By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

In the Salt Lake City Messenger for March 1968, we announced the “FALL OF THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM.” Subsequently we published a number of books showing that Joseph Smith’s “Book of Abraham” had been proven untrue (see especially Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 294-369). During the past few years we have received a number of inquiries as to whether there has been any change in the situation with regard to the Book of Abraham. Our reply is that although there have been a few new developments, the case against the Book of Abraham stands as firm as it did over a decade ago.

In our new book, The Changing World of Mormonism, we give this information about the “Fall of the Book of Abraham”:

The Book of Abraham was supposed to have been written on papyrus by Abraham about 4,000 years ago. According to Mormon writers, this same papyrus fell into Joseph Smith’s hands in 1835. He translated the papyrus and published it under the title, “The Book of Abraham.” The Book of Abraham was accepted by the Mormon Church as Scripture and is now published as part of the Pearl of Great Price—one of the four standard works of the church. . . .

For many years Joseph Smith’s collection of papyri was lost, but on November 27, 1967, the Mormon owned Deseret News announced:

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.

The importance of this find cannot be overemphasized, for now Joseph Smith’s ability as a translator of ancient Egyptian writing can be put to an absolute test. . . .

After receiving the papyri from the Metropolitan Museum, Mormon leaders turned them over “to Dr. Hugh Nibley, scholar, linguist at Brigham Young University, . . . for further research and study”. . .

Dr. Nibley began a series of articles for the Improvement Era in January, 1968. This series ran for over two years, and was finally brought to a conclusion with the issue published May, 1970. Although Dr. Nibley was supposed to unfold “the meaning of the hieroglyphics” in this series of articles, no translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri ever appeared in this series. It would appear that Dr. Nibley’s main objective in this series was to blind the eyes of his fellow church members so that they could not see the real issues involved in this matter.

Although he used almost 2,000 footnotes, he never did deal with the main problem.

Dr. Nibley gave this excuse for not translating the papyri in an article published in Brigham Young University Studies, (Spring 1968, page 251): “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. Well, for one thing others are far better equipped to do the job than we are, and some of those early expressed a willingness to undertake it. But, more important, it is doubtful whether any translation could do as much good as harm.”

In the Salt Lake Tribune for November 11, 1973, we criticized Dr. Nibley for not producing a translation of the papyri. He replied that he had prepared a book which “is 800 pages long, but that is not enough to account for keeping the impatient Tanners waiting for six years. What took up all that time was having to find out about a lot of things” (Salt Lake Tribune, November 25, 1973). This book, which many people believed would answer the objections of the critics and save the “Book of Abraham,” was finally published by the church’s Deseret Book Company in 1975 under the title, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. . . .

Although Dr. Nibley’s book is nicely printed and bound, the contents are very disappointing. Of the eleven fragments of papyrus which were discovered, ten of them contain significant Egyptian messages which can be translated. We would expect that any book about the papyri would at least have a translation of all these pieces. Dr. Nibley’s book, however, only contains a translation of two fragments! Among the fragments which Dr. Nibley has not translated is the original of “Facsimile No. 1” in the “Book of Abraham.” This fragment contains a number of lines of hieroglyphs which relate to the meaning of the drawing. The reason Dr. Nibley has not translated these lines seems obvious: they show that “Facsimile No. 1” is not a picture of “Abraham fastened upon an altar” as Joseph Smith proclaimed, but rather a picture of an Egyptian by the name of Hor being prepared for burial. We will have more to say about this later. (The Changing World of Mormonism, pages 329, 330, 334-336)

In the Salt Lake City Messenger for April 1976 we pointed out that Dr. Nibley’s book contains some very serious errors. H. Michael Marquardt has prepared a good rebuttal entitled, The Book of Abraham Papyrus Found: An Answer to Dr. Hugh Nibley’s Book “The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment.”

As we have already shown, Dr. Nibley’s book was published in 1975. In 1979, however, he spoke at the Sunstone Theological Symposium and his statements seem to discredit his own book:

I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago. For heaven’s sake, I hope we are moving forward here. After all, the implication that one mistake and it is all over with—how flattering to think in forty years I have not made one slip and I am still in business! I would say that about four fifths of everything I put down has changed, of course. (Sunstone, December 1979, page 49)

Dr. Nibley would have us believe that the science of Egyptology is in a constant state of upheaval. Now, while it is true that there will always be refinements, the basic principles remain the same. We feel that the constant state of confusion that Dr. Nibley finds himself in is caused by his attempt to defend a work of Joseph Smith’s own imagination—i.e., the Book of Abraham. While our case against the Book of Abraham stands on the same unshakeable foundation it did 12 years ago, Dr. Nibley has to constantly change his ideas. First, he was going to answer the critics in the Improvement Era. When this did not work, he prepared a book which “is 800 pages long”—actually 305 large printed pages. Four years later, however, he says that “I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago.” After all this one would think that Dr. Nibley would give up, but instead he threatens the critics with the possibility of still another book: “Of these things and much, much more we speak in what we hope is a forthcoming book” (Ibid., page 51).

Dr. Nelson?

Although Dr. Nibley was not able to translate the papyri at the time it came to light, there was an elder in the church who was qualified—Dee Jay Nelson. When Nibley learned of Nelson’s ability as an Egyptologist, he wanted him to help defend the church. In a letter dated June 27, 1967, he told Nelson that he could “see no reason in the world why you should not be taken into the confidence of the Brethren if this thing ever comes out into the open; in fact, you should be enormously useful to the Church . . . there are parties in Salt Lake who are howling for a showdown on the P.G.P.; if they have their way we may have to get together.”

On January 4,1968, Dee Jay Nelson visited with Dr. Nibley at Brigham Young University and examined the original papyri. Dr. Nibley agreed that Nelson should translate the papyri, and he sent a note to N. Eldon Tanner, a member of the First Presidency, stating that “it would be a good idea to let Prof. Dee J. Nelson have copies” of the papyri. Mr. Nelson translated the papyri, but he was unable to find any mention of Abraham or his religion in any portion of the papyri. He found the names of many pagan gods who were worshiped by the Egyptians but nothing concerning the God of Abraham. After completing his translation, Mr. Nelson contacted us and asked if we wanted to print it. Since the translation proved unfavorable to the church, it was obvious that the church would not print it. When we completed the publication we tried to advertise it in the Deseret News but church leaders would not allow the ad to be run.

Unfortunately, about ten years after completing his translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Dee Jay Nelson put forth the claim that he had a doctor’s degree from an institution he later identified as Pacific Northwestern University. On February 13, 1980, we attended a lecture in Brigham City, Utah, where we heard Mr. Nelson proclaim he had a Ph.D. in anthropology. We became a little suspicious, however, when he failed to give the name of the school. A few weeks later a woman called us from Arizona and said that Nelson had claimed the school he had attended was in Seattle. When she called information, however, she was unable to locate it. We tried the same thing and obtained a similar result. On March 11-12, 1980, we wrote to Nelson asking for documentation which would prove he had a doctor’s degree. Mr. Nelson did send us a photograph of what purports to be his diploma from Pacific Northwestern University. After examining this document and another paper he sent, we became very suspicious that Pacific Northwestern University was not a legitimate university. We contacted a noted educator from the University of Utah who checked with Dr. James Bemis, Executive Director of the Higher Commission of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, and found that Pacific Northwestern University was only a “diploma mill of the worst kind.” We confirmed this report by calling the U.S. Postal Department in Seattle and the King County Attorney’s Office. (More information concerning this matter will be sent to the reader free upon request.)

In the letter of March 11-12, 1980, we made it clear to Mr. Nelson what we would do if his claim concerning a doctor’s degree could not be substantiated:

It is with great sorrow that I sit down to write this letter to you. I feel, however, as the publisher of four of your booklets I am obligated to find out the truth about certain matters that have recently come to my attention. . . . While it is true that I have never published anything about you having a Dr.’s degree, any statements you have made about this matter subsequent to the translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri could have a tendency to reflect upon my integrity in the eyes of many people.

If I were to overlook misrepresentation on the part of non-Mormon writers I would be operating on a double standard. You will no doubt remember what we wrote about “Dr. Webb”—the great defender of the Mormon faith. It is summed up in our new book, The Changing World of Mormonism, page 333:

The other Egyptologists whom Spalding contacted rendered a similar verdict—i.e., the “Book of Abraham” was a work of Joseph Smith’s imagination and had no basis in fact. . . . Mormon historian B. H. Roberts admitted that there “were no Egyptian scholars in the church of the Latter-day Saints who could make an effective answer to the conclusions of the eight scholars who in various ways pronounced against the correctness of Joseph Smith’s translation . . .” (A Comprehensive History of of [sic] the Church, vol. 2, page 139).

The Mormons, however, did receive help from a writer who called himself “Robert C. Webb, Ph.D.” Fawn M. Brodie claimed that Robert C. Webb’s real name was “J. E. Homans,” and that he was “neither an Egyptologist nor a Ph.D.” (No Man Knows My History, 1957, page 175). From this it is rather obvious that the Mormon leaders were guilty of deception.

Strange as it may seem, Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, of Brigham Young University, confirmed the fact that Robert C. Webb was no Ph.D.: “He wrote a wonderful book, . . . under the name of Robert C. Webb, Ph.D. I regret that the brethren let him put down Robert C. Webb, Ph.D., because he was no Ph.D.” (Pearl of Great Price Conference, December 10, 1960, 1964 ed., page 9). On page 6 of the same publication, Dr. Sperry stated that Dr. Webb’s “real name was J. C. Homans.”

At any rate, the Mormon church was able to survive Spalding’s attack on the “Book of Abraham” with very little injury because church members felt that “Dr. Webb” had answered the critics. Writing in the Improvement Era, April 1913, N. L. Nelson stated: “Dr. Webb has, indeed, vindicated the prophet better than he knew himself.” (The Changing World of Mormonism, page 333)

If it turns out that you do not have a Dr.’s degree, honesty would demand that I make a public statement to that effect. Otherwise, I would find myself in the same position as the Mormon leaders who concealed the true identity of “Dr. Webb.” It is my firm belief that “there is nothing covered; that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known” (Matthew 10:26). I feel that the Lord wants Christians to be honest even though it costs us a great deal.

I doubt that the Mormon Church leaders will ever have the courage to directly attack you concerning the issue of credentials because of their use and support of “Dr. Webb.” Even Dr. Hugh Nibley defended “Dr. Webb” in the Church’s own publication, Improvement Era:

Thus reassured, Bishop Spalding proceeded to demolish R. C. Webb: “We feel that we should be in a better position to judge the value of the opinions of Robert C. Webb, PhD . . . if we were told definitely who he is. . . . If Dr. Talmage . . . would inform us what the author’s real name is, where he received his degree, and what academic position he holds, we should be better able to estimate the value of his opinions.” Here it is again: The bishop is not interested in Webb’s arguments and evidence, but in his status and rankz—considerations that are supposed to bear no weight whatever with honest searchers after truth—Nullus in verba! What on earth have a man’s name, degree, academic position, and, of all things, opinions, to do with whether a thing is true or not? (Improvement Era, January 1968, page 22)

At any rate, even though the Mormon Church will probably remain officially silent concerning your credentials, I feel that my conscience will not allow me to keep silent if there is a problem. I realize, of course, that the question of your credentials does not affect the validity of your translation, and that the Church is in a real bind with regard to the matter since its chief defender, Dr. Hugh Nibley, has written that your work is reliable:

The publication of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri has now begun to bear fruit. Two efforts at translation and commentary have already appeared, the one an example of pitfalls to be avoided, the other a conscientious piece of work for which the Latter-day Saints owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Dee Jay Nelson. . . . This is a conscientious and courageous piece of work—. . . Nelson has been careful to consult top-ranking scholars where he has found himself in doubt. He has taken the first step in a serious study of the Facsimiles of the Pearl of Great Price, supplying students with a usable and reliable translation of the available papyri that once belonged to Joseph Smith. (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1968, pages 245 & 247)

Although we have used your translation of the Joseph Smith Papyri in a number of publications, we do not feel that our case against the Book of Abraham rests upon it. We have the testimony of some of the world’s greatest Egyptologists—i.e., Professor Richard Parker of Brown University and Professors Klaus Baer and John A. Wilson (now deceased) of the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute. Even before you came on the scene our friend Grant Heward had identified the papyrus Joseph Smith used in the production of the Book of Abraham as the “Book of Breathings”—a pagan funerary document (see Salt Lake City Messenger, March 1968). I had studied the Egyptian language on my own before you came to Salt Lake and was able to test your work at various points. I knew therefore that it was generally a “reliable translation” as Dr. Nibley has admitted. . . .

Now, concerning your work at Rocky Mountain College: I have called the school and confirmed that you teach “Egyptology” in the “New Horizons” continuing education program. Lorri Keck, the director of this program, informs me that no credit is given for these classes. (I do not accuse you of hiding this fact, because you previously sent me a “Course Schedule” for Spring, 1976, which said the classes were “non-credit.”) Mrs. Keck, however, is disturbed because you have been calling yourself a Professor of Egyptology at Rocky Mountain College. . . . Since the classes you teach are “non-credit,” this appears to be somewhat misleading. . . .

I must confess that I feel disappointed and sad because of this whole matter—somewhat like the feeling I had when I realized the Book of Mormon was not an authentic ancient document but rather a product of the 19th century. In any case, I feel it is my obligation to make this information available to the public. . . . I am convinced that our case against the Book of Abraham is absolutely devastating, and I would not want to weaken it in any way by trying to cover up or remain silent concerning such an important matter. (Letter from Jerald Tanner to Dee Jay Nelson, March 11-12, 1980)

On March 29, 1980, the Ogden Standard-Examiner printed an article by Charles F. Trentelman which contains the following:

An investigation of the credentials of Dee Jay Nelson . . . shows he does not hold a doctor’s degree from a university . . .

The discovery has caused considerable consternation among his supporters in Salt Lake City. . . . Jerald and Sandra Tanner, publishers of numerous books and papers attacking the LDS Church, say they are concerned by claims made by Nelson in recent months.

Mrs. Tanner said they investigated the claims and found Nelson’s diploma was from . . . a diploma mill, an operation that sells diplomas without requiring any schooling. . . .

Efforts by the Standard-Examiner to contact Nelson have been unsuccessful. His wife says Nelson is in Egypt doing more study. She declined to comment on her husband’s credentials except to say Nelson had written a letter to the Tanners, explaining the whole situation . . .

The Standard-Examiner . . . was referred to Dr. Klaus Baer, University of Chicago Oriental Institute, as the leading Egyptologist in the country and the man who, if anyone, would know of Nelson. . . .

Baer said that, so far as he knew, Nelson had no formal education in Egyptian, although “he has certainly learned Egyptian somewhere.”. . .

As to the papyri in question, Baer said Nelson’s translation is “essentially” correct.

Baer said he prepared a translation of the same papyri, . . . and the translations say basically the same thing. . . .

In his letter to the Tanners, Nelson describes contacting Pacific Northwestern University in 1977 and inquiring about obtaining a doctorate. . . .

Mrs. Tanner told the Standard-Examiner she and her husband tried to find out about Pacific Northwestern University and learned from federal authorities in Seattle that it had been ordered to shut down, although no charges were brought against it.

Source of Book of Abraham

When the original papyri were located in 1967, many members of the Mormon Church felt that Joseph Smith’s work would be vindicated. As it turned out, however, just the opposite 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 has been brought about by the identification of the actual fragment of papyrus from which Joseph Smith ‘translated’ the book. The identification of this fragment has been made possible by a comparison with Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar—handwritten documents we photographically reproduced in 1966. Dr. James R. Clark, of Brigham Young University, gives this information:

. . . there are in existence today in the Church Historian’s Office what seem to be two separate manuscripts of Joseph Smith’s translations from the papyrus rolls, . . . One manuscript is the Alphabet and Grammar. . . . Within this Alphabet and Grammar there is a copy of the characters, together with their translation of Abraham 1:4-28 only. (The Story of the Pearl of Great Price, 1962, pages 172-173)

When the Mormon magazine, Improvement Era, printed sepia photographs of the papyri, the fragment of papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the “Book of Abraham” was printed as the very last photograph. It is found on page 41 of the February 1968 issue, and is labeled: “XI. Small ‘Sensen’ text (unillustrated).”

All of the first two rows of characters on the papyrus fragment can be found in the manuscript of the “Book of Abraham” that is published in Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

Dr. James R. Clark reveals that there is another handwritten manuscript “in the Church Historian’s Office in Salt Lake City. The characters from which our present book of Abraham was translated are down the left-hand column and Joseph Smith’s translation opposite, so we know approximately how much material was translated from each character” (Pearl of Great Price Conference, December 10, 1960, 1964 ed., pages 60-61).

The Brigham Young University had photographs of this manuscript which Mr. Grant Heward was able to examine. This manuscript goes further than the one in the Alphabet and Grammar, and Mr. Heward found that the characters on this manuscript continue in consecutive order into the fourth line of the papyrus. This brings the text to Abraham 2:18. (For a photographic reproduction of four pages of this manuscript and a comparison of the characters on it with those found on the papyrus see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 312-313.) A careful examination of this manuscript reveals that Joseph Smith used less than four lines from the papyrus to make forty-nine verses in the “Book of Abraham.” These forty-nine verses are composed of more than 2,000 English words! After a thorough examination of the evidence, Mormon scholar Richley Crapo had to concede “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. It was naturally this document which I immediately began to translate” (Book of Abraham Symposium, LDS Institute of Religion, Salt Lake City, April 3, 1970, page 27).

Although Dr. Hugh Nibley later reversed his position in an attempt to save the Book of Abraham, in 1968 he frankly admitted that the papyrus Joseph Smith used for the text of the Book of Abraham had been located (see Improvement Era, May, 1968, page 54). At a meeting held at the University of Utah, Dr. Nibley declared:

Within a week of the publication of the papyri students 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. (Speech given by Hugh Nibley, University of Utah, May 20,1968; see also Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, page 102).

As we indicated earlier, Grant Heward examined the papyrus which has been identified as the source of the Book of Abraham and concluded that “it is probably a part of the Egyptian ‘Book of Breathings’ ” (Salt Lake City Messenger, March 1968). This identification was soon confirmed by several prominent Egyptologists. In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 317, we reproduced three different translations of the papyrus Joseph Smith used as the basis for his Book of Abraham. To save space here we will only include Professor Richard Parker’s translation. This translation was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought—a periodical published by a group of liberal Mormons but not controlled by the Church leaders. In Dialogue, Richard Parker was listed as “Wilbour Professor of Egyptology and Chairman of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University.” Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley said that Professor Parker is “the best man in America for this particular period and style of writing.” His translation reads as follows:

l. [. . . . . . ] this great pool of Khonsu

2. [Osiris Hor, justified], born of Taykhebyt, a man likewise.

3. After (his) two arms are [fast]ened to his breast, one wraps the Book of Breathings, which is

4. with writing both inside and outside of it, with royal linen, it being placed (at) his left arm

5. near his heart, this having been done at his

6. wrapping and outside it. If this book be recited for him, then

7. he will breath like the soul[s of the gods] for ever and

8. ever
(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, page 98)

Except for a few minor variations, the other two renditions of the text are essentially in agreement with Professor Parker’s. The “Book of Abraham,” therefore, has been proven to be a spurious work. The Egyptologists find no mention of Abraham or his religion in this text. The average number of words that the three Egyptologists used to convey the message in this text is ninety-two, whereas Joseph Smith’s rendition contains thousands of words. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the Book of Abraham is a false translation.

After the publication of the papyri it became very obvious that Dr. Nibley was unprepared to deal with the problems related to the translation of the Book of Abraham and that he had no real answers to give his people. At one point he became so desperate to save the Book of Abraham that he suggested that the “Sensen” text may have a second meaning unknown to Egyptologists:

. . . you very often have texts of double meaning . . . it’s quite possible, say, that this “Sensen” papyrus, telling a straight forward innocent little story or something like that, should contain also a totally different text concealed within it. . . . they [the Egyptians] know what they’re doing, but we don’t. We don’t have the key. (Speech by Hugh Nibley, University of Utah, May 20,1968)

When Marvin Cowan asked Professor Richard Parker if the papyri could have a second meaning, he replied that he knew of “no Egyptologist who would support such a claim” (Letter dated January 9, 1968).

Although Dr. Nibley gave some support to the theory that the papyrus might have a second or hidden meaning, he seems to have come to his senses and now realizes that such an idea cannot be successfully maintained. Unfortunately, however, he has come up with another theory which is as fantastic as the first: that the Book of Abraham is still lost and the “Sensen” papyrus has no relationship to it. It is, in fact, “the directions for wrapping up the Joseph Smith papyri with the mummy” (The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: . . . , page 6). According to Dr. Nibley’s theory, Joseph Smith’s scribes mistakenly copied the characters from the “Sensen” papyrus into the three handwritten manuscripts of the Book of Abraham:

Is the Book of Abraham a correct translation of Joseph Smith Papyri X and Xl? No, the Book of Breathings is not the Book of Abraham! . . . Doesn’t the text of the Book of Abraham appear in a number of manuscripts in columns running parallel with characters from the Book of Breathings? Yes, the brethren at Kirtland were invited to try their skill at translation; in 1835 the Prophet’s associates, . . . made determined efforts to match up the finished text of the Book of Abraham with characters from the J.S. Papyrus No. XI . . . (Ibid., page 2)

Dr. Nibley’s suggestion that Joseph Smith’s scribes added the wrong characters in the translation manuscripts is absolutely preposterous. That Joseph Smith would allow his scribes to copy the characters from the wrong papyrus into three different manuscripts of the Book of Abraham is really beyond belief. A person might almost as reasonably conclude that the Book of Abraham itself was made up by Joseph Smith’s scribes. Dr. Nibley’s attempt to separate the “Sensen” papyrus from the Book of Abraham cannot be accepted by those who honestly examine the evidence. The reader should remember that Nibley himself originally accepted the “Sensen” text as the source of the Book of Abraham.

Nibley, of course, has to maintain that the rediscovered papyri do not contain the portion which Joseph Smith translated as the Book of Abraham. A number of Mormon apologists have blindly followed Dr. Nibley into this grave error. Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr., for instance, wrote the following in an advertisement which appeared in the Ogden Standard-Examiner on March 24, 1980:

Joseph Smith (Dec. 31, 1835) describes the writing of Abraham Papyri as, “Beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation” (HC. 2:348). To date, (1980) a papyrus fitting Joseph’s description has not been found.

If Mr. Shreeve had cited the first part of the quotation from the History of the Church, vol. 2, page 348, it would have changed the whole meaning of the statement:

The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mnmmies [sic], is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.

The reader will notice that when the entire statement is quoted it becomes plain that it is referring to the records of both Joseph and Abraham. In other words, it is a statement about Joseph Smith’s Papyri collection in general, not just the one roll which Joseph Smith called the Book of Abraham. This is made very clear in another entry in Joseph Smith’s History:

. . . I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. (History of the Church, vol. 2, page 236)

Now, when we understand that Joseph Smith believed the Book of Abraham was written on a different roll of papyrus than the Book of Joseph, it becomes clear that he was referring to the collection of papyri in general and not specifically to the Book of Abraham. Among the papyri that were rediscovered in 1967 there are pieces which contain rubrics—i.e., portions written in red ink. In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 354-355, we prove conclusively that they are from the roll of papyrus the early Mormons designated as the “Book of Joseph.” When they are translated, however, they turn out to be nothing but portions of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

At any rate, the fact that Joseph Smith chose the papyrus identified as the Book of Breathings as the source for his Book of Abraham is established by irrefutable evidence. To begin with, Joseph Smith used the drawing at the beginning of the Book of Breathings roll as Facsimile No. 1 for his Book of Abraham. It does not contain red ink and the workmanship appears to be no better or well-preserved than that found on Papyrus XI. This in itself would completely destroy the argument advanced by Shreeve and Nibley, but the evidence becomes even stronger as we look into the matter. The writing in the columns to the side of the fragment used for Fac. No. 1, which Dr. Nibley does not dare to translate, mentions that the papyrus was made for Hor, and this is the same name mentioned in the Book of Breathings text which follows on Papyrus XI.

Second, even Dr. Nibley has to admit that before the papyrus was cut up by the early Mormons, Papyrus XI followed immediately after Fac. No. 1 on the roll: “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, page 13). On page 3 of the same book, Dr. Nibley has to admit that even Joseph Smith’s own scribes felt that the text of the Book of Abraham followed right after Fac. No. 1: “Since this is an illustration to the Book of Abraham, it has naturally been assumed that the text that follows the drawing could only be that of Abraham—even the brethren at Kirtland assumed that.”

The strongest evidence that Joseph Smith believed that Papyrus XI was the Book of Abraham is found in the fact that the characters from this fragment were used in the translation manuscripts. Dr. Nibley’s suggestion that this was only the work of his scribes cannot be accepted.

All evidence, then, points to one unmistakable conclusion: Joseph Smith believed that Papyrus No. XI was the Book of Abraham. Although Dr. Nibley does not dare give a translation of the writing on the papyrus fragment used as Fac. No. 1 in the Book of Abraham, he has published a translation of Papyrus XI. His work agrees in substance with the translations we have published in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 317. In fact, Dr. Nibley includes the names of many pagan gods in his translation of the Book of Breathings (see The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, pages 19-23). Dr. Nibley cannot find anything about Abraham in this text, but to soften the disappointment he tries to relate it to the Mormon temple ceremony. Why he would want to equate the Egyptian religion with Mormonism is really a mystery to us. The Egyptian religion is so filled with magic and other pagan practices.

Egyptian Study Hurts Church

Just after the rediscovered Joseph Smith Papyri were turned over to the Church, Dr. Hugh Nibley lamented the fact that Mormon scholars were not prepared to deal with the issue. He went so far as to say that “LDS scholars are caught flat-footed by this discovery” (Daily Universe, BYU, December 1, 1967). Since that time some Mormons have taken a serious interest in the study of Egyptology. This research, however, has only tended to increase the problems facing the Church.

Michael Dennis Rhodes, for instance, has made a study and translation of Fac. No. 2 in the Book of Abraham which has been published in Brigham Young University Studies. Joseph Smith claimed that Fac. No. 2 was “A Fac-simile From The Book of Abraham,” but in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 334-346, we demonstrate it is in reality a hypocephalus—a disk which was placed under the head of the mummy. We show, in fact, that Egyptologists can even read the name of the mummy from the disk. Michael Dennis Rhodes confirms that it is indeed a “hypocephalus” and that “The text of the hypocephalus itself seems to be an address to Osiris, the god of the Dead, on behalf of the deceased, Sheshonk” (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1977, page 274). Rhodes’ translation of Fac. No. 2 contains absolutely nothing about Abraham. It only mentions the pagan gods of the Egyptians. For instance, on the edge of the disc he reads: “Edge: I am Djabty in the House of the Benben in Heliopolis, so exalted and glorious. [I am] a copulating bull without equal. [I am] that Mighty God in the House of the Benben in Heliopolis . . . that Mighty God . . .” On page 260 of the same article, Michael Dennis Rhodes says that “the meaning of the hypocephalus is intimately connected with chapter 162 of the Book of the Dead, . . .” This is certainly an astonishing statement to find in a publication printed by the Mormon Church’s own university. One would think that if it is a “Fac-simile From the Book of Abraham,” it would be “intimately connected” with the Book of Abraham—not the Book of the Dead. In any case, Rhodes goes on to point out that the cow found in Fac. No. 2 is in reality a pagan goddess:

This is the cow Ihet, mentioned in chapter 162 of the Book of the Dead, which should be drawn on a piece of new papyrus. This picture of a cow is common to almost all hypocephali. Ihet is a form of Hathor, the personification of the power of nature. She is also connected with Mehweret (Greek Methryr), another cow goddess who symbolized the sky. (Ibid., page 272)

In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 341-343, we show that one of the scenes shown in Fac. No. 2 of the Book of Abraham is actually a pornographic representation of an ithyphallic god known as Min which was altered to cover up this fact in current printings of the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith claimed that the scene “Represents God sitting upon his throne, . . .” While it is easy to believe a pagan deity might be represented in such a way, it would be hard to believe that Abraham would draw an obscene picture of God.

It is interesting to note that Michael Dennis Rhodes agrees that an ithyphallic god is shown in Fac. 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. (Ibid., page 273)

In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 335-344, we prove that portions of the original hypocephalus from which Joseph Smith prepared Facsimile No. 2 were either missing or damaged when he obtained it and that he falsely inserted material from both the Book of the Dead and the Book of Breathings papyri to fill in the blank spaces. The fact that he did not know what he was doing is very obvious because he inserted hieratic characters from the Book of Breathings where hieroglyphic characters should appear. To make matters even worse, he inserted characters upside down to the rest of the text. In plain language, then, Fac. No. 2 is a falsified reconstruction of the original disc. Michael Dennis Rhodes confirms this on page 263 of his article in Brigham Young University Studies:

When perusing Facsimile 2, one is immediately struck by the contrast between most of the hieroglyphic signs, which are readily recognizable, and the signs of the right third of the figure on the outer edge as well as the outer portions of the sections numbered 12-15. On closer examination, these prove to be hieratic and inverted (that is, upside down to the rest of the text). And, most surprising of all, these hieratic characters are recognizable as a fairly faithfully rendered copy of lines 2, 3, and 4 of the Church papyrus XI, which contains a portion of the Sensen papyrus or Book of Breathings. Especially clear is the actual word, snsn, in section 14, and part of the name of the possessor of the papyrus, . . . repeated twice. Why this was done I am not sure. I can only postulate that these portions of the hypocephalus were damaged (a common enough occurrence because of the extremely fragile condition of these documents) and someone (the printer, one of the Prophet’s associates, or Joseph Smith himself) copied these characters off the Sensen papyrus so that the facsimile would look complete. In support of this view is an ink drawing of Facsimile 2 in the Church Historian’s Office which shows blanks in these sections.

One of the best articles published on the Book of Abraham facsimiles appears in Sunstone for December 1979. It is written by Edward A. Ashment of the Translation Department of the Mormon Church. Mr. Ashment is at present working on his Ph.D. in Egyptology from the University of Chicago. While we cannot agree with Ashment when he maintains that Joseph Smith “can yet be a prophet” even though he gave false restorations of the facsimiles, we do feel that his—especially the footnotes—will find that it is actually a devastating attack on the work of Hugh Nibley. For example, in BYU Studies, Autumn 1968, page 95, Dr. Nibley claims that “no clear instances” of restoration have been demonstrated in Fac. No. 1. To this Ashment responds:

In relation to the lion-couch scene of Facsimile 1 (Plate 1) it has been claimed that “no clear instances” of restoration “have been demonstrated.” However, close examination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that such instances indeed are demonstrable. (Sunstone, December 1979, page 33)

Joseph Smith maintained that Fac. No. 1 shows the “priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrafice.” In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 348-350, we show that it is really the Egyptian god of the dead Anubis and that he should have the head of a jackal. This portion of the papyrus where the head should appear had broken off and Joseph Smith falsely restored a human head. On page 36 of his article, Ashment declared: “With high probability, Fig. 3 should be restored as Anubis and not as a human-headed individual.”

With regard to Fac. No. 2, Edward Ashment freely admits that it has been incorrectly restored:

Finally, attention must be given to the hieroglyphic texts of Facsimile 2 . . . they are very important in that they help to conclusively identify the damaged areas . . . as well as to provide information about the “instruction [Joseph Smith gave to Reuben Hedlock] concerning the arrangement of the writing on the large cut, illustrating the principles of astronomy [i.e., Facsimile 2].”

It comes as no surprise then, that the areas in which the Prophet conceivably could have given “instruction” to Reuben Hedlock “concerning the arrangement of the writing” are those where lacunae [i.e., gaps] exist in the CH document but in which the Hedlock version has material, mostly written upside down and backwards in a different script, the subject matter of which radically differs from that of the rest of the texts on the hypocephalus. . . .

The basic document with all of the conjecturally restored material reveals, in addition to the vignettes already discussed, many signs that have come from the small snsn text (or Papyrus Joseph Smith XI, which was originally attached to Papyrus Joseph Smith I—see Plate 8); . . . As already noted, these texts are part of a different contextual unit, written upside down and backwards in the hypocephalus, and are in a different script from the rest of its texts. Why those characters were chosen, apparently by the prophet, to fill in the lacunae is not exactly known, for other signs written in hieroglyphic instead of hieratic were available and their style would have more closely approximated that of the hypocephalus. One possibility may be that those particular signs may have been well-known to the prophet in relation to the Book of Abraham manuscripts (Plate 9), with the result that he “gave instruction” to Hedlock to arrange them within the hypocephalus. (Sunstone, December 1979, page 42)

In his attempt to save the Book of Abraham, Dr. Hugh Nibley has tried to separate Joseph Smith as far as possible from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers—i.e., the papers we published as Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. Edward Ashment, however, feels that Dr. Nibley is in error on this matter:

Consequently, the fact that the prophet “gave instruction concerning the writing on the large cut,” together with the fact that that same writing is connected with the Book of Abraham manuscripts, implies that the prophet had some positive connection with the production of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers. Therefore, even though involvement with them on his part has been disputed, thoughtful reexamination of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the prophet was connected with the entire project. (Ibid., page 42)

It seems that Ashment has demolished Dr. Nibley’s arguments at every turn. In his reply to Ashment, Nibley conceded:

Since hearing Brother Ashment I have to make some changes in what I have said already. Do I have to hang my head and go hide or something like that because I have been discredited? These things are being found out all the time. There are lots of things that Brother Ashment pointed out that I should have noticed; but I notice I could point out a lot of things that he has not noticed.

But who can do all that stuff? . . . the main thing is to move on into unexplored territory, and go into it with the careful, meticulous examination that he has. (Sunstone, December 1979, page 51)

Those who have carefully followed this controversy since the discovery of the papyri in 1967 are aware of the fact that Dr. Nibley, the Church’s chief defender, has stubbornly fought against the truth with regard to the Book of Abraham. Although he has put up many smoke screens to try to divert attention from the real problems, he has not been successful in silencing the opposition. Many Mormons, in fact, have lost confidence in him because of his inability to fulfil his promises about saving the Book of Abraham. Now that one of the Mormon Church’s own scholars has attacked him, Dr. Nibley replies: “I refuse to be held responsible for anything I wrote more than three years ago” (Ibid., page 49).

While the whole foundation for Dr. Nibley’s arguments seems to be crumbling, we can point with confidence to the case we have prepared against the Book of Abraham. Our arguments are just as good as when we first advanced them twelve years ago. Our case is not based on any one man or any wild speculation, but rather on the science of Egyptology, original documents and careful research. We feel, in fact, that the case against the Book of Abraham is irrefutable. Those who are interested will find the evidence clearly presented in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? A condensed version appears in our new book, The Changing World of Mormonism.

---

---