The Source Of Joseph Smith'S Reported Translation From The Kinderhook Plates

[DonBradley]

William Clayton Journal, May 1, 1843:

"Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found & he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth."

Clayton-GAEL comparison:

___________________________________________________________________________

Clayton journal: "Prest. J....says..."

He was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt,

and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth.

___________________________________________________________________________

"Ho e oop hah," as defined on GAEL, page 4 (second page of characters):

Honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh; possession by birth;

one who reigns upon his throne universally — possessor of heaven and earth, and of the blessings of the earth.

___________________________________________________________________________

What Clayton says Joseph translated from the Kinderhook plates can be derived from this single character definition in the GAEL. The GAEL text from which a "Kinderhook plates" idea or phrase can be derived is given in the same color.

A couple of the ideas Clayton says Joseph translated are given implicitly rather than explicitly. The king "of Egypt" detail is implicit in being Pharaoh. The detail of descent from Ham is also implicit, since the Book of Abraham gives Pharaoh's lineage to Ham in Abraham 2.

It should also be noted that the detail that the plates were the record of the person with whom they were buried is a surmise and not something that would be on the plates, unless one would expect to find the author giving a valedictory like "I am burying these plates in this mound alongside my corpse."

Thus everything Clayton says Joseph translated from the Kinderhook plates is readily derivable from the definition given on the GAEL for the character it calls "Ho-e-oop-hah."

Would it surprise you to hear that a comparable character is to be found on the Kinderhook plates, and is, in fact, one of their most prominent characters?

Some who've looked are only partly seeing it. But I laid it out in the presentation and may end up doing so here as well. The match, as those of you who haven't yet seen it will see, is crystal clear. And then there's the eyewitness to him making the comparison.

That Joseph Smith "translated" from the Kinderhook plates isn't in doubt, nor is how he did so.

Don

[DonBradley]

Argh. Mods, could you please change the subject for this thread to:

The Source of Joseph Smith's Reported Translation from the Kinderhook Plates

Thanks...

Don

[altersteve]

Mind = blown.

Amazing work, Brother Bradley.

[LeSellers]

Argh. Mods, could you please change the subject for this thread to:

The Source of Joseph Smith's Reported Translation from the Kinderhook Plates

Try the "Contact Us" link at the top of every page.

Lehi

Edited August 9, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mortal Man]

unless one would expect to find on the plates a valedictory along the lines of, "I am burying these plates in this mound alongside my dead body."

I detect just a wee bit of sarcasm here.

[DonBradley]

Thanks, LeSellers!

Always glad to be of service, Steve!

Don

[why me]

Some who've looked are only partly seeing it. But I laid it out in the presentation and may end up doing so here as well. The match, as those of you who haven't yet seen it will see, is crystal clear. And then there's the eyewitness to him making the comparison.

That Joseph Smith "translated" from the Kinderhook plates isn't in doubt, nor is how he did so.

Don

As I have said to you before on the boards, there is a marvelous work and a wonder for you do with firesides about your way back into the church and now about this. You will do a great service to many members. I hope that firesides can be arranged by FAIR or by yourself.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

William Clayton Journal, May 1, 1843:

"Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found & he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth."

Clayton-GAEL:

___________________________________________________________________________

Don

Don, is there any evidence that Clayton was familiar with the GAEL? I have a theory that just "popped" in my head. It is probably wrong but we shall see.

The idea is what Clayton was familiar with the GAEL and JS made the connection that there was indeed a similar character on the KP as there is on teh GAEL and Clayton (and others) are just quoting the GAEL and attributing it all to JS and JS never actually made any claims personally other than the observation of that one character?

Any way. I probably don't even know what I am talking about.

[DonBradley]

Don, is there any evidence that Clayton was familiar with the GAEL? I have a theory that just "popped" in my head. It is probably wrong but we shall see.

The idea is what Clayton was familiar with the GAEL and JS made the connection that there was indeed a similar character on the KP as there is on teh GAEL and Clayton (and others) are just quoting the GAEL and attributing it all to JS and JS never actually made any claims personally other than the observation of that one character?

Any way. I probably don't even know what I am talking about.

Hey Mola,

The details of what Joseph said are up for grabs. Clayton does see Joseph as having made the connection of the KP to that GAEL character definition and believes this constituted some measure of translation. Perhaps Joseph actually showed him the definition, or perhaps he merely related it in conversation. And Joseph is comparing the characters on the KP with those from the papyri, and specfically those in his Egyptian alphabet, per the respective May 7 letters of Parley P. Pratt and "A Gentile."

Don

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hey Mola,

The details of what Joseph said are up for grabs. Clayton does see Joseph as having made the connection of the KP to that GAEL character definition and believes this constituted some measure of translation. Perhaps Joseph actually showed him the definition, or perhaps he merely related it in conversation. And Joseph is comparing the characters on the KP with those from the papyri, and specfically those in his Egyptian alphabet, per the respective May 7 letters of Parley P. Pratt and "A Gentile."

Don

So, then it would appear that it is speculation one way or the other. I kind of like that. I just bring this up solely because JS never recorded any translation and we do not have a first hand account from JS about a translation. So there seems to be something here, and I am trying to understand. And that is: How exactly does the GAEL the KP and the supposed translation all fit together?

Certainly there is Kevin's view. I am trying to gain perspective here.

Of course I do not want to derail this thread. This one just made me think of something. Let me know if I need to start a new thread or if you have any other ideas and want to comment here?

Thanks.

[cinepro]

It should also be noted that the detail that the plates were the record of the person with whom they were buried is a surmise and not something that would be on the plates, unless one would expect to find the author giving a valedictory like "I am burying these plates in this mound alongside my corpse."

Actually, if you look at the last two characters on the last plate, they roughly translate into...

Here may be found the last words of Mahonra of Shizlem. He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the Golden Plates in the Hill of Rahmaaaaaaahghhhh'.

Edited August 9, 2011 by cinepro

[DonBradley]

So, then it would appear that it is speculation one way or the other. I kind of like that. I just bring this up solely because JS never recorded any translation and we do not have a first hand account from JS about a translation. So there seems to be something here, and I am trying to understand. And that is: How exactly does the GAEL the KP and the supposed translation all fit together?

I'm not sure what you mean, Mola. Joseph apparently used the GAEL to "translate" a character on the KP.

Do you mean what are the implications of this for the GAEL?

I'm planning to write something on that when I can get around to it.

Don

[Areabird]

I'm not sure what you mean, Mola. Joseph apparently used the GAEL to "translate" a character on the KP.

Do you mean what are the implications of this for the GAEL?

I'm planning to write something on that when I can get around to it.

Don

What does GAEL mean?

[Kenngo1969]

What does GAEL mean?

Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.

[scooby]

What does GAEL mean?

The Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language was a document produced by Joseph, et al., for some purpose which is debated, but was perhaps an effort on their part to reverse-engineer the revealed English text of the Book of Abraham in order to decipher the Egyptian language. It is a list of various symbols with corresponding English text.

Don Bradley convincingly argues that when the Kinderhook plates came along, Joseph compared the symbols on the plates to the symbols in the GAEL in order to attempt a secular translation. One prominent figure found on the Kinderhook plates happens to closely match, by chance, a symbol on the GAEL. The explanation of this symbol in the GAEL seems to be the source of Joseph's pronouncement of the origin of the Kinderhook plates (which was clearly wrong since the plates are fake).

In other words, Joseph attempted a fool-hearty, non-revelatory secular translation of phony plates using what was likely a spotty, academically-unsound Egyptian-to-English dictionary. What now appears certain is that he did not, as some of his detractors have claimed, pretend to any revelation on the origin of the Kinderhook plates.

Joseph Smith = good prophet, not so good academic.

That's how I understand it.

Edited August 10, 2011 by scooby

[robuchan]

I really find this fascinating. I'm not sure yet if it's good or bad for apologetics. But very interesting. Great detective work!

Is there a place on the net to find the portion of the GAEL that includes the symbol and the definition Don Bradley references?

[wenglund]

So, the GAEL character that was allegedly used by Joseph to translate the character in the KP has the sound "Ho e oop hah" instead of the character with the sound "Kah tou mun"?

Interesting.

If it is of any help, the sound "Ho e oop" has the English explanation: "a prince of the royal blood, a true descendant from Ham, the son of Noah, and inheritor of the Kingly blessings from under the hand of Noah, but not according to the priestly blessing, because of the transgressions of Ham, which blessing fell upon Shem from under the hand of Noah

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Is there a place on the net to find the portion of the GAEL that includes the symbol and the definition Don Bradley references?

Not that I am aware of. But, here is a copy I made of the GAEL character, Ho e oop hah:

Here is what I suspect is the corresponding symbol on one of the Kinderhook plates (circled in red)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Don,

Thank you for setting out the evidence upon which your conclusion is based. It's good to know where it comes from.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

Hey Wade,

Is there any way you could post the top portion of GAEL page 3?

Don

[cinepro]

Hey Wade,

Is there any way you could post the top portion of GAEL page 3?

Don

This may have been answered elsewhere, but I have a question for you Don.

How the heck did you make the connection between the Kinderhook Plates and the GAEL? Did you first notice the similar characters and then connect the explanations? Did you notice the similar explanations and then connect the characters? Or was there something else that indicated to you that the two might be connected?

[wenglund]

Hey Wade,

Is there any way you could post the top portion of GAEL page 3?

Don

Sure. Here you go:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DonBradley]

Thank you, Wade.

In the image provided above by Wade we see how the GAEL "system" worked. If Joseph Smith opened up the GAEL looking for characters, he would found on page 3 (the one just before the Ho-e-oop-hah character), the system here for breaking characters into component parts--what it calls "dissecting" them. Each component resulting from such dissection is treated in the GAEL as an individual character. Thus, the GAEL doesn't assign a name and a meaning to a whole character from the papyri, but to just a single portion of a character--as shown on page 3 above.

With that in mind let's look at the character in question atop one of the Kinderhook plates, apply this method to it, and then compare it to the GAEL's "Ho-e-oop-hah" character:

Here is the facsimile of the plate:

Edited August 10, 2011 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

Here is the character:

Here is the character with the primary, boat shape isolated after dissection:

(Note: I'm dissecting this one myself, using Photoshop, to show how the boat shape would have been isolated under the system shown in the GAEL.)

Edited August 10, 2011 by DonBradley

[DonBradley]

Here is a positive of that isolated Kinderhook plates character:

And here is the GAEL's "Ho-e-oop-hah," which has been printed by Michael Marquardt:

It may be even clearer not blown up:

The equivalence is clearer with the high-quality image from the Church Historical Department--there's no fuzz, the boat shape is clearer, and the ink doesn't look so thick. I don't have permission to put that online. But I think this will do to show the equivalent boat shapes. The only difference is the depth of the boat. The semicircle shape is the same, and these are easily matchable.

Don

Edited August 10, 2011 by DonBradley