The KEP Abraham Manuscripts

[Chris Smith]

Gee doesn't actually use the "printer's manuscript" as evidence that the BoA was translated by then, but he does make some other lengthy arguments to prove that point. Later I will copy some of those arguments here and offer a couple counterpoints.

[Chris Smith]

As Dan Vogel mentioned in his previous post, the Book of Abraham was published in two installments in the Times and Seasons: Issue #9 on the 1st of March, 1842 (Abr. 1:1-2:18). and Issue #10 on March 15th of the same year (Abr. 2:19-5:21). A number of knowledgeable people on this forum (including, I think Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe, Paul Osborne, and Kevin Graham) have argued that Abraham 2:19-5:21 was translated during the ~two week gap between the first and second installments, and that until 1842 the BoA had been translated only up to 2:18. One of the most important reasons to believe this is that the first T&S installment leaves off at exactly the same place as Manuscript #1. The same people also, I think, would tend to believe that the Book of Abraham was never translated beyond what has been published (i.e., Joseph never got farther along in his translation than 5:21).

John Gee challenges these conclusions. I present his arguments for your consideration:

A word on the "explanations of the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham is in order here. Though each facsimile has what is termed an "explanation," it does not explain much of what is going on in the facsimiles; rather, the "explanation" identifies various elements, which are then explained more fully in the text of the Book of Abraham. As presently constituted, the Book of Abraham stops before the explanation of Facsimile 2 occurs. When Joseph Smith writes on 1 October 1835 that "the system of atronomy was unfolded," he provides a date for the progress achieved to that point in the translation of the Book of Abraham, a point further along in the Book of Abraham than was ever published. Furthermore, the first hint of astronomical things occurs in Abraham 3:2, which is further along in the translation than any manuscript of the Book of Abraham dating from the Kirtland period (KEPA 1-3). No Kirtland period manuscript discusses the hypocephalus. Nor does any passage in the Book of Abraham really discuss "the formation of the planetary System." That the translation had progressed further than the present Book of Abraham is corroborated by the firsthand report of Anson Call that, in 1838, it took "altogether about two hours" to read the Book of Abraham aloud; it takes about half an hour now. This indicates that by 1838, Joseph Smith had translated approximately four times as much as we currently have in the Book of Abraham, and, as we have no record of translation after 25 November 1835, it would seem that most if not all of it had been translated in 1835.

Gee, John. "Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri." In The Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-Day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry and Andrew H. Hedges, 175-217. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000, p. 200-201.

In another publication he confidently reiterates all of this:

Joseph Smith began translating the papyri in early July 1835. The current text of the Book of Abraham was translated by the end of the month. He left off translation in August 1835 to visit the Saints in Michigan. Revelation pertaining to the Book of Abraham was not received again until 1 October 1835. Translation continued through 25 November 1835, but Joseph then set aside the papyri to study Hebrew, finish the Kirtland temple and dedicate it, and, later, deal with troubles in Missouri. While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the exisiting Book of Abraham after 1835.

Gee, John. A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri. Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000, p. 4.

In sum, Gee provides the following reasons to believe JS had translated most (all?) of the BoA in 1835:

1. The system of astronomy was unfolded, but the explanation for Facsimile 2 does not fit this description. Therefore, this must refer to translation of the BoA text-- text that for whatever reason was never published and is not available to us today.

2. In 1838, Anson Call reported that it took 2 hours to read the BoA aloud. This is longer than it should have taken to read Abr. 1:1-2:18.

3. "We have no record of translation after 25 November 1835"-- Gee revises this is in his book to account for the 1842 diary entry: "While Joseph slightly revised the translation preparatory to its publication in 1842, there is no other evidence that he worked on the translation of the exisiting Book of Abraham after 1835."

I will reply to each of these reasons point-by-point:

1. John Gee's suggestion that the explanation of Facsimile 2 doesn't suffice as an unfolding of "the system of astronomy" is absurd. That's exactly what it is. Joseph Smith confirms this himself when he says in a diary entry, "...also gave instruction concerning the arrangement of the writing on the Large cut. illustrating the principles of Astronomy" (4 Mar 1842). Moreover, this comes straight out of the bound Grammar and Alphabet (Gee's KEPE 1). Recall that the full diary entry for Oct 1 1835 said, "This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with brsr. O. Cowdery and W. W. Phelps: The system of astronomy was unfolded." Gee tries to separate the labor on the Egyptian alphabet from the unfolding of the atronomy, but the diary entry strongly suggests a correlation between the two. And sure enough, on p. 26 of the GAEL we find the source for the text attached by Reuben Hedlock (under JS's supervision) to Facsimile 2. Gee also wants to separate the Egyptian Alphabet (KEPE 3,4,5) from the Grammar and Alpahbet of the Egyptian Language (KEPE 1), but the truth is that the documents are all part of the same project. On the spine of the GAEL we find the title "Egyptian Alphabet", and we find the same shortened title (or some closely related variant) at the top of most of its pages. At the top of the relevant page (p. 26) we read, "Second part of the Alphabet 1s[t] Degree". For more information on the production of the AGEL, see here.

2. Anson Call reported that "Joseph . . . said to us, `Sit down and we will read to you from the translations of the book of Abraham.' Oliver Cowdery then read until he was tired when Thomas Marsh read making altogether about two hours." The "translations of the Book of Abraham" could easily have included GAEL material. This would account for the two-hour timeframe.

3. As I mentioned above, the first installment in the T&S corresponds exactly in length to Translation MS #1. It makes sense to conclude that that was all JS had translated up to that point, and that when he "Commenced Translating from the Book of Abraham, for 10 No of the Times and Seasons" and the next "afternoon continued the Translation of the Book of Abraham", he was not just revising it, but engaging in actual translation. Furthermore, referring to the first T&S installment Joseph wrote, "In the present no. will be found the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham which I shall continue to translate & publish as fast as possible till the whole is completed. . ." ("Joseph Smith to the Times and Seasons," Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives; emphasis added). Obviously the whole was not completed at this point, and JS was publishing the BoA on a translate-as-you-go basis.

Probably the most important reason to reject Gee's hypothesis is that none of the post-2:18 material seems to have affected Joseph's theology until 1842. It was in 1844 that Joseph preached his plurality of gods sermon, declaring, "I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house." By contrast, D&C 121, vv. 26 and 28 seem uncertain about whether a plurality of gods exists, and promise further revelation on the subject. I can only assume that the later chapters (4 and 5) of the BoA are the further revelation to which these verses refer. If Abr. 4 and 5 were already translated, with their explicit plurality of gods, why should Joseph still have been uncertain about it in 1839?

-CK

[Chris Smith]

Dan (and anyone else who might care to read this),

Today I encountered some more information on KEPA #4 as evidence that parts of Abr. 2:18ff were extant prior to 1842. This is from A Joseph Smith Commentary on the Book of Abraham by William V. Smith, put out by the BOAP website:

Willard Richards became secretary to Joseph Smith in 1841, but based on his movements

during the period of his Church membership, he probably did not do any writing for

Joseph Smith until mid-December 1841. KEPA#4 has the date "1841" written on it with

the notation "Part of the Book of Abraham," the handwriting of this date/notation is

identified by Dean Jessee as that of Thomas Bullock who acted as a clerk for Joseph

Smith. This manuscript has the same introduction as the Times and Seasons Book of

Abraham and the texts have only small differences although there are what appear to be

copying errors corrected by crossing out the offending text and inserting another phrase.

KEPA#4 covers chapters 1 and 2 [minus 1:9b - 1:12a] and a portion of chapter 3 [3:18b

through 3:26a]. The page numbering of KEPA#4 indicates that this ms was more

complete when it was written than now and seems to have page references to another ms,

which evidently predated it. This is entirely appropriate given the content of Joseph

Smith's sermons [see notes at 3:18].

p. 5.

Download the file from http://www.boap.org/LDS/BOAP/SecondEd/index.html

It would seem that, barring some additional evidence, it must be conceded that the BoA was translated at least through 3:26a as of December 1841. I do wish we had access to this manuscript for closer examination. I think it is at least worth re-issuing Dan's earlier caution:

BOA MS #4 is in the handwriting of Willard Richards, who (according to his own journal) became a clerk and a compiler of JS history on 13 Dec. 1841. A photograph of page 1 was reproduced in Nibley's article in BYU Studies, Summer 1971, p. 389. Gee's dating perhaps follows the a file notation on back ("1841") in the handwriting of Thomas Bullock, who didn't become a scribe until 1843, which perhaps explains Gee's question mark.

As far as KEPA 4 being the printer's manuscript, this is the view of Ashment (Reducing Dissonance, fn. 13), but Gee and the William V. Smith study cited above are much more tentative about it. I get the impression that Smith believes both the William I. Appleby journal and KEPA 4 were copied from a now-lost printer's manuscript.

Having looked over the first page of KEPA 4 as reproduced in Nibley's BYU Studies article, I must say that it does have the appearance of a printer's manuscript. The title is written in very large capital letters between the header and the text, for example, something that probably would not be so emphasized if this were a copy of the T&S article or something like that. There are also little x's underneath capital letters that shouldn't be capitalized, and a misplaced colon is crossed out. I doubt we'd find this kind of attention to detail in something other than a printer's manuscript. Its close relationship to the T&S is also attested by the shared misspelling of "catecombs" (sic). The only observable differences are that "A Translation" is set off from the header in the T&S but not in KEPA 4 and that one occurrence of "residence" and KEPA 4 leaves off the "e" at the end. There may also be a place in KEPA 4 where "to" gets rendered in the T&S as "and," but the ink is barely visible so it's hard to tell. Perhaps the printer couldn't tell either, and substituted the word "and" there of his own volition. If we had access to the full manuscript, a helpful avenue of study would be to try to determine whether 1:1-2:18 was written at the same time and by the same method (i.e. copying vs. dictation) as the text that follows. I still find it remarkable that the first T&S installment breaks off at exactly the same place as KEPA 1. If prior to March 1 there was one continuous printer's manuscript through at least Abr. 3:26, we are hard-pressed to explain why he chose to break off at Abr. 2:18, at exactly the same point as the Kirtland-era manuscript ends.

-CK

EDIT: In Appendix 5 Smith gives this additional description of KEPA 4:

Manuscript # 4, (KEPA#4) 1841. 18 leaves. 29 x 20 cm. Ms. Book of Abraham,

1:1 to 2:19, 3:18 to 3:26 in the handwriting of Willard Richards. Includes (back

of page 2) explanations of figures in Facsimile No. 1 in the hand of Willard

Richards, except explanation of fig. 12 is shorter. Facsimile No. 2, ca. 1841. 4

pages. various sizes. Ms. Includes explanations in the handwriting of Willard

Richards. "A Fac-simile from the Book of Abraham," no. 2, ca. 1843 Engraved

by Reuben Hedlock. Broadside. 32 x 19 cm. Facsimile from the Book of

Abraham with explanation of the characters. On back is a letter, Aug. 1, 1843, to

Clyde Williams Co., Harrisburg, Pa., signed by Joseph Smith and W. W. Phelps.

KEPA 4 thus appears to be a compilation of scattered materials. The 1841 date may be associated only with Facs. #2. Still not enough info to draw real concusions from, though.

[Chris Smith]

Just FYI, in private correspondence with Brent Metcalfe, he provided what IMO is unimpeachable evidence that KEPA 4 was written in two installments-- one up to 2:18, and the other 2:19 and following. The 1841 date is written on the back of page 3 of the first installment. Metcalfe suggests (I think rightly) that the second installment was written in March of 1842. I don't want to let any of his cats out of the bag, so for details I will simply point you to his forthcoming publication. In the meantime, KEPA 4 does not support the apologists' assertion that the BoA had been translated past 2:18 prior to 1842.

Thanks, Brent.