I obviously am in favor the Ancient Egyptian Interpreter hypothesis, because it is most consistent with Joseph Smith's own assumptions at the time, that someone in ancient times regarded the Sensen Papyrus as an Abrahamic papyrus. I am also in favor of the Modern Reconstruction theory because of the evidence for modern reconstruction of the missing portions of the papyrus. These are both parts of the picture. The modern reconstruction in the Sensen Papyrus is a reconstruction of what ancient people were doing in a derivative work employing Sensen characters, or modifications on Sensen characters.
Chris Smith shows a reconstruction of the characters that were used in place of missing characters in the lacuna:
These are shown within the red lines above.
This is an example that shows that Joseph Smith was attempting a modern reconstruction of missing material. And this must be taken into account, even in a "catalyst" scenario.
For some reason, Joseph Smith was reconstructing things. Portions of Facsimile 1 were reconstructed by just drawing in things the way the Prophet Joseph Smith felt they should be. As for Facsimile 2, things were similarly reconstructed, but in this case, from other parts of the available papyri (some symbols from the Sensen Papyrus, and others from the Book of the Dead papyrus. Here is a graphic showing what I'm talking about:
So, this is what I mean by "modern reconstruction."
The Modern Reconstruction hypothesis of the Book of Abraham is that were there ancient people that were ancient interpreters. But, it was Joseph Smith under the guidance of the Spirit who employed the ancient Egyptian ideograms outside of their original context. And where there were gaps/lacunae where the documents were damaged, he made changes that were consistent with an Abrahamic interpretation. The Spirit may have led and directed Joseph Smith to reconstruct pieces consistent with the Book of Abraham out of raw Egyptian materials that never had anything to do with the Book of Abraham in the first place. There is certainly evidence for modern reconstructions in the papyri for things where lacunae exist, where Joseph Smith took sections of other parts of the papyri to fill in the holes. Some of the reconstructions make sense, and other parts seem to not fit very well, but were done for perhaps purely aesthetic purposes, to make it look nice. Or, perhaps, they are things that we don't understand the purpose for yet. So certainly, some type of reconstruction was happening in these cases, and these have some type of purpose, whether aesthetic or otherwise.
Somehow, Abraham has something to do with these papyri, and Joseph Smith knew it. It makes sense to me that ancient people had something to do with it, not just Joseph Smith making stuff up, and that is my favored assumption. Joseph Smith translated Egyptian in such a way that the hieroglyphs that he employed were done in an Abrahamically-correct way, restoring them to an Abrahamic usage, a custom way they were used anciently. This is where this differs from the usual way people think that Egyptians used these characters. This was a custom usage.
Our alphabet that we use comes from an ancient alphabet which was nothing but Egyptian pictures that people repurposed to have sounds (Proto-Sinaitic). Frequently, they were used as literal pictures to represent literal things, as well as sounds. Egyptian letters in the Egyptian Alphabet were no different, and were used to represent things.
An Egyptologist, Richard H. Wilkinson, PhD, University of Arizona, wrote that there is a "fluidity of Egyptian theology, which allowed and encouraged free association of ideas . . ."
And he writes:
Symbols in Egyptian art may also exhibit different meanings in different contexts in the same period of time . . . The Egyptians themselves were certainly conscious of the ambiguity in their own symbolism and even seem to have encouraged it . . . [T]here is often a range of possible meanings for a given symbol. (Richard H. Wilkinson, PhD, Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art, pp. 11-13, emphasis added)
The same author went on to say:
Symbolism of form may be expressed at "primary" and "secondary" levels of association . . . In primary, or direct, association the form of an object suggests concepts ideas, or identities with which the object is directly related. So in many works, an object associated with a specific deity thus suggests that god or goddess--or by extension, a concept connected with that deity . . . (ibid., pp. 16-17, emphasis added)
At the primary level, the symbolism is direct and objects are shown in the forms they are meant to represent. Thus, the djed pillar, an ancient symbol associated with the god Osiris and sometimes said to represent the backbone of the god, symbolized both the deity and the concept of support and duration . . . (ibid., p. 30, emphasis added)
And this is why, Kolob, sharing the fundamental CONCEPT or THEME EVIDENT in the mythology for the god Khnum-Ra (i.e. creation), Kolob can therefore be represented BY the hieroglyph for Khnum-Ra. And while some people object to the idea that text hieroglyphics could be used as pictures, Wilkinson assures us:
While Egyptian writing made use of all these different forms of expression in text and inscriptions, exactly the same communication principles were chosen when hieroglyphic forms were used in the construction of large-scale representations. (ibid., p. 157, emphasis added)
This is why, if somebody repurposed Facsimiles, it shouldn't surprise us that they also repurposed the little pictures too to represent things instead of being a text. This is the mind-block problem or prejudice that scholars have against Joseph Smith's notebook, because people most often think of components of a "text" and focus so much on that idea that they think it doesn't translate. That is absurd, when to the Egyptians there was no conceptual difference between big and small pictures. Furthermore:
In fact the hieroglyphic signs form the very basis of Egyptian iconography, which was concerned with the function of making specific symbolic statements through pictorial rather than written means. The embedded or "encoded" hieroglyphic forms also frequently interact to some degree with the texts or inscriptions with which they are associated . . . (ibid., p. 152, bold, emphasis added)
The hieroglyphic signs essentially carried information of two types--sounds which could be used to write words phonetically, and visual images which could be used to portray objects and ideas pictorially. The hieroglyph which depicted a reed leaf, for example, could signify the sound of the Egyptian word for reed (i), which might be used to write other words which contained the sound, or it could be used pictorially to signify the reed itself. (ibid., p. 154-155, emphasis added)
You will see in this blog why the reed is so critical, because it is used by Joseph Smith as a pictograph of a reed, which is used to represent Land of the Chaldees, yet Egyptologists that are Mormon and non-Mormon alike think that is not correct. Yet here, we are assured by Wilkinson that it could stand to represent a reed, and that a hieroglyph that represents something could by extension and association represent something else because of the flexibility and free flow of ideas, so long as there is a conceptual tie between them, or some other kind of association. As you will see, there is a fundamental thing that ties the Land of Chaldees to the picture of a reed, and it isn't crazy.
**ABSTRACTIONS THAT MARK OR ENUMERATE CONCRETE IDEAS OR THINGS. NON-LITERAL, BUT DEMONSTRABLE ASSOCIATIONS THAT TIE A SYMBOL TO A MEANING ASSIGNMENT
Some people think that this is some sort of "hidden" thing or encoded message. Not so. This is the usage of abstract symbols that are pictures with external context-helpers. That means that things outside of them tell you what their intended meaning is. That isn't really an encoding. This is just plain different from that type of thing, and it is not an encoding. An encoding means that something can be unencoded. This type of thing cannot be unencoded on its own. It requires something outside of itself to tell you what it means.
And so, try to think of the characters in the Sensen Papyrus this way: A character shares something with the thing that it represents, but isn't literally that thing, but the reason it can represent it is because of the structure or pattern it shares with it. Because its structure or pattern makes it fit with it. This structure or pattern may or may not be something visual. Or it may be a number of associations on a number of levels, where it not only somewhat resembles something but also has linguistic or thematic association. It might be a pattern in it that is an aspect of its mythology, etc. And so, you know that they fit together through the shared pattern.
An example or analogy of what I'm talking about: A very pixelated and blurred picture can be derived from a high-res photograph. And it can be demonstrated through the same process that it can be reproduced from it multiple times. Therefore, it can be shown that it belongs with it, or is tied to it, because it still looks like it, even though it is blurred or pixelated. Nevertheless, the reverse is not true. If you don't already have the high res photograph, it cannot be reproduced or reversed from the blurred/pixelated photograph, because data has been lost in the process when the blurred/pixelated version was first created. You simply cannot get a high-res photograph from a blurred/pixelated version of it. Even though the blurred or pixelated version isn't literally the high res photograph, you can know that it fits with it.
So, this is not encryption. This is something more along the lines in computer programming called a "hash" that is only a one way thing. The relationship of the literal thing to the symbol can be seen only if the literal thing is known, not the other way around. In other words, this is totally a one way thing, like hashing. If you care to see the technical difference between encoding and hashing, here is this: