By Mark Ashurst-McGee
See here for the previous installment.
So, as I was saying, in the spring of 1996 I delivered a presentation at MHA in which I argued that Joseph Smith did translate (mistranslate) a portion of the fraudulent Kinderhook plates but that he had attempted this translation by secular methods. (For the basic outline of the argument, see the previous installment.)
A few months after the presentation, I found the source of the content of the translation.
It was in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.
This Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) is formatted much like a dictionary. In the left-hand column, it has characters from the Egyptian papyri that are associated with the Book of Abraham. These characters are followed by corresponding definitions or explanations. One of these definitions closely matches the content of what Clayton wrote that Smith said about the content of the Kinderhook plates (see table).
I found this parallel content in the GAEL to be quite compelling.
If you know much of anything about this document—the GAEL—then you know how enigmatic and controversial it is in arguments between detractors and defenders about the translation of the Book of Abraham.
But that is a complex subject of its own, and one that I would argue is much more complex than the Kinderhook plates. For now, let’s get back to the plates.
So, now I knew that there was a place (in the GAEL) from which Joseph Smith could have come up with the translation content that he came up with.
But I still didn’t know how Smith had come up with that particular GAEL definition for the translation.
A few months after this discovery, I got a call from Don Bradley who told me that he had independently found the same source—the definition in the GAEL that matched what Smith had said about the Kinderhook plates. But he had figured out much more than I had. He had also figured out just how Smith had come up with that particular definition as translation material for the Kinderhook plates.
I’ll tell you about that in the next installment
I really would like to hear what people think of the parallels between the Kinderhook interpretation and the GAEL definition.
Comment by Mark Ashurst-McGee — August 26, 2020 @ 5:23 pm
Mark,
It seems to me that most apologists have tried to distance Joseph Smith from the GAEL (primarily because it appears to be nonsense as far as actual Egyptian is concerned). Nibley acknowledged that it is nonsense and argued that it was created by Joseph Smith’s disaffected scribes. I believe John Gee subscribes to this same theory.
Spoiler for the next post: I suspect that you are about to argue that the translation of the Kinderhook Plates is taken from the boat-like symbol that appears on both the GAEL and the Plates. That seems to indicate that Smith was both aware of, and relied on, the GAEL. In fact, it appears that he presented the GAEL as a legitimate source for information on the Egyptian language. I take it you do not subscribe to the idea that Smith was not involved in the creation of the GAEL?
This theory is generally used to argue that Smith’s translation of the Kinderhook Plates was not “prophetic” or “inspired.” But it also establishes that Smith believed (and likely created) the GAEL. In your mind, is tying Smith’s translation of the Kinderhook Plates to the GAEL any less problematic than a “revelatory” translation? He either mistakenly presented the Kinderhook Plates as legitimate or mistakenly presented the GAEL as legitimate.
Tying Smith to the GAEL seems to me to be the least favorable of the two options simply because it seems to strengthen the argument that the GAEL was the source of Abraham 1:1-3.
Comment by Eric — August 26, 2020 @ 9:14 pm
Hi Mark, thanks for the thought-provoking series. As for the parallels, I think that broadly speaking, you and Don are right that there is a connection between the two. More specifically, the portions rendered in red, purple, and yellow line up fairly well, while the blue is a bit less compelling.
Comment by David G. — August 27, 2020 @ 7:37 am
Eric, you raise a perplexing set of issues!
The chapter that Don Bradley and I wrote for Producing Ancient Scripture includes a section titled “Smith’s Use of the Egyptian Alphabet Book”. Here is an excerpt:
“Whereas Joseph Smith’s open use of the Egyptian Alphabet book indicates that he saw himself acting in this case as a linguist, not a prophet, his possession and use of the book has implications for how his relationship with the book should be understood. Many (if not most) Mormon scholars have been skeptical about Smith’s involvement in the production of the curious Egyptian Alphabet documents, which do not reflect modern Egyptological understanding. Some have outright dismissed the relevance of these documents for understanding Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham. . . . [stuff about Smith and Phelps you may want to read] . . . . Smith’s reliance on the book to translate a portion of the Kinderhook plates . . . calls for a reconsideration of Smith’s relationship with this and the other Egyptian study documents.
Comment by Mark Ashurst-McGee — August 27, 2020 @ 10:51 am
David, thank you for your feedback on the parallel content.
Comment by Mark Ashurst-McGee — August 27, 2020 @ 10:53 am
Thanks Mark. I bought the book but I haven’t made it to your Kinderhook Plates chapter. I look forward to reading it.
Comment by Eric — August 27, 2020 @ 2:47 pm