Facsimile 3 and Book of the Dead 125
Facsimile 3 has always been the most neglected of the three facsimiles in the Book of Abraham. Unfortunately, most of what has been said about this facsimile is seriously wanting at best and highly erroneous at worst.1 This lamentable state of affairs exists because the basic Egyptological work on Facsimile 3 has not been done, and much of the evidence lies neglected and unpublished in museums.2 Furthermore, what an ancient Egyptian understood by a vignette and what a modern Egyptologist understands by the same vignette are by no means the same thing.3 Until we understand what the Egyptians understood by this scene, we have no hope of telling whether what Joseph Smith said about them matches what the Egyptians thought about them. I have no intention of explaining Facsimile 3 or providing the real parallels at this time. I rather desire to debunk a few persistent myths circulating about Facsimile 3.
Dating Facsimile 3
Facsimile 3 came from the middle of a long roll belonging to a man by the name of Hor, who was the son of Osoroeris and Chibois.4 The first part of the roll contained the man’s name and titles, followed by Facsimile 1, followed by the so-called First Book of Breathings, four of the six columns of which have been preserved. Facsimile 3 came next, followed by another text, the only portions of which have been preserved are the maddeningly elliptical opening words: “Beginning of the Book of . . . .”5 Although this papyrus has been assumed to date to the end of the first century A.D.,6 the reasoning behind such dating has been convincingly challenged,7 and it has now been dated, on the basis of the names and titles of the owner, to the first half of the second century B.C.8
Some have assumed that the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham were drawn by Abraham himself.9 This assumption is too simplistic for what we know of the traditions of manuscript illustrations.10 In Egypt, iconographic traditions—such as the canon of proportions11—are modified from time to time, the same tradition even varying in artistic media from time to time.12 The Egyptians even change the text associated with vignettes, which I will demonstrate later. So while the text of the Book of Abraham comes from Abraham’s day, the style of the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham reflects the date of the manuscript rather than the date of the text.
Egypt of the Greco-Roman period (332 B.C.—A.D. 642) is in some ways substantially different from the earlier periods of the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms that most Egyptologists specialize in. For one thing, the language in use in the Greco-Roman period is Demotic, a very different language from the classical Egyptian that most Egyptologists know. Furthermore, most of the Egyptologists who have commented on the Joseph Smith Papyri have not had training in the Greco-Roman period to which the manuscripts date.13 In fact, one Demotic scholar bids us, “Note how few Demoticists there are in [the] world, how few contemporary Egyptologists extend their interests past Tutankhamen and the New Kingdom ‘flowering.’ In the past, Demoticists have been considered almost ‘suspect’ to ‘mainstream’ Egyptologists.”14 If most Egyptologists think that those who study material from this time period are suspect, they obviously think even less of the material under study. Since everyone insists that the facsimiles come from the Greco-Roman period, the principal evidence to explain the facsimiles should also come from the Greco-Roman period, even if most Egyptologists lack the necessary training in that time period. Since Egyptology comprises four thousand years of history of all facets of a complex civilization, no Egyptologist can be a specialist in all facets of this civilization. The opinion of an Egyptologist who has no interest or ability in the time period of the Joseph Smith Papyri is therefore unlikely to be informed.
The Vignette from Book of the Dead 125
A general assumption, both inside and outside the church, is that “Facsimile 3 presents a constantly recurring scene in Egyptian literature, best known from the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead. It represents the judgment of the dead before the throne of Osiris.”15 This notion, so far as I have been able to trace it, was originally suggested both by W. M. Flinders Petrie16 and James H. Breasted;17 the fullest attempt to demonstrate this was promulgated by Jerald and Sandra Tanner based on comparisons made by Grant Heward with two judgment scenes in P. BM 3135 and P. BM 3154.18
The numbering of the vignettes and chapters of the Book of the Dead comes from a papyrus published in 1842 by Richard Leipsius. This papyrus, then and now in Turin, dates to the Ptolemaic period (332—52 B.C.). The earliest copies of the Book of the Dead date from the Eighteenth Dynasty, about 1,300 years earlier, and are much different, although the same numbering system is still used.
Though Book of the Dead 125 first appeared early in the reign of the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh, Thutmosis III (1479—1425 B.C.),19 it had no vignette, or picture, accompanying it. The earliest papyrus copies of the Book of the Dead had no vignettes of any sort. Vignettes on Book of the Dead papyri did not appear until after the reign of Thutmosis III, following an iconographic movement that took place during his reign, when many cultic scenes (such as the depiction of the divine royal birth, tree goddesses and their cult, the Opet festival, the canonical lists of the nine bows, and the presentation of Maat) first appear in the iconography.20 The judgment scene does occur in the Eighteenth Dynasty (1552—1401 B.C.), but when it originally appeared it was associated with Book of the Dead 30B, not Book of the Dead 125.21 The connection of Book of the Dead 125 with the judgment of the dead appears first in manuscripts that have been dated, though not securely, to the reign of Amenhotep II (1425—1401 B.C.),22 but there is no consistent association of the vignette depicting the judgement of the dead with Book of the Dead 125 until after the Nineteenth Dynasty (1295—1188 B.C.). Taken as a whole, only a minority of Eighteenth Dynasty vignettes associate the judgment scene with Book of the Dead 125, and almost as many associate the judgment scene with Book of the Dead 30B.23 The switch in vignettes has caused many Egyptologists to identify examples of Book of the Dead 30B incorrectly as Book of the Dead 125 because they apparently looked only at the vignette and did not read the text.24
Book of the Dead 30B is a famous text, which reads as follows: “O my heart of my mother, O my heart of my mother, O my heart of my forms, do not stand up as a witness against me! Do not oppose me in the council. Do not go against me in the presence of the keeper of the balance.”25 In later times, the vignette associated with Book of the Dead 30B was a picture of a heart scarab, but the heart scarab occurs in the Eighteenth Dynasty only rarely.26 The association of the judgment of the dead with 30B makes sense because Book of the Dead 30B mentions the judgment and the weighing of the heart, whereas Book of the Dead 125 does not. After the 26th Dynasty, the judgment of the dead vignette is consistently attached to Book of the Dead 125 in copies of the Book of the Dead. From this, we can conclude that vignettes can be used for texts other than those with which they were originally associated. Thus, the argument usually advanced by critics of the Book of Abraham, that because a vignette from a text is similar to a vignette from a funerary text it must therefore retain its full funerary meaning, is an invalid argument.
This is quite telling, as both Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 3 are assumed to belong to the Book of Breathings Made by Isis because they accompanied the text in the Joseph Smith Papyri. Yet the contemporary parallel texts of the Book of Breathings Made by Isis belonging to members of the same family have different vignettes associated with them. Instead of a scene like Facsimile 3, most Books of Breathings Made by Isis show a man with his hands raised in adoration to a cow. This indicates that the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham do not belong to the Book of Breathings.
What Facsimile 3 Is Not
The problems with the theory that Facsimile 3 is the vignette from Book of the Dead 125 can be most readily shown by a single quotation from the latest known copy of the Book of the Dead, written in Demotic in A.D. 63. This Book of the Dead has no vignettes; instead it has a written description of the vignettes demonstrating clearly what elements the Egyptians thought were essential in the judgment scene:
The forty-two gods [in front of] the deceased above the hall of the truths;27 a figure of Hathor, [lady] of the underworld carrying a was-scepter,28 protecting the man, while the two arms of the scale are straight and Thoth is on its left, to the right of its [. . .] while Horus speaks,29 and Anubis grasps it on the side on which are the two truths (Maats) while he is opposite on the other side of the scale. Thoth reads the writings since a scroll is in his hand [. . .Ammut] in whose hand is a knife and before whom are a sword and a scepter,30 Anubis holding his hand. A lotus with two supports on which are the four sons of Horus. A chapel31 in which Osiris sits on his throne there being an offering table with a lotus before him. Isis is behind him praising, and Nephthys is behind him praising.32
A careful comparison of this description with actual vignettes of Book of the Dead 125 shows that the major elements are all in this picture: Here are the forty-two gods. Here is the hall of the truths. This is the figure of the goddess holding a was-scepter. Here is the man. The two arms of the scale are straight. Thoth is on the left of the scale. Horus has his hand raised in a gesture of speaking. Anubis is grasping the side of the scale in which the figure representing truth is seated. The man is shown placing his heart upon the scale. Thoth is shown reading or writing something. Ammut is clearly present, and although this particular illustration omits the knife in his hand, it is shown on other copies of the same scene. The scepter is nearby. Here is the lotus with the four sons of Horus atop it. This is the chapel in which sits Osiris, with the offering table and lotus in front of him. In this particular scene, Isis and Nephthys are not standing behind him, but they are found on other scenes.
If we compare this description with Facsimile 3, we find that the description does not match at all: Facsimile 3 lacks the forty-two gods. It is missing Hathor holding the was-scepter. There is no balance-scale. Thoth is missing from the left side of the nonexistent scale. Horus is missing. The figure generally identified with Anubis is not grasping the side of the scale, but the waist of the man. Since Thoth is not depicted, he cannot be shown reading anything. Ammut is absent, along with the knife, sword, and scepter. The lotus is missing the four sons of Horus atop it. Though Osiris is shown sitting, he is not depicted seated within any chapel. Almost all of the elements which the Egyptians thought were important for the scene are conspicuous by their absence from Facsimile 3. Significantly, these elements are present in a vignette accompanying Book of the Dead, chapter 125, found among the Joseph Smith Papyri, as well as other copies of vignettes of Book of the Dead, chapter 125. These elements are present in all the judgment scenes that the critics would compare with the Facsimile 3. The elements of the judgment scene as listed in the Demotic Book of the Dead are consistent with those of earlier judgment scenes.33 Their absence from Facsimile 3 indicates that Facsimile 3 is not a judgment scene and is not directly associated with Book of the Dead 125.34
Far from being, as one critic claimed, “the single most common form of Egyptian funerary scene known”35 (which is not true even of Book of the Dead 125), the real parallels to Facsimile 3 have not yet been publicly identified. Having established what Facsimile 3 is not, however, we are free to look for those real parallels to Facsimile 3.
Table 1 T = Thutmosis A = Amenhotep TT = Theban Tomb (Securely dated documents are listed in boldface type)
|Manuscript||Date||Shrine||Judgment||Heart Scarab||Fire Lake||Sequence|
|Senenmut36||T III||no vignettes||isolated37|
|TT 8238||T III||no vignettes||125-17|
|Thutmosis III39||T III-A II||no vignettes||90-125A-83 . . . 24-125B-D|
|Nu40||T III-A II||125||126||176-125A-D-126|
|Nebseni41||T III-A II||different vignettes||125||176-125A-D-Osiris Hymn|
|Nb-m-trt42||T III-A II||125||. . .125C-125D-146|
|Senuseret43||T III-A II||125||125||99-100-125-136B|
|Amenhotep Cd44||A II||125||125||99B-125A-D-136B|
|Amenhotep Cc45||A II||125||125||125||133-125A-D-27|
|P. Cairo 251246||A II||125||125||125||147-125A-D-149|
|TT 6948||T IV||30B|
|TT 7849||T IV-A III||unusual|
|Nakht53||Horemheb||30B||13-125C-136A . . . 82-125B-125A-99|
|Wien Aeg. 90058||Dyn 19||125||isolated|
|Berlin 2/63-3/6359||Dyn 19||30B|
1. E.g., Allen J. Fletcher, “Another Look at the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham” (n.p.: self published, n.d.), 6—8; James R. Harris, The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri (Payson, Utah: James R. Harris, 1990), 42—49; James R. Harris, “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham,” in H. Donl Peterson, The Pearl of Great Price: A History and Commentary (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1987), 49—51; James R. Harris, “The Book of Abraham Facsimiles,” in Studies in Scripture: Volume Two: The Pearl of Great Price, Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson, eds. (Salt Lake City: Randall Book, 1985), 260—62; Samuel A. B. Mercer, “Joseph Smith as an Interpreter and Translator of Egyptian,” Utah Survey 1/1 (September 1913): 25—29; Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), 108—11; Dee Jay Nelson, A Translation & Study of Facsimile No. 3 in the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm, 1969).
2. “Owing to the limited number of Demotic specialists, large corpora of Demotic sources remain unpublished and uncatalogued in museum collections.” Robert K. Ritner, “Egyptian Magical Practice under the Roman Empire: The Demotic Spells and their Religious Context,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Teil II, Band 18, Teilband 5 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 3334; cf. Jan Mertens, “Bibliography and Description of Demotic Literary Texts: A Progress Report,” in Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond, ed. Janet H. Johnson, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 51 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1992), 233: “Many Demotic literary texts remain undiscovered in papyrus collections all over the world.” The relevance of Demotic will become painfully obvious in the course of this essay.
3. For the method and examples, see John Gee, “Towards an Interpretation of Hypocephali,” in “Le lotus qui sort de terre”: Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga, ed. Hedvig Gyory (Budapest: Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, 2001), 330—34.
4. For the name and genealogy, see Joseph Smith Papyrus (JSP) I. The name also appears in the lower register of Facsimile 3. See Marc Cohen, “The Dating of the Papyri Joseph Smith I, X, and XI and Min who Massacres His Enemies,” in Egyptian Religion: The Last Thousand Years, ed. Willy Claryesse, Antoon Schoors, and Harco Willems (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 2:1104; John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 10—11, 54—55; Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), 3, 21—25, 33, 43.
5. For the reconstruction of the papyrus, see 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, ed. Andrew Hedges, Donald W. Parry, and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 175—217; Gee, Guide, 10—13.
6. For the standard dating, see Hugh Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975), 4—6.
7. Jan Quaegebaer, “Demotic Inscriptions on Wood from the Tomb of ‘Anch-Hor,” in Manfred Bietak and Elfriede Reiser-Haslauer, Das Grab des ‘Anch-Hor, Obermeister der Gottesgemählin Nitokris (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1982), 2:264; John Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 7/1 (1995): 71 n. 272; Coenen, “Dating of the Papyri Joseph Smith I, X, and XI and Min who Massacres His Enemies,” 1103—15; John Gee, “The Original Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” (FARMS Paper GEE-99a) 1—5.
8. Jan Quaegebeur, “Books of Thoth Belonging to Owners of Portraits? On Dating Late Hieratic Funerary Papyri,” in Portraits and Masks: Burial Customs in Roman Egypt, ed. M. L. Bierbrier (London: British Museum, 1997), 74, for full argument see 72—77; cf. Jan Quaegebeur, “Le papyrus Denon à La Haye et une famille de prophètes de Min-Amon,” in Aspekte spätägyptischer Kultur, Aegyptiaca Treverensia 7 (Mainz: von Zabern, 1994), 213—25. (I have corrected Quaegebeur’s identification of the papyri slightly.) Marc Coenen, “Horos, Prophet of Min Who Massacres His Enemies,” CdE 74/148 (1999): 257—60; Marc Coenen, “On the Demise of the Book of the Dead in Ptolemaic Thebes,” RdE 52 (2001): 69—84; Coenen, “Dating of the Papyri Joseph Smith I, X, and XI and Min who Massacres His Enemies,” 1103—15; Gee, “The Original Owners of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” 1—5.
9. For alternate views, see Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob,” 72—74; H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995), 34—35; John Gee, “Telling the Story of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 58; Gee, Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, 25—27.
10. See, for example, Thomas W. Mackay, “Early Christian Millenarianist Interpretation of the Two Witnesses in John’s Apocalypse 11:3—13,” in By Study and Also By Faith, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 1:308—9.
11. Gay Robins, Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994).
12. See for example Cerny’s tracing of the motif from Old Kingdom tomb paintings to Middle Kingdom wooden models to shawabtis; Jaroslav Cerny, Ancient Egyptian Religion (London: Hutchinson’s University Library, 1952), 92—94. The missing step in the progression outlined by Cerny are four wooden statues from the Middle Kingdom, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA 10.176.57—60), inscribed with Coffin Texts; see William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1953), 1:211 and 1:212, figure 129.
13. This includes James Henry Breasted, Arthur C. Mace, Samuel A. B. Mercer, John A. Wilson, Klaus Baer, Stephen E. Thompson, and Edward H. Ashment. The exceptions are W. M. Flinders Petrie, Richard A. Parker, Jan Quaegebeur, Michael Rhodes, Marc Coenen, and the present author.
14. Robert K. Ritner, “Implicit Models of Cross-Cultural Interaction: A Question of Noses, Soap, and Prejudice,” in Life in a Multi-Cultural Society, 285.
15. Michael D. Rhodes, “Book of Abraham: Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:136.
16. W. M. Flinders Petrie to Franklin S. Spalding, in F. S. Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator (Salt Lake City: Arrow, 1912), 24; cf. Mercer, “Joseph Smith as an Interpreter and Translator of Egyptian,” 25.
17. James H. Breasted to Franklin S. Spalding, in Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator, 26.
18. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Case Against Mormonism (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1968—71), 3:51—52; Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 352—53. The earliest mention seems to be Nelson, Translation & Study of Facsimile No. 3, 3, but the demonstration is that of Heward. Derivative accounts can be found in Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, 108.
19. The earliest example is the tomb of Senenmut, which is securely dated; Peter F. Dorman, The Tombs of Senenmut: The Architecture and Decoration of Tombs 71 and 353 (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition, 1991), pls. 30—34.
20. See Emily Teeter, The Presentation of Maat: Ritual and Legitimacy in Ancient Egypt (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1997), 81.
21. Reinhard Grieshammer, “Zum ‘Sitz im Leben’ des Negativen Sündenbekenntnisses,” XVIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag, ed. Wolfgang Voigt, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Supplement 2 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1974), 25; cf. Geo Nagel, Un papyrus funéraire de la fin du nouvel empire [Louvre, 3292 (inv.)] (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1929), 35.
22. The earliest examples are Amenhotep Cc and P. Cairo 2512, both dated to the reign of Amenhotep II on stylistic grounds; Irmtraut Munro, Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im ägyptischen Museum Cairo, 2 vols., ÄgAb 54 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowtiz, 1994), 1:Photo-Taf. 27, 79; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie (London: Kegan Paul International, 1988), 17—18, 133, 275—76, 287. Unfortunately, there are very few securely dated Eighteenth Dynasty Books of the Dead and not enough to establish the securely dated sequence that Munro attempts. These datings must remain tentative.
23. Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri, 108—10: “Das TG [Totengericht] ist bei den frühen wie auch den in die Zeit TIV zu datierenden Tb gleichermaΒen sowohl mit Tb 30B als auch mit Tb 125 verbunden, und auch in der 19. Dyn. bleiben beide Sprüche weiterhin gleichwertig für eine Verbindung mit dem TG in Gebrauch.”
24. Robert K. Ritner, “The Cult of the Dead,” in Ancient Egypt, ed. David P. Silverman (London: Duncan Baird, 1997), 137; Raymond O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (London: British Museum, 1985), 34—35; Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson, The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum, 1995), 30; Hartwig Altenmüller, “Zu den Jenseitsvorstellungen des Alten Ägypten,” in Suche nach Unsterblichheit: Totenkult und Jenseitsglaube im Alten Ägypten (Mainz: von Zabern, 1990), 14, 12—13, Abb. 5.
25. BD 30B, from The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day, ed. Eva von Dassow (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994), plate 3.
26. Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri, 72, lists only four examples, the earliest dating to the reign of Amenhotep II, where the heart scarab is the vignette for BD 30B; ibid.; in Eighteenth Dynasty manuscripts of the Book of the Dead, the weighing of the heart is attested from the time of Hatshepsut to Thutmosis IV while the heart scarab is attested from the reign of Amenhotep II to Amenhotep III.
27. Read: hsy hr d3d3 t3 wsh3.t m3’t.w. Only partially read by Lexa.
28. Read wst; spelled differently than Wolja Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar (Kopenhagen: Munksgaard, 1954), 77, 99; compare the vignette in Richard Lepsius, Das Todtenbuch der Ägypter nach dem hieroglyphischen Papyrus in Turin (Leipzig: Wigand, 1842), plate L.
29. Read: iw Hr tm, and see Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar, 632.
30. hq3, “scepter.” The word was unread by Lexa in his commentary (Franz Lexa, Das demotische Totenbuch der Pariser Nationalbibliothek [Papyrus des Pamonthes], Demotische Studien 4 [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910], 7), though it was listed in his glossary, ibid., 48 #193 translated as “eine Waffe”; the reading was taken over with some doubts in Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar, 33. The word is the Demotic descendent of the earlier hieroglyphic hq.t “scepter”; see Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), 508 (Signlist S 38); Raymond O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1981), 178. An examination of vignettes from Greco-Roman period vignettes shows that it is common for Ammut to carry both knife and scepter; see Bengt Julius Peterson, “Der Totenfresser in den Darstellungen der Psychostasie des altägyptischen Totenbuches,” Orientalia Suecana 10 (1961): 31—40.
31. The term gw3.t, which Lexa read with some hesitation (Demotische Totenbuch, 7—8, 52), derives from the earlier term g3i.t; see Erichsen, Demotisches Glossar, 570.
32. P. Bibliothèque Nationale E 140 1/16—24, Franz Lexa, Das demotische Totenbuch der Pariser Nationalbibliothek (Papyrus des Pamonthes) (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910), ix, 6—8, plate I.
33. See also Jeanne C. Guillevic and Pierre Ramond, Le Papyrus Varille: un livre des morts d’époque ptolémaique (305—30 av. J.-C.) (Toulouse: Musée Georges Labit, 1975), 26—27; Jacques J. Clère, Le Papyrus de Nesmin: un livre des morts hiéroglyphique de l’époque ptolémaïque (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1987), frontispiece, and plates X—XI; Lepsius, Das Todtenbuch der Ägypter nach dem hieroglyphischen Papyrus in Turin, plate L.
34. Klaus Parlasca, however, disagrees, saying the following about the scenes: “Inhaltlich handelt es sich in der Regel um das Geleit des Verstorbenen (oder mehrerer Toter) vor Osiris, also der Grundgedanke des Totengerichts.” Klaus Parlasca, review of Abdalla, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 82 (1996): 240.
35. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, 108.
36. Dorman, Tombs of Senenmut, pls. 30—34. Dated by the cartouches of Hatsheput; see Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 4.
37. Book of the Dead 125 seemingly takes up the entire interior sides of the fragmentary sarcophagus of Senenmut. The order of texts on the exterior right side is BD 34-45-8b-62. BD 76 is on the exterior left side. It is significant that the figure of Nut on the interior bottom of the sarcophagus preserves the text “Senenmut, whom (I) love, to whom (I) have given purification on earth and transfiguration [in heaven.]” See Dorman, Tombs of Senenmut, 70—76.
38. Norman de Garis Davies and Alan H. Gardiner, The Tomb of Amenemhet (No. 82), Theban Tomb Series 1 (London: EEF, 1915), 107—9, pls. XLIV—XLV; Mohamed Saleh, Das Totenbuch in den thebanischen Beamtsgräbern des Neuen Reiches, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 46 (Mainz: von Zabern, 1984), 63; Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, 160, 166. Dated by a dated stele; see Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 4.
39. Munro, Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Ägyptischen Museum Cairo, 1:41—45, Photo-Taf. 14—19; Dows Dunham, “A Fragment from the Mummy Wrappings of Tuthmosis III,” JEA 17 (1931): 209—10, pls. XXXI—XXXVI; Georges Nagel, “Le linceul de Thoutmès III Caire, Cat. No 40.001,” ASAE 49 (1949): 317—329, pls. I—III. Perhaps one of the most securely dated manuscripts; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 4.
40. Günther Lapp, The Papyrus of Nu, Catalogue of Books of the Dead in the British Museum 1 (London: British Museum, 1997), pl. 64—70; E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Dead: Facsimiles of the Papyri of Hunefer, Anhai, Kerasher and Netchemet with a Supplementary Text from the Papyrus of Nu (London: British Museum, 1899), 63; dating in Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 280.
41. Munro, Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Ägyptischen Museum Cairo, 1:Photo-Taf. 72—74. Dated on stylistic grounds; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 281.
42. Munro, Totenbuch-Handscriften der 18. Dynastie im Ägyptischen Museum Cairo, 1:Photo-Taf, 65, 68. Dated on stylistic criteria; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 280.
43. Gertrud Thausing and Traudl Kerszt-Kratschmann, Das grosse ägyptische Totenbuch (Papyrus Reinsich) der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Cairo: Österreichisches Kulturinstitut Kairo, 1969), Tafeln III—IV. Thausing (ibid., 7) seems to date it during the reign of Amenhotep III; Munro (Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 285—86) dates it to the reign of Thutmosis III or Amenhotep II on stylistic grounds.
44. Munro, Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Ägyptischen Museum Cairo, 1: Photo-Taf. 51. Dated to the reign of Amenhotep II on the basis of the vignette of BD 1; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 17—18, 276.
45. Munro, Die Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Ägyptischen Museum Cairo, 1: Photo-Taf. 27. Dated to the reign of Amenhotep II on the basis of the purification scene; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 133, 275—76.
46. Munro, Die Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Ägyptischen Museum Cairo, 1: Photo-Taf. 79. Dated on the basis of the vignettes of BD 1; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 17—18, 287.
47. Munro, Totenbuch-Handscriften der 18. Dynastie im Ägyptischen Museum Cairo, 1:Photo-Taf. 57, 60. Dated on stylistic grounds and on the vignettes for BD 1 even though the name of Hatsheput was written on the linen wrappings of the mummy and the tomb dates from the reign of Hatshepsut or Thutmosis III; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 4, 17—18, 278.
48. Saleh, Das Totenbuch in den thebanischen Beamtsgräbern des Neuen Reiches, 63, 67.
49. Saleh, Das Totenbuch in den thebanischen Beamtsgräbern des Neuen Reiches, 64, 98; Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, 1.1:155.
50. Theodore M. Davis, The Funeral Papyrus of Iouiya (London: Archibald Constable, 1908), pls. XVI, XXII, XXV—VI; Munro, Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Ägyptischen Museum Cairo, 1:81—82. Dated on the basis of his son-in-law’s reign; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 5.
51. Suzanne Ratié, Le Papyrus de Neferoubenef (Louvre III 93), BdE 43 (Cairo: IFAO, 1968), pl. xvii. Dating this papyrus by various criteria has presented problems: the vignettes of BD 1 date it to the reign of Amenhotep II; stylistic criteria date it to the reign of Thutmosis IV; various other criteria date it to the beginning of the 19th Dynasty; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 282—83. The ordering of the chapters in this section compares well with other manuscripts dated to the riegn of Amenhotep II. This suggests that the criteria are not diagnostic.
52. Robert Hari, La tombe thébane du père divin Neferhotep (TT 50), (Genève: Éditions de Belles-Lettres, 1985), 24—25, pls. XI—XII, LX—LXII; Saleh, Das Totenbuch in den Thebanischen Beamtengräbern des Neuen Reiches, 70, 98; cf. Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, 1.1:90, 95—97.
53. S. R. K. Glanville, “Note on the Nature and Date of the ‘Papyri’ of Nakht, B.M. 10471 and 10473,” JEA 13 (1927): 50—56 (the weighing of the heart with BD 30B may be seen on plate XXI); Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 300.
54. Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 4, 302. Dating from king’s name mentioned in title.
55. Photograph in Shaw and Nicholson, The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, 30 (photo reversed) wrongly labeling it “the vignette associated with Chapter 125,” yet the text in the illustration is that of BD 30B; correct attribution in Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch der 18. Dynastie, 302.
56. Alain-Pierre Zivie, La Tombe de Pached à Deir el-Médineh, MIFAO 99 (Cairo: IFAO, 1979), 80—91, fig. 3, pls. 27—28, 33; for the dating, see pp. 130—32.
57. G. A. Gaballa, The Memphite Tomb-Chapel of Mose (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1977), 29, plate XXIX; the identification on pp. 14—15 is wrong. The text is located in the first (southernmost) room to the left (west) off the open court.
58. Egon R. KomorzyCski, “Ein Totenbuchfragment aus der Wiener Papyrussammlung,” Archiv für ägyptische Archäologie 1/6 (June 1938): 141—51.
59. J. S. Karig, “Die Kultkammer des Amenhotep aus Deir Durunka,” ZÄS 95 (1968): 27—34; Settgast and Wildung, Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, 108—9.
60. Eva von Dassow, ed., The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day (San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994), pls. 3, 30—31; Munro, Untersuchungen zu den Totenbuch-Papyri der 18. Dynastie, 296.
61. The large psychostasy scene accompanies chapter 30B, while chapter 125, located in a completely different section of the papyrus, contains only a small vignette of the weighing of the heart.
62. Louis Speleers, Le Papyrus de Nefer renpet: Un Livre des Morts de la XVIIIme dynastie aux Musées royaux du Cinquantennaire à Bruxelles (Bruxelles: Vromant, 1917), pls. II, XI.