From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: BoA Papyrus (SLCM-9/92-4/7)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:24:41 GMT


MICHAEL RHODE'S WORK

        Although the Mormon Egyptologist Michael D. Rhodes translated
Facsimile No. 2 of the Book of Abraham, he found nothing regarding
Abraham. Nevertheless, he has still tried to defend Joseph Smith's
work. Writing in the church's magazine, _The Ensign_, July 1988, pp.
51-53, Rhodes tried to answer the following question: "Why doesn't the
translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the
Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?" In this article Michael
Rhodes clearly laid out the problem which faced the church: "First of
all, from paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of
Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60--much too
late for Abraham to have written it.... when one compares the text of
the book of Abraham with a translation of the Book of Breathings; they
clearly are not the same."

        Rhodes then proceeds to give "possible explanations why the text
of the recently discovered papyri does not match the text in the Pearl
of Great Price." One of Rhode's suggestions is that the "copy of
Abraham's record" which Joseph Smith used "possibly passed through the
hands of many scribes and had become editorially corrupted to the point
where it may have had little resemblance to the original..." For this
reason Joseph Smith may have used the "Urim and Thummim, or simply
through revelation" revealed what Abraham had originally written.

        Michael Rhodes was chosen to write two articles for the
_Encyclopedia of Mormonism_. In vol. 1, page 136, Rhodes set forth the
idea that Joseph Smith chose pagan drawings as illustrations for his
Book of Abraham: "In summary Facsimile 1 formed the beginning, and
Facsimile 3 the end of a document known as the Book of Breathings, an
Egyptian religious text... The association of these facsimiles with the
book of Abraham might be explained as Joseph Smith's attempt to find
illustrations from the papyri he owned that most closely matched what he
had received in revelation when translating the Book of Abraham."

        In a letter to a member of the Mormon Church who was troubled
with regard to the origin of the Book of Abraham, Michael Rhodes spoke
of a theory he proposed in his article in the _Ensign_, July 1988, page
51. Rhodes had stated that it was possible that the Book of Abraham "may
have been taken from a different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph
Smith's possession." In the letter, however, Rhodes made it clear that
he no longer considered that as a very promising option. He went on to
give more information concerning the idea that the Book of Abraham did
not really come from the papyrus scroll in Joseph Smith's possession:

                "Before I start, let me say that I... like you,
   definitely favor the second; namely that Joseph Smith did not have
   the actual text of the Book of Abraham before him, but that it was
   revealed to him... The first option I proposed seems pretty unlikely
   to me now. There is no doubt that the original Papyrus of Facsimile
   Number 1 belongs to the Book of Breathings text. The name of the
   owner of the Papyrus, Hor son of Userwer, is found both on this
   papyrus and in the text of the Book of Breathings... although we do
   not have the original of Facsimile Number 3, the name Hor can clearly
   be read in the hieroglyphs on this facsimile, and it seems very
   probable that this illustration was originally located at the end of
   the Book of Breathings papyrus now in the Church's possession. I am
   not ruling it out completely, but I think it is unlikely that Joseph
   Smith ever had the actual text of the Book of Abraham in his
   possession....

                "This still leaves us with the problem of how Facsimile
   Number 1, a commonly found representation of the god Anubis preparing
   the body of Osiris (or the deceased) for burial, that is part of an
   Egyptian funerary document that was produced nearly 2000 years (about
   60 A. D.) after Abraham, can possibly be the illustration Abraham
   refers to in his book. The best explanation I have for this is that
   in the original papyrus Abraham, had drawn an illustration of himself
   being sacrificed on an altar by the priest of Elkenah. In the process
   of translation, this illustration was revealed to Joseph Smith and he
   saw that it was similar to the one found at the beginning of the Book
   of Breathings. Joseph Smith therefore used it (with some
   modifications) as Facsimile Number one. One of the most obvious
   modifications is the changing of the head of the god Anubis (who has
   a jackal's head) to that of a man. Another is putting a knife in the
   standing figures hand. (Both the head and the knife are missing in
   the papyrus as it exists today.)

                "Joseph Smith may have used the other facsimiles found
   in the Book of Abraham similarly.

                "I certainly don't claim this is the only possible
   explanation; it is simply the best I have been able to come up with
   so far." (Letter by Michael D. Rhodes, dated July 10, 1988)

        This extraordinary letter gives the reader an idea of how far
some Mormon scholars will go in their attempt to save the Book of
Abraham. It is also interesting to note that after writing this letter,
Michael Rhodes seems to have changed his mind again concerning the
question of whether Joseph Smith really had the Book of Abraham papyrus.
In his article published in _The Ensign_, July 1988, p. 51, Rhodes had
held out the hope that the Book of Abraham may "have been taken from a
different portion of the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith's possession" --
a portion which has since disappeared.

        By the time he wrote the letter cited above, however, he had
decided that Smith probably "did not have the actual text of the Book of
Abraham before him... I think it is unlikely that Joseph Smith ever had
the actual text of the Book of Abraham in his possession." To our
surprise, when we read an article by Michael Rhodes printed in _Review
of Books_, vol. 4, 1992, we discovered that he seems to have reverted to
the idea that Joseph Smith may have had a roll of papyrus. On page 122,
Rhodes claimed that "a contemporary source indicates that the scroll of
the book of Abraham was not part of the papyri fragments now in the
possession of the Church."

        He cites from a letter written by Charlotte Haven in 1843. Haven
claimed that Joseph Smith's mother "opened a long roll of manuscript,
saying it was 'the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and
Sanscrit,' and she read several minutes from it as if it were English."
Because the papyri the church now has in its possession were supposed to
have been cut into sheets by this time and therefore could not have been
a "long roll of manuscript," Rhodes seems to conclude that there was a
third roll of papyrus which has been lost. This interpretation, which is
also held by John Gee, is erroneous. significant evidence points to the
conclusion that there were only two rolls of papyrus. Joseph Smith's
History contains this information: "On opening the coffins, he [Mr.
Chandler] discovered... something rolled up... which, when examined,
proved to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. Two or three
other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs,
&c., were found with others of the mummies." (History of the Church,
vol. 2, page 349)

        Although the text mentions that there were "Two or three other
small pieces of papyrus," Joseph Smith never identifies a third roll of
papyrus. Furthermore, while Charlotte Haven's statement contains some
interesting information, it contains a number of factual errors. She
says that Mother Smith told Haven that the roll contained the "writing
of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit." Mormon leaders
have never claimed that the Book of Abraham was written in "Hebrew and
Sanscrit." Joseph Smith's History makes it abundantly clear that the
Book of Abraham was supposed to be written in "Egyptian characters."
(History of the Church, vol. 2, page 320)

        While Haven's account says that the roll was written by "Abraham
and Isaac," to our knowledge, Joseph Smith did not claim that Isaac
wrote anything in the Book of Abraham. As early as 1969, the Mormon
scholar Jay M. Todd saw the discrepancies in Haven's account and made
this observation: "One wonders if Sister Smith were not just throwing
out names of languages she had heard; or, one wonders if Charlotte is
reporting accurately. Until more evidence is gathered, the sum and value
of Charlotte's report remains clouded on several issues." (The Saga of
the Book of Abraham, by Jay M. Todd, page 249)

        Jay Todd also noted the discrepancy with regard to Haven's claim
that Lucy Smith opened a roll of papyrus. The preponderance of the
evidence shows that both rolls had been cut up by the time Charlotte
Haven saw them. Her statement, of course, could be reconciled by
claiming that what she meant was that Lucy Smith laid out the various
pieces of the document side-by-side so that it appeared in the same
order as when the roll was first opened up.

        In our book, _The Case Against Mormonism_, vol. 2, pages
121-122, we give four different accounts by people who saw the original
papyri in Nauvoo. Besides citing the letter by Charlotte Haven, we have
included accounts by Josiah Quincy, Henry Caswall and an account
appearing in a newspaper known as _The Quincy Wig_. These accounts are
written in the period from 1840 to 1844. Charlotte Haven's account is
the only one which talks of "a long role of manuscript" being opened.
Because the manuscripts were so very fragile (a number of pieces had
already broken off), it would not seem reasonable that Lucy Smith would
unroll them time after time to display them to the many visitors who
came to see the papyri.

        As early as 1840, _The Quincy Wig_, reported that there were
"numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus" which were in "several frames,
covered with glass." The same paper reported that Joseph Smith said:
"'These ancient records... have been unrolled and preserved with great
labor and care." (The Quincy Wig, Oct. 17, 1840, as cited in Ancient
Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, pp. 51-52)

        When Caswall examined the papyri in 1842, he found the rolls had
been cut into "sheets of papyrus" and were kept in "glazed slides, like
picture frames." (The City of the Mormons; or, Three Days at Nauvoo, in
1842, pp. 22-23)

        Both these accounts were written before Charlotte Haven's letter
was penned in 1843. The other account, however, was written by Josiah
Quincy, who visited Joseph Smith in 1844. He also claimed that the
papyri "were preserved under glass and handled with great respect."
(_Figures of the Past_, 1883, as cited in _Among the Mormons_ page 136)

        In his article in _Review of Books_, pp. 121-122, Michael Rhodes
used a statement made by Caswall to support his argument that there may
be a third role of papyrus containing the Book of Abraham: "In 1842, the
fragments we now have were described as being mounted in 'a number of
glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with
Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics.'" He then proceeded to quote
Charlotte Haven's letter to support his thesis of a third roll. If
Rhodes had cited more of Caswall's statement, his argument would have
fallen apart. Henry Caswall made it very clear that the very sheets that
had been cut up contained the Book of Abraham. We quote the following
from Caswall's book, pp. 22-23:

                "The storekeeper... drew forth a number of glazed
   slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with
   Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics. These had been unrolled from
   four mummies, which the prophet purchased at a cost of twenty-four
   hundred dollars. By some inexplicable mode, as the storekeeper
   informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets contained the
   writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in Egypt.
   Pointing to the figure of a man lying on a table, he said, 'that is
   the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed. That man
   standing by him with a drawn knife is an idolatrous priest of the
   Egyptians."

        It seems obvious from this that Joseph Smith did not possess
another roll of papyrus.

        John Gee uses the exact argument found in Rhodes' article on
page 107 of his review of Larson's book. Like Rhodes, Gee fails to
provide the important context. He does, however, use the last two
sentences of the quote we have cited from Caswall five pages earlier in
his article while trying to prove another point (see page 102).
Unfortunately, however, even on page 102 he uses ellipsis signs (dots)
to omit the statement that "Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets
contained the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in
Egypt." Because of the amount of material between the two quotes and the
omission of the important portion regarding the fact that the Book of
Abraham roll had been cut into sheets, it is doubtful that one person in
a thousand would ever know that Gee's quotation actually refuted what he
was trying to prove.

        Many Mormon scholars would probably charge us with dishonesty if
we did this sort of thing. In any case, an examination of some of the
wording in Gee's quotation with that found in Rhode's article seems to
show that one scholar borrowed from the other. Below is a comparison:

                "In 1842, the fragments we now have in the Joseph Smith
   Papyri were mounted in 'a number of glazed slides, like picture
   frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and
   hieroglyphics.' The next year, in 1843, a nonmember named Charlotte
   Haven visited Lucy Mack Smith and wrote a letter to her own mother
   about it: 'Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a long table..." (John
   Gee, _Review of Books_, page 107)

                "In 1842, the fragments we now have were described as
   being mounted in 'a number of glazed slides, like picture frames,
   containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and
   hieroglyphics.' The next year, in 1843, Charlotte Haven, a nonmember
   visited Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith and wrote a letter to
   her own mother about it, saying: 'Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a
   long table..." (Michael Rhodes, _Review of Books_, pages 121-122)

        It would appear from the comparison above that one of these two
authors did the original research on this quotation but failed to
realize that if the quote from Caswall was taken in its entirety, it
would refute the entire argument that there was another roll of papyrus.
The other author then blindly followed the first into the ditch. We, of
course, do not know who made the original mistake, but feel that it
resulted from an overzealous attempt to save the Book of Abraham.

        Even if Rhodes and Gee could have established that there was a
third papyrus, it would not have solved the serious problem faced by the
church. The reader will remember that in the Book of Abraham, 1:12,
Abraham was supposed to have said that he included a drawing of the
attempt to slay him "at the commencement of this record" Now, it is
obvious to all who examine the matter that the drawing in the Book of
Abraham matches the drawing found in Hor's Book of Breathings. Both John
Gee and Michael Rhodes acknowledge this to be true.

        If, then, Joseph Smith had another roll of papyrus which really
contained the Book of Abraham, why did he not use the drawing which
Abraham himself said he placed at the beginning of that roll? Why would
Smith switch over to the pagan Book of Breathings and use an
illustration (Fac. No. 1) from that roll? The problem goes even deeper:
why would the prophet include Fac. No. 3 at the end of the record? The
reader will remember that Michael Rhodes said that "the name Hor can
clearly be read in the hieroglyphs" on Fac. No. 3 and that this drawing
was probably "originally located at the end of the Book of Breathings
papyrus." In addition, Smith added Fac. No. 2 in the middle. As we have
shown, this is also a pagan document. In the first printing of the Book
of Abraham in the _Times and Seasons_, Joseph Smith called every one of
these drawings "A Facsimile From The Book of Abraham."

        The thesis set forth by Rhodes and Gee would actually lead one
to believe that the prophet rejected the drawing Abraham himself put at
the beginning of his record and added a substitute and two other
drawings created by idol worshipers! This in itself would show that
Joseph Smith was not inspired when he produced the Book of Abraham.

        Brigham Young University scholar James R. Harris concluded that
the papyri rediscovered in 1967 did not vindicate Joseph Smith's work
and turned to the idea that the Book of Abraham came through revelation,
not through a translation of the papyrus scroll. He even warns members
of the church against holding out the hope that a papyrus manuscript may
yet be found that will confirm Joseph Smith's work:

                "Facsimiles 1 and 3 were created from separate vignettes
   of a single Sensen text. Facsimile 2 was created from a disk-shaped
   amulet that was placed under the head of the deceased...

                "It is important to understand, precisely speaking, that
   in their original context, these illustrations have no connection
   with the Book of Abraham. The three facsimiles are, in fact,
   reproductions of real Egyptian documents." (The Facsimiles of the
   Book of Abraham, A Study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, 1990,
   page 5)

                "These two scrolls appear to have been regarded by
   Church leadership as scrolls of Abraham and Joseph. An understanding
   of the content of the papyrus fragments and the manner in which they
   were used by Joseph and Oliver, makes it very improbable that there
   are now or ever were any other Abraham or Joseph scrolls in the
   Joseph Smith Egyptian collection.

                "If we had some of the missing fragments of these
   documents there is every reason to believe that they would contain
   more of the same material as that on the present fragments: spells
   and formulas to protect the deceased and insure his or her
   continuation in the future state....

                "As a caution, if the hope of acquiring an Egyptian text
   of Abraham is perpetuated as a major possibility, the perpetrators
   may be guilty of leaving future generations of Latter-day Saints with
   the same vulnerability that has resulted in many spiritual casualties
   in this generation. It is to the end that such casualties be
   diminished that I have undertaken this study." (Ibid., pages 86-88)

        The suggestion that Joseph Smith may have obtained the Book of
Abraham by way of direct revelation and not from the papyrus is now held
by a number of prominent Mormon scholars. The problem with this attempt
to escape the serious implications of the evidence furnished by the
papyri is that it flies in the face of everything Joseph Smith ever
wrote or allowed to be published about the subject. In the _History of
the Church_, Smith made it clear that he had the very writings of
Abraham and Joseph in his possession. He even claimed that he received
this material through translating the hieroglyphs:

                "Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland
   purchased the mummies and papyrus... 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..." (History of the Church, vol. 2, page
   236)

        Joseph Smith not only said that he was going to translate the
records, but he also maintained he produced a "correct translation" of
the documents:

                "The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the
   mnmmies [sic] is beautifully written... I have given a brief history
   of the manner in which the writings of the fathers, Abraham and
   Joseph, have been preserved, and how I came in possession of the
   same--a correct translation of which I shall give in its proper
   place." (History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 348, 350-51)

        In his History, Joseph Smith indicated that in 1835 he spent a
good deal of time working on his translation of the Egyptian papyri:

                "The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged
   in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a
   grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients."
   (History of the Church, vol. 2, page 238)

                "October 1--This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian
   alphabet... during the research, the principles of astronomy as
   understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our
   understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter."
   (Ibid, page 286)

                "Tuesday, [Nov.] 24--...The afternoon we translated some
   of the Egyptian records....
                "Thursday, 26 Spent the day in translating Egyptian
   characters from the papyrus..." (Ibid, page 320)

        At the beginning of the handwritten manuscript of the Book of
Abraham, Joseph Smith asserted that it was a "Translation of the Book of
Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the catacombs
of Egypt." (see photograph of the first page of the manuscript in
Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? page 312)

        The introduction to the Book of Abraham still maintains that it
was "Translated From The Papyrus, By Joseph Smith" (Pearl of Great
Price, The Book of Abraham, Introduction).

        In spite of Joseph Smith's many statements that he translated
the Book of Abraham from the Egyptian language, Mormon apologist Hugh
Nibley made this astounding assertion: "Joseph Smith neither pretended
to understand Egyptian, nor that the Book of Abraham was a work of his
scholarship..." (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1968, page
176) In the same article Nibley said that he had "never spent so much as
five minutes with the Egyptian Grammar"--i.e., Joseph Smith's _Egyptian
Alphabet and Grammar_.
-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =