In his essay Facsimile 3 and Book of the Dead 125, John Gee has an interesting discussion of what facsimile 3 is and is not. Under the section, “What Facsimile 3 Is Not,” Gee wrote:
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.33Their 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.
Notes for the Above
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.
