Book of Abraham: A translation that does not match its papyri
Joseph Smith’s history describes translating Egyptian characters and finding Abraham’s writings on a papyrus roll. The Church now acknowledges that the surviving Egyptian does not match the Book of Abraham and presents a nonliteral revelation as one possible explanation.
The short answer
Was the Book of Abraham presented as a translation of Egyptian writing?
Yes. The 1842 publication explicitly presented a translation from papyrus, and its facsimile explanations identify Egyptian figures and writing. The translation claim is part of the published record.
The defining contrast
A claimed source text, a proposed catalyst
The first record makes a claim about Egyptian characters and a particular roll. The current essay concedes that the surviving characters do not correspond to the published English text and broadens translation beyond a literal rendering.
“I, with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery, as scribes, 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.”
The essay says the characters on the fragments do not match the Book of Abraham and proposes that Joseph’s work may have been “not a literal rendering” of the papyri.
The precise changeA conventional translation asserts meaningful correspondence between a source-language text and its rendering. The catalyst proposal allows the English text to bear no direct relationship to the characters that prompted it.
Joseph Smith’s original claim
The record identifies characters, a roll, and writings
The manuscript history says Joseph Smith and his scribes began translating “characters or hieroglyphics” and concluded that one roll contained Abraham’s writings while another contained writings of Joseph of Egypt. The Church’s current essay quotes this same account when narrating the book’s origin.
Its production history limits what can be claimed. Volume B-1 was created in 1843–1845 as part of the retrospective manuscript history begun in 1838. The Joseph Smith Papers states that Smith did not dictate or revise the text recorded in this volume. It is therefore not a July 1835 diary entry or holograph, even though it became the institutional narrative of the event.
The published claim
“Written by his own hand, upon papyrus”
The public presentation connected the Book of Abraham to Egyptian records and to the illustrations printed with it. A senior Church leader later described accepting that claim at face value.
A translation of ancient records
The first installment was headed “A Translation” of ancient Egyptian records, “purporting to be” Abraham’s writings and “written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” The word “purporting” belongs to the original heading and should not be silently removed when quoting it.
The present Pearl of Great Price opens the book with “Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith,” retains “A Translation of some ancient Records” and “written by his own hand, upon papyrus,” and omits the 1842 phrase “purporting to be.”
“A translation from some Egyptian papyri” became “an inspired translation”
The Church’s list of approved adjustments for the 2013 scriptures records that the introduction’s description of the Book of Abraham changed from:
“A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham”
to:
“An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”
The earlier sentence said the papyri contained Abraham’s writings. The revised sentence says only that Joseph Smith obtained papyri and began an “inspired translation.” The scripture’s own heading was not changed.
The claim accepted “at face value”
In general conference, George Albert Smith read the Book of Abraham heading and said, “The Latter-day Saints accept the statement at face value.” He was then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles; he became Church President in 1945.
A straightforward papyrus-translation reading was not invented by later critics. A senior Church leader publicly identified it as the Latter-day Saint reading.
The narrative points to its opening image
Abraham 1:12–14 tells readers to see a representation “at the commencement of this record” and identifies figures in it. Facsimile 1 is therefore linked to the Abraham story by the published scripture itself, not only by a modern reconstruction of the papyrus collection.
The official scripture still presents Facsimiles 1–3 with explanations naming Abraham, Pharaoh, Egyptian deities, and scenes from Abraham’s life.
The facsimiles supply surviving, published claims that can be compared directly with readable Egyptian labels.What survives
Funerary texts, not an Abraham narrative
Eleven papyrus fragments associated with Joseph Smith’s collection resurfaced in the 1960s. The Church’s Gospel Topics essay identifies the fragments as parts of standard Egyptian funerary texts deposited with mummified bodies and dates them between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.
A later copy could in principle preserve an older composition, so date alone is not the decisive test. The stronger point is content: the readable characters do not mention Abraham or the events in the Book of Abraham. The essay says Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters do not match the Book of Abraham translation.
Facsimile 3
A direct comparison of readable labels
The official explanation makes specific claims about people and writing. Michael D. Rhodes and Robert K. Ritner differ sharply in their larger assessments of the Book of Abraham, but their translations identify the same named Egyptian figures here.
| Figure | Published explanation | Egyptological identification | What the label says |
|---|---|---|---|
| Figure 1 | Abraham on Pharaoh’s throne | Osiris | A recitation by Osiris; Rhodes also reads a request that Osiris Hor remain beside the throne. |
| Figure 2 | King Pharaoh, whose name is said to appear above the head | Isis | “The great Isis, mother of the god.” |
| Figure 4 | Prince of Pharaoh, as written above the hand | Maat | Maat, identified by Rhodes as “Lady of the West.” |
| Figure 5 | Shulem, identified by the writing above the hand | Hor, the deceased owner | “Osiris Hor,” followed by a declaration that he is justified forever. |
| Figure 6 | Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince | Anubis | A recitation by Anubis, described as making protection. |
Comparison basisJoseph Smith’s column comes from the official canonical page and the 1842 publication. The Egyptian column follows Rhodes’s published translation and Ritner’s independent analysis. Their agreement concerns the ordinary Egyptian reading; it does not mean they share the same theological conclusions.
Even if the five chapters came from a lost section, missing papyrus cannot make the readable labels in Facsimile 3 say “Pharaoh,” “Shulem,” or “Abraham.”
The Egyptian-language documents
Characters were placed beside English explanations
The Joseph Smith Papers publishes papyri, copied characters, three Egyptian Alphabet documents, the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, and Book of Abraham manuscripts. In Manuscripts A and C, Egyptian characters appear in margins next to portions of the English Book of Abraham text.
The Grammar and Alphabet assigns extended English explanations to Egyptian characters. The Church essay acknowledges that its rules and translations do not correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today. These documents establish that the papyri, character study, and Book of Abraham production were connected projects.
The institutional explanation
Two possibilities, neither demonstrated
The Gospel Topics essay offers a missing source and a catalyst revelation as alternatives. It presents them as possible models, not recovered historical descriptions from Joseph Smith. The Church’s newer topic page says it takes no position between the two theories while affirming that the translation came by revelation.
A lost section may have contained the source
Only part of the papyrus collection survives. That prevents a comparison with every piece Joseph Smith possessed, and the essay says surviving papyri alone cannot settle the relationship conclusively. A missing section could in theory have contained a different text.
The proposal supplies no examinable Abraham text. It also does not resolve the published facsimiles or the Book of Abraham manuscripts that place characters from the Hor funerary text beside English prose.
The artifacts may have occasioned revelation
The essay alternatively proposes that studying the papyri prompted meditation and revelation about Abraham even if the resulting text did not directly correlate to the Egyptian characters. This model uses a broader definition of translation than a source-language rendering.
The catalyst proposal does not demonstrate correct translation of Egyptian. No verified statement from Joseph Smith was located in which he described the papyri as merely a catalyst unrelated to their literal meaning.
What changed
“Translation” crossed a category boundary
The shift is not merely that modern readers know more about Egypt. The proposed relationship between the physical source and the English text changed.
Characters translated
The history describes translating characters or hieroglyphics, not receiving an unspecified revelation while looking at an unrelated artifact.
Abraham found on a roll
The account says a roll contained Abraham’s writings, and the published heading locates the record upon papyrus.
Surviving text does not match
The Church acknowledges that the readable fragments are funerary texts and do not contain the Book of Abraham.
No correlation required
The catalyst model moves the claim from linguistic correspondence to revelation whose English content may be unrelated to the Egyptian source.
Revelation replaces translationThe catalyst model substitutes a claim of revelation for a claim of linguistic correspondence. It supplies no verification of Joseph Smith’s explanations of Egyptian characters and labels.
Biblical context
A record that reshapes Genesis
The Book of Abraham is not only a translation question. It rewrites the creation account and introduced doctrines that separate Latter-day Saint teaching from historic Christianity.
Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 44:24 · Abraham 4:1
One Creator, or “the Gods”?
“I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.”
Genesis opens, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” and Isaiah stresses that God acted “alone” and “by myself.” Abraham 4:1 retells the creation: “they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.” Isaiah 43:10 adds: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.”
Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 44:24; 43:10, ESV ↗1 Thessalonians 5:19–22; 1 John 4:1
Claims of revelation are tested
“Do not despise prophecies, but test everything.”
Paul tells the church to hold fast to what is good after examination, and John says, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits,” because false prophets have gone out into the world. The catalyst theory asks readers to accept the text as revelation precisely where the claim that can be checked—the Egyptian source—does not match.
1 Thessalonians 5:19–22; 1 John 4:1, ESV ↗Biblical quotations above are from the English Standard Version. Abraham 4:1 is quoted from the current Pearl of Great Price.
Finding
The original and current explanations are materially different
The historical record describes more than an unspecified revelation about Abraham. Joseph Smith’s manuscript history says he translated Egyptian characters and found Abraham’s writings on a roll. The published scripture connected its narrative to Egyptian illustrations and supplied identifications for figures and readable labels.
The Church now acknowledges that the surviving characters are funerary texts that do not mention Abraham and do not match the Book of Abraham. A lost source remains possible only because part of the collection is unavailable; it does not resolve the published facsimiles. The catalyst proposal replaces textual correspondence with a process Joseph Smith is not documented as describing.
Sources and limitations
Read the record
The central contrast was checked against Joseph Smith Papers transcripts and images, current official Church pages, the 1925 conference report, and published work by Egyptologists who disagree about the book’s religious claims.
The 1835 event is preserved in a manuscript history compiled later, not in a same-day Joseph Smith holograph. Facsimile 3’s original papyrus is not among the surviving fragments, but its published Egyptian labels remain readable. Not all papyri Joseph Smith owned survive, so this case does not claim that every original fragment has been tested. No statement from Joseph Smith was located in which he described the papyri as a nonliteral catalyst. “Current” means official pages checked August 29, 2026.