Considered one of the country's foremost Egyptian scholars, Dr. Robert Ritner is the latest University of Chicago Egyptologist to turn his attention to the papyri. His book, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition, includes the first ever complete translation of the papyri.
The papyri, which were thought to have been lost in the Chicago fire, were rediscovered and donated to the LDS church by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 1967. The subsequent publication of photographs of the papyri by the LDS church(1) kicked off a period of scholarly analysis that has continued, more or less, to the present. An initial scholarly analysis in 1968 found the papyri consisted of Egyptian funeral texts called The Book of Breathings and The Book of the Dead. Until now, only a portion of the papyri and the hypocephalus (Facsimile #2) had been translated.
 |
A sample of misplaced fragments in the Joseph Smith papyri. Dr. Ritner spent 6 months analyzing and correctly reassembling these fragments. See also: Missing, parts of the hypocephalus |
In addition to Ritner, several other authors contributed essays to the book. These include:
H. Michael Marquardt (a historian and author of over 45 articles and books on Mormon historical topics) who provides a history of the acquisition of the papyri, and translation by Joseph Smith and the subsequent publishing history of the book.
Dr. Marc Coenen (Egyptian Studies PhD., University of Leuven, Belgium) discusses the dating and original ownership of the papyrus used for the Book of Abraham by the "prophet" Horos. Coenen includes an eight generation genealogy tree of the Horos family (!) and even includes information about his family. For example, his mother Chibois was a musician who played the sistrum (rattle) for the god Amon-Re. Coenen dates the papyrus to the first half of the second century B.C.E., noting the papyrus is the oldest known dateable "Document of Breathing Made by Isis." The Book or Document of Breathings gradually took the place of the Book of the Dead in Egyptian culture.
H. Michael Marquardt (a historian and author of over 45 articles and books on Mormon historical topics) who provides a history of the acquisition of the papyri, and translation by Joseph Smith and the subsequent publishing history of the book.
Dr. Marc Coenen (Egyptian Studies PhD., University of Leuven, Belgium) discusses the dating and original ownership of the papyrus used for the Book of Abraham by the "prophet" Horos. Coenen includes an eight generation genealogy tree of the Horos family (!) and even includes information about his family. For example, his mother Chibois was a musician who played the sistrum (rattle) for the god Amon-Re. Coenen dates the papyrus to the first half of the second century B.C.E., noting the papyrus is the oldest known dateable "Document of Breathing Made by Isis." The Book or Document of Breathings gradually took the place of the Book of the Dead in Egyptian culture.
Christopher Woods (Associate Professor of Sumerology) discusses the likelihood that the practice of Egyptian religion took place in Ur of Chaldea (c.f. Abraham 1:8).
Michael Marquardt and Dr. Robert Ritner were kind enough to answer some questions about the book.
--
Interview: Michael Marquardt
(authored chapter "Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papers: A History")
--
How did the Papyri come into the hands of Joseph Smith?
(Marquardt) Antonio Lebolo located a cache of 11 mummies in Thebes, Egypt between 1817 and 1822. After his death in 1830, the 11 mummies (one of the largest shipments of mummies to America) were shipped to the U.S. By 1835, Michael H. Chandler exhibited four Egyptian mummies in Cleveland, Ohio near Kirtland. A promotional flyer (a copy which was included in the LDS Times and Seasons paper) stated the mummies may have come from the time of Jacob, Moses or David. The papyri were purchased for $2,400 [$60,000 today] in July, 1835.
What did Joseph Smith do with the papyri?
(Marquardt) Joseph Smith determined the papyri included the writings of Abraham and Joseph. Working with the papyri, Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery produced three manuscripts and a bound volume that makes up what was called the "Egyptian Alphabet." It listed characters & symbols from the papyri (and some additional symbols) which were given names with short interpretations, most characters having up to five degrees, with each degree expanding the definitions of the earlier degrees.
After the Egyptian Alphabet was completed, they worked on the Book of Abraham translation. The translation stopped in late November 1835 (Abraham 1:1 – 2:18) and was published in March, 1842. Joseph Smith then continued translating the rest of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 2:19 - 5:21) also published in March 1842, with Facsimile #3 published in May.
How are the Egyptian Alphabet and the Book of Abraham related?
(Marquardt) Two of the three 1835 Book of Abraham manuscripts contain the notation "sign of the fifth degree of the second part" pointing to the degrees of definitions of the characters in the Egyptian Alphabet. Character/Symbols and their meanings from the Egyptian Alphabet correspond to text in the Book of Abraham. For example a character in the Egyptian Alphabet with the sound "Ah brah-oam" is defined in these five degrees:
- The Father of the faithful. The first right – the elder
- A follower of righteousness
- One who possess great knowledge
- A follower of righteousness a possessor of greater knowledge
- A father of many nations a prince of peace, one who keeps the commandments of God. A patriarch a rightful heir, a high priest
The matching text from the Book of Abraham reads:
Having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I [Abraham] became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.
This pattern continues. The symbols are in the left-hand margins with the text of the Book of Abraham on the right.
 |
| Facsimile #1, Book of Abraham |
What is in the 1842 translation?
(Marquardt) Joseph Smith picked up translation where he left off editing Genesis in his translation of the Bible. This material parallels the story of Abraham before he travels to Egypt. This is followed by a discussion of intelligences and astronomical terms based on Hebrew words. The text then parallels Genesis 1-2 using "Gods" instead of "God" in line with Smith's teachings since 1838/1839 of a plurality (and council) of Gods. A three member council of Gods would be part of the endowment introduced two months later.
 |
| This damaged vignette from the Joseph Smith papyri was the source for Facsimile #1. It was glued to paper backing and a knife, arms and head manually drawn in. |
Also included are explanations of three facsimiles based on drawings from the papyri. The papyrus from which Facsimile #1 is based was damaged, and the missing portion was restored. Hieroglyphs from the papyri are omitted, possibly due to sizing concerns in the Times and Seasons. This scene is referred to in the Book of Abraham where Abraham is nearly sacrificed (Abraham 1:12).
 |
| Facsimile #2. Damaged areas were filled in with portions of the papyri |
Facsimile #2 is based on a damaged hypocephalus (which would have been placed under the head of the mummy). Missing portions of the hypocephalus are filled in from other portions of the papyri.(2) The explanatory text by Joseph Smith explains principles of astronomy.
 |
| Hypocephalus of Sheshonq from which Facsimile #2 was based |
Further extracts from the Book of Abraham were promised, but never materialized.
--
Interview: Dr. Robert Ritner
(Principal author)
--
Of all the Egyptian texts available to write about, why write a book on the Joseph Smith papyri?
(Ritner) Each generation of Chicago Egyptologists has been involved with the Smith papyri, so there is a historical basis for my interest: our founder Breasted in 1912(3) his student Wilson in 1968(4) (when the papyri were returned to Utah), and Wilson's student (and my professor) Baer(5) the same year. I was contacted several years ago to verify the accuracy of Baer's translation of P. JS I, and in the process of that project I had to examine the other papyri for misplaced patches and review the history of the acquisition and the varying interpretations. After publishing a new translation of P. JS I in Dialogue(6) and (for Egyptologists) in Journal of Near Eastern Studies,(7) it seemed obvious to me that a full, scholarly edition was needed of all the relevant Egyptian materials from the Smith collection.
Since the Egyptian texts were often misunderstood or misrepresented in publications, it seemed all the more beneficial to place these materials within their proper context as late Egyptian religious documents. Such late documents are the subject of current interest in Egyptology (one of my own graduate students is researching the topic), and examining what the Smith papyri actually contain is valuable in itself for ongoing scholarship.
The inevitable conflict with LDS received tradition was obvious from the beginning --as it has been to all Egyptologists-- but that was not the primary motivating factor for my study. I wanted to show clearly what the texts actually said and contained, and equally clearly what they did not.
What parallels are there between the Book of Abraham and the papyri?
(Ritner) The only parallels between the Book of Abraham and the papyri are found in the Facsimiles (Ptolemaic in date [352-30 BCE.]) that are specifically described and referenced within the text of the [Book of Abraham (BoA hereafter)] itself. There is thus no possibility that the scenes, reworked from the papyri for the BoA, can be considered separate from the source of the BoA itself. Obviously, the papyrus containing the scenes is equally linked. The BoA just as clearly misunderstands these Facsimiles/Vignettes, with multiple confusions of standard imagery (for example: male vs. female vs. animal, specific deity images) and distorted interpretations of easily legible Egyptian text.
Some LDS scholars have suggested the source for the Book of Abraham may be on papyri that was lost or destroyed. How plausible is this proposal?
(Ritner) For the reasons given above, this idea is not possible. The various alternative theories for a "missing BoA text" are discussed in detail in my book, and all are shown to be false. Parallel texts, standard papyrus document size (not whole rolls manufactured for commerce), measurements of rolling, a supposed (but false) reference to a lost text by the early scholar Seyffarth, and internal BoA remarks on the Facsimiles all indicate that the "Breathing Permit of Hor" (P JS I) is the source of the fictional account of Abraham. The fictional nature of the tale is blatant not only from the Egyptian evidence, but also from Mesopotamian evidence, incorporated within this study for the first time.
How would you assess the work done on the Joseph Smith papyri by LDS scholars?
(Ritner) My parallel presentations [I.E. translations by other scholars for comparison] and copious notes indicate the range of problems with the LDS apologetic translations, but I would distinguish the contributions of apologists from those of other LDS scholars, such as Stephen E. Thompson(8) or Edward H. Ashment,(9) who have made very valuable and accurate studies of the Facsimiles. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the apologetic writings is the degree to which those translations support and often parallel Egyptological ones, demonstrating that the Joseph Smith interpretations are indefensible. Apologists can argue that the source text of BoA is lost, but they cannot deny the "translations" and "explanations" offered by Smith on the Facsimiles. Instead, they ignore them while translating the hieroglyphs as properly as possible, acknowledging Smith's published translations to be wrong. Michael D. Rhodes' treatment of the P. JS I Facsimiles [Facsimiles 1-3] is a classic example of this.(10)
You suggest some academics may have used your work inappropriately. How so?
(Ritner) I note several examples of uncredited "borrowing," particularly in the apologetic editions of P. JS I, done after my article in Dialogue. The evidence for this includes hasty and incomplete changes made in Rhodes' published text in which the text (paralleling mine) does not match the same passage in the index (following Nibley, the original model for Rhodes). A most striking example appears in the vignette (= Facsimile 3) of the court of Osiris, where Rhodes has adopted my description of the signs accompanying the figure of Anubis, but he failed to remove his earlier version so that he has two columns of hieroglyphs where only one exists in the Facsimile. Since my reading was based on a very obscure title that I found on a fragmentary, generally unknown papyrus, the similarity and the "extra" column with my reading are serious evidence. I should point out that Rhodes also identifies the figure as the jackal god Anubis, although Smith's printed identification calls the black figure a "slave." Rhodes, then, agrees that Smith could not interpret the Egyptian text of the BoA.
What have you hoped to accomplish by writing this book?
At the same time, the history of the Smith papyri is a significant episode in American religious history and in the history of the rediscovery of Ancient Egypt. I believe that the book offers researchers -- and the interested reader, whether of LDS faith or not-- an in-depth examination of a tale that reaches from before 1835 into the present and demonstrates how ancient evidence can be utilized or appropriated for quite different purposes. Those purposes can conflict in ways that are quite relevant to modern issues of history, faith and the intersection between them.
--
More about the Book:
--
More about the Book:
--
Endnotes
- (1) Todd, Jay M., "Egyptian Papyri Rediscovered," Improvement Era (January 1968); "New Light on Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri: Additional Fragment Disclosed," Improvement Era (February 1968)
- (2) See Marquardt, "Times and Seasons Hypocephalus," Mormon PDF Website, Missing Areas, Where the Missing Parts come from, The Hypocephalus of Sheshonq
- (3) Spaulding, Franklin S., Joseph Smith Jun., as Translator (1912)
- (4) Wilson, John A., "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri. Translations and Interpretations. A Summary Report" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8:2 (1968)
- (5) Baer, Klaus, "The Breathing Permit of Hor. A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8:3 (1968)
- (6) Ritner, Robert "'The 'Breathing Permit of Hôr' Thirty-four Years Later," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33:4 (2000)
- (7) Ritner, Robert, "'The Breathing Permit of Hôr' Among the Joseph Smith Papyri," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62.3 (2003)
- (8) Thompson, Stephen E., "Egyptology and the Book of Abraham," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 28:1 (1995)
- (9) Ashment, Edward H., "The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal," Sunstone 4 (Dec 1979); "Joseph Smith's Identification of 'Abraham' in Papyrus JS 1, the 'Breathing Permit of Hor'," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33:4 (2000); "Abraham in the Breathing Permit of Hor (pJS1)," Mormon Scripture Studies: An E-Journal of Critical Thought: http://mormonscripturestudies.com/boabr/eha/abrhor.asp (2001)
- (10) Rhodes, Michael D., The Hôr Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary, Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (2002)
2 comments:
this is very interesting. thanks so much for posting.
This does nothing to attack or disprove Mormonism. My BYU professor in the early 1980s said the exact same thing - that the documents themselves were not direct translations because, translated, they say nothing Joseph said they did. He theorized that Smith was using the manuscripts as a conduit to receive revelation directly from God and when he was "translating," he was receiving revelation. Joseph did not distinguish between the two acts. Obviously, you don't agree, but you have to recognize that mainstream Mormonism has known this for 30+ years.
Post a Comment