Facsimile 3 is the least discussed of the three Book of Abraham facsimiles, but it may be one of the most important for understanding the full Book of Abraham story. We have no copy of the papyrus or even a hand drawn copy. The only thing we have is the lead plate made by Reuben Hedlock which was used to publish the Facsimile in the times and seasons. Because this was a lead engraving of images in a language Hedlock didn’t understand, and then printed in a newspaper 180 years ago, the text in this image is very hard to understand.

According to Joseph Smith, facsimile 1 shows Abraham at the beginning of his journey. He is on the altar, threatened by false priesthood, surrounded by idolatrous authority, and facing death. Facsimile 2 then expands the story into the heavens, showing cosmic order, governing powers, sacred time, priesthood knowledge, and the residence of God. Facsimile 3 appears to complete that progression. Abraham has progressed from the victim to one with with authority, instruction, divine favor, and a throne.

The progression follows this pattern:

altar → deliverance → heavenly knowledge → divine order → throne

That is also the basic story of the Book of Abraham itself.

The Reversal Between Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 3

The connection between Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 3 offer a paradoxical meaning.

Facsimile 1	Facsimile 3
Abraham is placed under the power of Pharaoh’s priest.	Abraham as sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, reasoning upon the principles of astronomy.
False authority tries to kill the rightful priesthood heir.	Abraham is presented as one possessing knowledge, authority, and divine favor.
Abraham is bound to the altar.	Abraham is elevated to the throne.

This makes Facsimile 3 far more than a random image placed at the end of the Book of Abraham. It functions as a visual conclusion to the story that begins in Facsimile 1.

What Facsimile 3 Shows – Different from Other Books of Breathings

Facsimile 3 depicts a seated figure on a throne, attendants nearby, and individuals being presented before the throne. In Egyptian religious imagery, this kind of scene is associated with judgment, presentation, vindication, and entrance into divine presence.

But Quenten Barney’s research shows that this scene is much different than any others. Barney compared Facsimile 3 with every publicly known Book of Breathings throne scene, along with broader Egyptian material from Ptolemaic copies of the Book of the Dead, temples, tombs, and funerary stelae. His conclusion was that Facsimile 3 has parallels, but is far from an exact match. It appears to be anomalous among Book of Breathings scenes and among comparable Ptolemaic Egyptian art from Thebes. Barney suggests it was likely a custom-made scene intended specifically for the Hor Book of Breathings, and is not standard stock image inserted into a generic funerary text.

Critics describe Facsimile 3 as a simple Egyptian funerary judgment scene, sometimes connected with Book of the Dead 125. That description only works on the surface level. The Standard judgment scenes normally include major features including the weighing of the heart, the scales, Thoth recording the judgment, Anubis handling the scale, Ammut the devourer, and other judgment-specific elements. Barney notes that the absence of Thoth, Ammut, the sons of Horus, and the judgment scales indicates that Facsimile 3 does not fit as a judgment scene or even as a hybrid judgment scene.

Facsimile 3 compares better with Egyptian presentation scenes, where the deceased is brought before Osiris, but even in those scenes this one has differences. In Book of Breathings presentation scenes, Anubis normally leads the deceased by the hand from the front. In Facsimile 3, the figure in that position is Ma’at, while the dark figure stands behind the presented person. Barney argues that these differences make it improper to classify Facsimile 3 as a standard Book of Breathings presentation scene.

What The Modern Egyptian Scholars Say

Only two scholars have actually published full translations of Facsimile 3, and their readings involve uncertainty, disagreement, and reliance on comparable Book of Breathings texts to determine meaning. The translations offered by Rhodes and Ritner contain challenges that must be considered when deciding how much weight to place on them. Barney points out that some hieroglyphs are ambiguous and undecipherable.

You sure it’s actually Isis? It doesn’t say that.

For example, both Rhodes and Ritner identify one caption with Isis, which is a logical assumption because comparable scenes typically include Isis. But, the first set of hieroglyphs above Figure 2, where the name Isis would be expected, bears little to no resemblance to any known spelling of Isis. The identification the “modern scholars” have made relies on parallels and expected titles, rather than being able to actually read the name itself.

Facsimile 3 is a lot harder to dismiss as “just another funerary scene” than critics make it sound.

While the facsimile has Egyptian presentation-scene parallels, it is not a generic copy of a standard Book of Breathings vignette. It has unusual iconography, uncertain captions, nonstandard placement, and no exact known parallel. That leaves room for a more layered interpretation, including Joseph Smith’s Abrahamic reading.

Is it Really Anubis?

The same caution applies to the dark figure Rhodes and Ritner identified as Anubis. In many Egyptian presentation scenes, Anubis leads the deceased by the hand. But in Facsimile 3 the figure lacks the normal jackal head, pointed ears, and headdress. He is also not positioned in the leading role. Instead, he stands behind the central presented figure and appears to hold or support him differently than Anubis does in any other Book of Breathings scene.

The captions above this figure also contain uncertainty. Rhodes and Ritner both read the name Anubis, but the expected glyph for Anubis is not present. It does not match the straightforward Anubis captions found in other Book of Breathings vignettes. This shows that the identification Rhodes and Ritner used depends on assumed expectation from parallels rather than an obvious reading of the image and text.

Only Image With A Star Canopy

Another striking difference is the starry canopy above the scene. Facsimile 3 includes a canopy with 23 stars, which gives the image a heavenly setting. This feature becomes especially interesting in the Book of Abraham context because Joseph Smith’s explanation says Abraham is “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.” The main Book of Abraham text says Abraham was shown the stars, Kolob, governing bodies, time, and heavenly order. Facsimile 3 then places the throne/presentation scene beneath a star-filled canopy, which fits the astronomy theme in a way critics rarely address.

Another detail that may tie all three facsimiles together is the recurring pattern of 23.

Facsimile 1 may contain a 23-character sequence that functions as a compressed index to the story. Facsimile 2 contains 23 numbered figures, or steps, in the cosmic order. Facsimile 3 appears beneath a canopy of 23 stars.

How This Scene is Different Than Other Judgement Scenes

Facsimile 3 does not fit cleanly as a typical Book of the Dead judgment scene. Many of the defining elements usually associated with the Hall of the Two Truths and the weighing of the heart are absent.

Facsimile 3 does not include:

• the forty-two judges or gods
• the balance scale
• the weighing of the heart
• the heart itself
• the feather of Ma’at being weighed against the heart
• Thoth recording the judgment
• Anubis adjusting or handling the scale
• Ammut, the devourer
• the four sons of Horus on a lotus
• Osiris seated inside a shrine
• the full Hall of the Two Truths setting
• the deceased standing before the scale
• the standard judgment procession leading into the weighing scene

Instead, Facsimile 3 is better described as a presentation or throne scene with judgment-related themes. It has a seated enthroned figure, attendants, a presented individual, and a starry canopy. That gives it connections to Egyptian afterlife imagery, but it does not make it a standard Book of the Dead 125 judgment scene.

This distinction is important. Critics often speak as though Facsimile 3 has already been definitively identified as a common judgment scene, but the major judgment elements are missing. At minimum, the scene is more unusual and more complex than that claim allows. It should be treated as a distinctive presentation scene, not as an obvious copy of the standard weighing-of-the-heart judgment scene.

But Is it Abraham?

And while Facsimile 3 does appear to relate to a presentation throne scene, the question is, could this scene relate to Abraham?

A late Egyptian funerary or presentation layer may exist at the surface. But that does not exhaust the image’s meaning. Egyptian religious images could carry layered associations, especially in a Ptolemaic environment where symbols, names, titles, and sacred imagery were reused and reinterpreted across religious traditions.

Joseph Smith’s explanation identifies Abraham within the scene. That reading becomes much more plausible when Facsimile 3 is placed in the larger Book of Abraham sequence: Abraham begins at the altar in Facsimile 1, receives heavenly knowledge in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2, and then appears in Facsimile 3 in a setting of throne, judgment, presentation, astronomy, and divine authority. It makes sense in the narrative.

Abraham and Judgment Imagery

After Joseph Smith’s lifetime, an ancient Jewish text known as the Testament of Abraham was discovered and translated. This is a later Jewish pseudepigraphic text, likely written in Greek in Egypt during the early centuries AD.

It shows that Jewish writers in Egypt were still telling expanded stories about Abraham, including stories where Abraham is taken into a heavenly vision and shown the judgment of souls.

In the Testament of Abraham, Abraham becomes a witness to divine judgment. Souls are weighed, examined, and separated according to their works. Divine authority is connected with a throne. Judgment is presented in a way that strongly overlaps with Egyptian judgment imagery.

That is important. Egyptian judgment scenes also centered on moral accountability, weighing, divine authority, and entrance into the afterlife. The Testament of Abraham shows that Jewish authors in Egypt placed Abraham into a judgment framework that was visually and conceptually compatible with Egyptian religious scenes like the Joseph Smith Papyri.

This find of the Testament of Abraham also gives important context for Facsimile 3. Joseph Smith’s association of Abraham with a judgment or throne scene was not just coincidental. It fits an ancient pattern where ancient people connected Abraham with divine judgment, heavenly authority, and the evaluation of souls.

The World of Hor’s Papyrus

Facsimiles 1 and 3 were likely both part of Hor’s Book of Breathings papyrus. Hor was an Egyptian temple priest in Thebes around 200 BC, and the papyrus appears to have functioned as part of his funerary material.

What makes this especially relevant to Abraham is that Thebes had a strong Jewish presence during this period. Egypt was a multicultural world where Jews, Greeks, and Egyptians lived in close contact. Religious stories, symbols, names, and sacred ideas moved across cultures.

In that setting, Egyptian imagery could be read through a Jewish or Abrahamic lens. Judgment and presentation scenes were especially adaptable because they carried themes of accountability, divine authority, vindication, and entrance into a higher realm.

So if Hor’s papyrus preserved imagery that later Egyptians used in a funerary setting, it makes sense that Abrahamic meaning could be attached to it. Abraham had overcome death, learned of the cosmos, received divine knowledge, and was connected with exaltation and enthronement in the eternities. For a priest like Hor, in a culture like this, that kind of imagery would have been highly meaningful.

Facsimile 3 in the Book of Abraham’s Structure

Joseph Smith placed Facsimile 3 after Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 2. That order fits the story of the Book of Abraham and follows a recognizable sacred pattern:

altar → heavens → throne

Facsimile 1 begins at the altar. Abraham faces false priesthood, corrupted sacrifice, and death.

Facsimile 2 opens the heavens. Abraham is taught about Kolob, governing powers, sacred time, priesthood knowledge, and divine order.

Facsimile 3 completes the sequence with throne and presentation imagery. Abraham is no longer the threatened victim. He is now connected with authority, instruction, and divine vindication.

This is the perfect visual ending to the Book of Abraham’s central story. Abraham begins surrounded by false gods and counterfeit authority. He ends in a scene associated with throne, judgment, knowledge, and heavenly order.

Assumptions in the Interpretation of Facsimile 3

Their are only 6 brief explanations regarding this image in Facsimile 3, and we don’t know how much of them were what Joseph Smith actually said, versus what a scribe or newspaper editor may have assumed. It is possible that Joseph Smith did say that Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt was written above his hand, but it’s also possible that that was an assumption added by someone else.

Why the Criticism Misses the Point

Criticism of Facsimile 3 assumes that the late Egyptian funerary meaning is the only valid meaning. That assumption ignores how ancient religious images were actually used.

Symbols were reused, layered, and reinterpreted across cultures, especially in a mixed Egyptian and Jewish setting. The Testament of Abraham shows that Jewish writers were already placing Abraham into judgment scenes using ideas that overlap with Egyptian judgment imagery.

So Joseph Smith’s connection between Abraham and Facsimile 3 is not an obvious mistake. It fits an ancient pattern where Abraham was associated with divine judgment, heavenly authority, and the weighing or evaluation of souls.

Modern Egyptologists may describe the scene in terms of Egyptian funerary religion, and they wouldn’t be wrong.  But Joseph Smith was not simply giving a late Egyptian surface reading. He was interpreting the image through the revealed story of Abraham during a time in the Egyptian empire when Ptolemaic encoding was prevelant.

Conclusion

Facsimile 3 is an Egyptian judgment and presentation scene, but it carrys much more meaning than “standard funerary text.” The images in this scene are unique and are not just standard Book of Breathings text.  Later discoveries show that Abraham was associated with judgment imagery in ancient Jewish tradition, especially in an Egyptian setting.

The Testament of Abraham places Abraham directly inside a judgment vision that parallels Egyptian scenes. Jewish tradition could reuse Egyptian imagery to teach Abrahamic theology. Joseph Smith’s placement of Facsimile 3 at the end of the Book of Abraham fits that ancient pattern.

The Book of Abraham begins at the altar, where Abraham is nearly sacrificed by false priests and false gods. It moves through Facsimile 2, where the true heavenly order is revealed. It ends with Facsimile 3, where throne imagery becomes the symbol of reversal, vindication, and divine authority.

Facsimile 3 belongs exactly where Joseph Smith placed it: at the end of Abraham’s movement from altar to throne.

Answering the Questions asked about The Book of Abraham Facsimile 3 in Letter For My Wife

Does Facsimile 3 prove Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian?

No. This criticism assumes Joseph Smith was offering a modern academic translation of late Egyptian funerary labels. Joseph claimed to translate by revelation. His explanations appear to interpret the scene through the Abrahamic story and its sacred themes: deliverance, divine authority, heavenly knowledge, and enthronement.

Only two Egyptologists have actually provided translations of this Facsimile, and the differences between their translation and the inferences they used, the questions they had showing uncertainty, and the differences they had in determining meaning shows that they also don’t really know how to translate it.

Is the seated figure Osiris instead of Abraham?

Not exactly. Egyptologists usually identify the seated figure as Osiris based on visual features and standard Egyptian iconography. But the text above the figure does not clearly function as a simple name label saying “Osiris.” That means critics overstate the case. The standard Egyptian reading may see Osiris, but it is not as simple as saying the hieroglyphs plainly prove Joseph Smith was wrong.

Is Abraham really sitting on Pharaoh’s throne?

Joseph Smith’s explanation fits the larger movement of the Book of Abraham. Facsimile 1 shows Abraham threatened by Pharaoh’s priest at the altar. Facsimile 3 reverses that scene by placing Abraham in a position of authority. Whether the Egyptian surface layer is funerary or royal, the Abrahamic interpretation presents a clear symbolic reversal: from altar to throne.

Does Facsimile 3 mention Abraham or astronomy?

The surviving Egyptian labels do not clearly mention Abraham or astronomy in a simple academic reading. But Joseph’s explanation likely comes from the revealed Book of Abraham framework, not from a basic caption-by-caption translation. Facsimile 1 does appear to connect Abraham to the scene at a Ptolemaic symbolic or coding level, and Facsimiles 1 and 3 appear to belong to the same broader papyrus context. That makes it reasonable to read them together rather than treating Facsimile 3 as an unrelated image.

There are also ancient Abraham traditions that connect Abraham with teaching astronomy in Pharaoh’s court. That makes Joseph Smith’s explanation much more probable than critics admit. Abraham 3 is specifically about stars, governing bodies, Kolob, heavenly reckoning, and divine order. Facsimile 3 fits naturally after that material as a throne or presentation scene where Abraham is “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy.

Did Joseph misidentify the other figures?

Critics argue that Joseph’s identifications do not match standard Egyptological labels, but even modern Egyptologists are not simply reading clear name labels above each figure. In several cases, they are making identifications based on assumptions from similar Book of Breathings scenes and expected Egyptian iconography.

That matters because the figures are not as straightforward as critics present them. The argument assumes each figure can only mean what it meant in a late Egyptian funerary setting. Ancient images often carried multiple levels of meaning. Joseph’s identifications may be reading the scene through Abrahamic roles rather than merely naming the Egyptian surface figures.

Is Facsimile 3 just about Hor’s afterlife?

Facsimile 3 likely came from Hor’s Book of Breathings papyrus, and Hor’s name appears in the surrounding material. But Hor was an Egyptian temple priest in Thebes around 200 BC, a time and place with strong Jewish influence. A funerary use by Hor makes sense that he would refer to Abrahamic themes about overcoming death and reaching exaltation. For a priest concerned with death, judgment, cosmic order, and divine ascent, Abrahamic imagery would have been meaningful.

Is Facsimile 3 a standard Book of the Dead 125 judgment scene?

That claim is actually really weak when you see all the differences. Standard Book of the Dead 125 judgment scenes include major elements such as the 42 gods, the balance scale, the weighing of the heart, Thoth recording judgment, Anubis handling the scale, Ammit, and the Hall of the Two Truths. Facsimile 3 lacks many of those defining features. So critics are assuming the scene’s identity before proving it.

Does the funerary setting disprove Joseph Smith’s explanation?

No. Egyptian funerary material is concerned with divine judgment, resurrection, sacred knowledge, cosmic order, and entering the presence of God. Those themes overlap with the Book of Abraham. A funerary setting does not make the image meaningless to Abrahamic theology. It may help explain why the image fits the Book of Abraham’s ending so well. Why concern for the plan of salvation would be so relevant.

Why would Abraham be connected to an Egyptian judgment or throne scene?

Later Jewish texts, especially the Testament of Abraham, place Abraham in a judgment setting where he witnesses souls being examined and judged. This shows that ancient Jewish tradition associated Abraham with divine judgment imagery. Joseph Smith’s connection between Abraham and Facsimile 3 fits that ancient pattern better than critics acknowledge.

Abraham was a big part of Jewish and Egyptian history and culture.

Continue reading at the original source →