I 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, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,–a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.

History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: Volume 2.” Internet Archive, Salt Lake City, Utah, Deseret News, 1835, https://archive.org/details/historyofchurcho02churrich/page/236.

None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

Translation and Historicity of The Book of Abraham.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1 Jan. 2016, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham.

Sacred Books claimed to have been given divinely to the first prophet are shown to be taken from old Egyptian originals, their translation being a work of the imagination—what a comparison with Metropolitan Museum Treasures shows.

Museum Walls Proclaim Fraud of Mormon Prophet.” New York Times, 1912, http://www.utlm.org/other/nytimes1912papyrusarticle.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb. 2023.

Scholarly rejection of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham is not new and has continued unabated since the study by Jules Remy and Théodule Devéria in 1861, with multiple scholars (including A. H. Sayce, Arthur Mace, Flinders Petrie, and James H. Breasted) dismissing the book’s validity in 1912. With the rediscovery of the papyri at the Metropolitan Museum in New York in 1967, analysis by John Wilson, Richard Parker and Klaus Baer (all 1968), and even the LDS apologist Hugh Nibley (in 1975) disproved any possibility that the Book of Abraham could be an acceptable translation of the surviving Egyptian papyri. My own works on the papyri (in 2002, 2003, 2011 and 2013) showed the same result, as did the LDS-sponsored translations by Michael Rhodes (2002) and the 2005 revision of Nibley’s volume. Thus has arisen a host of alternative defenses for the Book of Abraham, questioning the meaning of the word “translation,” the length of the original papyri, the possibility of a now-lost section with the Abraham text, etc. Many of these defensive positions are referenced in the new LDS church posting. However, clear links between the papyri and the published woodcut illustrations of the Book of Abraham are unmistakable, and the woodcuts contain explicit “explanations” by Joseph Smith, as even the new LDS position paper acknowledges: “Facsimile 1 contains a crocodile deity swimming in what Joseph Smith called ‘the firmament over our heads’ (emphasis added).” Smith also explained the images on the published “Facsimile 2,” writing as follows: “The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give, at the present time” (emphasis added). The Book of Abraham itself is specifically subtitled “translated from the papyrus, by Joseph Smith” (again emphasis added).

Ritner, Robert. “‘Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham’ — A Response.” Chicago.edu, 2016, https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/research_archives_introduction&guide.pdf.

Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end", this from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in N.Y., which added that "five minutes study in an Egyptian gallery of any museum should be enough to convince any educated man of the clumsiness of the imposture," "...difficult to deal seriously with Smith's impudent fraud," from Oxford England. "Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham." From Chicago, "...very clearly demonstrates that he (Joseph Smith) was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization. From London, "...The attempts to guess a meaning are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true to these explanations.

Larson, Charles M. “Chapter 3.” By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, Institute for Religious Research, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992, pp. 25–27.

Dr. Lythgoe had suggested that the scene Joseph interpreted as a "wicked priest attempting to sacrifice Abraham upon an altar" was a false reconstruction, because "the god Anubus, bending over the mummy, was shown with a human and strangely un-Egyptian head, instead of a jackal's head usual to the scene. And a knife had been drawn into the god's hand. Dr. Lythgoe's observations were virtually identical to those Deveria had made a half century earlier. Deveria had also noted that the bird in the picture, to correctly represent the soul of Osiris, should have a human head.

Larson, Charles M. “Chapter 3.” By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, Institute for Religious Research, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992, pp. 25–27.