Joseph Smith's "Incorrect" Reconstruction of Facsimile 2

Home > Book of Abraham Sandbox > Joseph Smith's "Incorrect" Translation of the Book of Abraham Papyri > The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham > Joseph Smith's "Incorrect" Reconstruction of Facsimile 2

Joseph Smith's "Incorrect" Reconstruction of Facsimile 2

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Summary: Critics charge that Joseph Smith incorrectly reconstructed Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham. This page discusses this charge.

---

Approaching Facsimile 2

Facsimile 2 is a particular kind of document. It is a copy of what is known as a hypocephalus.

Before we proceed with our commentary on Joseph Smith's explanations of Facsimile 2, there is a point that should be kept in mind.

Portions of Papyrus that Contained Facsimile 2 Were Missing When the Papyrus Arrived to Joseph Smith

The original hypocephalus was missing large portions when Joseph Smith originally received it. This is confirmed by a sketch of the hypocephalus that was likely done by Willard Richards.

Drawing showing how much of Facsimile 2 was likely extant before publication
(Image from the Joseph Smith Papers

The missing parts of the hypocephalus correspond to Figures 1, 3, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Those portions are highlighted portions of Facsimile 2.

Missing sections of Facsimile 2 and the "restorations" added before
publication (Click to enlarge)

Figure 1 may have had its heads restored by comparison to and copying of Figure 2.

Figure 3 appears to have been taken from Joseph Smih Papyri IX (see the bottom right corner of the papyrus, depicted below).

This figure on Joseph Smith Papyrus IV matches what was used
to fill in a missing section of Facsimile 2.

Figures 12–15 were taken from Joseph Smith Papyri XI. It is because of the removal of characters from JSP XI to the hypocephalus that the translation of these characters renders nonsense in the context of the hypocephalus.

Some question whether it could be a legitimate practice to "replace" several figures of the hypocephalus with figures from other papyri fragments. We'd argue "yes" for two reasons:

1. In the case of Figure 3, the same figure appears in the same spot on at least one other hypocephalus that Hugh Nibley was able to find.
2. With regards to Figures 12–15, Joseph Smith may have wanted to indicate that he did not translate Joseph Smith XI. That will be explained more below.
3. Joseph Smith's explanations of the figures, regardless of the figures' exact origins, have some striking earmarks of antiquity that we explore on our page commenting on Joseph Smith's explanations.