Appearance
Facsimiles
The claim:
"Respected non-LDS Egyptologists state that Joseph Smith's translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish and have absolutely nothing to do with the papyri and facsimiles and what they actually say."[1]
The CES Letter presents side-by-side tables for all three facsimiles — Joseph Smith's identifications on the left, "Modern Egyptological Interpretation" on the right — and concludes Joseph got everything wrong. It quotes early twentieth-century Egyptologists calling his work "absolutely ignorant" and "impudent fraud."
The tables are real. The discrepancies are real. But does Joseph's record actually look like someone guessing at random?
Facsimile 1: The lion couch scene
Facsimile 1 comes from the Hor Book of Breathings papyrus (ca. 200 BC). It depicts a figure lying on a lion-shaped couch with another figure standing over him. Egyptologists identify this as a standard embalming or resurrection scene. Joseph identified it as Abraham being sacrificed on an altar.
The CES Letter treats this as an open-and-shut misidentification. It isn't.
This scene is unusual
Standard lion couch scenes show a mummified figure — nude, wrapped, one arm at the side. The figure in Facsimile 1 is alive and clothed, with both hands raised in distress or prayer.[2]
That isn't what you see in a typical embalming vignette. Something different is happening in this image.
Ancient Egyptians connected Abraham to this exact type of scene
Papyrus Leiden I 384, a third-century Egyptian temple document, contains a lion couch scene with the name "Abraham" written in Greek beneath it.[3] The Church's Gospel Topics Essay cites this directly.
Critics note the Leiden papyrus is a love spell, not a sacrifice narrative. Fair enough. But the point isn't the spell — it's the association. Ancient Egyptians themselves linked Abraham's name to lion couch imagery. Joseph made the same connection in 1835.
Abraham was threatened with sacrifice in antiquity
Multiple ancient texts describe Abraham facing death for rejecting idolatry — texts unavailable in English in Joseph Smith's day:
| Ancient source | Date | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| Apocalypse of Abraham | 1st-2nd century AD | Abraham nearly sacrificed for rejecting his father's idols |
| Book of Jubilees | 2nd century BC | Abraham faces violence for opposing false gods |
| Genesis Rabbah | ~5th century AD | Abraham cast into a furnace by Nimrod |
| Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities | 1st century AD | Abraham threatened with fire for refusing idol worship |
The Apocalypse of Abraham wasn't translated into English until 1919. The Book of Jubilees first appeared in English in 1902. Joseph published the Book of Abraham in 1842.[2:1][4]
Human sacrifice did occur in ancient Egypt
For most of the twentieth century, Egyptology denied human sacrifice in Egypt. Kerry Muhlestein's doctoral research (UCLA) changed that. Archaeological evidence at the Middle Kingdom fortress of Mirgissa — a decapitated foreigner, ritual objects, a flint knife — demonstrates ritual killing. Thirteenth Dynasty stelae prescribe death by burning for temple trespass.[4:1]
Muhlestein's conclusion: a foreigner killed for a cultic offense — exactly what the Book of Abraham describes — is "exactly the kind of situation in which we would expect a human sacrifice to occur."[4:2]
Joseph described this scenario a century before the archaeology confirmed it.
The four deity names are real
Joseph named four gods associated with the altar: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash. All four have ancient attestations:[5]
| Name | Ancient attestation |
|---|---|
| Elkenah | Hebrew El-qoneh ("the god who creates"), attested at Karatepe and in Hittite texts as Elkunirsha |
| Libnah | Ugaritic god lists reference "gods of Labana" |
| Mahmackrah | Attested as Mkr at Beth-Shan; appears as Mammigira in Middle Bronze Age letters from Abraham's homeland region |
| Korash | Known as Kursha in Hittite texts — a prepared sheepskin functioning "as the symbol of a deity" |
John Gee calculated the odds of randomly generating four correct ancient deity names at approximately 1 in 6.62 x 10^22.[5:1]
The crocodile god and Pharaoh's power
Joseph identified Figure 9 (a crocodile) as "the idolatrous god of Pharaoh." The crocodile god Sobek was tightly linked to pharaonic power during the Twelfth-Thirteenth Dynasties — Abraham's proposed era. Nine Thirteenth Dynasty rulers bore the name Sobekhotep. The crocodile hieroglyph was used to write the word for "sovereign."[6]
Facsimile 2: The hypocephalus
Facsimile 2 is a hypocephalus — a circular funerary amulet placed under the head of the deceased, associated with Spell 162 of the Book of the Dead. About 158 known examples exist. They were reserved for high-ranking clergy and temple officials.[7]
Joseph's explanations focus on celestial hierarchy, governing stars, degrees of glory, priesthood keys, and temple-restricted knowledge. The CES Letter treats all of this as wrong.
Some of it lines up more than the CES Letter admits.
"This earth in its four quarters" — a direct hit
Joseph identified Figure 6 as representing "this earth in its four quarters." Egyptologists identify these four standing figures as the four sons of Horus — who represent the four cardinal compass points.[3:1]
The CES Letter's own table includes this correspondence. It never comments on it. The Gospel Topics Essay does: "A similar interpretation has been argued by scholars who study identical figures in other ancient Egyptian texts."[3:2]
Joseph's themes match what hypocephali actually do
Joseph described Facsimile 2 in terms of cosmic order, celestial hierarchy, and sacred knowledge. Modern Egyptology confirms these are precisely the themes of hypocephali — they depict cosmological structures, enable resurrection, and function as astronomical documents connected to temple ritual.[7:1]
The CES Letter scores Joseph's interpretations one figure at a time, treating any non-literal match as a miss. But the thematic framework — stars, creation, divine governance, temple knowledge — runs through both Joseph's explanations and the Egyptological purpose of these objects.
Joseph's record is better than "1 out of 21"
The CES Letter implies Joseph got nothing right. Michael Rhodes's detailed translation and commentary tells a different story.[8]
| Figure | Joseph Smith said | Egyptology says | Alignment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "Kolob," first creation, nearest to God | Amun-Re, the central creator god | Strong — "Kolob" derives from Semitic qlb ("heart, center, near")[2:2] |
| 2 | Stands next to Kolob, holds "key of power" | Two-headed Amun-Re with scepter of authority | Strong — power and dominion symbolism matches |
| 3 | "God sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority" | Re on solar bark, holding was-scepter (dominion) | Moderate — the was-scepter literally symbolizes dominion |
| 4 | "Raukeeyang" — expanse or firmament; "one thousand" | Sokar-hawk on a boat; associated texts reference "ship of 1,000 cubits" | Strong — the number 1,000 appears in associated texts |
| 5 | "The Sun," borrows light from Kolob | Hathor-cow wearing sun disk | Strong — solar identification is correct |
| 6 | "This earth in its four quarters" | Four sons of Horus = four cardinal directions | Perfect match |
| 7 | "God sitting upon his throne... grand Key-words of the Priesthood" | Min — ithyphallic creator deity, called "the Great God" | Moderate — see below |
The Min figure — the hardest question
The CES Letter's most pointed facsimile criticism: Joseph identified Figure 7 as "God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood." Egyptologists identify the figure as Min, an ithyphallic (sexually aroused) fertility god.
This is a real tension. The figure is visually identifiable as Min. Joseph called it God. That's jarring.
But Min was more than a fertility symbol. Egyptians called Min "the great god." Karel Van der Toorn describes Min as "regarded as the creator god par excellence" because fertility imagery represented broader creative power.[9] Christina Riggs (Egyptologist): "Near naked goddesses, gods with erections... make sense in religious imagery because they captured the miracle of life creating new life."[9:1]
The figure holds a raised flail — a symbol of divine authority. Michael Rhodes notes Joseph's identification of the figure as God "revealing the grand Key-words of the Priesthood" aligns with this symbol of power. The bird presenting a Wedjat eye parallels Joseph's reference to the Holy Ghost, since Egyptians "commonly portrayed the soul or spirit as a bird."[9:2]
At least one Egyptian hypocephalus labels this same figure simply as "the great god."[9:3]
None of this makes the ithyphallic imagery disappear. But Joseph's interpretation captures the theological function of the figure — divine creative authority — even as it translates past the sexual iconography. Whether that counts as "right" or "wrong" depends on what you think Joseph was doing with the facsimiles.
Temple-restricted knowledge
Joseph stated that Figure 8 "contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God."
Hypocephali were connected to temple ritual and restricted sacred knowledge. Spell 162 prescribed placement under the head as part of secret funerary rites. These objects functioned as divinatory devices within temples.[7:2][10]
How would Joseph Smith in 1835 know that an Egyptian funerary disc contained temple-restricted information?
Facsimile 3: The presentation scene
Facsimile 3 is the CES Letter's most visually straightforward criticism. The hieroglyphic labels above the figures name them: Osiris, Isis, Ma'at, Anubis, and the deceased Hor. Joseph identified them as Abraham, Pharaoh, Prince of Pharaoh, a slave, and a waiter named Shulem.
The gender issue is the headline: Joseph identified Figures 2 and 4 (Isis and Ma'at — female deities) as male figures (King Pharaoh and Prince of Pharaoh).
The gender problem — honestly stated
The hieroglyphic labels are clear. Isis is female. Ma'at is female. Joseph called them men.
This deserves honest acknowledgment. It is the most visually straightforward difficulty in the facsimile interpretations.
Gender fluidity in Egyptian ritual art
John Gee has documented that "during the period the Joseph Smith Papyri were produced Egyptian artists were not always consistent in depicting the genders of the figures being represented, and sometimes swapped male and female gender iconography."[11]
Egyptian ritual drama involved costumed actors playing deities. Hathor and Ma'at masks were worn by male officials during temple ceremonies. Hugh Nibley documented extensively that "the king wore not only the horned headdress of the royal mother Hathor, but her complete outfit as well."[11:1]
This doesn't erase the difficulty. It does complicate the idea that the gender identification is a simple, fatal error.
Abraham at Pharaoh's court — attested in antiquity
Joseph's interpretation places Abraham teaching astronomy at Pharaoh's court. Multiple ancient sources confirm this tradition:
| Source | What it says |
|---|---|
| Josephus, Antiquities 1.8.2 | Abraham "taught [the Egyptians] astronomy" |
| Artapanus (pre-1st century BC) | Abraham "taught [Pharaoh] astrology" |
| Pseudo-Eupolemus | Abraham instructed the Phoenicians and Egyptians in astronomy |
| Qisas al-Anbiya' (Islamic tradition, AD 1310) | A king "honoured Abraham and seated him at his side" |
Joseph placed Abraham on Pharaoh's throne. Nibley documented the Egyptian title Rp't on the Throne of Geb, showing officials could legitimately occupy the throne as the king's representative during specific ritual functions.[2:3][11:2]
"Shulem" is a real ancient name
Joseph identified Figure 5 as "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters." The name appears nowhere else in the Book of Abraham. John Gee's onomastic analysis shows the name form is "attested only at two times: the time period of Abraham and the time period of the Joseph Smith papyri."[11:3]
Joseph didn't pull a name from the Bible. He produced a name attested in exactly the right historical periods — and nowhere else.
The scorecard the CES Letter doesn't show
The CES Letter presents tables showing every mismatch. Here is a table it omits — details Joseph got right or that have since found ancient support:
| Joseph Smith's identification | Ancient support | Known in 1835? |
|---|---|---|
| Abraham connected to a lion couch scene | Leiden Papyrus I 384: Abraham's name beneath a lion couch image | No |
| Abraham threatened with sacrifice for rejecting idols | Apocalypse of Abraham, Book of Jubilees, Genesis Rabbah, Pseudo-Philo | No (not in English) |
| Human sacrifice in Egyptian religious context | Muhlestein's archaeological research at Mirgissa; Thirteenth Dynasty execution texts | No (denied by Egyptology) |
| Four deity names: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash | All four attested in ancient Near Eastern sources | No |
| Crocodile = "idolatrous god of Pharaoh" | Sobek tightly linked to pharaonic power in Twelfth-Thirteenth Dynasties | No |
| "This earth in its four quarters" (Fac. 2, Fig. 6) | Four sons of Horus = four cardinal compass points | No |
| Hypocephalus contains temple-restricted knowledge | Spell 162 confirms connection to temple ritual and restricted rites | No |
| Kolob = "nearest to God" | Semitic QLB/QRB = "near, heart, center" | No |
| Abraham teaching astronomy in Egypt | Josephus, Artapanus, Pseudo-Eupolemus | Josephus yes; others no |
| "Shulem" as a historical name | Attested in Abraham's era and the Ptolemaic period — and no other time | No |
The CES Letter's "1 out of 21 correct" scoring method treats every non-literal match as a total miss. It ignores thematic correspondences, ancient parallels, and details that Joseph had no way of knowing.
The 1912 scholars were working blind
The CES Letter quotes scholars from F.S. Spalding's 1912 book Joseph Smith Jr., As a Translator:
"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations." — Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, London University[12]
These quotes are real. They represent the best Egyptological opinion available in 1912.
Three things have changed.
Egyptology has advanced. Breasted, Petrie, and Sayce were working before modern understandings of hypocephali, Egyptian ritual drama, and iconographic layering. The field has been transformed in the century since.[13]
Petrie's categorical denial aged poorly. Since 1912, Figure 6 of Facsimile 2 has been shown to match Joseph's explanation perfectly. The sacrifice themes in Facsimile 1 have been confirmed by archaeology. The astronomical and creation connections in Facsimile 2 align with what Egyptologists now know about hypocephali. "Not one single word" is no longer defensible.
The Church was not "moved a peg." B.H. Roberts read Spalding's critique at the time and responded: "Nothing of this kind happened however, 'Mormonism' was not moved a peg by the critique."[14] Spalding predicted the Church would collapse over the facsimiles. That was over a century ago.
The honest difficulty
Fair treatment requires saying what remains hard.
The gender identifications in Facsimile 3 are genuinely difficult. Joseph called Isis "King Pharaoh" and Ma'at "Prince of Pharaoh." The ritual-drama explanation is plausible but unverifiable for this specific scene.
Some of Joseph's Facsimile 2 terms — "Oliblish," "Kae-e-vanrash," "Enish-go-on-dosh" — don't correspond to any known Egyptian vocabulary. They may represent revealed names, lost terminology, or something else entirely.
Robert Ritner, the University of Chicago Egyptologist who published the most thorough critical assessment, concluded Joseph attempted a conventional translation and failed.[15] His arguments are serious. The broader papyri question — Kirtland Egyptian Papers, missing scroll theory, catalyst theory — is addressed in detail at Papyri.
These are real problems. They don't have easy answers. But "real problems" is different from "case closed."
For ancient content in the Book of Abraham text itself, see Anachronisms & Source Texts.
Bottom line: The facsimile identifications don't match standard Egyptological readings in many specifics — and that's a genuine tension. But Joseph also named four real ancient deities, connected Abraham to a lion couch scene confirmed by an Egyptian papyrus, described human sacrifice in Egypt a century before archaeology confirmed it, and produced a Semitic star name with the right etymology. The CES Letter shows you the misses and hides the hits. The evidence, taken whole, is far more complex than "he got everything wrong."
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Book of Abraham," pp. 38-46. The facsimile claims are embedded within the broader Book of Abraham section spanning pp. 36-50. ↩︎
Michael D. Rhodes, "Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles," Religious Educator 4, no. 2 (2003): 115-123. https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-4-no-2-2003/teaching-book-abraham-facsimiles ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
"Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Kerry Muhlestein and John Gee, "An Egyptian Context for the Sacrifice of Abraham," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20, no. 2 (2011): 70-77. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol20/iss2/6/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
John Gee, "Four Idolatrous Gods in the Book of Abraham," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020). https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/four-idolatrous-gods-in-the-book-of-abraham/ ↩︎ ↩︎
John Gee and Stephen D. Ricks, "Historical Plausibility: The Historicity of the Book of Abraham as a Case Study," in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001). https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/historical-plausibility-historicity-book-abraham-case-study ↩︎
"The Purpose and Function of the Egyptian Hypocephalus," Pearl of Great Price Central. https://pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/the-purpose-and-function-of-the-egyptian-hypocephalus/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Michael D. Rhodes, "A Translation and Commentary of the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus," BYU Studies 17, no. 3 (1977). https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol17/iss3/2/ ↩︎
Michael D. Rhodes, as discussed in "Facsimile 2 -- Egyptian God Min," Debunking the CES Letter. https://debunking-cesletter.com/the-book-of-abraham-1/facsimile-2-egyptian-god-min/. See also Rhodes, "The Book of Abraham: Divinely Inspired Scripture," FARMS Review 4, no. 1 (1992): 120-126. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol4/iss1/52/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
"How Did Joseph Get So Much Right About Facsimile 2?" CES Letter Flip. https://cesletterflip.com/how-did-joseph-get-so-much-right-about-facimile-2/ ↩︎
"Book of Abraham Facsimiles/Facsimile 3," FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham_facsimiles/Facsimile_3 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
W.M. Flinders Petrie, quoted in F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr., As a Translator (Salt Lake City: Arrow Press, 1912), 24. ↩︎
Kevin Christensen, "Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Book of Abraham," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 10 (2014): 175-238. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest/ ↩︎
B.H. Roberts, response to Spalding's critique, cited in FAIR, "Detailed response to CES Letter, Book of Abraham." https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Detailed_response_to_CES_Letter,_Book_of_Abraham ↩︎
Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2011). ↩︎