude that the science of Egyptology is based upon fallacies and Egyptian philology is erroneous. I take exception to Joseph Smith’s interpretation of this Facsimile. It does not conform with the mass of archaeological evidence nor with the laboriously established principles of Egyptology.
Amazing Progress
In February, 1968, we began printing material concerning the papyri which were given to the Mormon Church by the Metropolitan Museum. Since that time we have made a great deal of progress. In fact, an article by Dr. Hugh Nibley which was recently published in the Brigham Young University Studies clearly reveals the progress we have made. As most of our readers know, Dr. Nibley was appointed by the Church leaders to defend the Book of Abraham, yet he has been unable to handle the job and now appears to be in a rather serious predicament.
In the Messenger for March, 1968, we demonstrated that one of the fragments of papyrus which the Metropolitan Museum gave to the Church —i.e., the “Small ‘Sensen’ text (unillustrated)” was the fragment Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Abraham from. Dr. Nibley admitted that this fragment supplied “the symbols for the Book of Abraham,” but he was unable to explain how Joseph Smith derived the text of the Book of Abraham from it. The fragment was translated by qualified Egyptologists and found to be part of a pagan text known as the “Book of Breathings.” Dr. Nibley did not contest this, and in a speech delivered at the University of Utah, May 20, 1968, he stated:
By what process could the Book of Abraham have been squeezed out of a few brief signs? Nobody has told us yet. Was Joseph Smith really translating the papyri? If so, it was not in any way known to Egyptology.
Dr. Nibley’s recent article in the Brigham Young University Studies shows that he is no closer to finding an answer to this problem than he was on May 20, 1968, In this article he states:
We still suspect that there is a relationship between the two documents, but we don’t know what it is.
On October 12, 1968, two graduate students in Near Eastern studies at the University of Utah, R. Crapo and J. A. Tvednes, presented an interesting hypothesis to explain the relationship between the Breathing Certificate and the Book of Abraham . . . it seems that the idea is that if one takes the actual meaning of the hieratic signs in the order in which they occur, they can be roughly matched up with certain general themes of the Book of Abraham which occur in the same order . . . This would make the “Sen-Sen” papyrus a sort of prompter’s sheet. True, the document tells a connected and consistent story, but then it would have to do that in order to serve as an effective aid to memory by itself being easily memorized.
Far-fetched as it may seem, there are many ancient examples of this sort of thing, the best-known of which is the alphabet itself . . . The classic example of a work which condenses the meaning of whole chapters into a single letter is the Sefer Yetzirah, . . .
The condensing of matter on prompting sheets is a very old practice, . . . the famous Stele C14 in the Louvre “consists of sentences which read like the headings of chapters,” though they also make a connected text. We could, and in time probably will, furnish many examples of this sort of thing. In a preliminary statement in Dialogue it was suggested that the hieratic symbols placed over against the long sections of the Book of Abraham might be viewed not as texts but as topic headings. We still don’t know what the connection is, but one thing is certain—that the relationship between the two texts was never meant to be that of a direct translation. (Brigham Young University Studies, Autumn 1968, pages 101-102)
Dr. Nibley’s statement that the papyrus may have only been “a sort of prompter’s sheet” is certainly not in harmony with the statements of Joseph Smith concerning the papyrus and the translation. He stated:
. . . 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, . . . (History of the Church, vol. 2, page 236)
Joseph Smith did claim that he made a direct translation of the papyrus, and in his history it is called “a correct translation” (History of the Church, vol. 2, page 352).
Dr. Nibley does not inspire much confidence in Joseph Smith’s work as a translator, for he states:
. . . Joseph Smith has made it clear that his inspiration is by no means bound to any ancient text, but is free to take wings at any time. (Brigham Young University Studies, Autumn 1968, page 71)
Since the Mormon leaders cannot show any connection between the meaning of the “Sensen” papyrus and the text of the Book of Abraham, they should admit that the Book of Abraham is a work of Joseph Smith’s imagination. It should no longer be considered as scripture, and the anti-Negro doctrine contained in its pages should be rejected. Naomi Woodbury, a Mormon who has studied Egyptology, made this statement in a letter to the editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Thought:
Let us not lose sight of what I think is the primary importance of this papyri find. It can free us from our dilemma about excluding Negroes from the Priesthood. Perhaps our Father in Heaven intended the papyri to come to light now for just this purpose. I have shared the growing concern in the Church about this exclusion. (Dialogue, Autumn 1968, page 8)
Abraham’s Drawings?
When Joseph Smith printed the Book of Abraham he included three facsimiles which were supposed to have been drawn by Abraham. Although Egyptologists claimed that these were drawings from Egyptian funerary papyri, Mormon writers have defended them. William E. Berrett wrote:
The translation made by Joseph Smith, and facsimiles of some of the engravings, remain as one of the greatest contributions to the field of religion . . .
No prophet ever gave to the world a stronger challenge of his divine calling than did Joseph Smith in his publication of the Book of Abraham. (The Restored Church, page 144)
Anti-Mormon writers not only claimed that these drawings were pagan, but they also stated that the Mormons had falsified them before publication. Now that some of the original papyri have been located, both charges have been established.
Dr. Nibley tried to defend the facsimiles, but he has now found himself in a serious dilemma. In the Improvement Era for September 1968, Dr. Nibley claimed that “evidence that Facsimile 1 has been honestly reproduced is found in an . . . old portrait of Lucy Mack Smith, . . .” He claimed that the drawing showed the “original papyrus hanging on the wall,” and that it “matches our printed reproductions, and not the proposed restoration.”
Dr. Nibley’s photograph of it was very unclear, but Wesley P. Walters located the original portrait in Chicago, Illinois. The original proves beyond all doubt that it shows the printed facsimile and not the original papyrus. It even has the figure numbers that were added by Rueben Hedlock who made the engraving for the printed cut. Dr. Nibley now admits that he “overlooked” the numbers, and that it was only “after the article went to press” that he got his first good look at the picture. In a dialogue between himself and the opposition, Dr. Nibley states:
They: Speaking of naive suggestions, when you used that portrait of Lucy Mack Smith to guarantee the integrity of Facsimile No. 1 “before it was damaged,” why didn’t you call attention to the numbers indicating some of the figures in the pictures? The numbers weren’t part of the original papyrus, you know.
We: We completely overlooked the numbers until after the article went to press. Only then did we get our first good look at the picture. So you win a point. We now assume that the artists consulted the Hedlock reproduction. (BYU Studies, Autumn 1968, page 82)
On page 98-99 of the same article we find the following:
They (by letter): You admit that the sketch of Facsimile No. 1 in the Lucy Mack Smith portrait has the Hedlock numbers on it; yet you think it significant that it may indicate the actual state of preservation of the papyrus at the time the portrait was made. How do you reconcile the two propositions?
We: Well, naturally that artist would not keep his model sitting and suffering while he sketched in the little picture on the wall; with plenty of Hedlock reproductions going around he could easily fill in that part at his leisure—so he did. But at the same time he made an undeniable effort to indicate that the framed thing on the wall really was the original. Better photographs accent the wrinkling and the frame, and it still remains unthinkable that the old lady should have displayed a mere printed copy—the only “original” Hedlock would be a wood-block!
Even though Dr. Nibley now admits that the printed reproduction was “consulted” he still maintains that the portrait furnishes evidence concerning the state of the papyrus:
. . . in examining the portrait closely we discovered something of importance that is not discernible in the Improvement Era reproduction, something that is not in the Hedlock drawing. The artist has drawn a jagged line right across the top of the facsimile, cutting off the top both of the priest’s head and of the bird’s head but leaving the rest, including the knife in the priest’s hand untouched. The areas above the jagged line is of a slightly lighter shade than that below, and in the original may be of a different color. It seems to mark the limit of the papyrus, i.e., of the damage to the thing, at some time after the Mormons had acquired it. It is nearly all there. In other things also the painter of Mrs. Smith’s portrait departs from the Hedlock engraving.
They: What about the wrinkling? It seems to us that some of the wrinkles supposedly in the papyrus extend right out beyond and include the picture frame.
We: The paint could have run where the artists made extra heavy vertical markings (providing he used water colors), or else the wrinkles could belong to the big portrait itself, of which we have only a photograph. But the picture frame is clearly a frame, closely resembling the one in which other papyri are still mounted, and most of the wrinkling is definitely confined within its borders as if it really belonged to the papyri. (Brigham Young University Studies, Autumn 1968, pages 82-85)
It is hard to believe that Dr. Nibley would continue to try to see things in this portrait, especially after he had to admit that it contains the figure numbers from the printed facsimile. Wesley P. Walters has written a letter to Dr. Nibley which he has given us permission to quote. In this letter we find these statements:
I was surprised to see you still drawing conclusions from the Lucy Smith portrait, and yet you have never seen the original.
I have seen the original water color and can assure you that none of the points you have been making on the basis of poor photographs are correct. The wrinkles are not painted-in wrinkles, but wrinkles in the paper on which the entire painting was made. This can be seen from the enclosed photo, . . .
There is no painted-in line across the top as you try to indicate in your article. The color close-up enclosed should make this clear. What makes it appear to be a line in the photo you reproduced is partly due to the way the shadows made by the wrinkles in the paper fall. It is also due partly to the contrasty nature of the print which over-emphasized the streaky nature of the painting itself. As a person who did water colors all through high school and college, I can assure you that it is extremely difficult to get the color to flow evenly without settling more densely in at least one or two areas. This is the type of thing that has occurred in the area above the head of the reclining figure. This same type of spottiness occurs over the entire background behind Lucy Smith.
If you would make the effort to see the original in Chicago, I believe that even you would be convinced. It would at least save you the necessity of making retractions and would be far more fitting to one’s posture as a scholar. (Letter dated January 23, 1968)
In Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, pages 92-98 evidence was presented which showed that the original of Facsimile No. 2 was damaged when Joseph Smith worked with it and that he made false restorations from the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings papyri which he had in his possession. Dr. Nibley, however, maintained that Facsimile No. 2 had not been falsified:
Then too, we must recognize that there are sections of hieroglyphic text in Facsimile 2 that present-day Egyptologists read without too much trouble: since these legible portions are found to be correct and conventional Egyptian, it is perfectly plain that nobody has falsified or jumbled them, as was charged. That is to say, whenever the text can be checked, everything is found to be in order. (Improvement Era, September, 1968, page 74)
We were, of course, very disturbed to find that Dr. Nibley would deny these false restorations in the face of documented proof. We republished evidence in our last issue of the Messenger and were able to distribute thousands of copies. It seems that truth has prevailed, for Dr. Nibley now admits that “restorations” were made in Facsimile No. 2:
(4) The Hedlock engraving when compared with an early sketch showing parts of Facsimile No. 2 to be missing shows definite signs of attempted restoration.
(5) The restoration was not as extensive as the other sketch would indicate, and no clear instances of such have been demonstrated on Facsimile No. 1.
(6) The restorations on Facsimile No. 2 are limited to the filling in of gaps, not the alteration of existing symbols. (Brigham Young University Studies, Autumn 1968, page 92)
Even though Dr. Nibley now admits that restorations were made, he seems unwilling to face the implications:
They: Let’s turn to Facsimile No. 2, where we have much clearer evidence of restoration. In the Church Historian’s Office among the papers of the EAG is a rather well-done pen-and-ink sketch of the facsimile made by some Mormon at an early date. This, we believe, is the way the hypocephalus looked when it came into Joseph Smith’s hands; and in it there are certain parts missing and we are shown exactly what they are. Now these parts are not missing in the official engraving of the hypocephalus, Facsimile No. 2 which can only mean that they have been later supplied. You will notice that a large part of the inscription around the rim is missing, and this has been filled in with hieratic characters from other papyri definitely known to have been in the possession of Joseph Smith. So there you have it.
We: Since the restored portions of the rim with their crude repetitions (hardly an attempt to be subtle) are not a subject of inspired commentary, we don’t think that is too important. (BYU Studies, Autumn 1968, page 86-87)
Although Joseph Smith does not try to translate the writing around the rim, he states that it “will be given in the own due time of the Lord” (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham, page 35). We feel that this matter cannot be as easily dismissed as Dr. Nibley would have us believe. To begin with, it shows that Joseph Smith knew absolutely nothing about the Egyptian language, for the portion which is added from the “Book of Breathings” is written in hieratic, whereas the writing that appears on Facsimile No. 2 is hieroglyphic writing. Also, the characters that were added into the blank area were added upside down, so that they read in the opposite direction to the rest of the text. The Mormon Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson states: “For a Sensen (Book of Breathings) inscription to be written upon a hypocephalus is about as logical as to find part of the Koran in the New Testament” (Joseph Smith’s “Eye of Ra,” page 22).
We feel that this matter also reflects seriously upon Joseph Smith’s honesty. Scholars, of course, do not object to restorations in a text if they are sincere attempts to restore a missing portion. For instance, in 1961 a stone inscription was found at Caesarea. The second line was damaged, but scholars were able to read “. . . tius Pilate” (The Biblical World, edited by Charles E. Pfeiffer, page 156). Since Pontius Pilate had resided in Caesarea, they felt that it was reasonable to restore “Pon” to complete the name “Pontius Pilate.” This type of restoration is reasonable. In Joseph Smith’s case, however, it seems to be an attempt to deceive rather than to restore what was on the original document. No one who is honest with himself could approve of these false restorations. How can we possibly trust the rest of Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham after seeing what he did with Facsimile No. 2?
From Dr. Nibley’s article, it would appear that he has yielded a great deal of ground. In fact, some of his statements are very similar to the ones Grant Heward was excommunicated for less than two years ago!
Originally appeared in: