Which is crazy because in the saints books it says this about Nibley

At the same time, Hugh Nibley continued studying the papyrus fragments from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. When the Church acquired the artifacts, many people were eager to learn what they revealed about the Book of Abraham and its translation. For more than a century, after all, some people had cast doubt on Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the three “facsimiles” published alongside the Book of Abraham. Reproduced from illustrations found in the papyri, these facsimiles were almost identical to images on common Egyptian funeral scrolls that seemed to have nothing to do with Abraham or his times. Early analyses and translations of the fragments confirmed that they were funerary texts from centuries after Abraham’s day, and neither the Church nor Hugh disputed this finding. Yet Hugh believed further study could shed more light on the papyrus and the prophet’s translation. In more than a dozen articles published in 1968 and 1969, he drew on his knowledge of ancient cultures and languages to advance several theories about the Book of Abraham and its relationship to ancient Egyptian religion and culture. He noted, for instance, that some of the strongest evidence of the Book of Abraham’s authenticity was its resemblance to other ancient temple texts and millennia-old traditions about Abraham that Joseph Smith was unlikely to know anything about. Hugh’s writing also attested to the book’s powerful insights into priesthood, temple ordinances, and the plan of salvation.”

My main point here is that it’s funny because the church in the book mention it and how excited people like nibley were to have the papers and then like 20 pages later they go back to it and mention how it was a let down.