1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 9554 [post_author] => 1821 [post_date] => 2018-03-16 22:05:00 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-16 22:05:00 [post_content] => [post_title] => Formulas and Facts: A Response to John Gee [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 45.3 (Fall 2012): 1–10
In Winter 2010, Chris Smith and I published an article in Dialogue demonstrating that no more than ~56 cm of papyrus can be missing from the interior of the scroll of Hôr—the papyrus Joseph Smith identified as the Book of Abraham. John Gee has responded by claiming that our method is “anything but accurate” and that it “glaringly underestimates the length of the scroll.” He states that “Two different formulas have been published for estimating the original length of a scroll,” then attempts to show that “Hoffmann’s formula approximates the actual length of the papyrus,” whereas “Cook and Smith’s formula predicts a highly inaccurate length.” The fact is, the two formulas are completely equivalent. They are both exact expressions of an Archimedean spiral and they yield precisely the same results, if correctly applied. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => formulas-and-facts-a-response-to-john-gee [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-23 19:21:55 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-23 19:21:55 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=9554 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 9724 [post_author] => 1821 [post_date] => 2018-03-16 17:47:41 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-16 17:47:41 [post_content] => [post_title] => The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 43.4 (Winter 2010): 1–42
The purpose of this paper is to introduce a robust methodology that eliminates the guesswork in determining winding locations by visual inspection of crease marks or lacunae features, and to determine whether the missing interior section of the Hôr scroll could have been long enough to accommodate the Book of Abraham. Fortunately, this is a question that can be definitively answered by examining the physical characteristics of the extant portions of the scroll. The haste and greed of Michael Chandler provide the key to unlocking this mystery. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-original-length-of-the-scroll-of-hor [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-23 20:01:46 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-23 20:01:46 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=9724 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10884 [post_author] => 2360 [post_date] => 2018-03-12 17:46:24 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-12 17:46:24 [post_content] =>

In 1967, The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York made a gift to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of eleven papyrus fragments once owned by Joseph Smith and employed as the basis for “The Book of Abraham.”

[post_title] => The "Breathing Permit of Hor" Thirty-Four Years Later [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 33.4 (Winter 2000): 91 – 119
In 1967, The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York made a gift to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of eleven papyrus fragments once owned by Joseph Smith and employed as the basis for “The Book of Abraham.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-breathing-permit-of-hor-thirty-four-years-later [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-23 20:08:50 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-23 20:08:50 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=10884 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10885 [post_author] => 2661 [post_date] => 2018-03-04 17:47:45 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-04 17:47:45 [post_content] =>

In 1967, The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York made a gift to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of eleven papyrus fragments once owned by Joseph Smith and employed as the basis for “The Book of Abraham.”

[post_title] => Joseph Smith's Identification of "Abraham" in Papyrus: JS the "Breathing Permit of Hor" [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 33.4 (Winter 2000): 91 – 119
In 1967, The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York made a gift to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of eleven papyrus fragments once owned by Joseph Smith and employed as the basis for “The Book of Abraham.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => joseph-smiths-identification-of-abraham-in-papyrus-js-the-breathing-permit-of-hor [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-23 23:36:29 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-23 23:36:29 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=10885 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 10887 [post_author] => 2287 [post_date] => 2018-03-02 17:48:52 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-03-02 17:48:52 [post_content] =>

“Perhaps the most controversial and intensely contested revelatory claim of Joseph Smith Jr. is his translation of ancient papyri ostensibly written by the hand of Abraham.”

[post_title] => The Book of Abraham and the Islamic Qisas al-Anbiya' (Tales of the Prophets) Extant Literature [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 33.4 (Winter 2000): 137 – 146
“Perhaps the most controversial and intensely contested revelatory claim of Joseph Smith Jr. is his translation of ancient papyri ostensibly written by the hand of Abraham.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-book-of-abraham-and-the-islamic-qisas-al-anbiya-tales-of-the-prophets-extant-literature [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-23 23:37:15 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-23 23:37:15 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=10887 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 11581 [post_author] => 2635 [post_date] => 2018-02-07 16:17:37 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-02-07 16:17:37 [post_content] =>

In the entry on the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism we are told that “the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice." This is a remarkable statement in view of the fact that non-Mormon Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles uniformly agree that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist, who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians would have. For example, in the famous pamphlet compiled by the Reverend Spalding in 1912, James H. Breasted, the first person to hold a chair devoted to Egyptology in America, stated, "Joseph Smith's interpretation of [the facsimiles] . . . very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization." More recently, Klaus Baer, speaking of Joseph Smith's interpretation of the original of Facsimile 1 and the accompanying text, noted that "the Egyptologist interprets it differently, relying on a considerable body of parallel data, research and knowledge."

The matter which I propose to examine is whether the “present understanding of Egyptian religious practice" supports Joseph Smith's explanations of the facsimiles found in the Book of Abraham. In addition, I will discuss the contribution which a study of Egyptian history can make to our understanding of the nature of this book of scripture.

Let us begin with Facsimiles 1 and 3 of the Book of Abraham. A correct understanding of the original context and purpose of these scenes has been made possible by the recovery of the Joseph Smith Papyri from the files of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 1967. Within this group of papyri is the original from which Facsimile 1 was derived. A study of the papyri shows that P.JS 1 was originally a vignette belonging to an Egyptian funerary text known as the First Book of Breathings, dating to the first century B.C., portions of which are also among the papyri recovered by the LDS church. A comparison of the material found in some of the Kirtland (Ohio) Egyptian papers with P.JS 1 and 11 indicates that the scene was damaged when Joseph Smith received it and that the missing portions were restored when Facsimile 1 was created. It is also very probable that Facsimile 3 served as the concluding vignette of this text. This conclusion is based on the fact that the name of the individual for whom this particular copy of the Book of Breathings was prepared occurs as Horus in both P. JS 1 and Facsimile 3, that Facsimiles 1 and 3 are similar in size, and that scenes similar to Facsimile 3 also occur in other known copies of the First Book of Breathings.

The First Book of Breathings is an Egyptian funerary text whose earliest attestation is the end of the 30th Egyptian Dynasty (ca. 380-343 B.C.). This text was buried with the deceased and was intended to serve as a sort of “passport and guide” to achieving a blessed state in the hereafter. This involved the continued existence of the deceased in the company of Osiris, king of the Netherworld, and with the sun-god Re in his celestial bark. As a first step in achieving these goals, the deceased had to undergo the proper rituals of mummification. Papyrus Joseph Smith 1 (Faes. 1 in Abr.) depicts the god Anubis (Fig. 3 in Faes. 1) officiating in the embalming rites for the deceased individual, Horus (Fig. 2 in Faes. 1), shown lying on the bier. This scene does not portray a sacrifice of any sort. To note just a few instances in which Joseph Smith's interpretations of these figures differ from the way they are to be understood in their original context, consider the fact that Figure 11 (in Faes. 1), which Joseph interprets as "designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians," is actually a palace facade, called a serekh, which was a frequent decoration on funerary objects. The serekh originally depicted "the front of a fortified palace . . . with its narrow gateway, floral tracery above the gates, clerestories, and recessed buttresses." Furthermore Joseph interpreted Figure 12 (Faes. 1) as "raukeeyang [a transliteration of the Hebrew word for firmament}, signifying expanse or firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau [another Hebrew word], to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word Shaumahyeem [another Hebrew word]." In fact, these strokes represent water in which the crocodile, symbolizing the god Ho­rus (Fig. 9 in Faes. 1), swims. Although it appears that the water is supported by the palace facade, this is simply an illusion produced by the perspective adopted in Egyptian art. Actually, everything shown above the facade is to be understood as occurring behind it, i.e., Figure 11 represents the wall surrounding the place in which the activity depicted in the scene occurs.

Baer has described Facsimile 3 (in Ahr.) as "a summary, in one illustration, of what the [text] promised: The deceased, after successfully undergoing judgement, is welcomed into the presence of Osiris." Facsimile 3 shows the deceased, Horus (Fig. 5), being introduced before Osiris, the god of the dead (Fig. 1), by the goddess Maat (Fig. 4) and the god Anubis (Fig. 6). Osiris's wife, Isis (Fig. 2), stands behind him. That Figure 6 is to be identified as Anubis I consider a virtual certainty, owing to the fact that he is black (which is the customary color of Anubis) and because of the spike found on his head, which is actually the remnant of a dog's ear. In my opinion, none of Joseph Smith's interpretations of the figures in these scenes accord with the way in which the ancient Egyptians probably understood them.

So if this is the way the ancient Egyptians would have interpreted these figures, how can the statement be made that the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accords "with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice"? First, it is important to note that the originals of these facsimiles of the Book of Abraham were created for a specific purpose, to provide for the successful transition of an individual to the afterlife upon his death. Every figure in the facsimiles had as its purpose the accomplishing of that goal. While it is possible that some of these figures might appear in other contexts, and take on other meanings in those contexts, in the context of the funerary papyri their interpretation is related to funerary purposes. The approach taken in attempting to support Joseph's interpretations of these figures is to compare them with figures found in other historical and textual contexts. It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations.

For example, there has been an effort made to associate Facsimile 1 with an Egyptian royal festival known as the Sed festival, whose purpose was "the symbolic renewing of the power of the kingship." Nibley has claimed that "in [the Sed-festival] the king is ritually put to death and then restored to life. An important part of the Sed festival was the choos­ing of a substitute to die for the king, so that he would not have to un­dergo the painful process to achieve resurredion."

There are serious obstacles which render this comparison invalid. First, there is the element of time. The last known depiction of the Sed festival dates to 690-664 B.C., and there is no evidence that the Sed festival was celebrated during the Greco-Roman period, the time during which P. JS 1 was created. Second, it is important to note the context in which these supposed parallels occur. Scenes of the Sed festival occurring in a private context, i.e., on an object belonging to a non-royal individual, are extremely rare, and I know of none which occur in funerary papyri. Third, the so-called "lion-furniture" scenes from the Sed festival bear no resemblance to the scene in P. JS 1. Finally, it should be noted that, while early generations of Egyptologists thought that the Sed festival involved the ritual murder of the king or his representative, more recent analysis has shown this is not the case. So even if the scene were derived from earlier depictions of the Sed festival, it would still have nothing to do with the sacrifice of anyone.

Nibley has compared Facsimile 3 (in Abr.) with scenes from Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1295 B.C.) Egyptian tombs depicting the tomb owner in the presence of the King, since Joseph Smith claims that the scene shows Abraham “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the King's court." Comparison of these two types of scenes runs into many of the same obstacles as the attempt to equate Facsimile 1 with the Sed festival scenes. There is a gap of over 1,000 years between the two types of scenes being compared. Nibley attempts to get around this by stating that this is a "timeless scene recognizable from predynastic monuments on down to the latest times." He cites no evidence which substantiates this claim. The work which Nibley relies on in making his comparison does not discuss any examples of such scenes from the period from which the Joseph Smith papyri derive. In fact the scenes with which Nibley wishes to compare Facsimile 3 are atypical when viewed from the perspective of the history of Egyptian tomb decoration. It is also significant that the type of scene with which Nibley wishes to compare Facsimile 3 does not occur in funerary papyri. Comparison of Facsimile 3 to this type of scene is as spurious as that of Facsimile 1 with Sed festival scenes.

In addition to invalidating comparisons made between the facsimiles and other genres of Egyptian texts, attention to the original context of the facsimiles also serves to settle an on-going debate about whether Figure 3 in Facsimile 1 originally held a knife. Before the discovery of the papyri it was argued if this knife was original or if it was added by Joseph Smith. With the discovery of the original of Facsimile 1, it became apparent that Joseph indeed was the source of the "restoration" of the knife, as demonstrated by Ashment. There continue to be attempts, however, to argue that a knife was originally present based on accounts from individuals who saw the papyri in Kirtland or Nauvoo. The question never asked in arguments for the original presence of a knife is what would the knife have meant in its original, funerary, context. As stated earlier, Facsimile 1 represents the deceased individual, Horus, lying on a bier undergoing the rites of mummification by the god Anubis. While part of the mummification process did involve evisceration, I am aware of no instance in which this procedure is depicted. Given the Egyptians' reticence in depicting things which might be harmful to the deceased in his tomb, it is unlikely that an Egyptian would ever wish himself depicted being approached by a god with a knife. Knives are usually found in the hands of demons, protective deities such as Bes and Thoeris (who were the Egyptian god and goddess responsible for protecting women during childbirth), the door­keepers in the afterworld, and the devourer in the scenes of the judge­ment of the dead. I know of no instance in which Anubis is depicted with a knife. The original context of Facsimile 1 would not seem to admit the possibility of a knife in Anubis's hand, and the restoration of a knife does not, in my opinion, represent the original state of the papyrus.

Facsimile 2 is a drawing of an Egyptian funerary amulet known as a hypocephalus, which was placed under the head of the mummy and was intended to protect the head of the deceased, provide him with the sun's life-giving warmth, and to make it possible for him to join the sun god Re in his celestial boat, and thereby insure his continued, pleasant existence in the next life. Hypocephali are attested in Egypt during the Late Period and the Ptolemaic period. The interpretation of Facsimile 2 poses more of a challenge to Egyptologists, and therefore is a more fruitful ground for those seeking to justify Joseph Smith's interpretations of the figures in this facsimile. The challenge arises from the fact that many of the figures in the hypocephalus are not labeled and can only be tentatively identified through citing parallel illustrations and allusions in other texts. In interpreting the figures in the hypocephalus, Egyptologists rely on the fact that "the image of the hypocephalus presents the rising from the Duat, the rebirth of the deceased with the sun, the scenes are rich illustrations of Ch. 162 of the Book of the Dead." Concerning Joseph Smith's interpretations of the figures in this facsimile, it has been stated that "his explanations are, in general, reasonable in light of modem Egyptological knowledge." A comparison of Smith's interpretations with current Egyptological scholarship shows that this statement is also incorrect.

For example, Figure 5 is identified by Joseph Smith as "Enish-go-on­dosh," which he claims "is said by the Egyptians to be the sun." This figure actually depicts the celestial cow-goddess known as Ih.t-wrt, or Mh.t-wr.t(the great flood), or Hathor. Varga has identified this figure as "the most important in a hypocephalus.” These goddesses were thought of as the mother of Re, the sun-god, with Mh.t-wr.t representing the flood from which he arises daily. It is important to note that, while this figure is associated with the sun, i.e., as the mother of the sun-god, it is never equated with the sun. The sun is always a masculine deity in Egyptian religion. Joseph Smith's interpretation might be adjudged close by some, but in my opinion it cannot be judged as "generally correct."

As another example of the attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations of the figures in this facsimile, note Facsimile 2, Figure 4, which has been claimed to be an instance in which the prophet "hits it right on the mark." The explanation given in the Book of Abraham notes that this figure "answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens, also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand."

Admittedly, certain identification of this figure is not possible with the information currently available to the Egyptologist. Varga originally identified the figure as the god Sokar, but later resorted to the more vague description of "the mummy of a falcon with outspread wings." The problem is that this figure does not match exactly the iconography of any known falcon god, i.e., mummiform with outspread wings. One suggestion is that this figure is to be identified with the falcon who rises from the Duat in Book of the Dead spell 71.

When attempting to evaluate the correctness of Joseph's explanation of the figure, it should be noted that there is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians ever depicted the sky (firmament of the heavens) as a ship of any sort. In order to get around this, Mormon apologists dissect the wings of the bird in the ship and compare them with depictions of the sky as outspread wings. Rhodes identifies the bird in Figure 4 as Horus­Sokar and claims that "Horus was a personification of the sky." It should be pointed out, however, that Joseph's interpretation of the figure apparently applies to the whole figure, not to only a part of it. I can see no justification for removing a part of the figure and then claiming to find interpretations which can be forced to agree with Joseph's explanation.

In order to support Joseph's identification of this figure as the number 1,000, reference is made to a supposed Egyptian "ship of 1000" found in a passage from a sarcophagus dating to the Egyptian 26th Dynasty. There we find the expression wi3.f n h3 r tpwy.fy, which Sander-Hansen renders as "seinem Schiffe der 1000 bis zu seinen beiden Kopf en" (his ship of 1,000 up to its two heads). In Sander-Hansen's discussion of the passage, he notes that he understands this phrase to mean a ship 1,000 cubits in length. This text is a later version of Book of the Dead Spell 136a. Recent translators have recognized that h3 in this phrase does not refer to the number 1,000, but to the word h3 meaning flowers or buds. T. G. Allen, in his translation of the Book of the Dead, renders the phrase as "the bark with blossom(s) at its ends," and Faulkner, in his translation,· renders it as "the bark . . . which has lotus-flowers on its ends." In connection with this spell, Milde notes that "lotus-shaped prows are very common in various vignettes." In other words, there is no Egyptian "ship of 1000," only a ship with lotus-shaped prows. And all this is quite beside the point. Joseph in his explanation of the figure in the facsimile said that it was "also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand.” It was not. There is no evidence that any ship was ever used as a numerical figure to represent 1,000 or any other number. It should also be noted that of those who wish to equate the figure from the facsimile with the so-called "ship of 1000” none has ever produced an image of this ship and then compared it to the facsimile. It is simply assumed that if a ship of 1,000 can be found in an Egyptian text, it must be the one Joseph Smith was talking about.

Finally, it has been repeatedly claimed that Figure 6 in Facsimile 2, which is a depiction of the four sons of Horus (also found as Figures 5-8 in Facsimile 1) "could indeed 'represent this earth in its four quarters' in the ancient world, as the explanation to the facsimile in the Book of Abraham says." As far as ancient Egypt was concerned, there is no evidence currently available to support this claim. There is only one context in which the sons of Horus are associated with the cardinal directions, i.e., the "earth in its four quarters." They were sent out, in the form of birds, as heralds of the king's coronation. In this setting, Duamutef (Faes. 1, Fig. 6) went to the East, Qebehsenuef (Faes. 1, Fig. 5) to the West, Amset (Faes. 1, Fig. 8) to the South, and Hapi (Faes. 1, Fig. 7) to the North. I must emphasize that it is only in this context, and in the form of birds, that these gods were associated with the cardinal points. In a funerary context no such relationship is evident. Furthermore, the fact that these gods were sent to the four quarters of the earth does not mean that the Egyptians equatedthem with these directions. There is no evidence that they did so.

Authorship

One area in which the field of Egyptology aids our understanding of the nature of the Book of Abraham is in its authorship. One one hand, it has been claimed that the Book of Abraham is an actual Abraham holograph. Recently, Paul Hoskisson stated that "the content of the Book of Abraham did not pass through numerous revisions, the hands of countless scribes. . . . It purports to be a rendering of an ancient document originally composed by Abraham himself," and as such he maintains that the Book of Abraham cannot contain anachronisms, i.e., things that could not have occurred during Abraham's lifetime. Others have argued that while the contents of the text might in some way go back to Abraham, Abraham himself was not the author of the text of the Book of Abraham as it now stands in the Pearl of Great Price. In view of the fact that the heading of the Book of Abraham in the current edition of the Pearl of Great Price states that the text represents "the writings of Abraham . . . written by his own hand, upon papyrus," I believe it is likely that many members of the church believe that the Book of Abraham is the result of a translation of a direct Abraham holograph.

One way to judge whether the Book of Abraham was translated directly from an Abraham holograph is by whether the text of the book contains anachronisms. Of course, the first thing that has to be determined is when Abraham lived. The answer to this is by no means simple, and scholarly estimates for the age of the patriarchs range from 2200 to 1200 B.C. Many scholars maintain that it is not possible to define a time­period as the most likely setting for the tales of the patriarchs. Others would argue that while it is not possible to assign a date to the lifetime of Abraham, it is possible to situate chronologically the so-called "Patriarchal Age." Many scholars would place this sometime during the first half of the second millennium, i.e., 2000-1500 B.C., while others would narrow the time frame within this period. In our search for anachronisms it would be safe to say that anything occurring after 1500 B.C. is definitely anachronistic to Abraham's lifetime, and since Abraham is portrayed as the first patriarch, anything occurring at the end of this period is proba­bly anachronistic.

What then are the anachronisms which I believe can be identified in the Book of Abraham? First, the association of Facsimile 1 with the Book of Abraham cannot derive from Abraham, since Facsimile 1 dates to approximately 100 B.C. There are passages in the text of the Book of Abraham which are attributed to Abraham and which refer to Facsimile 1 (Abr. 1:12, 14). The most straightforward reading of these passages indicates that Abraham himself was responsible for the association of Facsimile 1 with his own attempted sacrifice. The book opens with Abraham speaking in the first person (v. 1 ), and there is no reason to think that the "I" in verse 12, where we read "I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record," refers to anyone except Abraham. These passages are unquestionably anachronistic to Abraham's day.

Second, there are several proper nouns in the text of the Book of Abraham which also postdate Abraham. I will consider them in the order of their occurrence in the text.

The first such term, Chaldea, occurs in Abraham 1:1, and subsequently verses 8, 13, 20, 23, 29-30, and 2:4. The Chaldeans (Hebrew kaśdîm) were a people who spoke a West-Semitic language similar to Aramaic and who appeared in the ninth century B.C. in the land south of Babylonia, and appear to have migrated from Syria. Westermann has noted that the city of Ur could be qualified as "of the Chaldees" only from the tenth to the sixth centuries, in any case, not before the first millennium.

The second anachronistic word we encounter in the text is Pharaoh. In Abraham 1:6 we find "Pharaoh, king of Egypt." In Abraham 1:20 we are told that Pharaoh "signifies king by royal blood." There is one passage in which the term is treated as a name, rather than as a title. In Abraham 1:25 we read "the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham."

The word Pharaoh derives from an Egyptian term for the king's palace, which in Egyptian could be called pr-c3, i.e., great house. This term is not attested as a title for the ruler of Egypt until 1504 B.C., during the reign of Thutmosis III, but was probably used as such earlier in the Eighteenth Dynasty (which began in 1560 B.C.). It has been suggested that Pharaoh was simply Joseph's method of translation for a word meaning king and that the word never actually occurred in the text. I would reiterate that in Abraham 1:25 Pharaoh appears to be used as a proper noun. That Joseph considered Pharaoh to be an individual's name is apparent from his explanation of Facsimile 3, Figure 2, where we read "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

The next anachronistic word encountered is the name of the place of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham, which is called "Potiphar's hill" (Abr. 1:10, 20). Potiphar is the Hebrew form of the Egyptian name, P3-di-p3-rc, which means "the one whom Re (the sun god), has given." The name occurs in two forms in the Old Testament, as Potiphar, the name of the Egyptian who bought Joseph (Gen. 37:36), and as Potiphera, the priest of On, who was Joseph's father-in-law (Gen. 41:45). Names of the form P3-di DN are common in Egypt, but are first attested during the eleventh century B.C.61 The only occurrence of the Egyptian equivalent of Potiphar is found on Cairo stele 65444, which dates to the Egyptian 21st dynasty (1069-945 B.C.).

The final anachronistic name in the Book of Abraham is Egyptus. In Abraham 1:23 we read: "The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt which signifies that which is forbidden." First, Egyptus is not a Chaldean word, but Greek, and does not mean "forbidden" in any language. The Greek "Egyptus" apparently derives from Egyptian hwt-k3-pth, "the house of the ka of Ptah," which was the name of a temple of Ptah in Memphis. During the New Kingdom this term came to designate the town of Memphis, the capital of Egypt, in which the temple was located. There is some evidence that forms of this name were being used by foreigners to refer to the country of Egypt. It is attested in a Mycenaean Linear B tablet from Knossos, which is usually dated to around 1375 B.C., i.e., 125 years after Abraham, as a man's name, presupposing that it was already a name for Egypt.64 Note also that the text (Abr. 1:22-25) implies that Egypt derived its name from an eponymous ancestor, Egyptus.65 Given the facts concerning the origin of the word Egyptus, however, this cannot represent historical reality.

From the foregoing discussion it appears that if one accepts a date of sometime in the first half of the second millennium for Abraham, then there are four anachronistic names in the text, Chaldea, Potiphar, Egyptus, and probably Pharaoh. Since these are names, it is not likely that they are translation equivalents of other words in the original text. I believe that there is sufficient evidence of anachronisms in the text of the Book of Abraham to conclude that it cannot be an actual Abraham holograph, i.e., that it was not “written by his [Abraham's] own hand upon papyrus."

History

One of the primary events of the Book of Abraham is the attempted sacrifice of Abraham. We are told that in the land of the Chaldeans the "god of Pharaoh," which apparently should be taken to mean "the god Pharaoh” was worshipped (Abr. 1:7, 9-10, 13, 17). There was even a priesthood dedicated to the worship of pharaoh, and this priesthood offered human sacrifices to him. We are told that a "thank-offering" was offered consisting of a child (v. 10), and that three "virgins" were killed on the sacrificial altar because they "would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone" (v. 11). Finally, the priest of Pharaoh attempted to sacrifice Abraham, at which point the Lord intervened, rescued Abraham, and destroyed the altar and the priest (vv. 15-20).

From this we can infer several things. Apparently Pharoah and several other Egyptian deities were being worshipped in Chaldea. We are not told specifically that the other gods were Egyptian, but we are told that the worship practices were "after the manner of the Egyptians" (Ahr. 1:9, 11), and the images which are said to represent these gods are Egyptian (v. 14). We can therefore plausibly infer that they were Egyptian deities. Part of the worship of these gods involved human sacrifice. The religion of that time and place was intolerant, anyone choosing not to engage in these worship practices ran the risk of loosing his or her life. These practices seem to have been endorsed or promoted, or at least encouraged, by the Egyptian pharaoh. We are told that at the death of the priest who attempted to sacrifice Abraham there was" great mourning . . . in the court of Pharaoh" (v. 20).

The first thing we have to ask ourselves is to what extent were Egyptian worship practices introduced into Asia. If one accepts that Ur of the Chaldees refers to Tell Muqayyar, in southern Mesopotamia, then from the start the text must be judged historically erroneous, because the Egyptians never had a strong cultural influence on Mesopotamia. There have been attempts to locate Abraham's Ur near Haran. This area is also out­side of Egypt's sphere of influence, even at the height of its empire. In order to evaluate the verisimilitude of the account found in the Book of Abraham, we have to examine Egypt's religious policy toward its Asiatic Empire, which first came into existence during the New Kingdom.

The results of such a study indicate that Egyptian gods were only rarely worshipped in Syria-Palestine, and then exceptionally. Rather than introducing Egyptian gods into Asia, the most common occurrence was for Egyptians stationed at posts and garrisons in Palestine to adopt the worship of the local Asiatic gods. Stefan Wimmer has recently written that the Egyptians "never thought about forcing the local population [of Syria-Palestine] to forsake their gods in exchange for Egyptian ones." Donald Redford states that the Egyptians "forced no one to accept Egyptian ways." Concerning the Egyptians' religious tolerance, J. Cerny has written:

Egyptians were tolerant to each other within Egypt itself and they were equally tolerant to the gods of a conquered country. . . . towards the native gods they behaved as they so often did in Egypt towards the god or goddess of another town: they simply considered them as different names and forms of their own Egyptian deities. It is clear that in these circumstances no heresy could arise, and with the exception of a short period under and immediately after Ekhnaton, nothing is known of religious persecution of any kind in Egypt.

One could argue that it is the Chaldeans doing the persecuting, not the Egyptians. In response, it could be said that Chaldeans had nothing to gain from forcing Egyptian worship practices on their people, since Egyptians did not expect it. Further, there is no evidence that any Asiatic land ever became so thoroughly Egyptianized that they would have adopted such a zealous attitude toward the Egyptian pharaoh on their own. Again, Redford has noted that "we have no evi­dence that these 'official' Egyptian cults exerted a serious attraction on the local population [of Canaan]." Bleiberg maintains that "in Palestine, traces of the state religion of Egypt can be found. These traces, however, are restricted to the Ramesside period [1295-1069 B.C.]. Their influence is superficial." So it appears that in the area over which they had direct control, and at the height of their imperial power in Syria-Palestine, the Egyptians made no effort to introduce their religion to their subject peoples, and they in turn exhibited little interest in the gods of their conquerors. It is therefore extremely unlikely that any of the areas suggested for the location of Ur would ever have adopted Egyptian religious practices to the extent called for in the Book of Abraham.

Conclusion

In the preceding I have argued that (1) Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original, funerary, context; (2) anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was trans­lated from a text written by Abraham himself; and (3) what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible. If one accepts that Joseph Smith was using the facsimiles in a fashion which was not consonant with their original purpose, it does not make sense to then insist that "the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." I see no evidence that Joseph Smith had a correct conception of "Egyptian religious practices" or that a knowledge of such was essential to the production of the Book of Abraham.

[post_title] => Egyptology and the Book of Abraham [post_excerpt] => Dialogue, 28.1 (Spring 1995): 143 – 161
The matter which I propose to examine is whether the “present understanding of Egyptian religious practice” supports Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles found in the Book of Abraham. In addition, I will discuss the contribution which a study of Egyptian history can maketo our understanding of the nature of this book of scripture. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => egyptology-and-the-book-of-abraham [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2025-01-01 18:50:15 [post_modified_gmt] => 2025-01-01 18:50:15 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=11581 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 12198 [post_author] => 2838 [post_date] => 2018-02-01 02:25:48 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-02-01 02:25:48 [post_content] =>

A look at Karl Sandberg in his seeking to explain the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham almost exclusively in terms of seership.

[post_title] => "That Is the Handwriting of Abraham" [post_excerpt] => Dialogue, 23.4 (Winter 1990): 167 – 169
In his stimulating article, “Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith as Translator” (DIALOGUE, Winter 1989), Karl Sandberg seeks to explain the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham almost exclusively in terms of seership (where one does not necessarily actually view the material being deciphered, as opposed to using prophetic gifts to bring to light what was previously hidden or unknown). [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => that-is-the-handwriting-of-abraham [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-23 23:44:49 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-23 23:44:49 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=12198 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 12281 [post_author] => 1737 [post_date] => 2018-01-31 03:29:00 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-01-31 03:29:00 [post_content] =>

The odyssey of Ferguson is a quest for religious certitude through archaeological evidences, an attempt at scholarly verification of theological claims.

[post_title] => The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson [post_excerpt] => Dialogue, 23.4 (Winter 1990): 55–93
The odyssey of Ferguson is a quest for religious certitude through archaeological evidences, an attempt at scholarly verification of theological claims. Early in his career, Thomas Stuart Ferguson was instrumental in reducing our conception of the geography of the Book of Mormon from nearly the whole of both North and South America to the more limited area of southern Mexico and Central America. In the middle years of his career, he organized archaeological reconnaissance and fieldwork in the area of Mesoamerica. But in the last years of his career, he concluded that the archaeological evidence did not substantiate the Book of Mormon, and so he reduced (in his mind) the geography of the book to nothing at all in the real world. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-odyssey-of-thomas-stuart-ferguson [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-24 00:03:50 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-24 00:03:50 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=12281 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 16211 [post_author] => 2633 [post_date] => 2018-04-19 14:26:48 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-19 14:26:48 [post_content] =>

In 1966 eleven pieces of Egyptian papyri, known to have been part of a small collection of four mummies and some papyri owned by a certain Michael Chandler which Joseph Smith acquired in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1835, were dis covered in New York City. It was a find that created considerable excitement. 

This paper attempts to throw some new light on the history of this Mormon connected Egyptiana since 1848 (the close of the Mormon era in Nauvoo) and to suggest how and where more of these antiquities might be found. The search moves through four locales: Saint Louis, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Western Illinois. Though hardly crowned with new finds, collectively, these four locales represent one of the most fascinating and frustrating research ad ventures of my career as well as a substantial body of negative evidence. 

On 14 August 1856, Wyman's Saint Louis Museum advertised in the Saint Louis Missouri Democrat that "two mummies from the Catacombs of Egypt" were on exhibit. Fifteen years later, on 19 July 1863, the Saint Louis Missouri Republican reported "The museum . . . will close next Saturday and remove to Chicago." These two accounts bracket what is known about two of the four Mormon mummies and some papyri which were exhibited in Saint Louis during the midnineteenth century. 

Thanks to the seminal work of James R. Clark, and later efforts of Walter Whipple and Jay Todd, the story of how these two mummies and some of the papyri found with the mummies got to Edward Wyman's Saint Louis Museum is fairly well understood.[1] In general, we also know what happened to these antiquities while they remained in Saint Louis until sold to Chicago in 1863.

Since I live in St. Louis County, I have for years, off and on—mainly off—addressed myself to the task of finding out more about the mummies/ papyri during their Saint Louis sojourn of eight years. 

J. P. Bates, Wyman's curator-agent-collector, probably effected the pur chase in 1856, but little is known of him. City directories identify him as a naturalist and preparer of birds during this period and his reputation was that of "the enamoured naturalist, not the adroit showman." He accompanied the collection to Chicago in 1863.[2]

Looking into the career of Edward Wyman, founder of Wyman's Hall which housed the Saint Louis Museum, is only slightly more rewarding. He was an educator from the East who came to Illinois in 1836 and to Saint Louis in 1843 where he established an English and classical high school. Since his school contained an excellent auditorium, it was frequently booked for local and traveling exhibits and performances, including that of Jenny Lind and Tom Thumb. Apparently catching show business fever from such exhibitors, especially from P. T. Barnum, who accompanied Jenny Lind in 1851, Wyman turned his school first into a theater and then added a museum. He was, however, not a good showman—too serious and honest and he went into debt, lost control of his building, returned to academic life, and died in Alton, Illinois, in 1888. Available papers, including those from his estate, turned up no references to the mummies. 

About a month after the mummies/papyri went on exhibit in Saint Louis, a local scholar visited them, Professor Gustaf Seyffarth, a controversial Egyptologist from Leipzig, then visiting professor at the Concordia Seminary of the Lutheran Synod in Saint Louis County. His observations appeared in the St. Louis Evening Pilot 13 September 1856: "Visitors will find also some large fragments of Egyptian papyrus scrolls, with pieratic [hieratic] (priestly) inscriptions, and drawings representing the judgment of the dead, many Egyptian gods and sacred animals, with certain chapters from the old Egyptian sacred books." Seyffarth is quoted in the 1859 catalog of the Saint Louis Museum as saying that "the papyrus roll is not a record, but an invocation to the Deity Osiris . . . and a picture of the attendant spirits, introducing the dead to the Judge, Osiris." Unfortunately much research into the life and papers of Seyffarth turned up nothing further regarding his opinion of the Mormon mummies.[3]

I had more success in the Saint Louis press. The mummies, we learned in 1966-67, were sold in Nauvoo 26 May 1856, but when did they come to Saint Louis? On 13 July 1856, the Sunday St. Louis Republican referred to "Egyptian antiquities" in Wyman's Saint Louis Museum, but it does not necessarily refer to the Mormon antiquities. The Daily Missouri Democrat of 14 August 1856, however, specifies that the exhibit is of "two mummies from the catacombs of Egypt, which have been unrolled, presenting a full view of the records enclosed, and of the bodies which are in a remarkable state of preservation." The same issue of that paper contains a second notice of the "new attraction." 

On 13 May 1857, almost a year later, the Daily Missouri Democrat headlines a short account: Jo. Smith's Mummies. It noted that these mummies had been purchased in 1856 and added, "Some of the brethren have had the hard ness to deny that these were the patriarchal manuscripts and relics. But an unanswerable confirmation of the fact has lately occurred; certain plates issued by the elders as facsimiles of the original having fallen into Mr. Wyman's hands, which plates are also facsimiles of the hieroglyphics in the museum." 

The "brethren" and "elders" seem to refer to the discomfort of some Saint Louis Mormons with Wyman's identifying his mummies as those connected with the book of Abraham. They were probably offended as well with Wyman's 1856 catalog announcement that "Joe Smith, the Mormon Prophet," had originally bought them on account of the writings "found in the chest of one of them, which he pretended to translate."[4]

The "certain plates issued by the elders as facsimiles of the original" can only refer to a reproduction of what we know today as the current Pearl of Great Price's Facsimiles 1, 2, and 3. In fact, the first (1851) edition of the Pearl of Great Price or the book of Abraham publication in the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo, Illinois, of 1 and 15 March and 16 May 1842 are the most likely candidates. 

When we combine what Seyffarth wrote in 1856 about the "judgment of the dead" and in 1859 about "an invocation to the Deity Osiris" with the story in the Missouri Democrat it seems quite clear, as Jay Todd pointed out in 1969, that Seyffarth may well have been looking at what have since been labeled the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri "IIIA. and IIIB. Court of Osiris," or perhaps Facsimile No. 3 in the Book of Abraham. 

If Seyffarth had indeed been looking at the Court of Osiris fragments in 1856, it means that these fragments survived the Chicago fire of 1871, to be rediscovered in 1966, suggesting that the two mummies and other pieces of papyri once in Saint Louis and Chicago may also have survived the fire. How ever, from the Missouri Democrat description Seyffarth was likely examining the original of Facsimile No. 3, which, as far as is known, did not survive the Chicago fire. 

The Democrat ended its account by chiding the local Mormons: "Let them, all of Mormon faith go to the museum, and contemplate the veritable handwriting of the patriarch Abraham. Who knows that the patriarch him self, 'and Sarah his wife,' are not in the museum?" 

Apparently this story did not completely satisfy some of the "brethren" who seemed to have found it very difficult (as do some Mormons today) to accept the idea that Brigham Young would go west without these presumed sources of the Book of Abraham and that the antiquities would ever be per mitted to pass out of church ownership and put on public exhibition in Saint Louis as money making curiosities. (Although "Mother Smith" exhibited them for years in Nauvoo for a fee.) So the same paper printed a second article on 12 June, "The Mormon Prophet's Mummies," noting, "Doubts still being expressed that they were the prophet's mummies, etc., . . . we now append the certificate with which the sale of them to Mr. Combs was accomplished." The paper then printed in full a document which would not see the light of day again for over a century — namely the 26 May 1856 bill of sale which came to light in 1966 in New York City. Its publication in 1856 proves beyond any doubt that the Saint Louis Museum indeed exhibited the Mormon antiquities and that an A. Combs was the middle man. 

There were certainly other mummies in Saint Louis before and after the Mormon ones. At least five museums predated Wyman's. Albert Koch's (1832-41) exhibited "an Egyptian Mummy, together with the Sarcophagus or Coffin, which is supposed to be more than three thousand years old," according to a 27 January 1836 sttory in the Missouri Republican. In 1841 Koch sold his collection to a museum in New Orleans and nothing more is known of this particular mummy.[5] (If I may be permitted to enter the realm of speculation for just a moment, I could hypothesize, rather wildly, that Koch's mummy might have been one of the seven mummies Michael Chandler sold before he disposed of his remaining four to Joseph Smith in Kirtland in 1835.) 

While the Mormon mummies were on exhibit in Saint Louis at least one other Egyptian antiquity was exhibited briefly in that city. The Missouri Democrat of August 1856 notes that the famous steamboat, Floating Palace, was "at the Steamboat landing with 100,000 curiosities" including "ancient relics from Egypt, Rome, Pompeii, and Herculaneum." The Missouri Demo crat of 22 September 1857 also reported that the Saint Louis Museum was negotiating to buy Peal's Baltimore Museum collection, which included one Egyptian mummy. There is no evidence, however, that this ever happened.

Although several museums operated in Saint Louis after the collection of the Saint Louis Museum was sold to Chicago in 1863, there is no evidence of Egyptian antiquities in the city until about 1896 when Charles Parsons donated two mummies to Washington University. One is currently housed at the Saint Louis Museum of Science and the other is located at the Saint Louis Art Museum. In 1928 Washington University acquired a third mummy from the Smithsonian Institution, currently on exhibit in the Museum of the Department of Anatomy of the School of Medicine of Washington University.

Another mummy was briefly in Saint Louis during the 1904 World Fair as part of the Egyptian exhibit, afterwards acquired by the Louisville, Kentucky, Museum. Unfortunately there is not a shred of evidence that any of these mummies is connected in any way with the Mormon ones. While these first two mummies are very richly appointed and in beautiful sarcophagi — therefore most assuredly not "our mummies" — the third one in the School of Medicine is a blackened, ugly object. About 1955 a certain E. De Mar Ander son, M.D., of Seattle Stake, saw it, decided that the blackness was a result of the Chicago fire, and reported that it indeed was "our mummy." The black ness of the mummy, of course, is simply the result of the embalming process.[6]

Why and when was the Wyman collection sold to Chicago in 1863? Dur ing July 1858, Wyman failed to settle a debt of $12,000, losing his hall and collection to a Saint Louis businessman, Henry Whitmore.[7] Five years later two businessmen in Chicago bought out a certain Thomas Lawson who had bought out Whitmore. The Missouri Republican notes on 3 July 1863 that the Saint Louis Museum "will shortly be removed elsewhere." On July 9 it announced that the museum "will close next Saturday [July 12] and remove to Chicago." And so it did. 

II 

The Chicago story is less well known than the Saint Louis one. After months of work and grief, reading all the extant Chicago papers for the proper period, I unraveled the details of the sale of the Saint Louis Museum, its removal to Chicago, and its history until the fateful night of 8 October 1871 when downtown Chicago was incinerated. That intermediate history is very sparse. In one way or another the collection passed through the hands of at least twenty owners, managers, and exhibitors, not one of whom left any papers I could find in Chicago or Springfield, Illinois. 

There are, however, a few more details in the early years. On 6 July 1863 the Chicago Tribune announced "with pleasure that through the liberality of two of our worthy and public spirited citizens [John Mullen and John M. Weston] the Saint Louis Museum has been purchased, and will soon be re moved, and permanently located in this city. This museum is much the largest in the West, and in several features the choicest one in the United States." 

This new Chicago Museum was housed in what was then known as Kings bury Hall at 111-117 Randolph Street. The new owners quickly printed a Guide to the Chicago Museum; the entry on the mummies simply reprints what had appeared in the 1859 catalog of the Saint Louis Museum. 

During August other stories informed Chicagoans of the new museum.[8] On August 10 the Chicago Times noted, "There are the two mummies which in the hands of Joe Smith were made to give a revelation and still they bear the original tablets with the cabalistic or coptic characters thereon." This reference to a "revelation," while not common, had been made several times before by non-Mormons. A possibly more significant statement, however, is the reference to tablets, probably "mummy tablets" which were usually attached to the toes of mummies as a means of identification after embalming and wrapping. They were widely used, were usually about two by six inches in size, were made of wood, stone, ivory, or even marble, and usually bore the name and title of the deceased, and a short prayer.[9] Since they generally date from the second or third century B.C, their presence on the Mormon mummies reinforces the few other specifics we have regarding their tomb in suggesting that the mummies are not of Abraham's day. 

On September 3, the Chicago Times published a rather funny, but in formative article, titled, "What an Old Lady Thought About Mummies."

An old lady at the Museum a day or so ago, coming suddenly upon a case containing two Egyptian mummies was extremely horrified at their exhibition without clothing of any kind, and showed symptoms of an intention to hold her nose until assured that, notwithstanding the long interval since their decease, no disagreeable odor was emitted. She was not long in betraying still greater ignorance by remarking to the young girl who accompanied her, 

"Sairy them critters is of African descent true as preachin, and that accounts for their not being burried like white folks and Christians." 

"These are mummies, madam," remarked a gentleman who stood nearby, endeavoring to control his inclination to laugh heartily at the old lady's speech. 

"Wall," returned she with renewed indignation, "I don't keer whose mummies they be, its a tarnal shame to have human being dug up and made a show of, even if they be niggers. But its just like them poky southerners to beat their colored brothers to death and then stick them in the ground with nary stitch of clothing on to hide their nakedness." 

This account tells us, at least, that the two mummies were displayed side by side in a glass topped case, not in sarcophagi or even coffins; it does not suggest that papyri or accoutrements of any kind were displayed with the mummies. 

More than a month later the last known newspaper reference to the mummies in the Chicago museum appeared on October 26 in the Chicago Times: "There, too, are the mummies, horribly shriveled things. ... " Both these accounts reinforce many other accounts that the missing Mormon mummies are hardly objects of art, hardly likely to be prominently displayed anywhere today should they still be in existence. 

As Wyman in Saint Louis did not maintain possession of the mummies for long, neither did the original Chicago buyers. By January 1864, they had sold out to the flamboyant Joseph H. Wood, the "P. T. Barnum of the West." While Bates and Wyman in Saint Louis had been serious museum operators, Wood was strictly a showman, not above hokum and sensationalism. 

Although Wood was generally in possession of the mummies from 1863 to 1871, little is known of him.[10] Apparently he got his start in show business in Cincinnati in 1850 when he opened "Wood's Cincinnati Museum."[11] After his museum burned in 1851, Wood commenced touring with a collection of human curiosities. In Saint Louis in 1853, the Missouri Democrat of May 13 recorded his "serious intention of coming back to open a museum." Instead, he opened a museum in 1854 on Dearborn Street in Chicago. He continued touring, however, returning to Saint Louis in 1856, '57, and '58. After Wood acquired the Chicago Museum he changed its name to Wood's Museum and quickly expanded the collection, later claiming 300,000, even 500,000 curiosities. The Mormon mummies were increasingly overshadowed by more interesting exhibits and their presence is mentioned only three times. One is a Joseph Smith III letter stating he "saw two of the mummies and part of the records in Wood's museum in Chicago where they were destroyed by the fire of 1871."[12] The other is the 1869 Salt Lake City Directory which referred to Colonel Wood's Museum and "the mummies around which the papyrus .. . on which the Book of Abraham was inscribed, from a collection as specimens worthy of the attention of all."[13] Charles W. Penrose, enroute to a mission in England saw the "papyrus rolls" in the "Chicago Museum in 1865 . . . along with a statement by Chandler [from whom the Mormons acquired the mummies in 1835]."[14] Apparently the two mummies and whatever papyri were with them lay for years in an out of the way cabinet of Wood's Museum, perhaps even in storage, until Sunday, 8 October 1871. 

The fire, which broke out at 8:45 P.M. on the west side of Chicago had reached and jumped the Chicago River by midnight. Ninety minutes later, at 1:30 A.M., the fire lapped at Wood's Museum and reduced it to brick and ash. According to the October 19 issue of the Chicago Tribune, "The only article spared from the immense collection of curiosities which were stored in Wood's Museum is a silver mounted revolver. . . ." With a showman's jaunty resilience, Wood placed a sign on his smoldering building, "Col. Wood's Museum, Standing Room Only."[15]

Everything points to the fact that the two mummies and papyri were incinerated shortly after midnight on 9/10 October 1871. But many, including myself, hope that providence would not have permitted that to have happened. What alternatives are there? Not many. A close study of maps of the 2,124 acres and 17,450 buildings burned by the fire suggests strongly that almost any other logical place the mummies could have been was also destroyed by the fire. 

Wood might conceivably have sold or lent some of his Mormon Egyptiana to the Chicago Historical Society located at Ontario and Dearborn Streets; but according to the Chicago Strangers and Tourists Guide of 1866 this society possessed about 80,000 books, manuscripts, letters, documents, charts, maps, medals, and photographs, but no Egyptian items. In any event this collection was burned in 1871. Wood might also have sold something to the Chicago Academy of Science (founded 1878 and later the Field Museum) at LaSalle and Randolph Streets. The same Guide, however, informs us that the academy had over 40,000 specimens of natural science but mentions no mummies. It too was destroyed by the Chicago fire. 

But suppose they were not destroyed. Why is there no reference to these mummies ever again in Chicago? Surely Wood would have put them back on exhibit. Alas, a study of mummies mentioned in Chicago between 1871 and 1982 reveals no Mormon connection. 

To begin with, there is no evidence of mummies proir to 1863. In fact, there may have been no museums in Chicago before 1863 except for a short lived Western Museum in 1845, and than the museums of Wood in 1854 and 1859. The Chicago Times of 22 August 1863 reported, "The establishment of a museum in Chicago has long been talked about, but has heretofore been thought impossible." Between the Great Fire and 1892 there were several museums in Chicago. The most important were apparently the Libby Prison Museum, the Eden Museum, Epstean's New Dime Museum, Kohl & Middle ton's South Side Museum, Kohl & Middleton's West Side Museum, the W. C. Coup and Uffner's Museum, and the Great Chicago Museum which housed the Worth collection. This latter museum is the only one that seems to have exhibited an Egyptian mummy. Its 1885 catalog claims "the only stripped mummy on the continent, the wrapping, some hundred yards of linen, being entirely removed. In this specimen the hair, eye-lashes, teeth and nails are re markably perfect. The scarabee or beetle placed over the left eye of the mummy by its owner contains the name Amon. . . ."[16]

The hoopla about the "stripped" condition of the mummy strikes one as hokum to disguise the lack of interesting or expensive accoutrements. The very plainness may remind one of the Mormon mummies, but the scarab sug gests that it was not. 

Unfortunately, the Chicago Historical Society has been unable to discover any further information about the provenance or later disposition of Worth's mummy. Worth himself seems to have been a wealthy dilettante with a collecting mania. The Great Chicago Museum was not listed in Flinn's 1891 The Standard Guide to Chicago. 

After 1892 quite a few Egyptian antiquities appear in Chicago. The Field Museuem opened in 1893 and now houses thirty-four mummies and other Egyptian antiquities obtained between 1893 and 1924. Almost all of them, according to their accession records, were purchased in Egypt. In 1894 the Oriental Institute was founded and by the 1920s had six mummies and other Egyptian antiquities. In 1923 the Art Institute of Chicago acquired one female mummy, three coffins, one mummy case, one limestone head, three mummy and four canopic jars, most of which were later sold to the Oriental Institute. 

During the 1920s, a certain John Guenther of Chicago owned a mummy, and during the 1850s, Garrett Seminary had one or more Egyptian coffins of the Roman period, but no longer.[17] According to all available information, especially accession records, none of these antiquities have any connection with those once owned by Joseph Smith. 

If Wood had sold, traded, or leased his two mummies to someone outside Chicago before the fire, where might they be? By 1871 there were at least seventy-six recognized museums in the United States and dozens of private col lections. To date I have discovered no link between such collections and Wood's. 

III

Let us now turn our attention to Philadelphia. At least thirty years ago someone, possibly James Haggerty or James R. Clark, noticed a story in the San Francisco Bulletin of 25 September 1857: "About a year since, Mr. Wyman of the Philadelphia Museum, purchased two mummies: one of each sex, from a gentleman who had purchased them directly from the widow of Joe Smith. . . ." This story, attributed to the Philadelphia Sun, has wasted the time of a generation of Mormon scholars in a vain search for Wyman. I am only the last in a long line to have chased this wild goose. 

To explain this alleged Philadelphia connection, let me refer again to the Missouri Democrat story of 13 May 1857 describing the facsimiles. This Saint Louis story is identical in every detail with the San Francisco Bulletin, except for the addition of the words "of the Philadelphia Museum." The San Fran cisco editor or reporter apparently confused the origin of the story, crediting the report to Philadelphia rather than Saint Louis. Many, including myself, have searched the Philadelphia Sun in vain for "Jo. Smith's Mummies." We have not found it for the very good reason that it never was there. There was, in fact, no Philadelphia Museum in 1856 or 1857 and only six Wymans. The only one possibly connected with some museum was John Wyman, artist and ventriloquist. The Mormon mummies were indeed in Philadelphia but in 1833, a fact of no value to this study.[18]

What other mummies have been in Philadelphia? There have been museums in Philadelphia since at least Charles Wilson Peal's in 1784, but very few exhibited mummies. Perhaps the first to do so was George R. Gliddon's Chinese Museum in the early 1850s, whose "Panorama of the Nile" had some Egyptian mummies. This museum had burned by 1856.[19] In 1858, the European Museum which had one "hydrocephalic" female mummy,[20] and P. T. Barnum himself operated a museum in Philadelphia from 1842 until it burned in December 1851. 

In more recent times there have been other mummies in Philadelphia. When Colonel Wood moved from Chicago to Philadelphia in 1873 and opened his museum at the corner of Ninth and Arch Streets he advertised "Mummies, Petrified Human Body," among other curiosities.[21] Since the mummies in Saint Louis and Chicago were always identified as Egyptian, Wood's Philadelphia mummies may have been Indian. At least there is no further evidence he exhibited any from Egypt. 

Egyptian mummies have also been exhibited in Philadelphia at the Academy of Natural Science, the Pennsylvania Museum of Art, and at the University of Pennsylvania museum; but there is no indication of any connection between these mummies and those once owned by the Mormons. 

One additional bit of fascinating Philadelphia esoterica is the 1977 discovery at the Academy of Natural Science of two lost and forgotten mummies behind a false wall. As of 1982, no one at the academy has a clear idea of the provenance or the date of acquisition of these two mummies although there is a vague impression that the museum acquired them in 1856. However, 1856 is the crucial year. If the agent, A. Combs, who bought the mummies in Nauvoo on 26 May 1856, and sold two in August of the same year in Saint Louis, continued down the Mississippi and up the Ohio he might very well have eventually reached Philadelphia and sold the remaining two to the Academy. 

However, it is not a likely hypothesis. Photographs of the mummies show them well wrapped and in rich sarcophagi.[22] It is my equally unsupported hypothesis that the story involving 1856 was generated by Mormon students, like Whipple and myself, pestering the Academy for evidence to back up the story incorrectly attributed to the Philadelphia Sun. 

IV 

Ransacking Saint Louis and Chicago turned up little, and I have just shot down the Philadelphia Story. Somehow this alone did not seem important enough for publication. So, having struck out like everyone else in the post 1856 period, I decided to busy myself in the pre-1856 world looking for some hints which might give rise to some fresh ideas regarding the missing Mormon Mummy Mystery. In so doing I quickly entered the murkiest chapter in all Mormon history, namely "Illinois Mormons, 1846-60." 

Let us go back to 26 May 1856, and work backwards. The bill of sale, dis covered with the eleven pieces of Mormon Egyptian papyri in the Metropolitan Museum in New York City in 1966, reads: 

Nauvoo City May 25/56 

This certifies that we have sold to; Mr. A Combs four Egyptian Mummies with the records of them. These Mummies were obtained from the catacombs of Egypt sixty feet below the surface of the Earth, by the antiquarian society of Paris & for warded to New York & purchased by the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith at the price of twenty four hundred dollars in the year Eighteen hundred thirty-five they were highly prized by Mr. Smith on account of the importance which attached to the records which were accidentally found enclosed in the breast of one of the Mummies. From translation by Mr. Smith of the Records these Mummies were found to be the family of Pharo King of Egypt. They were kept exclusively by Mr. Smith until his death & since, by the Mother of Mr. Smith notwithstanding we have had repeated offers to purchase which have invariably been refused until her death which occurred on the fourteenth of this month. 

Nauvoo                                               L.C. Bidamon 
Hancock Co. Ill May 26                     Emma Bidamon: former wife of Jos. Smith 

The fact that this bill of sale had been published by the Daily Missouri Democrat in June 1857 suggests that Combs gave copies of his original bill of sale to whomever purchased his Mormon Egyptiana. If researchers could ever turn up another reprinting of this bill of sale, we would know what happened to the two mummies and papyri Combs did not sell in Saint Louis.[23]

The Prophet's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, earned a modest sum exhibiting the Egyptian antiquities during the Illinois period of Church history up until September 1846 when most of the Smith family quit Nauvoo for safety's sake. Lucy went with her daughter Lucy Smith Milikan north to Knox County taking the mummies and papyri with her. There is no evidence that she possessed or exhibited the mummies after she left Knox County during the spring of 1847, eventually returning to Nauvoo to live with her daughter-in-law, Emma Smith Bidamon.[24] An equally careful search of Emma's life for the same period has turned up no hard evidence that the Mormon antiquities returned to Nauvoo prior to their sale in 1856.[25]

However, another member of the Smith family, the Prophet's brother William, is more important to the issue. Also, tracking William around Illinois and elsewhere between the flight of September 1846 and 1856, corresponding with scores of scholars and institutions, visiting court houses, and reading miles of newspapers on microfilm was a bit more rewarding. During this period he seems to have been quite unstable, conducting unsuccessful attempts to establish himself as either his brother's successor, or as an apostle or patriarch with one faction or another. (Only years later did he finally ally himself with his nephew, Joseph Smith, III in the Reorganization.)[26] He may have been the last person to have possessed the mummies and papyri before their sale in 1856 and seemed to think the mummies would strengthen his claim to leadership among the Mormons who did not follow Brigham Young west. 

He apparently exhibited them for prestige and profit. In a letter to Brig ham Young, written from Nauvoo, 31 January 1848, for example, Almon W. Babbitt wrote, "William has got the mummies from Mother Smith and refuses to give them up."[27] Prior to acquiring the mummies from his mother by un known means, William had on 2 December 1846, written James J. Strang, one of several who claimed the "mantle of Joseph," that "the mummies and records [papyri] are safe." Later that same month, on December 19, William in formed Strang "the mummies and records are with us and will be of benefit to the Church [when?] we can get them to Voree, [Wisconsin]."[28]

The evidence that William traveled and exhibited the mummies is tantalizingly vague and slender. I assumed that the local press of western and northern Illinois would have surely picked up and reported on anything as outre as the brother of the martyred Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, exhibiting mummies and papyri. I read every extant issue of every newspaper published between 1846 and 1856 in thirty-four counties of western and northern Illinois, and found no reference to the mummies, even though mummies made esoteric fillers and we learn, for example, from the 1848 Aurora Beacon that there were mummies in Mexico, from the 1853 Quincy Herald that Arabs used them for firewood, and from the 1856 Dekalb County Republican Sentinel that Egyptians used them for fuel. 

Although neglect in the press was total, Newton Bateman's History of Kendall County gives the "Recollections" of George M. Hollenback, born in 1831, who had met Mormon Missionaries in his father's house: 

Emma Smith, the widow of Prophet Smith, had. . . . four Egyptian mummies and the papyrus manuscript that accompanied them. These manuscripts were preserved in the cabinet of drawers covered with glass. The mummies were placed in oblong boxes, a little longer than the height of a person near six feet. A curtain from about the middle of each extended to the feet and was secured so that it would not fall. Mrs. Smith's nephew, by the name of Bennett, procured these specimens of Egyptian civilization of some thousands of years ago for the purpose of exhibiting them, I presume, for money. As he had stopped at my father's house a few times in passing back and forth, he stopped again with his grewsome [sic] load. As it was nearly noon, he was persuaded to bring his "goods" into the house and set them in the spare room. He consented that the school children from the school house near by could come in and view the "remains," which they all did, boys and girls, and it did not cost them a cent. From that day to this we have never heard a single word from Bennett and his mummies. I have neglected to state in its proper connection, that each mummy was encased or swathed in very many yards of the finest linen.[29]

His description of the cabinet of drawers and oblong boxes adds a little to what we already knew from other sources, and the reference to stopping "a few times in passing back and forth" suggests more than one exhibition tour. The reference to Mrs. Smith's nephew Bennett seems to be a mistake for William, and Hollenback's statement that the mummies were swathed does not match other accounts describing the mummies as unwrapped. Certainly by the time two of these mummies were exhibited in Saint Louis and Chicago they were no longer swathed. 

This recollection is hardly the complete story, but William, who moved around a great deal in the 1850s, probably stored or hid the antiquities for some future use. William was seldom gainfully employed, was often in financial straits, and owned very little. For example, when he was fined $25 in an 1848 assault case, the Lee County sheriff reported to the court his inability to find "any goods or chattels of the said William Smith whereof I may by distress and sale levy the sum of twenty-five dollars fine."[30]

Furthermore during 1849 and 1854, while residing in or near what would later be Amboy, Lee County, William was also involved in a lurid divorce case with Roxey Ann Grant Smith, and indicted for adultery, fornication with Rosa Hook, bastardy, and rape as well.[31] Although the cases of assault, rape, and fornication were eventually dismissed and the bastardy (or paternity) case was moved to another court on an order for a change of venue, his legal expenses for defense were considerable.[32] Moreover, the court granted Roxey Ann the divorce on grounds of desertion and William had to pay all court fees and expenses.[33] In addition to all these expenses he was required in 1854 to post $1,000.00 bail on the rape charge. 

During these dark days of spring 1854, William jumped bail and fled to "somewhere on the Illinois River." From there he wrote asking legal help from a lawyer friend in Lee County. The lawyer required a retainer of $50 which William could not raise.[34] William continued his flight to Saint Louis where he was apprehended, returned to Dixon, and jailed.[35] Lee County rumor had it that William had gone to Saint Louis en route to asylum in Utah.[36]

The relevance of William's personal life at this point is the question of money. If he could not raise even $50 for his own defense, by the spring of 1854, where did he secure the money to live on after jumping bail, the money to go to Saint Louis, and to even allegedly contemplate going to Utah? I hypothesize that during these trying times William sold or leased the Egyptian antiquities, possibly while a fugitive on the Illinois River. To whom could William have sold or leased mummies and papyri? The strange world of show men, hokum, showboats, exhibitors, popular museums, and the circus offers intriguing possibilities. Apparently it was a small world. The few men in this select fraternity all exhibited mummies at one time or another and seemed to have associated with each other. Barnum visited Wyman in 1851 and Wood in 1866; Wood was in Philadelphia and probably visited Wyman in Saint Louis during the mid-1850s; Koch lectured for Wood in Chicago in 1863. The "Mormon mummies" may well have been the subject of conversation. William may have sold or leased the antiquities to one of the many circuses playing along the Illinois River. The local press included 134 references to twenty-eight different circuses playing this area of Illinois during 1848-56, some featuring "Museums of Wonder."[37]

Thus, I tentatively conclude that A. Combs, who bought and sold the Mormon Egyptiana was much more likely to have been associated with circus people than to have been a freelance buyer of curiosities for museums and collectors. Since some of these circuses which toured the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers also played Saint Louis, this could explain how two of the mummies ended up in Saint Louis. The Floating Palace, which featured a reported "100,000 curiosities," some from Egypt, was the likely candidate to have purchased the mummies.[38]

Meanwhile, A. Combs remains unidentified despite searches in Illinois newspapers, correspondence with circus scholars and circus museums all over the United States, the Saint Louis city directories, Missouri or Illinois census records, dozens of historical societies, and collections of the Utah Genealogy Society. I still don't even know his first name. This shadowy figure has sur faced nowhere. 

There is a further question: How did Combs get a bill of sale from the Smiths in Nauvoo on 26 May 1856 if William had previously sold them else where? A possible answer may be that William rented, leased, or sold all or part of the antiquities under circumstances that precluded concluding the transaction until the death of his mother to whom the mummies and papyri legally belonged. For the record, Combs arrived in Nauvoo only ten days after her demise. Furthermore, in 1898 William's nephew, Joseph Smith III, stated in a letter: 

We learned that while living near Galesburg [Knox County], Uncle William undertook a lecturing tour, and secured the mummies and case of records, as the papyrus was called, as an exhibit and aid to making his lectures more attractive and lucrative. Uncle William became stranded somewhere along the Illinois River, and sold the mummies and the records with the understanding that he might repurchase them. This he never did . . . Uncle William never accounted for the sale he made, except to state that he was obliged to sell them, but fully intended to repurchase them, but he was never able. . . ."[39]

While this statement provides corroboration for my thesis, it raises the question of how Joseph Smith III, who in 1856 signed the bill of sale, could forty-two years later in 1898 state that his uncle had sold them prior to 1856? Was his memory faulty? Perhaps. I am not the first to wrestle with this problem. Let us take a closer look, however, at one word and one phrase in young Joseph's account. The word "obliged" seems to echo William's financial exigencies which and the phrase "with the understanding that he might repurchase them" clearly indicates that William's transaction, whatever it was, was not final. Could this phrase explain why Combs showed up in Nauvoo on 17 May 1856 to finalize this unusual deal with William, a deal somehow connected to the death of his mother, Lucy Mack, to formalize and legalize a sale which had already been effected two years previously? 

There remains a final question. If perchance Providence saved the Egyptiana, if the antiquities were not incinerated in Chicago, or in other fires (Barnum, who bought up hundreds of small collections, was burnt out in 1851, 1865, 1868, 1872, and 1887), if the mummies were not powdered into aphrodisiacs or shredded into paper pulp, where might they be today? In 1968 Walter Whipple eliminated over fifty museums. My own research has eliminated 150 additional art and historical institutions.[40] If they indeed exist, they are probably in storage, unknown, unidentified, and forgotten.

Would the papyri be with them? Probably not. The eleven pieces dis covered in 1966 were separate. Nor would we be likely to recognize the missing papyri if we found them unless Facsimile No. 2 or 3 was among them. There are certainly rumors aplenty to check out — at one time someone is supposed to have offered the Mormon papyri to some school in Chicago and the Mor mons were not "supposed to find out about it," some minister in Texas is supposed to have some papyri which the "Mormons will never get," in 1878 President John Tayor was supposed to have sent Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith to Chicago to obtain the antiquities from Wood if possible; there is also the allegation that the antiquities were divided into four portions. If so, William might have sold only one portion and apparently it was the same portion which was discovered in 1966. This rumor is linked to another supposition that when Lucy and Emma discovered that they did not have the Book of Abraham papyri they sold what they had for what they could get. Furthermore, as noted above, someone allegedly saw one of "our mummies" in Saint Louis in 1950, others claim to have seen them in Chicago in the 1860s. 

The air is now heavy with one portentious question — "So what?" As one scholar wrote, "I find your paper an exhilarating tour-de-force . . . but why did you do it?" 

A fair question and my brief answer is: For one thing I am a workaholic stuck in the Midwest, for another it was great fun, and maybe I narrowed the direction of future research efforts from 360 degrees to, say, 90 degrees, but most importantly, I am convinced that it is a good, though not very rewarding cause. Perhaps the best that can be said of it is that no one else ever needs to do it. 

---

[1] James R. Clark, The Story of the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City, Utah: Book craft, 1955) ; Walter L. Whipple, "The St. Louis Museum of the 1850s and the Two Egyptian Mummies and Papyri," BYU Studies, 10 (Autumn 1969) : 57-64; Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1969).

[2] Missouri-Democrat, 22 Jan. 1857. The article specifically adds that he was "no Barnum." The 1863 Guide to the Chicago Museum declares that Bates "has devoted his life, with the enthusiasm of an artist, to this branch of [natural] science and now stands without fear of rivalry, at least in America, . . . He has made frequent journeys to Europe, South America and the tropical regions, in order to obtain the best and rarest birds and quadrupeds which these continents afford." A Guide to the Chicago Museum (Chicago, 111.: 1863), p. 3.

[3] Seyffarth's Nachldsse are at the Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis, and in the Brooklyn Museum in New York City. His lectures on Egypt appeared in the St. Louis Leader, 26 Nov. 1856; Evening News, 29 Nov. 1856; The Missouri Democrat, 29 Nov. 1856; and the Saint 

Louiser Volksblatt, 23, 25, 29 Nov. 1856, and 27 Feb. 1857. Although Seyffarth published at least twelve articles in the Transactions of the Academy of St. Louis between 1857 and 1860 on astronomy, inscriptions, an Assyrian brick, a mummy in Paris, a papyrus scroll in Massachusetts, and related topics, he never again referred to the Egyptiana in Saint Louis. 

[4] The 1856 catalogue of the Saint Louis Museum states: "These Mummies were obtained in the Catacombs of Egypt, sixty feet below the surface of the earth, for the Antiquarian Society of Paris, forwarded to New York, and there purchased, in the year 1835, by Joe Smith, the Mormon Prophet, on account of the writings found in the chest of one of them, and which he pretended to translate, as stating them to belong to the family of the Pharaohs'. . . . They were kept by the Prophet's mother, until her death, when the heirs sold them. Catalog of The Saint Louis Museum (Saint Louis, Mo.: 1856) n.p. Copy in Missouri Historical Society, Saint Louis, Missouri. I have found no contemporary reference to the mummies in the journals of many Mormons who passed through Saint Louis on their way west or who lived there during the 1850s. The Saint Louis Church records of that time are equally barren as is the Mormon newspaper, The St. Louis Illuminator of 1854-57.

[5] See Daily Evening Gazett, 7 March 1844; John Thomas Scharf, History of St. Louis and County (Philadelphia, Perm.: L. H. Everts, 1883), pp. 982-83; John Francis Mc Dermott, "Museums in Early St. Louis," Missouri Historical Society Bulletin, 4 (Jan. 1948) : 129-38; and his "Dr. Koch's Wonderful Fossils," Missouri Historical Society Bulletin (July 1948) : 233-56. Dr. Joseph N. McDowell of Saint Louis added a small collection of curiosities to his medical college; and while he exhibited no Egyptiana, he did possess another Mormon-related item, the infamous Kinderhook Plates which Joseph Smith was supposed to have translated. See my "Kinderhook Plates," Ensign 10 (August 1981) : 66-74.

[6] Correspondence with the Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine of Washington University at Saint Louis, 14 Sept. 1972; Saint Louis Art Museum; also the Saint Louis Museum of Science, and Washington University Gallery of Art, 24 Aug. 1972. 

[7] The Academy of Science in Saint Louis, just the year before Wyman lost his museum, had tried in vain to raise $10,000 to buy Wyman out. Had they succeeded, perhaps the mummies and papyri would still be in Saint Louis. Disappointingly, the archives of the Saint Louis Academy shed no further light on the Mormon mummies.

[8] On August 8 the Chicago Evening Journal added that "it contained over 50,000 rare specimens of beasts, birds, reptiles, insects, fossils, etc." The Chicago Evening Journal of 7 July and the Chicago Times of 8 July made similar statements. The Chicago press published only about two more stories in 1863 and none, as far as I can tell, thereafter. Interest continued in Egyptian antiquities. On 8 April 1865, for example, the Chicago Times announced, "A free lecture on Ancient Egypt will be given in Unity Church," and on 9 Nov. 1870, the Chicago Evening Journal reported that a mummy was being exhibited in the Crystal Palace in London. There was no reference to the mummies in Chicago or references to these mummies in the many contemporary guides and directories in Chicago still extant. 

[9] See E. Boswinkel and P. W. Pestman, Textes Grecs, Demotiques et Bilingues (Holland, E. J. Brill, 1978), pp. 232-59, plus plates. The Oriental Institute of Chicago has five mummy tablets.

[10] See Allen Cooper, "Colonel Wood's Museum: A Study in the Development of the Early Chicago Stage" (M.A. thesis, Roosevelt University, Chicago, 1974) ; Robert L. Sher man, "Chicago Stage" (Chicago, 111.: Robert L. Sherman, 1947) ; Chicago: A Strangers and Tourists Guide (Chicago: Religious Philosophical Publishing Association, 1866), pp. 98-99; A. T. Andreas, History of Chicago (Chicago: A. J. Andreus, 1884), pp. 607-609. William S. Walker, The Chicago Stage (Chicago, 111.: William S. Walker, 1871), pp. 50-51. See also the extensive collection of handbills and theater programs at the Chicago Historical Society, and Joseph Jackson, Encyclopaedia of Philadelphia (Harrisburg, 1932), p. 917 and an 1873 handbill in the Theatre Collection of the Library of Philadelphia pertaining to Wood's Museum. 

During most of this eight-year period the museum was known as Wood's Museum, but when one of Wood's actors assumed its direction, it was known as Aiken's Museum from October 1867 to March 1869 and from October 1869 to May 1871. Some sources refer to Aiken's Museum as if it were a different museum altogether, which it was not. 

[11] Knoxville (III.) Journal, The Public Library of Cincinnati to Stanley B. Kimball, 13 May 1851, 27 May 1982; and James F. Dunlap, "Sophisticates and Dupes: Cincinnati Audiences, 1851," Bulletin of the Historical and Philosophy Society of Ohio, 13 (April 1955): 87-97.

[12] Joseph Smith III to Heman C. Smith, 24 Oct. 1898, Saint's Herald 46 (11 Jan. 1899): 18. 

[13] E. L. Sloan, compiler, Salt Lake City Directory and Business Guide for 1869 (Salt Lake City, Utah: 1869). 

[14] Bikuben, 28 July, 1910. I wish to thank Richard Jensen for drawing this reference in a Utah-published Danish newspaper to my attention. 

[15] With the showman's instinct for survival, Wood immediately leased the Globe Theater, the only theater in Chicago left after the fire, and reopened the theater part of his operation in less than a week. About two years later, in 1873, however, he moved to Philadelphia and opened Col. Wood's Museum Gallery of Fine Arts and Temple of Wonders. Another museum bearing the name of Wood reopened in Chicago in 1875 at 75 Monroe Street, but lasted only to 1877. Wood may have been managing it long distance for a Chicago City Directory of 1876 lists him along with the museum but noted he resided in Philadelphia. In 1884 Wood returned to Chicago, opened another museum on the same site as the old one, but sold it within the year to a Mr. Slanhope, who renamed the collection the Dime Museum. Wood is listed in Chicago directories until 1902.

[16] Great Chicago Museum Catalogue (Chicago: Blakely Marsh Printing Company, 1855), p. 20. Copy in the Chicago Historical Society.

[17] This information comes from many private conversations in the Chicago area.

[18] Prof. H. Donal Peterson of BYU has had a skull of one of these mummies in his office for some time. See the Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society of Early Historic Archae ology, May 1981, pp. 6—7. For some new, related research on the mummy problem see H. Donal Peterson, "Mummies and Manuscripts: An Update on the Lebolo-Chandler Story," Eighth Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, Jan. 1980), pp. 280-92. 

[19] Phillip Lapansky of The Library Company of Philadelphia to Stanley B. Kimball, 2 Feb. 1982; Philadelphia Daily Evening Bulletin, 9 July 1856.

[20] Descriptive Catalogue of the European Museum (Philadelphia , Perm.: European Museum, n.d.), p. 12, a xerox copy of which was sent to me by The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. 

[21] "Col. Wood's Museum," 9 June 1873. Museum Flyer, Theater Collection, Free Library of Philadelphia. 

[22] This appeared as a brief notice in Frontiers (Summer 1977), p. 50, published by the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.

[23] During this same crucial year, Wood was exhibiting "the Greatest Curiosities in the World" in Philadelphia during October 1856. On e could fantasize that Wood purchased the two remaining mummies from Combs or that a chance meeting with Combs in 1856 in Philadelphia encouraged Wood to buy the mummies when he found them on exhibit in Chicago in 1863. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence to support such conjectures. Wha t we do know is that Wood was then only exhibiting "huma n phenomenons [sic]"—living giants, midgets, fat ladies, and a baby with whiskers. Philadelphia Daily Evening Bulle tin, 8, 9, and 13 Oct. 1856. This bill of sale is the source for the description of the mummies and papyri which appeared in the Saint Louis and Chicago museum catalogs, thus the solution to another minor mystery. 

[24] There are many accounts of Mormon and non-Mormons visiting Lucy Mack Smith between 1839 and 1845 to view the mummies and the papyri. Th e latest reference to "Mothe r Smith" keeping the mummies in Nauvoo which I have found comes from the Warsaw Signal, 10 Sept. 1845. In all the miles of microfilmed western and northern Illinois newspaper I read, the only reference to Lucy was a brief note of her death in May 1856. I found absolutely nothing in the press about her or anyone else exhibiting the mummies outside Nauvoo.

[25] There is very little available on the life of Emma Smith between September 1846 and 1856 pending the publication of the biography by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery. Richard L. Anderson has "about two dozen" reports of people visiting Emma in Nauvoo during this period but they contain no reference to the mummies. Richard L. Ander son to Stanley B. Kimball, 4 March 1980.

If we can trust some very late after the fact memories, Jerusha Walker Blanchard re ported that as a child she played "hide and seek" with Emma's sons and hid among the mummies in the Mansion House after Emma returned to Nauvoo, suggesting the mummies might have returned to Nauvoo for a season. Jerusha Walker Blanchard, as told to Nellie Stary Bean, "Reminiscence of the Grand-daughter of Hyrum Smith," The Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1922, pp. 8-9. I thank Irene Bates and Linda King Newell for drawing this to my attention. 

[26] Sources on the life of William between 1846 and 1856 are about as scanty as those of his mother and sister-in-law. One should start with Calvin P. Rudd, "William Smith: Brother of the Prophet Joseph Smith" (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1973.) Especially valuable is Irene M. Bates, "William Smith, 1811-93, Problematic Patriarch," DIALOGUE: A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT 16 (Spring 1983) : 11-22. 

[27] Journal History, 31 Jan. 1848, Historical Department Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; hereafter cited as LDS Church Archives. 

[28] Copies of these letters in the Milo M. Quaife Collection of the University of Uta h Library wer e kindly provided by Richard L. Anderson of BYU. See also related letters in the Voree Herald, 11 Marc h and 11 M a y 1846, Zion's Reveille, 10 Feb. 1847, the Chronicles of Voree, 6 April 1847, and Milo M. Quaife, The Kingdom of St. James . . . (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1930), p. 30.

[29] I wish to thank Mrs. Richard Wildermuth of Piano, 111., for drawing this unique find to my attention. Illinois newspaper editors for the period 1847-56 showed a healthy interest in the Mormons in Utah, Iowa, Saint Louis, New Orleans, New York City, Kansas, Texas, California, England, France, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Prussia, the Sandwich Islands, and Calcutta. They printed reports on Mormon government in the West, attempts to achieve territorial government and statehood, emigration, the Mormon Trail, the Perpetual Emigration Fund, Indians, missionaries, Mormons who left Utah and returned to the East, the Salt Lake Temple, the Deseret Alphabet, Mormon publications, grasshoppers, polygamy, Brigham Young, and "female life among the Mormons." 

But they seem not to have recognized as Mormons those Saints who did not go west, and ran only a few stories about the Nauvoo Temple, William Smith, James J. Strang, the Icarians, and one story about the destruction of some property once belonging to Joseph Smith.

[30] Lee County Criminal Court Records, Court House, Dixon, Illinois, General number 111, Term 1849, Record B, p. 82. In the Court documents filed by William and Roxey Ann Grant Smith, Roxey describes his property as "an old leather trunk" which "contained a few old books such as an 'old blessing book' used by the father of the said complaintant, an old dictionary, some old Hymn books, a memorandum book kept by said complaintant of some of his public acts, and a few old weekly newspapers, a letter from a female in St. Louis requesting the said complaintant to send her the money he had promised, and two or three other letters from females in the East . . . written in a very endearing language." William Smith and Roxey Ann Smith; Defendant's answer, filed 11 May 1852, April Term, Knox County Circuit Court, 1852. 

William described his property as "a trunk containing a large quantity of books, & the records, journals and proceedings of Th e Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints . . . which said records, books and journals & proceedings belonged in part to said Church . . . the value of which . . . amounted to at least the sum of five thousand dollars." Bills of Divorcement, William Smith vs. Roxey Ann Smith, filed 20 Nov. 1850, April Term, Lee County Circuit Court, 1850. Since the Mormons almost always referred to the papyri as "the records," they may have been included in this old trunk. 

[31] See the following Lee County Circuit Court Records at Dixon, Illinois. The Chancery File records of these cases are in the Lee County Circuit Court Clerk's office and the Criminal File records are at the Illinois Regional Archives, Dekalb, 111. April Term, 1853, Chancery Book A, pp. 11, 21 ; Chancery Book B, p. 246; Criminal Book B, p. 348; Sept. Term, 1853, Criminal Book B, p. 388 ; April Term, 1854, Criminal Book B, pp. 459-60 ; Sept. Term, 1854, Criminal Book B, p. 466. See also the Dixon Telegraph, 9 April 1853, 30 April 1853, and 9 March 1854. 

[32] I have been unable to determine the court to which this case was moved.

[33] Final Decree, Bill of Divorce, Roxey Ann Smith vs. William Smith, 26 April 1853, April Term, Knox County Circuit Court Record, Galesburg, 111. Most of William's troubles at this time seem to have stemmed from his involvement in polygamy and from vindictive parties in various Mormon factions. Several letters appeared in the Dixon Telegraph in defense of William. On 30 April 1853 Rosa A. Hook signed a statement clearing William of wrongdoing and Aaron Hook claimed that a "girl was induced to slander William for money." On 7 May 1853 an unprinted "letter from Cincinatti' was said to defend William.

[34] Dixon Telegraph, 9 Marc h 1854.

[35] Ibid., 4 May 1854. The Missouri Republican 26 April 1854, reported this arrest: "IMPORTANT ARREST. On last Tuesday the sheriff of Lee Co., Illinois arrived in this city in pursuit of William Smith, a fugitive from justice. Smith, it appears was committed to jail in Hancock Co., Illinois some time since, on a charge of highway robbery, and sub sequently broke jail and went to Lee County where, after staying sometime, he became acquainted with two young ladies, sisters, and accomplished their ruin, after which he fled to this city. The sheriff, in the company of Officers Grant and Guion, after a search, arrested Smith yesterday at a house on Market St. between seventh and eighth, and he was taken back into custody of the sheriff. Smith is a large and powerfully built man, with good manners, and about 45 years of age." 

The St. Louis Daily Evening News, the St. Louis Intelligencer and the Belleville Tribune repeated the story with minor variations. The charge of highway robbery is incorrect. Refer ence to William's faith is missing. 

[36] Dixon Telegraph, 4 May 1854. 

[37] Mummies had been exhibited since at least 1816 in Boston. I n 1853 Barnum's traveling Museum of Wonders featured one. 

[38] The famous Floating Palace (built Cincinnati, 1851), was towed by the James Raymond up and down the Allegheny, Wabash, Ohio, Illinois, and Mississippi rivers. Off the main circus area was a museum of "Curiosities and Wonders " exhibiting "100,000 curiosities," including some from Egypt. It sometimes played Saint Louis and we know from the St. Louis Daily Missouri Republican of 4 August 1856 that the Floating Palace was there about the time Combs was selling two mummies to Wyman's Museum. 

[39] Joseph Smith III to Herman C. Smith, 24 Oct. 1898, in Saint's Herald, 46 (11 Jan. 1899): 18.

[40] Whipple was kind enough to lend me his entire file of his extensive research. I wrote to more than thirty universities and colleges founded before 1856, more than thirty museums which existed before 1859, more than thirty historical societies in nearby Iowa, sixteen museums in Philadelphia, seven circus museums, and forty-two historical societies in Illinois. I even ran a classified ad in the 1982 April issue of Aviso, the monthly newsletter of the American Association of Museums. From these societies I received no significant information and from the ad not one response.

[post_title] => New Light on Old Egyptiana: Mormon Mummies 1848-71 [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 16.4 (Winter 1983): 74 – 90
This paper attempts to throw some new light on the history of this Mormon connected Egyptiana since 1848 (the close of the Mormon era in Nauvoo) and to suggest how and where more of these antiquities might be found. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => new-light-on-old-egyptiana-mormon-mummies-1848-71 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 23:44:12 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 23:44:12 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=16211 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 12301 [post_author] => 2560 [post_date] => 2018-01-30 21:22:56 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-01-30 21:22:56 [post_content] =>

The problem took another turn when Joseph Smith’s papyri, which had been missing and presumed lost for eighty to ninety years, resurfaced in 1967 and were examined and translated by Egyptologists.

[post_title] => Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham, and Joseph Smith as Translator [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 22.4 (Winter 1989): 17 – 38
“The problem took another turn when Joseph Smith’s papyri, which had been missing and presumed lost for eighty to ninety years, resurfaced in 1967 and were examined and translated by Egyptologists. One fragment of papyrus was identified as the ostensible source of the Book of Abraham, but it bore no relationship to the Book of Abraham either in content or subject matter.” [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => knowing-brother-joseph-again-the-book-of-abraham-and-joseph-smith-as-translator [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-24 00:07:59 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-24 00:07:59 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=12301 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 12406 [post_author] => 2896 [post_date] => 2018-01-29 23:56:13 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-01-29 23:56:13 [post_content] =>

Latter-day Saints, with other groups in the Judeo-Christian tradition, accept as scripture the stories of creation found in Genesis 1-3 but are unique in accepting as scripture three other parallel versions of the same stories.

[post_title] => A Mormon Midrash?: LDS Creation Narratives Reconsidered [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 21.4 (Winter 1989): 135 – 139
Latter-day Saints, with other groups in the Judeo-Christian tradition, accept as scripture the stories of creation found in Genesis 1-3 but are unique in accepting as scripture three other parallel versions of the same stories. These include chapters in the books of Moses and Abraham brought forth by Joseph Smith, Jr. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => a-mormon-midrash-lds-creation-narratives-reconsidered [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-24 00:36:01 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-24 00:36:01 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=12406 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 17163 [post_author] => 3937 [post_date] => 2018-04-27 14:38:00 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-04-27 14:38:00 [post_content] =>

They called the earth a star as being itself too an instrument of time.[1]

The subject of Pythagoreanism is so controversial and loaded with uncertainties[2] that what follows should be considered as speculation and suggestion for future research. Also, recalling the excellent advice of Galileo in his “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina”[3] regarding committing the Scriptures on matters of science, let me say that any interpretation of the Scriptures attempted here is likewise to be regarded as speculation and suggestion. However, there are some interesting comparisons which appear to be worth noting, and which, although some of them have been noticed before, have not been commented upon in print as far as I know.

By the Pythagorean astronomy[4] I refer to the system ascribed to Philolaus, apparently dated at about the end of the fifth century B.C. In this system the earth is a sphere revolving not around the sun, but around a central fire, which is variously termed the “Watch Tower of Zeus,” the “Throne of Zeus,” the “House of Zeus,” wherein is located the “governing principle” and the “creative force” which gives life and warmth to the earth. The earth revolves around the central fire once a day, and also rotates on its axis once a day, thus keeping the same face directed toward the fire all the time. “Below” the earth is another planet, the counter-earth, also revolving around the central fire. Above the earth, also revolving around the central fire, are the moon, the sun, and the five planets, in that order outward from the orbit of the earth. Outside of them is the sphere of the fixed stars, and outside of that another fire surrounding the whole system. (We shall assume that, as is ascribed to the later Greek astronomy, the planets are ordered so that the slower moving ones are farther out than the faster moving ones.[5]) The sun does not shine from its own light, but transmits to the earth what it receives from the central fire, or perhaps from the outer fire. One source claims that some Pythagoreans also believed that the moon was inhabited by a superior race of plants and animals.[6]

Pythagoras himself, born early in the sixth century B.C., supposedly traveled to Babylonia and Egypt. Establishing himself in Southern Italy, he established his own order, the Pythagorean Brotherhood, with its own initiations and mysteries. There is a tradition of secrecy of doctrine among the Pythagoreans that even influenced Copernicus about two millenia later.[7]

Abraham presumably antedates Pythagoras by 1,500 years or so. According to the Book of Abraham,[8] Abraham knew Mesopotamia and Egypt and was interested, or at least informed, in astronomy; in fact, Facsimile No. 3 has “Abraham in Egypt” “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.” (We are reminded of Santillana’s characterization of astronomy as the “Royal Art,” or the “Royal Science,” in ancient times.[9]) The astronomy of the Book of Abraham is much concerned with time reckoning, “times and seasons,” a matter of concern to ancient astronomy.[10]

To compare the Book of Abraham with the system of Philolaus, we note from the Book of Abraham Chapter 3 (and Facsimile No. 2) the following: The earth moves (e.g., verse 5). There is a great star, Kolob, “nearest unto the throne of God,”[11] which is set “to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest” (verses 2, 3, 9). Moreover, at least according to the Egyptians, the sun borrows its light from Kolob,[12] through the medium of a “governing power” which governs, among others, “the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions.” (See the explanation to Facsimile No. 2, Fig. 5.) Similarities to the system of Philolaus are evident. Verse 5 indicates that the moon, “the lesser light” (see Moses 2:16), moves “in order more slow” than the earth. We are informed that “this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, . . .” We are reminded that in Greek astronomy the slower planets are above the faster ones.

Of course, I am not suggesting that the system of Philolaus is the Lord’s astronomy, or that Philolaus is right. There are differences between Philolaus and Abraham. For example, the Book of Abraham does not follow its comments on the moon and the earth with similar comments about the sun; i.e., that the sun should move slower than the moon because it is above the moon. We are only told that if “the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or star may exist above it” (verse 17, my italics.) We are assured, however, that there are other planets whose reckoning of time is greater than that of the moon (verses 7, 8.) In Greek astronomy the sun was above the moon, and it moved more slowly. In modern astronomy, the sun moves with the solar system around the center of the galaxy, and presumably with the galaxy through “space”; and it also rotates on its axis. The period of rotation at the surface is different for different solar latitudes; it is less than that of the moon at the solar equator, but becomes greater than that of the moon in regions sufficiently close to the solar poles. We note that the Book of Abraham makes no specific comment on the motion of the sun, except the comment about its annual revolution,[13] which may be merely an opinion of the Egyptians (see the explanation of Facsimile No. 2, Fig. 5).

To some extent the controversy about the Pythagoreans does not affect our discussion here—the similarities exist regardless of who was responsible for the various parts of the system of Philolaus and when they first appeared. They suggest to me the following queries:

1. How much information regarding these matters was unavailable to Joseph Smith, or available only with difficulty? Since our sources are ancient authors, (e.g., Aristotle), they were presumably not absolutely unavailable, but it would not appear to be exactly trivial to use them correctly.

2. Can evidence be found of a public or secret astronomical tradition[14] from Abraham’s day, passing perhaps through Egypt or Babylon, which could have reached the Pythagoreans, perhaps in corrupted form? (Of course further corruption or misunderstanding could easily have occurred from the Pythagoreans to us.)

3. What astronomical knowledge and belief might Abraham have had already when further knowledge was given to him by revelation? This information might increase our understanding of the framework and terminology in which the new information was given.

---

[1] Simplicius, as quoted by Thomas Heath, in Aristarchus of Samos, the Ancient Copernicus (Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 97.

[2] See, for example, the introductory (and other) sections of J. A. Philip, Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1966), and Walter Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, translated by Edwin L. Minar, Jr. (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1972). See also Giorgio de Santillana, Reflections on Men and Ideas (Cambridge, Mass:, MIT Press), pp. 190–201, chapter entitled “Philolaus in Limbo, or: What Happened to the Pythagoreans?” For comic relief see also T. D. C. Kuch, “Metrodorus of Chios,” The Worm Runner’s Digest, B, No. 2 (Nov. 1966), p. 89.

[3] Stillman Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), pp. 175–216.

[4] See Thomas Heath, op. cit., Chapter XII, especially pages 94–100; Morris R. Cohen and I. E. Drabkin, A Source Book in Greek Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966), especially pp. 93–97; J. A. Philip, op. cit., Chapter 7; D. R. Dicks, Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1970), Chapter IV; Walter Burkert, op. cit., Section IV. We have centered our attention on Pythagoras, rather than on Aristarchus (also of Samos) for obvious reasons.

[5] D. R. Dicks, op. cit., p. 66. Note that we are ignoring problems raised by claims that the Pythagoreans believed that the outer planets moved faster than the inner ones. (See Morris R. Cohen and I. E. Drabkin, op. cit., p. 96.)

[6] D. R. Dicks, op. cit., p. 74. See also Walter Burkert, op. cit., p. 346, noting Heraclides’ claim that the Pythagoreans believed that "the stars are a kind of earth," as Burkert puts it. Note also Moses 1:33­35.

[7] Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1959 and 1963), pages 148–149 for Copernicus and pages 26–50 for Pythagoras. For Pythagoras see also J. A. Philip, op. cit., chapters 3 and 11; Walter Burkert, op. cit., Section II, Chapter 2.

[8] In The Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1952). For an interesting comparison of The Pearl of Great Price with modern astronomy, see R. Grant Athay, “Astrophysics and the Gospel,” The New Era, 2 (September, 1972), 14–19.

[9] Giorgio de Santillana, The Origins of Scientific Thought (New York: Mentor Books, 1961), p. 11; Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha van Dechend, Hamlet’s Mill (Boston: Gambit, Inc., 1969), p. 3.

[10] See, for example, Giorgio de Santillana, op. cit., Prologue; Morris R. Cohen and I. E. Drabkin, op. cit., pp. 90–142; Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend, op. cit., in general.

[11] One should note the “Throne of God” figures in Fawn M. Brodie’s attempt to relate the Book of Abraham to the writings of Thomas Dick. For a discussion of this controversy and references, see Edward T. Jones, “The Theology of Thomas Dick and its Possible Relationship to that of Joseph Smith,” MA thesis, College of Religious Instruction, Brigham Young University, 1969.

[12] The current theory is that the source of solar energy is nuclear fusion within the sun. It appears to me that the existence of this scriptural passage taken by itself does not require rejection of the current theory. However, we should note that there are relevant matters concerning the sun which are not understood, as evidenced by the current neutrino problem. See, for example, Virginia Trimble and Frederick Reines, “The Solar Neutrino Problem—A Progress (?) Report,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 45 (January, 1973), 1–5.

[13] One is tempted to identify this annual revolution with the annual (or nearly annual) revolution of the sun around the central fire in the system of Philolaus—or perhaps even with the much longer revolution of the sun around the center of the galaxy in the modern system. It appears possible that the Book of Abraham uses the term revolution in two senses—the revolution of one object around another, and the rotation of an object about its own axis. Glancing at verse 5, one is tempted also to compare the moon’s days, months, and years with its periods of revolution around its own axis, the earth, and the central fire (all three of which would presumably be of about the same length) in the system of Philolaus. This is very speculative, however, and others may wish to consider revolutions around various objects in more modern systems.

[14] One must note (with caution) the Hermetic tradition of the Renaissance and earlier which purported to reach back to Hermes Trismegistus in Egypt at about the time of Moses. See Lawrence S. Lerner and Edward A. Gosselin, “Giordano Bruno,” Scientific American, 228, No. 4 (April, 1973), especially p. 91; and also Frances A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), especially Chapters I and XXI. Note also Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World, Translated by Andrew Motte, translation revised by Florian Cajori (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1934, 1962, 1966), Vol. II, The System of the World, pp. 549–550.

[post_title] => The Book of Abraham and Pythagorean Astronomy [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 8.3 (Winter 1973): 11 – 72
The subject of Pythagoreanism is so controversial and loaded with uncertainties that what follows should be considered as speculation and suggestion for future research. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-book-of-abraham-and-pythagorean-astronomy [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-07-31 15:52:19 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-07-31 15:52:19 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=17163 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 17793 [post_author] => 3488 [post_date] => 2018-05-03 21:59:30 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-05-03 21:59:30 [post_content] =>

On November 27, 1967, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York presented the L.D.S. Church eleven papyrus fragments, which were once in the possession of Joseph Smith and some of which were apparently used by the Prophet in preparing the text of one of the Church’s scriptures, the Book of Abraham. DIALOGUE has been able to obtain translations and identifications of these papyrus fragments (and one additional one recently discovered at the Church Historian’s office) by distinguished American Egyptologists; we present them here together with various assessments that have been submitted concerning the significance of the fragments and their translations.

THE DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPTS

The Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri once consisted of at least six separate documents, possibly eight or more. That count may be checked through the eleven pieces recently transferred from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York to the Church of the Latter-day Saints in November, 1967; from the “fragment” preserved in the Church Historian’s Office in Salt Lake City from the early days (Brigham Young University Studies, VIII, No. 2, 191-94; The Improvement Era, Feb. 1968, 40 A-H); from the illustrations in the Pearl of Great Price; and from copies and mounted pieces of papyrus in a notebook which Joseph Smith labeled, “Valuable Discovery of hidden records” (known to me from the publication, “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet,” Modern Microfilm Co., Salt Lake City, 1966). Certainly there were once six different documents. Two other pieces may be additional, or may belong to one or another of the six.

What I shall call Document A is the papyrus fragment which is illustration No. 1 in the Pearl of Great Price and is Photo I of the present eleven pieces. That shows a scene of a man lying upon a bed, while another figure leans over him. Beside the scene there are vertical lines of hieroglyphs.

Document B was once the longest papyrus in the collection. It is represented by Photos 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 in the present collection, by the mounted piece preserved in the Church Historian’s Office, and by the same mounted piece and two pages of copies in “Valuable Discovery.” As we shall see, there were many columns of hieratic writing, all once the property of the same Egyptian lady. Their intermittent character suggests that many columns of writing are now missing, and that they probably were missing when the document was sold to the Church in the 1830’s. In its present state the manuscript is exasperatingly jumbled. Apparently it had been cut up and faultily mounted before it was brought to Kirtland, Ohio. Dealers have always known that a number of small pieces bring in more money than a single large piece. We shall study Document B in greater detail below.

Document C consists of a single scene, showing another Egyptian lady in the presence of the god of the dead, Osiris. This appears in Photos 5 and 6 of the present collection.

Egyptologists describe Documents A, B, C, F, and G as copies of the Book of the Dead. Document D is a related mortuary text of late times, the so­called Book of the Breathings, in a hieratic hand coarser than that of Document B. It appears in Photos 10 and 11.

Document E is the hypocephalus which was reproduced as Facsimile No. 2 in the Pearl of Great Price. Another copy is on p. 13 of “Valuable Discovery.” A hypocephalus was a cartonnage disk which was placed under the head of a mummy toward the end of ancient Egyptian history. I think that the name of the owner appears as Sheshonk.

Document F is the scene shown as Facsimile No. 3 in the Pearl of Great Price. It shows an Egyptian standing in the presence of Osiris.

Document G is a Book of the Dead carrying the name of its owner as Amenhotep. It appears in copy on pp. 2, 3, and 6 of “Valuable Discovery.” Possibly it comes from the same manuscript as F.

Document H is mounted on p. 10 of “Valuable Discovery.” It is a papyrus which shows Arabic writing. Of course that writing is much later than the ancient Egyptian texts, and the handwriting seems to be of a much later type than the last use of papyrus in Egypt. It seems reasonable, then, that a piece of ancient papyrus was used perhaps 150 to 200 years ago to make some jottings. If so, Document H may have been part of one of the other manuscripts. I think that I can detect that the fiber of the papyrus runs vertically, which would make it the back side of a document.

No Egyptologist is happy at studying either photographs or copies made by someone else. He wants to see the original. The present photographs are not particularly good: they are small scale and blurred around the margin. Further, although they pick up the black ink, they often fail completely on the red ink (the “rubrics”). The sections of Document B have been mounted with a brusque disregard for handwriting, continuity, or the grain of the papyrus. Pieces of the same manuscript have been wrongly moved in to fill holes, sometimes upside down, and there is at least one patch from another document.

Papyrus is a water reed, with a long and sturdy stem. The stalk was sliced into strips, which were then laid together with an overlap, to build up a sheet. The front side of a document would have these strips running horizontally, the back vertically, to make a strong bonding. It was the natural juice of the papyrus which provided the adhesive for each sheet of this manufactured “paper.” Then these single sheets could be gummed together with a paste, to make a scroll. A Book of the Dead manuscript might be a single sheet, or it may have been made up into a roll ten or fifteen feet long.

There are a few experts in the world who operate, not in terms of the written text, as I do, but in terms of the fabric of the papyrus. The fibers show an individual pattern, so that isolated scraps may be mounted into place on the basis of the continuity of grain. Ideally these documents might have been studied by such an objective authority.

THE BOOK OF THE DEAD

With the exception of D and E, all these documents show the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. We continue to use that term, despite its inappropriateness. In contrast to other religions, the Egyptians had no one sacred book, a consistent text, which had become so thoroughly the guiding principle that it became fixed against change. Hardly any manuscript of the Book of the Dead is exactly like any other. They picked and chose their “chapters”—that is another misnomer—as the particular priestly composer pleased. One document might confine itself to chapters 15, 17, 125, and a few others; another manuscript might abbreviate longer chapters down, to squeeze in more than 150 chapters. We continue to use the term Book of the Dead, because it is understood, and because it is clumsy pedantry to be more specific: an unrelated collection of magical spells and religious hymns, intended to promote the welfare of a deceased Egyptian.

The ancestors of the Book of the Dead go back into prehistoric times, and were written down about 2350 B.C. In papyrus form the Book of the Dead begins about 1500 B.C. and continues to the beginning of the Christian Era. At first the writing was a sketchy form of the picture writing, hieroglyphic; increasingly later it was in the more flowing style called hieratic. Since handwriting changes from century to century, manuscripts of the Book of the Dead can be dated by the forms of individual signs or groups. Since the chapters showed changes in content and language as time went on, they may also be dated in terms of substance. All of the manuscripts here are of late times. That clearly means after 500 B.C., and for Document B after 300 B.C.

The Book of the Dead carried illustrations—called “vignettes” in the trade—which were attached to individual chapters. Usually we can see how these vignettes applied to the text. For example, chapter 63 carries the title, “the speech for drinking water and not being parched by fire.” The vignette for earlier times shows the dead man receiving water; the vignette for later times, like our Document B, shows him pouring out water beside a fire. Such changes are also a limited criterion for dating.

The vignettes for Documents A and C are a little crude in drawing, as though they had been dashed off by an unskilled artist. However, the little sketches on Document B have a certain abstract elegance. The little lady with the pinched face and skeleton arms emerges as feminine and dignified.

There are two standard publications for the Book of the Dead: E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Dead. The Chapters of Coming forth by Day, 3 vols., London, 1898; and T. George Allen, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, Documents in the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago, Chicago, 1960. For our purposes, not only is Allen more recent, but the manuscripts he studies are much closer in time to the Joseph Smith papyri than most of those in Budge. In particular, Allen’s Document R is very dose to our Document B.

It is fairly easy to translate the Book of the Dead, and the renderings of two practiced Egyptologists will agree very well. It is another matter to understand the terms, allusions, and psychology of another religion. We might try to think of some of our modern hymns if the Old and New Testaments were unknown. An Eskimo might grasp the individual meanings of all the words in “Jerusalem the golden, with milk and honey blest, beneath thy contemplation sink heart and voice oppressed,” but he would still be puzzled by the allusions. If your city is of gold, why gum it up with milk and honey? Why have such a city, if it is just going to oppress its inhabitants? We have similar troubles in trying to apply our understanding to the religion of the ancient Egyptians, which dropped out of human ken for more than 1500 years.

Here I limit my preliminary report to Document B, in the hope that the study of that manuscript in relation to other known Books of the Dead will give it a setting and history.

Document B — General

Document B is a Book of the Dead composed for a lady named Ta-shere­Min (“the Daughter of the god Min”), born to the lady Nes-Khonsu (“She Belongs to the god Khonsu’’). In the translation we shall abbreviate the “Ta­shere-Min, triumphant, born to Nes-Khonsu, triumphant,” down to T-N. If she had any titles which might have given her setting in society, I have not detected them in the extant pieces. She is simply called “the Osiris,” that is, in death she has become undying, like the god of the dead. “Triumphant” means that she has been vindicated by the afterlife judgment. Her name and her mother’s name are very common in late times. The Greeks heard them as something like Semminis and Eskhonsis. The inclusion in these names of the gods Min and Khonsu might limit the locality to the general area of Thebes, but that cannot be certain.

Because the owner of this scroll was a woman, the vignettes show a female, rather than the usual male dead person.

Document B was once of a handsome length, possibly as long as the twelve feet of Allen’s R. We can identify many chapters. On the assumption that there may have been more than one hundred chapters, the nine extant pieces might be only about a third or a quarter of the original roll. Taking photos 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, which are within the lot returned to the Church; the Church Historian’s fragment, which was already present in Salt Lake City; and pages l2 and 14 from “Valuable Discovery,” which can be seen only in old copies, we have both continuity and extensive gaps. With the exception of the continuance of text from photo 2 to 4, and of 4 to 3, the precise relationship of one piece to another is not clear, nor is the amount of loss at the tops and bottoms of the columns clear. If photo 8 shows the usual expansive vignette, there is about as much lost above and below as there is still surviving.

i.) “Valuable Discovery,” page 12. The text can be identified from the Book of the Dead as chapters 1, 2, 6, 10(?), 12, 13, 14. Since chapter 1 is already well advanced, it is clear that this was not the beginning of the scroll.

ii.) “Valuable Discovery,” page 14. Despite the fact that two or three different fragments had been mounted as if one, the text can be identified from chapters 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 13. The vignette showing worshipping apes is the one applicable to chapter 15. The precise relation of ii to i and a part of iii is not clear.

iii.) The Church Historian’s fragment (references above; it is also page 9 of “Valuable Discovery’’) is a jumble of unrelated pieces mounted together. The names of Ta-shere-Min and Nes-Khonsu and the handwriting connect it with Document B. One scrap gives passages from chapters 4 and 5, another from 125. Otherwise, I have not been able to identify the text.

iv.) Photo 7. On the right side appear parts of chapters 53 and 54, on the left 63 and 65.

v.) Photo 9. On the right side appear parts of chapter 57, on the left 67, 70, and 72. The beginning of chapter 72 should lead to vi.

vi.) Photo 2. On the left can be seen the end of chapter 72, then 74, 75, 76, and 77.

vii.) Photos 2 and 4. The lines run connectedly from one photo to another. The top of photo 4 is obscured by an intrusive piece, mounted upside down. Below it come chapters 83, 86, 87, and 89.

viii.) Photos 4 and 3. The lines connect from one photo to another. One can identify chapters 99, 100, and 101. Photo 3 has incorrectly mounted pieces.

ix.) Photo 3, left. In the upper corner a piece in a different handwriting has been mounted upside down, and the center and lower corner are tantalizing messes. However, chapters 103, 104, 105, and 106 can be identified.

x.) Photo 8. This is the vignette for chapter 110. The drawing of the woman’s figure ties it to the papyrus of Ta-shere-Min, and its connection can be seen on the left margin of photo 3.

The manuscript runs from right to left. The cadence of the visible evidence is something like this:

iii. x. ix. viii. vii. vi. v. iv. iii. ii. i.

Translations of the listed chapters may be found in Budge and Allen. What follow are my own. If Allen’s translation appears too literally narrow, it is closer to our text, while Budge’s rendering is out-of-date and over-free. Because I always want to see with my own eyes, I shall limit myself to the six photos and the Historian’s fragment, omitting comment on the copied texts which are i and ii above.

In the translations, square brackets inclose what is restored from other manuscripts, to fill out what we see in our pieces. Parentheses inclose my restoration or explanation.

TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENT B

Photo 7

Although photo 7 shows two apparently separate pieces, they seem to be roughly in the right relation to each other. On the right hand side there is a vignette showing Ta-shere-Min seated beside a table holding offerings. She has a cup in her hand. Budge states that in the vignette for chapter 53, “the deceased is seated on a chair with a table of offerings before him, and his left hand, with a bowl therein, is stretched out over it.” If we change the sex and the arm, that fits our vignette. I regret that the first chapter to be translated, 53, has a distasteful subject.

“[The speech for not eating dung or drinking urine in the necropolis. Words to be spoken by the Osiris T-N: ‘I am the sharp-horned bull, the guide of the sky, the lord of festivals of the sky, the great] illu[minator, who went forth as a flame,] who honors [length of years, the lion who gave the earth, so that the sun’s rays go.] Dung is my abomination. I will not drink [urine. I will not walk upside-down. I am] a possessor of bread in Heliopolis. My bread is at the sky with [Re. My bread is at the earth with Geb. It is the evening-barque (of the sun) which] brings (it) to me from the house of the great god in Heliopolis. I ad[orn my intestines at the landing of the ferryboat. I cross] to the east of heaven. I eat of [that which they eat; I live on that (on which) they live. I have eaten] bread in the room of the possessor of offerings.’”

The newcomer to Egyptology probably reads that text with some sense of affront. The oldcomer is only a little better informed. The Egyptians were buried on the desert margin, which was devoid of life or water and which probably served as a public latrine. They wished assurance that they would eat and drink properly in the afterlife. The magical promise of this text was that they would eat and drink as the gods did.

The lower right corner is broken. However, the few signs below the vignette do fit chapter 54 of the Book of the Dead. Normally the vignette for this chapter shows a person standing and holding a small sail, which was the hieroglyph for air or breath. Probably our broken scene also showed that.

“[The speech for giving breath to a man in the necropolis. Words to be spoken by the Osiris T-N: ‘O Atum, give me the sweet breath of your nostrils! I am that egg of the great honker. I guarded that] great [egg] which separated Geb [from earth. If I live, it lives, and vice versa. . . .]’”

This again is a little baffling. One might suggest that the mummy case inside the coffin might be stifling. Magic then related the buried man to the unhatched goose inside some mythical egg. As it was able to breathe, so also the dead man.

In the upper left of photo 7 we have the end of chapter 63. For this the normal vignette showed the dead person pouring out two streams of water, as he stands beside a pot containing fire. Our remains fit that scene.

“[The speech for drinking water and not being parched by fire. . . . ‘I shall not be parched; I shall not be baked. I am Ba]bi, [the first son of Osiris, who united to himself every god within] his eye in Heliopolis. I am the first heir [of the great unwrapped one, the weary one.] Osiris and his name have flourished. He has rescued your life by it.’

“[Another version. ‘I am that decorated oar] with which Re [rows] and the elders row who lift up [the decay of Osiris,] . . . when he has rowed his marooned one, who has not [become parched. I have climbed the sun’s rays. O you who preside over] the sanctuary, seize and behead what is seized, [travelling along this road on which I have gone forth.]’”

The best that can be said for that is that the western desert burial ground was hot and dry. The magical spell somehow related the dead person to mythological forces who could not be burned up by dryness.

Next comes chapter 65, for which the standard vignette in late times was simply a person walking and holding a staff. On my photograph the title occurs as a rubric over her head, but the red ink does not come out dearly. Enough can be seen to make sure that it corresponds to its wording elsewhere.

“The speech for coming forth by day and having power over one’s enemies. Words to be spoken [by the Osiris T-N: ‘O you who rise as the moon and shine as the moon,] when you go forth [in your throng,] may you release me. [You who are in the sun’s rays,] open up the underworld. [See, I have gone forth on] this [day,] being blessed. [My blessed (relatives) grant to me that I live.] My enemies are brought to me, tied up, in the council. [The spirit of my mother is satisfied with] it, when (she) sees me standing on my two feet, with my staff in (my) hand, of [gold. I cut off] the body of a living one at the thighs of Sothis, a child by [their graciousness.]’”

Photo 9

Little remains of the right column on photo 9. However, remains of chapter 57 can be identified. Elsewhere this shows the title, “the speech for breathing air and having control of water in the necropolis,” with a vignette showing both water and air (a sail). More than half of our text is lost. Then comes:

“[A mouth belongs to the Osiris] T-[N. His is a nose which is open in Busiris.] He rests in Heliopolis, [his house which Seshat built for him, and whose wall Khnum set up for him.] If the sky comes [with north winds, he sits in the south. If the sky comes with south winds,] he sits in the north. [If the sky comes with west winds, he sits in the east. If the sky comes] with east winds, [he] sits [in the west. His eyebrows are knitted over his nose, the Osiris] T-[N. He has freedom for] any [place where] she wishes [to sit.]” That “she” where the text previously carried “he” is the scribe’s belated recog­nition that the scroll was made for a woman.

That is the end of chapter 57. It seems to say that the deceased might breathe freely, sheltered from hot or cold winds. Traces of another chapter are visible below this, but I have not been able to identify it.

The left column starts with chapter 67. The simple vignette of a walking person seems to be normal in the late manuscripts for this chapter.

“[The speech for going outside. Words to be spoken by] the Osiris T-N: ‘The cavern is opened for those who are in the abysmal waters, freed for those who are in the sun’s rays. The cavern is opened (for) Shu, and I have gone out-of-doors. I have been sent in the boat of Re.’” The dead person is not to be pent up in the tomb, but is to have free movement in the open.

The title for chapter 70, which follows, is abbreviated because it continues the series of spells allowing free movement. Here, as elsewhere, it has no vignette.

“Another speech. Words to be spoken by the Osiris T-N: ‘I shall not come to rest, one who is over an abscess, a scribe sound of heart. (Osiris) is satisfied, as he rules Busiris, when I am on his bank. I breathe the east wind by its head; I grasp the north wind by its hair; I have grasped the west wind by its skin. I have encircled the sky by its shoulder, and the south wind by (its) eyelashes. I (give) breath to the revered ones among the eaters of bread.’

“As for the one who knows this speech, he may go forth by day, while he walks among the living on earth, without his perishing forever.”

That has a number of corruptions in the text: “abscess” for “court,” “head” for “hair,” and probably “shoulder.” The little commercial tacked on at the end appears, with varying words, after a number of other chapters.

Chapter 72 follows. The accompanying vignette is puzzling. The dead woman should be facing either a funeral chest or a table upon which two gods sit. The chest or table seems to be present, but I cannot make head or tail out of the triangle perched on it.

“The speech for going forth by day and opening up the underworld in the west. Words to be spoken by the Osiris T-N: ‘Hail to you, those lords of truth, free from falsehood, who remain alive forever, (to) the limits [of eternity]! . . .’”

The end of chapter 72 appears on photo 2.

Photo 2

The upper part and lower comers of photo 2 are torn and badly photographed. Where the right column is clear, the lines are nearly complete, lacking only a half dozen signs at the outer margin. The first visible text shows the continuation of chapter 72. Careful study of the original would extract more of this than my photograph shows.

“‘. . . [I go upstream or downstream as I wish.] I go downstream to the Field [of Reeds. I go upstream to the Field of Offerings.] I have joi[ned] the Two Truths. [I am the Double-lion god.]’

“[If] this scroll is [put on earth] for him, or is set in writing upon his coffin, [it is a speech] (whereby) he goes forth by day in any form [which he wishes,] as well as entering his house without being checked. [There are given] to him bread, beer, and a large piece of [meat from] the altar of Osiris. He [goes forth to] the Field of Reeds. [There are given to him] barley and wheat there. So [he continues to thrive as] he did on earth, [and he does all that he wants] like those gods who are therein. (A charm) with true value a million times.”

The lengthy commercial guarantees both mobility and a full belly.

Chapter 74 follows. The vignette is the usual one of late times: the dead woman stands beside a two-legged serpent, a symbol of earth, since snakes live underground.

“The speech for stretching the legs [and going forth from earth. Words to be spoken] by the Osiris T-N: ‘You will do what you should do [against him,] O Sokar, Sokar, who is in his cave, who is the obstructor in the necropolis. I shine as the one who is over this district of heaven. I climb upon the sun’s rays, being weary, weary. I have gone, being weary, weary in the necropolis, upon the banks of taking away their speech in the necropolis. My soul is triumphant in the house of Atum, lord of Heliopolis.’”

Thus it seems that even Sokar, god of the necropolis, cannot restrain Ta­shere-Min from free movement outside of the tomb.

Chapter 75 follows. The vignette shows the dead person standing beside a column, which is the hieroglyph for Heliopolis (the On of the Bible).

“The speech for going forth to Heliopolis and taking a place there. Words to be spoken by the Osiris T-N: ‘I have gone forth from the underworld. I have come from the limits of the earth. I shine upon the water. I understand about the entrails of a baboon. I have taken the ways to the holy gates. I occupy the places [of the pure ones] who are in [shrouds.] I break into the houses of Remrem. I have reached the seat of Ikhsesfi. I have penetrated the sacred areas upon which Thoth stepped in pacifying the two warriors. I go, I go to Pe; I come to Dep.’”

Certainly the magic for enabling the deceased to have a place in the sacred city Heliopolis seems reasonable. His ending up in Pe and Dep, two parts of the sacred city Buto, can only be explained on the assumption that he has the freedom to go anywhere.

The next spell is chapter 76, for which the normal vignette is simply a walking person. Chapter 76 is the first of a baker’s dozen of spells for transformations. It would have been intolerable that the dead person should be forced to remain an inert mummy throughout eternity; he should be enabled to assume any temporary form he pleased—a falcon, a lotus, a snake, a swallow, or a crocodile. This was not transmigration of souls; this was the power to make powerful or pleasing transformations.

“The speech for going into [any] form [that he wishes. Words to be spoken by] the Osiris T-[N: ‘I have passed] by the palace. It was the fowler [who brought me]. Hail to you who flies to heaven, [who illuminates the] stars, the protected white crown. He is in you, united [to you. O great god], make a way for me, so that I may pass by you.’”

I should be happy if I could explain how this spell gave the deceased the power of infinite transformation.

Chapter 77 follows, with its customary vignette of a falcon holding a scepter, the symbol of rule.

“The speech for taking the form of a falcon [of gold. Words to be spoken] by the Osiris T-[N]: ‘I have appeared as [a great] falcon which came forth from his egg. I have flown as a falcon [of four cubits across] his back, while the wings were of greens tone [of Upper Egypt, who came forth from the hold of the] evening-barque. (My) heart has been brought to me [from the eastern mountain.] I have trodden in the [morning]-barque. There come to me those who are among the prime [val beings of them, bowing down] and kissing the ground. They give me praise [as I] appear . . .’” The rest is lost at the bottom of the column. A falcon was a god of rule in ancient Egypt, and the king was the falcon-god Horus. This then was a transformation for power.

Photos 2 and 4

Whoever cut this papyrus up into sections ignored the columns of writing and the empty margins between columns. Here we have connected text running from the left side of photo 2 onto the right side of photo 4. Then somebody mounted an intrusive fragment of text upside down in the upper right corner of photo 4. Its handwriting is the same as the rest of Document B. I have not identified it. We lack clear context for about three lines from the top. Then we begin to see chapter 83, one of the spells for transformations. Its normal vignette would have shown a crested heron, serving as the phoenix.

“[The speech for taking the form of a phoenix . . .’ . . . I am the fruit of every god, who knows the requirements of] their bodies. I am [this yesterday of] these [four uraeus-serpents,] as a form [in the earth, the elder Horus, who illuminates within his body,] as this god Se[th, Thoth being between them in the trial of him who] presides over Letopolis, [together with the Souls of Heliopolis, water being between] them, as I come [today, having appeared among the gods. I am Khon]su.’”

Out of that tangle of myth, I can only say that the deceased became very flexible in form, just as the phoenix was supposed to change.

Next comes chapter 86, for which we have more visible text. It shows its normal vignette of a swallow perched upon some object.

“The speech for taking the form of [a swallow. Words to be spoken by the Osiris T-]N: ‘I am a swallow; I am a swallow. I am really a scorpion, the daughter of Re. O gods, how sweet is the fragrance [of you, the fire] which went up from the horizon. O you who are in the city, I bring him who guards his district. Give me your hand, as I spend the day in the Island of Flaring­up. I went on an errand; I returned with a report. Open for me, so that I might tell what I have seen. Horus is the controller of barques. The throne of his father has been given to him. That Seth, the son of Nut, is in fetters, when he would act against me. I have taken stock of what is in Letopolis. I have folded my arms for Osiris. I went on an errand; I returned to tell. Let me pass so that I may report the errand. I am one who goes in accounted and numbered by that gate of the Supreme Lord. I have become pure in that great district. I have driven away my evils. I know no falsehood. I have completely dispelled my evils which were on me. O doorkeepers, make a way for me. I am indeed one like unto you. I come and go [on foot, having] control of the course of the sun’s rays. I know the secret ways and the gates of the Field of Reeds, so that I may be there. See, I have come. I have com­pletely overthrown my enemies. My corpse is buried.’

“As for the one who knows this scroll, he may go forth by day in the necropolis and go back in after he has gone forth. If this speech is not known, he will not go back in after he has gone forth, being unable to go forth by day.”

It seems as though a swallow might be a messenger of the gods, being released from sin for his services.

Chapter 87 and then chapter 88 follow. The vignette has combined the illustrations for these two into a single picture, with a human-headed snake and a crocodile-headed human. As we noted above, the serpent slept underground. Thus he is here called “son of earth,” written with the picture of a snake following those words.

“The speech for taking the form of a son of earth. Words to be spoken by the Osiris T-N: ‘[I am a son of earth,] long of years, who sleeps and is reborn every day. I am a son of earth [at the ends of the earth,] as I sleep, am reborn, become new, and become young [every day.]’”

Then comes chapter 88. Sobek was the crocodile-god.

“[The speech for] taking the form of a crocodile. Words to be spoken by [the Osiris] T-N: ‘I am Sobek [in the middle of his terror.] I am a crocodile, when his soul returns from his people. I am Sobek who carries off by robbery. I am [the fish of Horus] here in Egypt. I am the possessor of obeisance in Letopolis.’” That confers awesome power.

Chapter 89 then abandons the series of transformations and seeks to empower the dead man’s soul to attend his corpse. The Egyptians pictured the soul as a bird, sometimes with a human head as in the vignette here, sometimes as a bird only, as on photo l.

“[The speech for causing that] the soul of a man join his corpse in the necropolis. [Words] to be spoken [by the Osiris] T-N: ‘[O you who bring, O] runner who is in his hall, O great god, may you let [my soul come to me from any place where it may be.] If there be delay in your bringing [me my] soul [from any place where it may be, you will find the (sacred) Eye standing against you like those watchers over the sleeper in Heliopolis. Land] by the thousands belongs to the one who joins [to him.] . . No more is visible in this column.

Photos 4 and 3

The continuity of photos 4 and 3 is marred by some of those disorders about which I have expressed such annoyance. The vignette of the little bird seems to be out of place. Above it is a piece upside down. In the upper left corner of photo 3 a piece upside down seems to be in a different handwriting, possibly that of photos 10 and 11. The center of 3 and its lower left are mere mishmash. Nevertheless, one can establish the continuity.

What we see first belongs to chapter 99, elsewhere entitled: “the speech for fetching a ferryboat in the necropolis.” Its normal vignette would show the deceased in a boat, lacking here. The picture of the fluttering bird-soul might appropriately be a vignette for chapter 91 or 92, not otherwise visible in our document. Before we can read context we are well along in chapter 99.

“‘[. . . Hail to you, good of person, lords of truth, who continue to live forever to the limits] of eternity! I have access [to you.] . . .’” After that one sees scattered traces, but it is difficult to fit them into the text as known from other papyri.

Book of the Dead chapter 100 follows. Its vignette normally shows the deceased poling a boat, with or without gods as passengers. In our case the passenger is the sun-god Re, while the god Ptah watches from the shore.

“The speech for [causing that the soul of a blessed one be satisfied and for causing] that he go down into the barque of Re, together with his retinue. [Words to be spoken by the Osiris T-N]: ‘I have ferried the phoenix over to Abydos, Osiris to Mendes. . . . [I have joined those who are among] the worshipping baboons. It is I, one of them. I have formed [the companion of Isis. . . . As I am strong] the Sacred Eye is strong [ and vice versa. As] for him who keeps me away [from the barque of Re, the egg and the abdju-fish] are (thus) kept away.’

“[Words to be spoken over] a sheet [of papyrus,] upon which this speech [is written, together with a picture of this god, which has been drawn] with the powder of green fayence, mixed [with myrrh, and placed on this blessed one at his feet, without letting it come near his body. Ennobled is] this blessed one over his breast, and caused to join the gods who are in the retinue [of Re, when he has illuminated the Two Lands in the presence of] them. He goes up into the barque of Re each and every day. [Thoth takes account of him. With] true value a million times.”

Here the deceased is empowered to join the never-dying boat of the sun, as it sweeps the sky day after day. The instructions at the end give the ritual for the dead woman’s priest, telling him where he is to place the written spell with its vignette, before he recites the charm.

Next comes chapter 101, for which our vignette corresponds to the standard scene: the sun-god Re in his barque.

“The speech for [protecting] the barque of Re. Words to be spoken [by the Osiris T-N]: ‘O stri[der over the water, who comes forth] from the floods [and sits on the stern of this barque, go to your position of yesterday. . . . O Re, in this your name of Re,] if you pass by the Sacred Eye [of seven cubits, its. pupil of three and a half cubits, then you shall make me sound. I am a blessed one,] excellent . . .’” The vignette shows the Sacred Eye twice, although it hardly seems to match its claimed length of twelve feet. That is all I can identify in this column.

Photo 3

One would like to work at the left hand column of photo 3 with a pair of tweezers, to remove the intrusive pieces. Meanwhile, a lot can be gained in identifying the text which is in place.

I do not know whether the traces partly visible at the top show the end of a preceding chapter or the beginning of 103. At any rate, when we do have visible context, the chapter is 103. The usual vignette, the deceased be­fore the goddess Hathor, is not visible.

“[The speech for being beside Hathor. Words to be spoken by the] Osiris T-N: ‘I am the one who passed by, pure. O Ihi, Ihi, [I shall be in] the retinue of Hathor.’” Ihi was the music-playing son of Hathor.

Chapter 104 shows a normal vignette of the deceased sitting with the gods.

“[The speech for sitting among] the great gods. Words to be spoken [by the Osiris] T-[N: ‘I sit among] the great gods. [I] have passed [by] the house of the evening-barque. It is a butler, the porter of Horus, son of Isis, who comes to me on business of Re. Food and sustenance are at the proper place, to provision the offering-bread for the great gods. It is a fowler whom he has brought.’

“As for the one who knows this speech, he -sits among the [great] gods.”

Chapter 105 is unfortunately much obliterated. The vignette is clear, Ta-shere-Min standing in adoration beside a table heaped with offerings, which are framed by upraised arms, the hieroglyph for the ka or guiding spirit. “[The speech for satisfying the spirit of a man] in the nec[ropolis. Words] to be spoken by [the Osiris T-N: ‘Hail to you, my spirit, my lifetime! See, I have come to you .... I have brought to you natron and] incense, so that (I) might purify you with them, and purify [your spittle with them.] Overlook that evil arguing and the evil [speech) which I have spoken and this evil arrogance which I have shown, without giving me over to them. I am really this green papyrus-amulet which is at the throat of [Re, which was given to those who are in the horizon. As they flourish] I flourish. As they flourish my spirit flourishes. As they flourish my lifetime flourishes, like unto them. The provisioning of my spirit is like unto theirs. O weigher of the scales, truth is as high as the nose of Re by day. O my spirit, you should not make a head which you weigh in yourself(?). Mine is an eye that sees, my ear hears. I am not really a bull of the sacrifices. From me there will be no mortuary offerings to those who are over Nut.’”

There Ta-shere-min makes offerings to her own guiding spirit, in the expectation that she will thereby live and not become a sacrifice herself. The text was enlivened by ancient Egyptian puns: ka, “spirit,” ka, “bull,” and implicitly kau, “food”; wadj, “green,’’ wadj, “amulet,” and wadj, “to flourish.”

Then comes chapter 106. In late times its vignette shows the deceased offering to the god of Ptah. Here she extends the hieroglyphys for “offering” to that god.

“[The speech for giving offerings] in Memphis. [Words] to be spoken [by] the Osiris T-N: ‘O great one and elder, lord of provisions, O great one presiding over the upper houses, may you give me bread and beer! My breakfast [is a joint of meat, together with cakes. O ferryman of the Osiris T-N] in the Field of Reeds, [bring me these loaves of bread to your district, as to] your father, the great one who went [away in the ship of the god, going forth by day after coming to rest.]’ “

No more is visible on photo 3.

Photo 8

Some chapters of the Book of the Dead have larger vignettes, which may occupy two or more columns all by themselves. Chapter 125 usually has the major scene of the dead person being introduced into the presence of Osiris—like Document C—while his heart is being weighed in the balances against the symbol for truth. The vignette for chapter 110 is also a large one, depicting “the Field of Reeds,” their Fields of Paradise. These happy areas are divided into three or four horizontal zones by channels of water. Thus in the early Papyrus of Ani in the British Museum, the top register shows Ani making offerings to various gods and poling a boat; the second register shows him reaping grain and driving the cattle who are treading out the grain; the third register shows him plowing; and the bottom register has simply watery convolutions through the Field of Reeds. In the top register of Allen’s Document M the deceased makes an offering; in the second register he plows and reaps; in the third register his cattle tread out the grain; and the bottom register shows him poling a boat along twisted channels. Allen’s Document R has only three registers: making offerings and poling a boat; offering, treading out, reaping, sowing, and plowing; and watery convolutions. These scenes are accompanied by hieroglyphic texts, which tell us that the barley of these fields is seven cubits high—about twelve feet. So the labor of cultivating is richly rewarded.

Our fragment shows the lower part of one register and most of another. It probably is only about a third of the total scene. Above, Ta-shere-min is poling a boat and standing beside something which may be a pile of offerings. Below, she is twice shown sowing grain and once plowing. Over the cattle are two legends. One simply says “Plowing”; the other says of the Fields of Paradise: “The sky is ·its length.” Within these activities the little lady is as cooly erect as she appears elsewhere.

An illustration of our photo 3 appearing in The Improvement Era, Feb. 1968, page 50-D, shows more of its left margin than visible elsewhere. It makes it clear that the left side of photo 3 joined the right side of photo 8.

The Church Historian’s Fragment

This is not one of the eleven pieces recently returned to the Church, but apparently has been in the archives indefinitely. It appeared as a page in “Valuable Discovery.” It is a hodge-podge of unrelated scraps, but the names of Ta-shere-Min and of her mother Nes-Khonsu are visible.

Near the top one scrap shows two consecutive statements from the so­ called Negative Confession in chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead. As the dead person stood before his judges in the court of the dead, he made a formal denial of any wrongdoing in his lifetime, addressing about forty dis­avowals to an equal number of divine jurors. We see here pieces of his eighth and ninth “negative confessions.”

“‘[O Fiery-of-Face, who came forth from Heliopolis, I have not] stolen the property of a god!’”

“‘[O Breaker-of-Bones, who came forth from Heracleopolis, I have not told] a lie!’”

Below that another piece shows parts of chapters 4 and 5. From chapter 4 one sees the words: “‘[I am one . . . who judged] the two [companions.] I have come that I might give the fields [to Osiris].’” Under that, from chap­ter 5, one sees: “[I am the seeker of the weary one, who came forth from] Hermopolis, who lives on the entrails [of baboons.]’” I can determine the relation of this scrap to what I listed above as piece ii.

Probably more exhaustive—and exhausting—research would identify further pieces of the Church Historian’s fragment.

That is what a preliminary study shows for Document B. The lengthy chapter 125 is represented by only two phrases. The lengthy chapter 15 is indicated only by part of a vignette showing worshipping apes. The lengthy chapter 17 does not appear at all. Further, there are more gaps in the series of chapters than we should expect in a late Book of the Dead. Probably there is more missing than is present—much more. One sincerely hopes that some of the missing pieces may return to Mormon possession.

As for little Ta-shere-Min, we may know something about the terrors which she felt for the next world and about the great dreams which she had for eternal life. In the course of several weeks one has become quite fond of her. She had a manuscript which once showed careful craftsmanship and which presented her as a person of cool distinction. The Church may well be proud to have such a text.

[post_title] => The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and Interpretations: A Summary Report [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 3.2 (Summer 1968):67 – 85
The Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri once consisted of at least six separate documents, possibly eight or more. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-translations-and-interpretations-a-summary-report [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-20 23:12:37 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-20 23:12:37 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=17793 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 17799 [post_author] => 3773 [post_date] => 2018-05-03 22:00:09 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-05-03 22:00:09 [post_content] =>

Photo (1). This is a well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries, with Anubis, the jackal-headed god, on the left ministering to the dead Osiris on the bier. The pencilled(?) restoration is incorrect. Anubis should be jackal­headed. The left arm of Osiris is in reality lying at his side under him. The apparent upper hand is part of the wing of a second bird which is hovering over the erect phallus of Osiris (now broken away). The second bird is Isis and she is magically impregnated by the dead Osiris and then later gives birth to Horus who avenges his father and takes over his inheritance. The complete bird represents Nephthys, sister to Osiris and Isis .. Beneath the bier are the four canopic jars with heads representative of the four sons of Horus, human-headed Imseti, baboon-headed Hapy, jackal-headed Duamutef and falcon-headed Kebehsenuf. The hieroglyphs refer to burial, etc., but I have found no exact parallel in the time at my disposal and the poor photography precludes easy reading of the whole. I see no obvious personal name.

(2 to 9). These are all fragments of the Book of the Dead belonging to the woman Ta-sherit-Min. daughter of Neskhons. Some of the fragments actually join and could be so mounted when the papyrus is prepared properly. The order of the photographs is as follows:

(7). Right fragment has the vignettes and parts of Spells 53 and 54 of the Book of the Dead. The left fragment has parts of the vignettes and Spells 63 and 65. The titles are 53, Spell for not eating dung or drinking urine in the god’s domain; 5·t Spell for giving breath to a man in the god’s domain; 63, Spell for drinking water and not becoming parched by fire; 65, Spell for going forth by day and overcoming one’s enemies.

(9). Right column, an unidentified spell. Left column, upper vignette for Spells 67 and 70, lower for Spell 72. 67, Spell for going out; 70, Another spell; 72, Spell for going forth by day and opening the underworld of the west.

(2). Either fits under (9). or joins at the side since the top continues Spell 72. Then follow Spells 74, 75, 76 and 77 with vignettes. 74, Spell for opening the feet and ascending from the ca1·th; 75, Spell for going to Heliopolis and taking a seat there; 76, Spell for assuming any form one wishes; 77, Spell. for assuming the form of a falcon of gold.

(4). This joins directly to (2) and I would judge was once cut off rather than broken away. The base line under the legged serpent in the top vignette points to the fourth line above the base of the swallow. The papyrus in (4) needs arrangement at the top. There is the end of an unidentified spell and then Spells 86, 87, 88 and 89 with vignettes, the middle of which is for 87 and 88. 86, Spell for assuming the form of a swallow; 87, Spell for assuming the form of a son of earth (a snake); 88, Spell for assuming the form of a crocodile; 89, Spell for causing that a man’s soul attach itself to his corpse in the god’s domain.

(3). This joins directly to (4). The baseline under the middle vignette of (2) points to the line immediately above the lower vignette on the right in (3). The upper part of (3) is badly arranged. Some fragments are upside down, and the middle needs to be straightened as well. On the right the top vignette is for either Spell 91 or 92. The middle is for Spell 100 and the lower for 101. 91, Spell for not letting a man’s soul be confined in the god’s domain; 100, Spell for making content the soul of a blessed one and causing that he ascend to the bark of Re and his retinue; 101, Spell for protecting the bark of Re. On the left at top Spell 103 and then vignettes for Spells 104, 105 and 106. 103, Spell for opening beside Hathor; 104, Spell for sitting among the great gods; 105, Spell for making a man’s spirit content in the god’s domain; 106, Spell for giving offerings in Memphis.

(8). This is part of the vignette of Spell 110, portraying the deceased in the other world.

(5 and 6). These join directly and together compose the well-known Spell 125 judgment scene. Osiris is on the left. The four sons of Horus stand on the lotus before him. Behind him is the Devourer who eats the condemned hearts. Below is the scales on which the heart of the deceased is weighed against the feather of truth. Behind the Devourer is Thoth who records the verdict, and on the right Ma’at, goddess of truth, leads in the deceased. Above is a row of assessors.

The titles I have quoted above are without strict regard to the preserved writing.

The papyri need to be carefully cleaned and straightened and then rephotographed with care to illuminate the under side somewhat to eliminate all shadows in cracks and breaks, which can frequently look just like writing.

---

Richard A. Parker is the Wilbour Professor of Egyptology and Chairman of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University. His primary interest is in the later stages of Egyptian language and history. He remarks that the BOOK OF BREATHINGS is a late (Ptolemaic and Roman periods) and greatly redacted version of the BOOK OF THE DEAD. No comprehensive study of it has yet been undertaken and no manuscript has yet been published adequately. He would provisionally date the two BOOK OF BREATHINGS fragments in the Church’s possession to the last century before or the first century of the Christian era; his translation of one of these fragments} the important “sensen” text, begins on page 98.

[post_title] => The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and Interpretations: The Joseph Smith Papyri: A Preliminary Report [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 3.2 (Summer 1968):86 – 88
The papyri need to be carefully cleaned and straightened and then rephotographed with care to illuminate the under side somewhat to eliminate all shadows in cracks and breaks, which can frequently look just like writing. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-translations-and-interpretations-the-joseph-smith-papyri-a-preliminary-report [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-20 23:14:01 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-20 23:14:01 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=17799 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 17800 [post_author] => 2350 [post_date] => 2018-05-03 23:37:21 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-05-03 23:37:21 [post_content] =>

During the 1830’s John Whitmer wrote, in connection with the ancient Egyptian records purchased by the church in July 1835 from Michael H. Chandler,

. . . Joseph the Seer saw these :records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our fore­fathers. Much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren. Which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the Saints.[1]

Oliver Cowdery described the papyri as “the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph. . . .” He further observed:

The evidence is apparent upon the face, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas of notions of the Deity. The representations of the god-head—three, yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writers views of that exalted personage. . . . The inner end of the same roll, (Joseph’s record,) presents a representation of the judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the sceptres of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which satan is represented as reigning, . . . Be there little or much it must be an inestimable acquisition to our present scriptures, fulfilling, in a small degree the word of the prophet: For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.[2]

Joseph Smith, Jr., concurred in Cowdery’s estimate of the great spiritual value of these ancient documents, and of their direct relationship to both Abraham and Joseph.

I . . . commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,—a more full account of which will appear in their place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.[3]

Nearly seven years later, in 1842, Joseph Smith, Jr., published the result of his “translation” activity in these papyri, but in his introduction to the text he more conservatively cited the material as “purporting to be the writings of Abraham” (italics mine).[4]

In July 1862 the Reorganized Church published the Book of Abraham in its monthly periodical with no editorial comment and without the introduction given it in 1842 by Joseph Smith.[5] Twenty-one months later that same issue of the True Latter Day Saints’ Herald was reprinted, along with other back issues, and the publishers ran a small notice concerning the availability of the Book of Abraham by this means:

The Book of Abraham was published in the Herald, in No. 1 of Vol. 3. That number has been republished, and is now for sale. Price 10 cents.[6]

Thirty-two years later two officials of the Reorganized Church published the following observation of the Book of Abraham:

The church has never to our knowledge taken any action on this work, either to indorse or condemn; so it cannot be said to be a church publication; nor can the church be held to answer for the correctness of its teaching. Joseph Smith, as the translator, is committed of course to the correctness of the translation, but not necessarily to the indorsement of its historical or doctrinal contents.[7]

This conservative position stemmed from a knowledge of the doctrinal content and implications of same in the Book of Abraham, and has generally represented the sentiment of the church leaders and membership since that time.

However, several developments since 1896 indicate the need for a more definite, if tentative, statement on the part of the Reorganized Church. These developments seem to require forthright clarity in the direction of questioning the 1835-1842 linguistic skill of Joseph Smith, Jr., as a translator of ancient Egyptian symbols. This is true especially in the light of the fact that the contributions of the great pioneer Jean François Champollion (1790-1832), relating to the deciphering of the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone and to ancient Egyptian philoIogy generally, were not known in the western hemisphere sufficiently by 1842 so as to have helped Joseph Smith, or any other American, develop proficiency in this field. And while Joseph Smith’s history mentions his 1836 classwork in Hebrew, he makes no mention of formal instruction in Egyptian, and alludes in this connection only to his preparation of an Egyptian alphabet and grammar. The basis for this work is not specified.

The first development was the publication of a pamphlet by the Episcopal Bishop of Utah in 1912,[8] based on the work of eight prominent Egyptologists, scattered from Chicago to Munich. Spalding had sent them copies of the three well-known facsimiles published along with the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith in Times and Seasons in 1842. Spalding had requested each to interpret the symbols and comment upon the accuracy of the interpretations of them offered by Joseph Smith. The Egyptologists complied with Spalding’s request and submitted their interpretations and appraisals. While they did not agree in every minute detail with each other they were none­theless unanimously at sharp variance with each of the twenty-five interpretations of the facsimiles published by Joseph Smith, Jr. Therefore, since 1912 serious students of this subject have had to consider the probability that Joseph Smith had erred at many significant points in his interpretations of the drawings on the papyri, from part of which the text of the Book of Abraham itself was apparently derived The implication of this is that if Joseph Smith erred in assessing the meanings of the papyri drawings, there is a strong likelihood that his interpretations of the ancient Egyptian language symbols on the papyri were inaccurate also.

A second development underscores this possibility: the publication in 1966 of a reproduction of a document known as Joseph Smith’s “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.” Until recently this document was available to only a few scholars at the Archives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. However, Jerald Tanner of Salt Lake City managed to obtain a microfilm of this document and published enlarged prints from this film.[9] This reproduction, if of an authentic original, demonstrates significant connections between some words in it and identical words used by Joseph Smith in his interpretations accompanying the three facsimiles as published in 1842. It follows that if modern Egyptologists have or might yet clearly establish the inaccuracy of Joseph’s interpretations of the three facsimiles, and if further research confirms the link already observed between Joseph’s facsimile interpretations and his “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language,” then the reliability of the Book of Abraham as a translation of ancient records could no longer safely be maintained.

The third development has implications largely for the future. This is the widespread dissemination of splendid reproductions of the recently discovered eleven Egyptian papyri. At least two of these clearly relate to the Book of Abraham facsimiles first published by Joseph Smith. This relationship is all the more firmly established by the presence, among the papyri, of a certificate of sale of the papyri to Mr. A. Combs by L. C. Bidamon, Emma Smith Bidamon and Joseph Smith III, dated May 26, 1856.[10] This certificate, both in content and in signatures, appears to be authentic. The significance of the distribution of these documents is that now, more information than ever is available for Egyptologists’ translation and further comparison with Joseph Smith’s facsimiles and his “Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet.” Should this occur, and should their translations of these ancient papyri be published, evidence of great consequence would then bear upon a fuller assessment of the relative merits of the Book of Abraham as representative of either his (Abraham’s) writings or of writings about him.

If the present-day Egyptologists’ work on these ancient papyri tends to confirm the conclusions of their 1912 predecessors, proponents of the Book of Abraham will be drawn to a revision of their present estimate of the meaning and nature of Joseph Smith’s work on this publication. Indeed, one real possibility in that case would be that the Book of Abraham is not a translation at all, in the sense of transferring ideas from the Egyptian to the English language.

In the light of the findings of the 1912 Egyptologists, and depending upon whether their present-day successors will substantiate their conclusions, one may be confronted with the evidence that the Book of Abraham was rather the product of a highly intuitive mind, stimulated at least in part by an earlier work of revising the creation accounts of the Authorized Version of the Bible, 1830-1833. Textual comparisons between Joseph Smith’s “New Translation of the Bible” (or, “Inspired Version,” as published by the Re­organized Church) and the Book of Abraham (Genesis 1 and 2: Abraham 4 and 5) show a remarkable degree of parallelism of subject materials, language style and content. The major difference is the monotheism of the former and the polytheism of the latter. It should be recalled also that in 1842 when Joseph Smith published the Book of Abraham his work of biblical revision had not yet been published.

There will be a natural tendency for some who are dogmatically com­mitted to the Book of Abraham and/or to an image of Joseph Smith as an infallible living oracle to minimize or even to rule out completely the possibility of any relationship existing between the recently discovered papyri and the Book of Abraham as published. However, the unmistakable connection between these recently discovered papyri and the facsimiles published by Joseph Smith in 1842 leaves little room for such maneuvering, and leads the open-minded observer away from such an alternative.

It appears that in time the mystery of the Book of Abraham will be unveiled. Meanwhile, it is significant for the Reorganized Church that undue haste and overzealous faith did not move it in the nineteenth century to canonize this work of Joseph Smith, Jr., primarily on the basis that it was accomplished by Joseph Smith, Jr.

---

[1] John Whitmer, “The Book of John Whitmer Kept by Commandment.” MS, p. 76. In The Archives, Department of History, The Auditorium, Independence, Missouri.

[2] Oliver Cowdery, Kirtland, Ohio, to William Frye, Gilead, Illinois, letter dated December 22, 1835, published in Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Vol. II, No. 3, December, 1835, pp. 234-237.

[3] “History of Joseph Smith,” Millennial Star, Vol. XV, No. 19, May 7, 1853, p. 296.

[4] Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, Nos. 9, 10 and 14, March l, March 15 and May 16, 1842, pp. 703-706; 719-722; 783-784.

[5] The True Latter Day Saints’ Herald, Vol. 3, No. 1, July, 1862, pp. 1-10.

[6] The True Latter Day Saints’ Herald, Vol. 5, No. 7, April 1, 1864, p. 112.

[7] Joseph Smith III, and Herman C. Smith. The History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Publishing House, 1896. Vol. II, p. 569.

[8] F. S. Spalding, Joseph Smith as a Translator, Salt Lake City, Utah: Arrow Press, 1912. 31 pp.

[9] Modern Microfilm Company, Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. Salt Lake City, 1966.

[10] The full text of this certificate was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 2, No. 4, Winter 1967, p. 52n.

[post_title] => The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and Interpretations: A Tentative Approach to the Book of Abraham [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 3.2 (Summer 1968):89 – 92
It appears that in time the mystery of the Book of Abraham will be unveiled. Meanwhile, it is significant for the Reorganized Church that undue haste and overzealous faith did not move it in the nineteenth century to canonize this work of Joseph Smith, Jr., primarily on the basis that it was accomplished by Joseph Smith, Jr. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-translations-and-interpretations-a-tentative-approach-to-the-book-of-abraham [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-20 23:16:45 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-20 23:16:45 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=17800 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 17798 [post_author] => 3472 [post_date] => 2018-05-03 23:38:35 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-05-03 23:38:35 [post_content] =>

The following evidence that one specific fragment, the “sensen” text, was used by Joseph Smith in obtaining the Book of Abraham was submitted by Grant Heward (who has studied Egyptian on his own and reports that he was recently excommunicated for his views on Joseph Smith’s ability to translate Egyptian) and Jerald Tanner (who heads Modern Microfilm, Co., a, professedly anti­Mormon publishing house). Their work is followed by translation of the sen­sen text by Professor Richard Parker and finally by a discussion of the present state and best future direction of studies of Joseph Smith’s work with Egyptian by professor Hugh Nibley (scholarly defender of the Mormon faith whose continuing argument for the divine origin of the Book of Abraham based on external evidences in the Abrahamic tradition is appearing serially in the Improvement Era).

It now appears that the papyrus fragments recently recovered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints include the text used by Joseph Smith in his efforts to translate the Book of Abraham. The fragment in question (see illustration No. 1) was identified in the February, 1968, Improvement Era (bottom of p. 40-1) as “XI. Small ‘Sensen’ text (unillustrated).” It would seem that Joseph Smith studied this fragment and concluded that it was writ­ten by Abraham. Then Joseph, or his scribes, copied down a character or two at a time and to the right of each character rendered a translation of its meaning. These translations comprise the original manuscript version of the Book of Abraham. (See illustrations Nos. 2 and 3.)

Dr. James R. Clark of Brigham Young University provides this description of the manuscripts:

As a matter of fact there are in existence today in the Church His­torian’s office what seem to be two separate manuscripts of Joseph Smith’s translations from the papyrus rolls, presumably in the hand writing of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery; neither manuscript con­tains the complete text of the Book of Abraham. as we have it now. One manuscript is the Alphabet and Grammar. . . . Within this Alphabet and Grammar there is a copy of the characters, together with their translation of Abraham 1:4-28 only. The second and separate of the two manuscripts contains none of the Alphabet and Grammar but is a manuscript of the text of the Book of Abraham as published in the first installment of the Times and Seasons, March 1, 1842.[1]

All of the characters in the first two rows on the papyrus fragment shown in illustration No. 1 can be found attached to the portion of the Book of Abraham in Joseph Smith’s “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.” Illustration No. 3 pro­ vides a comparison of characters from one of the handwritten manuscripts with the characters as they appear on the original papyrus.

A photograph of the first page of the second manuscript of the Book of Abraham is found on page 179 of James R. Clark’s Story of the Pearl of Great Price. Dr. Clark writes,

I have in my possession a photostatic copy of the manuscript of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of Abraham l: I to 2: 18. This man­uscript was bought by Wilford Wood in 1945 from Charles Bidamon, son of the man who married Emma after the death of the Prophet. The original of this manuscript is in the Church Historian’s Office in Salt Lake City. The characters from which our present Book of Abra­ham was translated are down the left-hand column and Joseph Smith’s translation opposite, so we know approximately how much material was translated from each character.[2]

This manuscript begins with the statement, “Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacomb[s] of Egypt.” This manuscript is more extensive than that in the “Alphabet and Grammar.” Illustration No. 4 compares characters from this manuscript with those in the third line of the papyrus fragment.

Joseph Smith apparently translated many English words from each Egyptian character. The characters from fewer than four lines of the papyrus make up forty-nine verses of the Book of Abraham, containing more than two thousand words. If Joseph Smith continued to translate the same number of English words from each Egyptian character, this one small fragment would complete the entire text of the Book of Abraham. In other words, the small piece of papyrus pictured in illustration No. 1 appears to be the whole Book of Abraham!

This evidence raises several problems. One is that the Egyptian characters cannot conceivably have enough information channels (component parts) to convey the amount of material translated from them. Another is that the papyrus fragment in question dates from long after Abraham’s time, much nearer, in fact, to the time of Christ. But most important, the Egyptian has been translated, and it has no recognizable connection with the subject matter of the Book of Abraham. The February, 1968, Improvement Era identifies the fragment as a small, unillustrated “Sensen” text. Sensen means “breathings,” and the papyrus fragment has been identified by reputable Egyptologists as a portion of the “Book of Breathings,” a funerary text of the late Egyptian period.

It is interesting to note that not only the manuscripts of the Book of Abra­ham but also Facsimile No. 2 includes portions of this “Book of Breathings.” Evidently the original of Facsimile No. 2 was damaged. That portions of it were unreadable or had fallen away is evident from a drawing found in Joseph Smith’s “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” (see illustration No. 5A). The missing areas on this drawing have been filled in with insertions from other documents to make Facsimile No. 2 as it now exists (see illustration No. 5B for a photograph of Facsimile No. 2 as it was published in the Times and Seasons in 1842; notice that the missing areas have been filled in). The area at the top showing a god in a boat was evidently copied from the fragment of papyrus labeled in the February, I 968, Improvement Era (p. 40-D) as “IV. Framed (‘Trinity’) papyrus.”

The Egyptian words meaning “Book of Breathings” have been inserted into other blank areas shown in illustration 5A. These words come from line four of the same fragment of papyrus which Joseph Smith used as a basis for the text of the Book of Abraham. Illustration 5B shows that characters have been copied from lines two and three of the same papyrus fragment. One group of characters from line two was copied twice along the edge of Facsimile No. 2. The characters which follow around the edge were taken from line three.

---

[1] James R. Clark, The Story of the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City, 1962), pp. 172-173.

[2] James R. Clark in Pearl of Great Price Conference, December 10, 1960 (Brigham Young University, Extension Publications, 1964 Edition), pp. 60-61.

[post_title] => The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and Interpretations: The Source of the Book of Abraham Identified [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 3.2 (Summer 1968): 92–97
A description of the alleged Egyptain papyri used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-translations-and-interpretations-the-source-of-the-book-of-abraham-identified-2 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-01-28 19:33:55 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-01-28 19:33:55 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=17798 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 17805 [post_author] => 3773 [post_date] => 2018-05-03 23:39:14 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-05-03 23:39:14 [post_content] =>

THE BOOK OF BREATHINGS

(FRAGMENT I, THE “SENSEN” TEXT, WITH RESTORATIONS FROM LOUVRE PAPYRUS 3284)

translated by Richard A. Parker

COLUMN I

1. [ . . . . . . . . ] this great pool of Khonsu

2. [Osiris Hor, justified], born of Taykhebyt, a man likewise.

3. After (his) two arms are [fast]ened to his breast, one wraps the Book of Breathings, which is

4. with writing both inside and outside of it, with royal linen, it being placed (at) his left arm

5. near his heart, this having been done at his

6. wrapping and outside it. If this book be recited for him, then

7. he will breath like the soul[s of the gods] for ever and

8. ever.

COLUMN II

1. The beginning [of the Book of Breathings made by Isis for her brother Osiris, to make his soul live, to make his body live, to make young his members]

2. again, [so that he may attain the] horizon with his father Re’ (the sun), [so that his soul may appear in glory in the sky in the disk of Yah (the moon), so that his body may shine as Sah (Orion) on the body of Nut (the sky), and to]

3. cause [the like of th]is to happen to the Osiris Hor, justified, [born of Taykhebyt . . . . . . . . Hide (it), hide (it)!]

4. Don’t [allow] any man to read it. [It] is profitable [for a man in the necropolis. He truly lives anew millions of times. Words to be recited]:

5. Hail, [Osiris H]or, justified, born of Tay[khebyt . . . . . . . . You are pure; your heart is pure, your front is purified; your back is]

6. cleansed; your middle is in bd-natron [and hsmn-natron. There is no bad member of yours. Purified is the Osiris Hor, justified, born of Taykhebyt, engendered by]

7. Remenykay, justified, with the šdyt-water [of the Field of Offerings, north of the Field of Locusts. Have purified you Edjo and]

8. Nekhbet at the fourth hour of the night and the fourth hour [of the day. Come thou, Osiris Hor, justified, born of Taykhebyt, that you may enter the Broad Hall of the]

9. Two Goddesses of Righteousness, you being purified from [all] baseness [and all wrongdoing. Stone of Righteousness is your name. Hail, Osiris Hor, justified, born of Taykhebyt! You enter]

10. [the Otherworld] very pure. Have purified you [the Two Goddesses of Righteousness in the great Broad Hall. A cleansing has been made for you in the Broad Hall of Geb and your members have been purified in]

11. [the Broad Hall of Shu. You] see Re’ when he sets [as Atum in the evening. Amon is with you, giving you well-being and Ptah]

12. [fashions your limbs]. You enter into the horizon with Re’ [ . . . . . . .

(At most one line is lost between the end of this fragment and the top of the right-hand column of the second fragment.)

[post_title] => The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and Interpretations: The Book of Breathings [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 3.2 (Summer 1968)98
THE BOOK OF BREATHINGS (FRAGMENT I, THE “SENSEN” TEXT, WITH RESTORATIONS FROM LOUVRE PAPYRUS 3284) translated by Richard A. Parker [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-translations-and-interpretations-the-book-of-breathings [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-20 23:19:33 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-20 23:19:33 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=17805 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 17803 [post_author] => 2349 [post_date] => 2018-05-03 23:39:30 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-05-03 23:39:30 [post_content] =>

The investigation of the Book of Abraham has still far to go before we can start drawing significant conclusions. Even the first preliminary stage of the operation is by no means completed, for we still have to determine exactly what the relationship was supposed to be between the official text and the Egyptian papyri in the possession of Joseph Smith, and how Smith treated the papyri. The problem of Joseph Smith as an inspired prophet never enters into the discussion at all, since that lies entirely beyond the province of scholarship: the experts must judge him as a translator or not at all. But translator of what? While he freely circulated reproductions of the three Facsimiles with his interpretation of them, inviting comment from one and all, he never specified from what particular papyri he was translating the text proper or by what process.

Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price is a work in progress, a selection made after the Prophet’s death of writings that do not make up a single connected or completed work. There are two known manuscripts of the Book of Abraham and there may be yet other undiscovered. One of them, a study of visible symbols, is not the sort of thing that anyone would dictate to another, everything being addressed to the eye; but is it in the handwriting of Joseph Smith? It is certainly not his spelling. There is a lot we would like to know about these strange texts. There are signs of experimenting here, and the writer feels free to make alterations as he goes. We must not forget that Joseph Smith was not only permitted but commanded to cast about in his own mind for the answers to things before asking for revelation (DC 9:7–8), just as the Nephites were commanded to “ponder upon the things” they wished to understand and so to “prepare your minds” for revelation (3 Ne. 17:3), and as the Brother of Jared, when he asked the Lord how he should light his ships was told to solve the problem for himself as best he might before appealing for supernatural aid (Ether 3–4). If we do not have an official Urtext of the Pearl of Great Price we do have some manuscripts which indicate independent thinking and speculation.

Under this heading we would certainly place the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which is no more fantastic than the Egyptological gymnastics of such a great thinker as Leibniz—there seems to be something about Egyptian which brings out the latent crack-pot in many of us. The Alphabet and Grammar consists of two quite different documents. One is the list of signs, each accompanied by a short phonetic rendering and a brief interpretation; here there is nothing extraordinary about the length of each “translation,” whatever one might think of its content. But it is a wholly different story when we come to the second document, where one brief symbol may be followed not by a corresponding transliteration and translation but by a whole page or more of history or commentary. Either we have here a totally different language from that in the sign-lists, which show a quite rational sense of proportion between Egyptian symbols and English sentences, or else this is a “translation” in an entirely different sense.

If the few symbols here given, which are taken from the brief Sen-Sen fragment, are the Egyptian source of the Book of Abraham, why were they never given out as such to the public? Because it was Smith’s secret source of information? It could not have been that unless he was actually translating it. At best the symbols on the left would seem to indicate section-headings. To see in them the whole book of Abraham is to fly in the face of reason and attribute our insanity to Joseph Smith. Any thought of a literal translation is of course out of the question, but to identify the symbols in the Sen-Sen papyrus with the text of the entire book of Abraham we must assume that the sly Joseph Smith and his competent co-workers remained blissfully unaware of a discrepancy so gross that a cretin could not miss it. In the absence of any explanation by its writer, the very arrangement of the texts, while indicating a definite connection, whatever it might be, between the symbols and the English text, strikes one forcefully at first glance as a clear indication that the person who wrote it could not possibly have intended the one text to pass as a translation of the other, especially since he has already demonstrated a sane sense of proportion in the preceding sign-lists.

Those who insist that “the Egyptian characters cannot conceivably have enough information . . . to convey the amount of material translated from them,” are the very parties who do conceive of just that, and insist that Joseph Smith actually did derive all that stuff from them. They can't have it both ways. If nobody could possibly get the Book of Abraham out of the Sen-Sen papyrus, then we can be quite sure that nobody did—nobody including Joseph Smith. But in that case what is the charge against him—that he pretended to be translating the Sen-Sen papyrus? Then why did he keep it a secret? Since the Sen-Sen business makes very little sense to anybody, while the Book of Abraham makes very good sense, one might suppose that Smith could have produced the latter without any reference to the former—that he could have written the Book of Abraham more easily, in fact, without having to bother himself with those meaningless squiggles. But if the Sen-Sen symbols are expendable, why does he use them at all? His only purpose would have been to impress others, but he keeps the whole operation strictly to himself and never circulates the Sen-Sen papyrus as he did the Facsimiles. And why on earth would he fasten on this particularly ugly little piece and completely bypass the whole collection of handsome illustrated· documents at his disposal? Did he really think he was translating? If so he was acting in good faith. But was he really translating? If so, it was by a process which quite escapes the understanding of the specialists and lies in the realm of the imponderable.

No one has begun to look into the Sen-Sen problem seriously. In the sign­lists, for example, there are many corrections and alterations in the English translation and the handwriting is interrupted and hesitant. But in the text that accompanies the Sen-Sen signs there are no deletions, additions or corrections, the spelling is perfect, and the handwriting is flowing and unfaltering. The English text then is plainly not being composed for the first time in this manuscript, which is being copied from an already complete English text. Is somebody trying to match up the already available text with the Sen-Sen symbols? Whatever is happening, the finished and almost flawless manuscript is not being derived from the symbols placed to the left of it. The connection between the two remains a mystery.

Today nobody claims that Joseph Smith got his information through ordinary scholarly channels. In that case one wonders how any amount of checking along ordinary scholarly channels is going to get us very far. But that does not excuse us from going as far as we can. Many questions are still to be answered concerning the whole bulk of the Egyptian manuscripts possessed by Joseph Smith. Were important parts missing in 1830? Was the jumbling and cutting done “before it was brought to Kirtland?” Who pasted the things together? Who cut them up? We are told that the papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House. Those we have today are mounted on paper showing maps of the Kirtland area, but that suggests that the mounting took place only after the Kirtland period, when all thought of returning to Kirtland was given up and the precious maps had become waste-paper. Such questions are interesting and relevant, but for the study of the Book of Abraham their interest is only secondary since none of the Book of the Dead papyri were consulted in the composing of that book, any more than the Arabic Mss were.

When I first saw photos of the papyri I made myself disagreeable by throwing a great deal of cold water around. For publicity they were great, and as far as I can see their main value is still in calling the attention of Latter-day Saints to the existence of scriptures which they have studiously ignored through the years. But after all, what do the papyri tell us? That Joseph Smith had them, that he studied them, and that the smallest and most insignificant-looking of them is connected in some mysterious way to the Pearl of Great Price. There is really very little new here to shed light on the Book of Abraham. We must look elsewhere for further light and knowledge. For after all, the Book of Abraham does have something to say, and that should be the point of departure in any serious investigation of its authenticity. Here we have an instructive parallel with the Book of Mormon.

There is nothing in the circumstances surrounding the production of the Book of Mormon to give one the least confidence in the authenticity of the book. But what a book! Without the book anyone would be justified in labelling the whole story of its coming forth as utterly fantastic and impossible. But having the book changes everything. Critics have claimed to find all sorts of things wrong with it, but we can allow for such things since 1) our own ignorance is a very real quantity, and 2) the Book of Mormon itself makes due allowance for “the mistakes of men” in its production. The real problem is not to account for the times the Book of Mormon is or seems to be mistaken, but for the times it is right. Within the past year, for example, we have discovered and published a brief and all too inadequate resumé of a military section of the Book of Mormon which displays an absolutely staggering knowledge of strategy and tactics. Well, this sort of thing has to be accounted for, and it is only by going from the known to the unknown that we can eventually test those things which in our present ignorance seem utterly absurd but make perfectly good sense once we know what is going on.

So it is also with the Pearl of Great Price. We are completely in the dark as to how it was produced, but we are anything but helpless with the wealth of detailed material it offers us to test it by. The strange history, the strange rites, the strange doctrines all meet us again and again in ancient sources far removed from Egypt but all connected with the name of Abraham. The great mass of Abraham legends preserved in Jewish, Moslem, Christian, and even Classical sources are known to few Egyptologists, but as we read through them we find Egypt coming into the picture again and again in new and strange relationships. True, the soil of Egypt has given us absolutely nothing on the subject of Abraham in Egypt, but for that matter S. Herrmann is now maintaining that there is not the slightest scrap of evidence that Israel itself was ever in Egypt. No Egyptian evidence, perhaps, but then Egyptian sources are not the only sources, and it is folly to come out with a verdict about the Book of Abraham until we have studied fully and carefully the great and growing corpus of ancient Abrahamic literature, even if it takes us years to get through it.

For after all, the Book of Abraham itself is a book of legends about Abraham which can only be tested in the light of other such legends, which can at least give us hints as to whether Joseph Smith was making it all up or not. And here we can announce in advance that the evidence that Smith’s stories are not original is quite overwhelming. This of course raises the question whether Joseph Smith could have had access to any of our non-biblical sources, and if so to which and how. Those are things that need looking into, though it is only fair to point out that if those scholars of the 20th century who have unanimously condemned Joseph Smith for his total ignorance of all things ancient and oriental, themselves know nothing about these things, the chances that Smith could have known anything at all about them are, to say the least, not brilliant. The one scholar who did know something about those other sources was, as might be expected, the omniscient Budge, and he more than hinted that Joseph Smith was bringing such sources under contribution. Was then the youthful rustic from upstate New York another Budge?

Now the Abraham literature is of course a great hodge-podge of stuff coming from many different sources and many different centuries. But because of the ways in which legends and traditions were swapped around anciently, with very ancient and authentic bits sometimes turning up in the most unlikely places, often buried in bushels of nonsense, we cannot escape the obligation of reading everything. In the process one is constantly coming upon odd and disconnected details that bring one up with a start, and it is these that provide the great interest and challenge in the game. Take the Sen-Sen papyrus itself, for instance. Messrs Heward and Tanner raise three objections to it while completely overlooking their significance. The first is the comical disproportion between the Egyptian symbols and the English text which they suppose to be derived from them. They have left the phenomenon completely unexplained. The second is that the papyrus is too late to belong to Abraham, but we have already shown that the expression “by his own Hand” was understood to mean that Abraham and no other wrote the book, and cannot serve as a criterion for dating the papyrus (Era 71, 20f); incidentally, there is no question in ancient history more perplexing and fascinating than that of the chronology of Abraham. But the main point the critics wish to make is that, “most important, the Egyptian has been translated, and it has no recognizable connection with the subject matter of the Book of Abraham.” With what subject matter does it have recognizable connection, bearing in mind that “ . . . the underlying mythology [as T. G. Allen writes of far less mysterious texts] must be largely inferred”? (e.g. B.D., p. 6.). Even the casual reader can see that there is cosmological matter here, with the owner of the papyrus longing to shine in the heavens as some sort of physical entity along with the sun, moon and Orion; also he places great importance on his patriarchal lineage and wants to be pure, nay baptized, so as to enter a higher kingdom, to achieve, in fact, resurrection and eternal life. And these teachings and expressions are secret, to be kept scrupulously out of the hands of the uninitiated. And all these things have nothing to do with the subject matter of the Pearl of Great Price? What else, then?

And here, right in the Sen-Sen papyrus we come upon one of these odd and disconnected details we just talked about. For we find here a quite typical identification of some person “born of Tayhebty” with Osiris, Horus, and a Stone of Righteousness, whatever that is—“Stone of Righteousness is your name.” Now in the Mormon scriptures we have the same sort of puzzling identities: Abraham, according to the Book of Abraham (3:1) possessed the mysterious Urim and Thummin (I ask myself if these can represent Wr and Tm of Heliopolis, where there were two important stones—but let it pass, things are confusing enough as it is); by these stones the Lord spoke to Abraham (why is the ideogram for the Great Seer of On written with two stones?) and showed him the starry heavens (vv. 2, 4—don’t tell me we have here the field-lens and ocular of a telescope). In Alma 37:23 Urim and Thummin is called “a stone” the function of which is to distinguish the righteous from the wicked (“Stone of Righteousness”?—oops, sorry!), and the person who possesses it goes by the code-name of Gazelem; so that in the D.C. 78:9, Gazelem is said to be Enoch, though here identified with Joseph Smith. In some of our old “Abraham” literature Enoch, usually as Idrisi, is identified with both Abraham and Osiris. It is so easy to make and establish such identifications, one might think, that they can have no great significance. But that is just what remains to be seen—let’s not get ahead of the game, or overlook any possibility that there might be something there after all—“If it looks like an elephant,” Professor Popper used to say, “call it an elephant!”

Or take another case, equally odd. In Spell 31 of the Book of the Dead in that same MS (R) in which Professor Wilson detects the closest resemblances to the Joseph Smith Book of the Dead papyrus, occurs the statement, “I am truly Osiris, to whom his Father Geb and his Mother Nut were sealed . . .” To this Professor Allen appends a footnote, advising the reader to “Cf. Mormon rite of sealing children to parents.” Why do that if there can be no possible connection between them? It so happens that there are extensive passages in the Coffin Texts (from Spell 131 on) in which the sealing of one’s family to one in the next world is treated in exactly the same sense and the same terms as those familiar to Mormons but utterly foreign to outsiders. A coincidence, to be sure, but there are altogether too many such coincidences. No non-Mormon can be criticized for being ignorant of Mor­monism—after all, there is no end to what people have been willing to believe. But if all this to-do is to pass as a critique of Joseph Smith and Mormonism, it is well that the critics know what they are criticizing. And that is just where the whole business breaks down. If the verdict of the learned has failed hitherto to have any telling effect on the prestige of Joseph Smith save on those giddy Mormons who wish to be thought intellectual, it is because the experts have passed judgment on a thing they do not understand; in the most literal sense of the word they do not know what they are talking about, because they do not know what Joseph Smith actually taught.

So far everything that has appeared in print about the newly found papyri has been written either by hysterical opponents of everything Mormon or by people innocent of any bias in favor of Joseph Smith, (our own efforts have until now been confined to the affair of 1912, which many people are still persuaded settled the hash of the Book of Abraham for all time). Which means that we have now heard the worst. And it is surprisingly feeble: We have learned that Joseph Smith experimented—but we already knew that; we have learned that the papyri are of relatively late date—but the Mormons have always known that; we have seen some of the papyri that were in Smith’s possession, but there is no evidence that we have seen them all, and it is apparent that only one small piece among them has any direct bearing on the Book of Abraham—and what the connection is remains a complete mystery. The Egyptologists—and we can be everlastingly grateful that they are among the ablest and most honorable scholars who ever lived—have supplied some interesting footnotes to the text, but these offer poor enough pickings for anyone seeking occasion against the Prophet.

So now it is time to hear the other side of the story, for after all it is just possible that there are things that might be said in favor of the Book of Abraham. So far no one has asked how Smith came to produce a history of Abraham which can be matched at every point from a wealth of ancient sources—Jewish and Christian apocrypha, Talmud, Mishna, even Gnostic, Hasidic, and Cabbalistic writings, Moslem commentators, sectaries of the desert such as Mandaeans and Qumran people, even the church Fathers and Classical writers. Even a casual reading of the Book of Abraham shows that the story refers not so much to unique historic events as to ritual forms and traditions—all these must be checked. So far we have heard what is wrong or at least suspect about the Book of Abraham, but as yet nobody has cared to report on the other side of the picture. It is for that we are saving our footnotes

[post_title] => The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and Interpretations: Phase One [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 3.2 (Summer 1968)101 – 105
Even a casual reading of the Book of Abraham shows that the story refers not so much to unique historic events as to ritual forms and traditions—all these must be checked. So far we have heard what is wrong or at least suspect about the Book of Abraham, but as yet nobody has cared to report on the other side of the picture. It is for that we are saving our footnotes. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-joseph-smith-egyptian-papyri-translations-and-interpretations-phase-one [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2024-05-20 23:20:20 [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-05-20 23:20:20 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=17803 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1

WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 17893 [post_author] => 3392 [post_date] => 2018-05-04 00:42:53 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-05-04 00:42:53 [post_content] =>

It took little time to verify the authenticity of the find. The file containing the papyrus manuscripts also contained a letter signed by Emma Smith Bidamon, widow of the Prophet, showing that Joseph Smith was once their own.

[post_title] => The Facsimile Found: The Recovery of Joseph Smith's Papyrus Manuscripts: A Conversation with Professor Atiya [post_excerpt] => Dialogue 2.4 (Winter 1967)51– 54.
Although not a member of the Church, Dr. Atiya for many years had cherished his Latter-day Saint friends and is well informed about Church beliefs. He is aware of the history of the papyri and their relationship to the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price and is acquainted with the three facsimiles. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => the-facsimile-found-the-recovery-of-joseph-smiths-papyrus-manuscripts-a-conversation-with-professor-atiya [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2023-08-24 01:08:47 [post_modified_gmt] => 2023-08-24 01:08:47 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://www.dialoguejournal.com/?post_type=dj_articles&p=17893 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => dj_articles [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) 1