Difference between revisions of "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers"

(→‎Background: mv)
(→‎Critic's approaches to the KEP: mv)
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 
===Critic's approaches to the KEP===
 
===Critic's approaches to the KEP===
 +
 +
A key assertion claimed by critics is that these documents were produced ''prior'' to the Book of Abraham manuscript, and that they therefore constitute a "smoking gun" that proves that Joseph was making up translations for Egyptian characters taken from the existing fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Critics often refer to these papers as the "translation documents" for the Book of Abraham.
  
 
The attitude of critics to the KEP is straightforward.  They claim that:
 
The attitude of critics to the KEP is straightforward.  They claim that:
Line 30: Line 32:
 
#since the Sensen Papyrus is in fact not the Book of Abraham but an Egyptian Book of Breathings, whatever else the Book of Abraham may be, it is not an accurate translation of an ancient Egyptian text.
 
#since the Sensen Papyrus is in fact not the Book of Abraham but an Egyptian Book of Breathings, whatever else the Book of Abraham may be, it is not an accurate translation of an ancient Egyptian text.
  
−
LDS approaches to the KEP have been more varied. The first significant scholarly study of the matter, by John A. Tvedtnes and Richley Crapo, appeared in a series of articles under the auspices of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology from 1968 to 1970. Their theory was that the Sensen Papyrus may have represented a mnemonic device to bring to mind a longer oral tradition — a tradition that corresponded to the narrative of the Book of Abraham as we know it. This theory was grounded in two observations. First, the hieratic symbols copied into the left margin of the KEPA documents were complete morphemes, as opposed to the inappropriate breaks one would expect of someone who could not read Egyptian. Second, in every case the meaning of the hieratic word in the margin shows up in some relevant way in the much longer English text corresponding to the hieratic word. Of course, lots of other words and concepts are present as well, but the meaning of the hieratic word in each case is present in the English text.
+
For many years, the KEP were not well studied. A variety of possible explanations have been offered by LDS researchers over the years.
  
−
While a fascinating study, the Tvedtnes and Crapo mnemonic device theory never really caught on. Hugh Nibley was intrigued by this possibility at first, but then decided to go in a different direction. Nibley authored a seminal, lengthy study of the KEP in ''BYU Studies'' entitled "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers." He did not attempt to defend the KEP as revelatory documents (other than the English portions of the KEPA). Rather, he took the view that the KEP represent either a preliminary "studying it out" stage in the process, or a (failed) attempt to reverse engineer the English translation so as to decipher the Egyptian language. In other words, the English text of the Book of Abraham was received by revelation as opposed to a purely mechanical process. While Joseph was involved in the KEP project, a theme of Nibley's piece is to portray the efforts of Phelps, Cowdery, and Parrish as largely independent of Joseph. Nibley's take has become the dominant LDS view, and has been echoed more recently in several publications by John Gee.
+
{{Detail|/Previous LDS approaches|Previous LDS approaches to the KEP}}
−
 
−
A small minority of LDS commenters on the KEP seeks to defend the supposed revelatory character of these documents, viewing them through the lenses of kabbalism or extreme symbolism. It has few adherents.
 
  
 
===Do we have all of the Scroll of Hor?===
 
===Do we have all of the Scroll of Hor?===

Revision as of 13:02, 6 August 2010

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Answers portal
The Book of Abraham
IE Jan1968 cover.jpg
Resources.icon.tiny.1.png    RESOURCES

FAQ:

Book of Abraham content:

Production:

Perspectives.icon.tiny.1.png    PERSPECTIVES
Media.icon.tiny.1.png    MEDIA
Resources.icon.tiny.1.png    OTHER PORTALS
  • [Pending]


==

Questions

==

Critics note at least two evidences which demonstrate an obvious connection between some of the Kirtland Egyptian papers and the Book of Breathings scroll from the Joseph Smith Papyri (JSP). These two evidences are used by critics to prove that the existing fragments of the Scroll of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham and that therefore Joseph was not a prophet.

  1. Like the Hebrews, the Egyptians read right to left. The "Scroll of Hor"-- which is the Book of Breathings scroll in the JSP collection-- begins (at the right end) with Facsimile 1 (as recorded in the Book of Abraham) followed by Egyptian characters. Some of the KEP are divided by a vertical line at the left side of the paper. About three fourths of the paper is to the right of each line. To the left of the line are Egyptian characters. These are the same characters that follow Facsimile 1 of the Book of Breathings(these would be to the left of the vignette). To the right of the vertical line (on the Kirtland papers) appear passages from the Book of Abraham. Critics assert that these passages represent Joseph Smith's attempt to perform "translations" of each of the characters on the left. It is claimed that Joseph took a single character in each case and expanded it to a full paragraph of text.
  2. The Book of Abraham states:

...that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation [Facsimile 1] at the commencement of this record." (Abraham 1:12-- keeping in mind that the scroll would have been read from right to left to and Facsimile 1 is virtually the first item at the right end of the scroll.)

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

==

Detailed Analysis

==

Background

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) are a collection of documents written by various individuals, mostly dating to the Kirtland period of Church history (early- to mid-1830s), constituting some sort of study documents relating to the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri.

For a detailed response, see: Background and provenance of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

Critic's approaches to the KEP

A key assertion claimed by critics is that these documents were produced prior to the Book of Abraham manuscript, and that they therefore constitute a "smoking gun" that proves that Joseph was making up translations for Egyptian characters taken from the existing fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Critics often refer to these papers as the "translation documents" for the Book of Abraham.

The attitude of critics to the KEP is straightforward. They claim that:

  1. the KEP represent the translation working papers for the Book of Abraham;
  2. the KEPE demonstrate that Joseph did not understand Egyptian;
  3. the KEPA demonstrate that the Sensen Papyrus was believed to be the source for the Book of Abraham; and
  4. since the Sensen Papyrus is in fact not the Book of Abraham but an Egyptian Book of Breathings, whatever else the Book of Abraham may be, it is not an accurate translation of an ancient Egyptian text.

For many years, the KEP were not well studied. A variety of possible explanations have been offered by LDS researchers over the years.

For a detailed response, see: /Previous LDS approaches and Previous LDS approaches to the KEP

Do we have all of the Scroll of Hor?

The critics also claim that, since the Scroll of Hor is a fairly typical Book of Breathings scroll, we would know that the entire scroll would not be much longer than the extant portions of the papyrus fragments; therefore, what we have is virtually all there was of this particular papyrus.

Directions for further research

The KEP have been understudied to date. Although preliminary studies have appeared from various perspectives, much more work needs to be done. In many ways, apologetic or polemical approaches to these documents are premature. Rather, they first must be studied rigorously from a scholarly perspective.

An essential tool that is a prerequisite to further progress is a critical edition of the texts. While the microfilm photocopy editions are sufficient for limited purposes and to get a feel for the documents, they are totally inadequate for serious scholarly study. Ideally such scholarship should be grounded in a study of the original documents. To the extent that they are not available for such study, the color photographs that are in existence would be the next best basis for such an edition.

In addition to a careful and clear presentation of the texts, such a study needs to focus on understanding the documents. Too much energy has been devoted to attack and defense, and not enough to basic comprehension of what those involved in the project thought they were doing and how they went about their work. Such a study needs to bring the same standards and attention to detail to these texts as Royal Skousen has brought to his study of the original text of the Book of Mormon.

Criticisms

Some of the contested issues for which such a study could bring enlightenment include the following:

Involvement of Joseph Smith

That Joseph was involved to some degree in the project is clear. His handwriting appears on two of the documents, and there are references to the project in his journals. The extent of his involvement is a hotly contested issue and needs to be clarified. Nibley tried hard to distance Joseph from the work of the scribes. Edward Ashment has questioned Nibley's position. The extent to which Joseph dominated the process, or the scribes acted independently, or they all acted in a collaborative manner, needs to be clarified.

Meaning of technical terminology like "degree" and "part"

The terms "degree" and "part" seem to be used in the KEPE as some sort of grammatical terms of art. If so, their meaning needs to be divined. Conversely, John Tvedtnes has argued that they are not grammatical terms at all, but refer to locations on the papyri where particular symbols were located; a sort of latitude and longitude system. According to this view, for example, the "first part" is what we call Facsimile 1, and the "first degree" of that part is the first column of the facsimile, while the second degree is the second column. The second part is what Nibley called the Small Sensen Papyrus (JSP XI), and the first degree of the second part is the first of its columns, counting from the right (away from Facsimile 1). Tvedtnes' explanation of the usage of these terms needs to be evaluated; in particular, as to whether his proposed system in fact holds for all uses of the terms.

Sequencing issues

Although the handwriting of the various scribes on the various texts has been identified, there are numerous sequencing issues that need to be explored. Is there a way to determine in what sequence the documents were created? Were the KEPA documents created at the same time from dictation, or were they visually copied from a single source, and if so, which is the source document? Which was written first on the page, the hieratic symbols in the left margin of the KEPA documents or the English text to the right? Were the hieratic symbols visually copied from the Sensen Papyrus, and if so, can we determine who copied them?

Why does the scope of the English text not match the scope of the hieratic symbols in the margins of the KEPA?

There is a substantial and obvious disproportion between the hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA and the accompanying English text to the right. Critics often trot this fact out as an obvious artifact of Joseph's ignorance. But this begs the question why such a disproportion exists. The disproportion is so marked that surely even Joseph must have been aware of it, and even if he were not, the scribes involved in the project had training in other languages, such that they would have noted and objected to the disproportion. It is not enough merely to observe the disproportion, it must be explained. What did these men think they were doing? Does the juxtaposition of a hieratic symbol and an entire paragraph of English text intend to reflect a translation process, or is some other process at work, and if so, what?

There is, however, a more likely scenario that is compatible with Joseph's prophetic claims. Many LDS scholars have claimed that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are an example of a backwards translation. In other words, Joseph translated the Book of Abraham prior to the creation of the KEP and then he, and other early LDS brethren, tried to match the translated text to what they believed were the characters that were used to elicit the translation. In this scenario the KEP was not the product of revelation, but was rather an attempt to "study out" the translation, after-the-fact, in what might have been an experiment to create an Egyptian alphabet.[1] In essence, Joseph and his friends were trying to "reverse engineer" the translation of Egyptian script using the inspired translation he had already produced. The men at Kirtland were treating the Book of Abraham as a sort of Rosetta Stone from which they hoped to crack the code for Egyptian (which was largely untranslatable by scholars of the time.)

==

Answer

==

When the Joseph Smith Papyri were recovered and the connection to the KEP first noted, Richard Howard, then historian for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now the Community of Christ), was quoted in the New York Times as saying that we now knew the modus operandi by which the translation of the Book of Abraham was created.[2] But this statement was premature. We do not know the modus operandi at all. If we were to give the complete KEPE, the Joseph Smith Papyri, and the sequence of hieratic symbols in the left margins of the KEPA to someone and then ask that person to recreate the Book of Abraham from those materials, he could not do it. The KEPE reflect a half-dozen phrases from the Book of Abraham, isolated and without context. But the Book of Abraham is a coherent and readily understood English text, while the KEPE is a mishmash of linguistic gobbledygook. It is completely unclear how one could possibly get the one from the other.

So what is the source of the English Book of Abraham? It would appear that the English text is a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, whatever he thought he was doing in the KEP project. There is ample precedent for the Prophet receiving such coherent revelations before that did not require him to wrestle with deciphering the ancient language of the source text. For example, Joseph translated the Book of Mormon almost entirely without reference to the gold plates themselves, and Doctrine and Covenants 7 is a revealed translation of ancient parchment that was never physically given to Joseph.

The coherent words of the Book of Abraham did not really come from an analysis of the Egyptian materials before Joseph or his scribes; rather, they were uttered by the Prophet and recorded by his scribes in much the same way that all of his revelatory translation projects were done. To the critic, this simply means that Joseph made up the coherent text and dictated it; to the believer, it means that Joseph received the text by revelation and dictated it. The difference between these two points of view is a matter of faith, and not something that any amount of wrangling with the KEP can resolve definitively one way or the other.

== Notes ==

  1. [note] John Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," p. 196.
  2. [note] Until recently this was believed to be W.W. Phelps' handwriting.
  3. [note] Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar, Salt Lake City: Modern Microfilm Company, 1966.
  4. [note] Hugh W. Nibley, "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," Brigham Young University Studies 11 no. 1 (Summer 1971), 350–399.off-site
  5. [note] New York Times, 2 May 1970.

Further reading

FairMormon Answers articles

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers

The Book of Abraham is "an inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri."[1] "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture. This book [is] a record of the biblical prophet and patriarch Abraham."[2]

To view articles about the Book of Abraham, click "Expand" in the blue bar:

Articles about Book of Abraham
Papyri translation and related documents
Relation to other texts
Purported issues


Video published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


Notes

  1. ↑ Introduction, Pearl of Great Price.
  2. ↑ "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," Gospel Topics Essays, ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

FairMormon web site

FAIR Book of Abraham materials
  • Michael Ash & Kevin Barney, "The ABCs of the Book of Abraham" (2004 FAIR Conference presentation) FAIR link
  • Michael Ash, "Book of Abraham 201: Papyri, Revelation, and Modern Egyptology" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation) FAIR link YouTube link
  • John Gee, "Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri," 2007 FAIR Apologetics Conference (Sandy, Utah) [ FAIR link
  • Brian Hauglid, "Investigating the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: Myths and Realities" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation) FAIR link

Videos

Investigating the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: Myths and Realities, Brian Hauglid, 2006 FAIR Conference (YouTube Video)

External links

Book of Abraham on-line materials

FARMS Studies in the Book of Abraham series

Individual authors

  • Kevin L. Barney, "The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources," Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant (Studies in the Book of Abraham, No. 3), John Gee and Brian M. Hauglid, eds., (Provo: FARMS, 2006): 107–30.off-site
  • E. Douglas Clark, "A Powerful New Resource for Studying the Book of Abraham (Review of Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham)," FARMS Review 15/1 (2003): 91–95. off-site
Gee
  • John Gee, "Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob (Review of The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham: A Critical Review by Edward H. Ashment)," FARMS Review of Books 7/1 (1995): 19–84. off-site
  • John Gee, "'Bird Island' Revisited, or the Book of Mormon through Pyramidal Kabbalistic Glasses: Review of Written by the Finger of God: A Testimony of Joseph Smith's Translations by Joe Sampson," FARMS Review of Books 7/1 (1995): 219–228. off-site
  • John Gee, "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," The Disciple As Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds., Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo: FARMS, 2000).
  • John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000).
  • John Gee, "A Method for Studying the Facsimiles; Review of: A Study Guide to the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 347–353. off-site wiki
  • John Gee, "New Light on the Joseph Smith Papyri," FARMS Review 19/2 (2007): 245–260. off-site wiki
  • John Gee, "One Side of a Nonexistent Conversation (Review of: The Papyri of Abraham: Facsimiles of the Everlasting Covenant)," FARMS Review 15/1 (2003): 81–85. off-site
  • John Gee, "Research and Perspectives: Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts," Ensign (July 1992): 60.
  • John Gee, "Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008): 113–138. off-site wiki
  • John Gee, "Telling the Story of the Joseph Smith Papyri (Review of The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri by James R. Harris)," FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 46–59. off-site
  • John Gee, "A Tragedy of Errors (Review of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri by Charles M. Larson," FARMS Review of Books 4/1 (1992): 93–119. off-site
Hauglid
  • Brian M. Hauglid, "Nibley's Abraham in Egypt: Laying the Foundation for Abraham Research," FARMS Review 15/1 (2003): 97–90. off-site
  • Brian M. Hauglid, “Thoughts on the Book of Abraham,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 245–258.
  • Larry E. Morris, "The Book of Abraham: Ask the Right Questions and Keep On Looking (Review of: “The ‘Breathing Permit of Hor’ Thirty-four Years Later.” Dialogue 33/4 (2000): 97–119)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 355–380. off-site
Muhlestein
  • Kerry Muhlestein, “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: A Faithful, Egyptological Point of View,” in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 217–243.
Nibley
  • Hugh W. Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 2nd edition, (Vol. 14 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by Gary P. Gillum, Illustrated by Michael P. Lyon, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000). ISBN 157345527X.
  • Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Abraham, edited by John Gee, Vol. 18 in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah: Deseret Book / FARMS, 2009). ISBN 1606410547.
  • Hugh Nibley, "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham," Sunstone 4:5-6 no. (Issue #17.18) (December 1979), 49–51. off-site
  • Hugh W. Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, 2nd edition, (Vol. 16 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John Gee and Michael D. Rhodes, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2005), 1. ISBN 159038539X. 1st edition GL direct link
  • Hugh Nibley, One Eternal Round, edited by Michael D. Rhodes, Vol. 19 in the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah: Deseret Book / FARMS, 2009). ISBN 9781606412374 .
  • Hugh W. Nibley, "Phase One," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3 no. 2 (Summer 1968), 101.
  • Hugh W. Nibley, "Approach to John Gee, Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Review of: A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri)," FARMS Review of Books 13/2 (2001): 63–64. off-site
  • Hugh W. Nibley, "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," Brigham Young University Studies 11 no. 1 (Summer 1971), 350–399.off-site
Rhodes
Tvedtnes
  • John A. Tvedtnes, "The Use of Mnemonic Devices in Oral Traditions, as Exemplified by the Book of Abraham and the Hor Sensen Papyrus," Newsletter and Proceedings of the SEHA 120 (April 1970): 2–10.
  • Benjamin Urrutia, "The Joseph Smith Papyri," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 4 no. 2 (Summer 1969), 129–134.

Printed material

Book of Abraham print materials
  • Richley Crapo and John A. Tvedtnes, "A Study of the Hor Sensen Papyrus." Newsletter and Proceedings of the SEHA 109 (25 October 1968): 1–6.
  • Richley Crapo and John A. Tvedtnes. "The Hor Sensen Papyrus as a Mnemonic Device: A Further Study." Newsletter and Proceedings of the SEHA 114 (2 June 1969): 6–13.
  • John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000).
  • H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1995); ISBN 0875798462, ISBN 978-0875798462.
off-site
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=The_Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers&oldid=79192"