Did Joseph Smith Translate JSP X–XI?

Home > Book of Abraham > Did Joseph Smith Translate JSP X–XI?

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Did Joseph Smith Translate JSP X–XI?

Summary: By far the most oft-repeated argument against Joseph Smith and his translation of the book of Abraham is that involving a singular papyrus fragment referred to as "JSP XI." The fragment is so-named because it is fragment #11 in a set of 11 fragments known to have been in Joseph Smith's possession at one point and, today, are owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Related article:

Provenance of the Book of Abraham Papyri Summary: See here for discussion of the origins of the 11 fragments of Egyptian papyri once-belonging to Joseph Smith that are now in the possession of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This argument involving JSP XI got its start near the time of the recovery of ten of these 11 fragments in 1967 by the Church. Critics Gerald Tanner and Grant Heward put forth the theory that Joseph Smith translated JSP XI in an issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought in 1968. Their argument has been repeated in numerous works that are critical of the Church and there have been several pieces of evidence used to establish their theory. This page examines each piece of evidence.

---

The Negative Evidence

First we put forward all of the evidence used by critics to establish their theory regarding the alleged translation of JSP XI.

Matches Between JSP XI, the Earliest Book of Abraham Translation Manuscripts, and the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language

The essential argument made by Heward and Tanner is as follows.

There are three sets of documents that students of the book of Abraham need to have a grasp of if they are to understand this argument: the book of Abraham translation manuscripts, JSP XI, and the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL).

The translation manuscripts come from 1835 when Joseph Smith is believed to have produced at least some of the book of Abraham translation. There are three manuscripts. The three manuscripts line up Egyptian characters from JSP XI in the left margin of their pages. Adjacent to the characters is, ostensibly, a translation of those characters.

JSP XI is a fragment of an Egyptian papyrus that originally contained what is known either as a "Sensen" text or "Book of Breathings." "Sensen" just means "breathings" in Egyptian and so the two terms are used variably by scholars. The Book of Breathings is a document that Egyptians placed with many of their dead to allow them safe passage in the underworld and to eternal rest. This particular Book of Breathings belonged to an individual named Horos—a priest from Thebes. JSP I, X, and XI—as well as the original of Facsimile 3 of the book of Abraham— are thought to have been found adjacent to one another in the same papyrus.

The GAEL was produced by either Joseph Smith and/or one or more of his associates beginning in 1835. The GAEL attempts to decipher the meaning of the Egyptian language. It duplicates whole Egyptian characters or parts of them and then provides a translation of their meaning. There are characters from JSP XI in the GAEL.

Heward and Tanner note that the book of Abraham manuscripts contain characters from the first four lines of JSP XI. Those same characters, as well as a translation matching the manuscripts, is found in the GAEL. This evidence, according to Heward and Tanner, proves that Joseph Smith's source for the book of Abraham is the extant papyri currently in possession of the Church and, more specifically, JSP XI. Below are examples of how the book of Abraham manuscripts use hieratic characters from JSP XI.

There are, however, several problems with this theory.

The first problem is noted by independent researcher Tim Barker. Barker directly targeted Heward and Tanner's journal publication and presented findings at the 2020 FAIR Conference that contradict their theory. In particular, Barker noted that the same characters from JSP XI show up in Facsimile 2 of the book of Abraham. The original papyrus that contained Facsimile 2 was likely damaged upon arrival to Kirtland in 1835 when Michael Chandler sold it to Joseph Smith. A sketch of the original papyrus (but, unfortunately, not the original papyrus) survives today.

Any portion of a papyrus that is damaged and leaves holes in the papyrus is called "lacunae." The lacunae of Facsimile 2, prior to publication of the book of Abraham, were filled in with characters from other papyrus fragments—including from those owned by the Church today. Barker notes that characters from JSP XI are used to fill in portions of Facsimile 2's lacunae. Indeed, the very same lines of text from JSP XI that Heward and Tanner point to as the source of the translation in the book of Abraham translation manuscripts is used to fill in the lacunae.

Barker explains:

The lucanae for Facsimile No. 2, did indeed come from other parts of the Joseph Smith Papyri collection. I’ve highlighted 1/3rd of the hypocephalus rim or Figure 18 (the right hand side of the rim), and half of Figures 13, 14, and 15 on the right-hand side as well, just as Heward and Tanner depicted in their 1968 article. These highlighted portions can all be traced back to JSP XI.

Starting with the rim, or Figure 18, I’ve laid the semi-circular text in a horizontal row. The text was inserted upside down, but when turned right side up and flipped around, the text can be aligned with hieratic text in JSP XI from rows 2, 3, and 4. The transfer of hieratic characters to the hypocephalus isn’t as clean as one might have hoped for, but a clear match can be made when looking closely at JSP XI and Facsimile No 2, and in the case of JSP XI row 4, from Book of Abraham Manuscript C.

Similarly, on Figures 13, 14, and 15, these figures need to be turned right side up and flipped around as well (although the numbering from Figures 12 through 15 in the original 1842 publication of the Book of Abraham was printed upside down as well, potentially indicating that the text was deliberately inserted upside down), nonetheless, the text can be aligned with the hieratic text in JSP XI, row 4. Again, the transfer of hieratic characters to the hypocephalus isn’t as clean as one might have hoped for, but a match can be made when looking closely at JSP XI and Facsimile No 2.

Based on Heward and Tanner’s theory, using our current versification, Abraham 2:1 through most of 2:2, and half of 2:9 through 2:18 were all included in Facsimile No. 2. Fortunately, we know what Joseph had to say about this text since he provided the explanations to Facsimile 2.

Interestingly, looking at the undamaged portions of the hypocephalus and the damaged portions (but filled in with various Egyptian hieroglyphic and hieratic characters), Joseph chose to comment on some “Figures” and refrain from commenting on others. Sometimes he provided explanations for undamaged figures, and sometimes he refrained from explaining undamaged figures. Sometimes he provided explanations for damaged figures, and other times he refrained from explaining damaged figures.

And then, the shotgun blast from Barker:

It just so happens that literally every Figure containing any hieratic text from JSP XI, Joseph’s response is that the explanations “will be given in the own due time of the Lord.” And he concludes by saying, “The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.” In other words, literally all of the JSP XI hieratic characters included in Facsimile 2, Joseph Smith deliberately declined from commenting upon because he believed that the translation would at some future time be given in the own due time of the Lord. Joseph clearly indicates that he did NOT translate JSP XI.

These findings veritably explode the theory advanced by Heward and Tanner.

The work of faithful Latter-day Saint Egyptologist Kerry Muhelstein can take Barker's conclusions further. Muhelstein undertook a study of all of the Egyptian characters with their corresponding translations in the book of Abraham translation manuscripts and the corresponding Egyptian characters and translations in the GAEL. Muhelstein writes:

Of the twenty-one times I found text in the GAEL that matched text in the Book of Abraham, I found only one time that the corresponding Egyptian characters matched, four times when part of the characters matched, and sixteen times in which there was no match whatsoever. This indicates that the GAEL was not used to translate the papyri, nor is there any demonstrable translation relationship between the characters in the papyri we currently have and the text of the Book of Abraham.

This throws another, massive wrench in Heward and Tanner's theory that the GAEL was used as a tool of translating the book of Abraham.

The Positive Evidence

Now we put forth positive evidence that Joseph Smith did not translate JSP X and XI. This evidence will usually go overlooked by critics when seeking to establish their theories.

Eyewitnesses to the Translation

Notes

BACK TO TOP