FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Charles Larson's "Restoration" of Facsimile 1 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 > Charles Larson's "Restoration" of Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham
Charles Larson's "Restoration" of Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham
Summary: As part of his 1992 book By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, Charles Larson, affiliated with the anti-Latter-day Saint Institute for Religious Research, attempted a reconstruction of the papyrus that originally contained Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham. This reconstruction was based on the suspicions of non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists, including Klaus Baer, Richard Parker, and Edward Ashment, among others.
If Larson's reconstruction is correct, it will conclusively demonstrate that none of the papyri that Joseph Smith originally possessed contained the Book of Abraham and, thus, the Book of Abraham's inauthenticity as a historical record of Abraham's life.
This page will dissect Charles Larson's "Restoration" of Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham point by point. We will use the work of non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologist Lanny Bell as well as other Latter-day Saint Egyptologists to support our assertions.
Phallus or Kilt?
The Larson restoration adds a phallus on the reclining figure, something that is never seen on a clothed Osiris figure.
- The assumption is that the hash marks on the legs represent breeches. One can also observe this assumption in the Hedlock restoration contained in the Book of Abraham. However, an examination of the original papyrus shows that the legs of the figure were drawn, and that a wraparound Egyptian kilt was then drawn over them. The clothing is not a pair of breeches. This detail is not even in the Larson image, as the two lines distinguishing the legs and the kilt are merged into a single, fat line.
- It can be seen in the close-up detail that the hash lines of the kilt extend beyond the lines of the leg, intersecting the outer line of the kilt.
- It can also be seen that the kilt is curved, whereas the legs are straight.
- The Larson restoration adds a phallus (which we have chosen to obscure) in the location of the figure's navel, based upon the location of the intersection of the legs and an estimate of where the top of the kilt would appear.
Non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologist Lanny Bell stated:
[T]he representation of an ithyphallic [having an erect phallus] figure wearing a kilt would not be unparalleled. However, judging from the position of the erect phallus of the reclining kilted earth god Geb in a cosmological scene on Dynasty 21 Theban coffins now in Turin and Bristol, there would not be enough available space to restore the hand of Anubis, the erect phallus of the Osiris, and the body and wings of Isis in P.JS I: Anubis would have to be grasping the phallus himself and assisting Isis in alighting on it—which is unimaginable. . . .In this area, I believe the Parker-Baer-Ashment reconstruction (with its "implied" erect phallus) is seriously flawed.[1]
Hand or Bird?
The Larson restoration assumes that the upper hand represented in Facsimile 1 is, in fact, the wing of a bird. Several elements refute this claim.
- It is clear that the Egyptian artist drew wings in a specific manner, as can be observed by the wing of the bird on the right.
- The two hands have distinct thumbs.
- The assumption that ink spots on the hand represent spots on the bird's wing is disproven by close examination of the original, which shows ink traces that indicate that the lines were originally connected.
- It is also clear that the missing ink correlates with cracks in the papyrus. Note that the cracks extend across all fingers, and that the ink has flaked off along the cracks.
- Note that the index finger (the one next to the thumb) is continuous in the original, but was broken into two parts in the Larson restoration.
Lanny Bell stated:
Let me state clearly at the outset my conviction that the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand; in other words, Joseph Smith was correct in his understanding of the drawing at this point. Ashment 1979, pp. 36, 41 (Illustration 13), is very balanced in his analysis of the problem, presenting compelling arguments for reading two hands; Gee 1992, p. 102 and n. 25, refers to Michael Lyon in describing the "thumb stroke" of the upper (right) hand; cf. Gee 2000, pp. 37-38; and Rhodes 2002, p. 19, concludes: "... a careful comparison of the traces with the hand below as well as the tip of the bird's wing to the right makes it quite clear that it is the other hand of the deceased."...An important clue is provided in the orientation of the thumbs of the upraised hands toward the face. This is the expected way of depicting the hands of mourners and others when they are held up to (both sides of) their heads or before their faces.[2]
Head of a Priest or Head of Anubis?
The head of the priest in the Hedlock restoration appears to merely copy the head of the reclining figure. An examination of the papyrus, however, shows evidence that the head was originally that of Anubis. In this case, the Larson restoration appears to be correct. Theologically, it would not matter to scenes such as this one. Ancient art depicting religious situations such as this frequently featured other people impersonating gods. Thus, even if this is an incorrect restoration, it would not matter to the overall message of the scene portrayed.
The priest of Elkenah likely could have been wearing an Anubian headdress while performing this scene, and the interpretation would still be, for all intents and purposes, correct. Those performing rituals often donned a mask impersonating a particular god for theological effect.[3]
John Gee has written:
The discussion about figure 3 has centered on whether the head should be that of a jackal or a bald man. Whether the head is a jackal or a bald man in no way affects the interpretation of the figure, however, since in either case the figure would be a priest.
His footnote here reads as follows:
The argument for the identification runs as follows:
(1) Assume for the sake of argument that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is correct. What are the implications of the figure being a bald man? Shaving was a common feature of initiation into the priesthood from the Old Kingdom through the Roman period. Since “Complete shaving of the head was another mark of the male Isiac votary and priest” the bald figure would then be a priest.
(2) Assume on the other hand that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is that of a jackal, as was first suggested by Theodule Devéria. We have representations of priests wearing masks, one example of an actual mask, [and] literary accounts from non-Egyptians about Egyptian priests wearing masks. . . . Thus, however the restoration is made, the individual shown in Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is a priest, and the entire question of which head should be on the figure is moot so far as identifying the figure is concerned. (John Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac, and Jacob,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 7/1 [1995]: 80–82)[4]
Gee gives an example of a bald priest donning the head of Anubis at the temple of Dendara. The first image is an actual drawing created during the Ptolemaic period at Dendara, depicting the priest putting on the mask. The second is an example of such a mask that would be placed on them.
Temple at Dendara of a priest
putting on an Anubian mask
- Note that there is a portion of the back of Anubis's headdress visible in the original.
- It is more likely that the back of the headdress showed hair rather than a solid as represented in the Larson image.
A Knife or Another Bird?
In typical representations of the "lion couch" scene, the priest is holding an object
Since Facsimile 1 appears to be a fairly typical scene from Egyptian funerary texts, it is noted that other similar Egyptian motifs do not show the priest holding a knife. A proposed restoration of Facsimile 1 by Egyptologist Lanny Bell, for example, shows the priest holding a cup in his hand over the figure on the lion couch.
Eyewitnesses, one of whom was an anti-Mormon, described a man bound and lying on the lion couch, and a priest with a knife in his hand
Many Latter-day Saint scholars believe that the scroll was damaged after Joseph translated the vignette, and some evidence seems to support this view. One early Latter-day Saint who saw the papyri in 1841, for instance, described them as containing the scene of an altar with "'a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it.'"[5] Similarly, Reverend Henry Caswall, who visited Nauvoo in April 1842, had a chance to see some of the Egyptian papyri. Caswall, who was hostile to the Saints, described Facsimile 1 as having a "'man standing by him with a drawn knife.'"[6]
Due to the damage to the papyrus, it is impossible to determine what the priest is holding in his hand
It is not possible to determine from an examination of the original papyrus what the priest is holding in his hand.
in Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham. The original facsimile is missing
this detail. Egyptologist Lanny Bell assumes that the priest was holding an
object. Charles Larson shows the priest holding nothing, with the wing of
the proposed second bird occupying the space. Joseph Smith indicated
that the priest was holding a knife.
Notes
- ↑ Lanny Bell, “The Ancient Egyptian ‘Books of Breathing,’ the Mormon ‘Book of Abraham,’ and the Development of Egyptology in America,” in Egypt and Beyond: Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology at Brown University, June 2005, ed. Stephen E. Thompson and Peter Der Manuelian (Brown University Press, 2008), 29.
- ↑ Lanny Bell, "The Ancient Egyptian 'Books of Breathing,'" 28.
- ↑ Robert K. Ritner "Osiris-Canopus and Bes at Herculaneum". As Ritner writes herein: "Although the Herculaneum dancer probably represents a masked participant impersonating the god, the matter is theologically unimportant. The British Museum Bes statue, noted above, has been assumed to be a masked man because of his kilt, moderate belly and flattened face, but no clear cords or fittings indicate that the face is a mask. A Middle Kingdom mask of Bes does survive from Kahun proving the existence of Bes—masked priests, but statue ary of masked humans is more problematic than masked figures in religious scenes. A potentially more relevant sculpture derives from a far earlier period in Egyptian history, on a Fifth Dynasty relief also in the British Museum. Defying the general taboo on representing gods in Old Kingdom tombs, this relief (EA 994) includes a leonine Bes in profile carrying a wand within a scene of the 'dance of the youths.' As in the Herculaneum fresco more than two millennia later, a priest masked as Bes performs at a ritual dance."
- ↑ John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (FARMS, 2000) 36–39, 66.
- ↑ William I. Appleby Journal, 5 May 1841, ms. 1401 1, pp. 71–72, Church Archives; as quoted in John Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," in The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (FARMS, 2000), 184.
- ↑ Henry Caswall, The City of the Mormons: Or, Three Days at Nauvoo in 1842 (Rivington, 1842), 71–72., Church Archives; as quoted in Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence," 184.