Scholars Map

What is the relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham?

Common ground

The surviving fragments, recovered in 1967, are Ptolemaic–Roman era Egyptian funerary texts, including a Book of Breathings for Hor. They do not contain the Book of Abraham text in Egyptian. The Joseph Smith Papers introduction and Ritner’s edition identify these texts; the broad period label does not assign every fragment the same date. The Church’s Gospel Topics essay “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” likewise accepts that the surviving fragments do not contain the book’s text.

The dispute

The dispute concerns what Smith used and what he meant by translation. Gee argues for an ancient text on papyrus that is now missing; Cook and Smith contest the space available for such a text on the Hor scroll, and Gee disputes their reconstruction. Ritner, Vogel, and others argue that Smith produced the English book from the Hor papyrus and his language papers, and that it is not a translation of their Egyptian. Other interpretations distinguish revelation prompted by the papyri from translating their Egyptian wording, or understand the book as modern scriptural composition whose religious authority need not depend on ancient authorship.

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers include both Egyptian-language study documents and English Abraham manuscripts with Egyptian signs beside passages. Scholars dispute whether these record or contributed to production of the English book, or represent an independent or derivative language project. The facsimiles add a related dispute over the meaning of the illustrations and Smith’s explanations of them.

Start here

  1. accessibleKerry Muhlestein, “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers,” Religious Educator 11, no. 1 (2010): 91–108.

    A readable question-and-answer introduction to the papyri, documents, facsimiles, and arguments for an ancient text.

  2. scholarlyRobin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid, Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts (Church Historian’s Press, 2018).

    The manuscript images, transcripts, and editorial introductions let readers inspect the documentary evidence directly.

  3. criticalRobert K. Ritner, “The "Breathing Permit of Hôr" Thirty-four Years Later,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 4 (2000): 97–119.

    An annotated Egyptian edition explains the funerary text and challenges identifying it or its missing portions with Abraham.

Source of the English text

Missing papyrus source

An ancient Abraham text was translated by revelation from papyrus in Smith’s possession that no longer survives.

John Gee

egyptology · ancient near east

Gee argues that eyewitness descriptions distinguish a long roll used for the Book of Abraham from the mounted fragments that survive, making a lost papyrus source the best fit to the historical evidence. He regards the Egyptian-language papers as insufficient evidence that the English book was generated from the surviving Breathing text.

It is clear from the descriptions of nineteenth-century eyewitnesses that the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham does not match any of the existing fragments.

“The Relationship of the Book of Abraham Text to the Papyri,” discussion of the missing-papyrus theory · Original · Archived

Kerry Muhlestein

egyptology · ancient near east · Professor of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University

Muhlestein argues that eyewitness descriptions support a papyrus source that is now lost, while the surviving language papers need not record Smith’s original translation process. In his coauthored 2022 treatment, he proposes that the language study can be understood as an exploratory attempt to understand Egyptian alongside a revealed Book of Abraham.

the Egyptian-­language documents were never presented as authoritative revelation.

Fourth objection in the article body · Original

Catalyst theory

The papyri or their symbols prompted a revelatory text without that text being a rendering of their Egyptian wording.

Karl C. Sandberg

literature · religious studies · DeWitt Wallace Professor of French and Humanities, Macalester College (1968–1992)

Sandberg proposes that Smith’s translation should be understood as seership: objects and symbols prompted religious insight rather than a conventional rendering of one language into another. He reads the Book of Abraham as an expression of Smith’s developing theology and argues that its authority depends on the religious value of its contents and their reception in readers’ experience.

The production of the book involves symbols that moved Joseph’s mind to a vastly greater cosmic context.

Section III, paragraph beginning “Let us explore the latter possibility,” p. 30 · Original · Archived

Modern scriptural reworking

Smith creatively reworked earlier scripture into a modern text whose composition need not exclude inspiration.

Anthony A. Hutchinson

biblical studies · religious studies

Hutchinson proposes that the creation narratives in Moses and Abraham are Smith’s creative reworking of the King James Bible, shaped by his developing theology and knowledge of Hebrew. He argues that modern composition and pseudonymous authorship need not exclude inspiration, and that the texts’ theological meaning deserves attention independently of their ancient-origin descriptions.

But inspiration, indeed revelation, can occur through such a process,

Conclusion, paragraph beginning “The patterns and tendencies,” p. 69 · Original · Archived

Hor-papyrus source

Smith produced the English text from signs on the surviving Hor papyrus; Egyptologists read those signs as a funerary text with no phonetic or semantic relation to his Abraham narrative.

Andrew W. Cook

other

With Christopher Smith, Cook uses repeated damage patterns and scroll geometry to estimate the missing interior of the Hor scroll at no more than about 56 cm. They argue that this leaves insufficient space for an additional Egyptian Book of Abraham and that the facsimile, manuscript, and eyewitness evidence links Smith’s book to the Hor scroll, while leaving the ultimate translation mechanism open.

no more than 56 cm of papyrus can be missing from the scroll’s interior.

Christopher C. Smith

history · religious studies

With Andrew Cook, Christopher Smith argues that a reconstruction of the Hor scroll leaves no room for an additional Egyptian Abraham narrative after the Breathing text. They compare the physical estimate with the manuscript, facsimile, and eyewitness evidence and distinguish the identification of Smith’s papyrus source from the still-disputed explanation of how he produced the English book.

Dan Vogel

history

Vogel argues that the Egyptian characters paired with English text in the 1835 manuscripts tie the Book of Abraham’s production to the surviving papyrus and language papers, rather than to a lost ancient Abraham document. He concludes that Smith produced the book himself from the papyri and his language studies, and that its parallels to Abraham traditions draw on material available in Smith’s time.

Edward H. Ashment

egyptology · history

Ashment argues that Smith’s own Egyptian Alphabet and the Book of Abraham manuscripts connect the English narrative to signs on the Hor papyrus. He concludes that Smith’s identification of an Egyptian sign with Abraham does not match its Egyptian sound or meaning, and treats the English manuscripts as scribal copies of Smith’s dictated translation.

It has no pho- netic or semantic relationship to his "Ah-broam."

Klaus Baer

egyptology · Professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago

Baer identifies and translates the papyrus associated with Facsimiles 1 and 3 as a funerary Breathing Permit for Hor, rather than an Abraham narrative. His reconstruction and comparison with the English manuscripts connect the surviving Egyptian signs with the text Smith treated as the Book of Abraham.

Joseph Smith thought that this papyrus contained the Book of Abraham.

Robert K. Ritner

egyptology · Rowe Professor of Egyptology, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago

Ritner concludes that the Hor papyrus is a funerary Breathing Permit, and that neither its Egyptian wording nor its illustrations carry Smith’s Abraham narrative and explanations. He argues that the manuscript and facsimile links identify this papyrus as Smith’s source, while comparable texts and the reconstruction of the scroll leave no basis for an additional Abraham narrative on it.

The true content of this papyrus concerns only the afterlife of the deceased Egyptian priest Hor.

Role of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

Papers of the translation project

The Egyptian-language and English manuscripts record or contributed to the process that produced the Book of Abraham.

Brian M. Hauglid

history · religious studies

Hauglid reconstructs the 1835 chronology of the Egyptian alphabet and grammar documents and the Book of Abraham manuscripts, and argues that parts of what are now Abraham 1 and 3 were derived from the language documents' "five-degree" definitions. He proposes that Smith's translation combined intellectual study with reliance on a gift of translation, without deciding what that gift was.

Dan Vogel · see above

Edward H. Ashment · see above

Independent or derivative language study

The language papers are exploratory study alongside or following revelation, rather than the method that generated the English book.

Hugh Nibley

religious studies · ancient near east

Nibley argues that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers contain several exploratory language projects rather than the method by which the Book of Abraham was produced. He distinguishes the revealed book from tentative work by Smith and his associates, and proposes that signs beside English text can coordinate manuscripts without being their translation source.

These three projects were separate undertakings, each dealing with different materials from the others and in a different way.

“Another Tentative Summary,” final portion of article · Original · Archived

John Gee · see above

Kerry Muhlestein · see above