"If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself"
Although I disagree with the conclusion, in a quite brilliant FAIR presentation in 2011, historian Don Bradley closed the case for many when it comes to the Kinderhook plates (KP). You can view the presentation here.
That same year, Signature Books published the late Egyptologist Robert Ritner's analysis and translation, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri. This included the Book of Breathings for a Theban priest named Hor (the Hor papyrus), whose mummy had been in the ownership of Joseph Smith.
These represent two sides of the Kinderhook coin, because the character Bradley relies on in his argument is from Joseph Smith's papyri. And, the character's description, which Bradley also relies on, was written several years prior to the KP entering the scene.
However, not considering the relevance of the other half of the story, most apologists have treated the matter of the KP as resolved, when it is actually not resolved.
To understand how this happened, we first need to understand the argument put forth by critics. It goes something like this:
1. The markings on the KP are a fake language
2. Fake language can't be translated
3. Therefore, Joseph could not actually have translated the markings
4. Joseph claimed to translate markings on the KP
5. Therefore, Joseph was a fraud as translator
There's an unusual dynamic now where both sides of the argument have a vested interest in moving past #4, and thus no one sees any reason to look into it beyond pointing out fallacies in older arguments and citing evidence that William Clayton is generally a reliable source (Clayton is the one who claimed Joseph Smith had translated a portion of the KP).
The effect of Bradley's argument was to point out that disproving a non-revelatory, or traditional, translation effort does not disprove the correctness of translations Joseph performed through the Gift and Power of God. So, Bradley countered #5 and thus neutralized the main attack.
However, Bradley's conclusion is based on a view which impacts a larger picture surrounding Joseph Smith. In other words, Bradley's conclusion creates a premise which helps shape the general understanding and direction of future research regarding who Joseph Smith was and what he understood. We need to make sure we get that right.
As Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee jointly wrote, "An unbiased examination of the Kinderhook plate episode would have to ... follow the evidence wherever it leads." I would point out however, as a gentle reminder, we can't follow the evidence wherever it leads if we only look at half the evidence.
As I will demonstrate, evidence of Joseph claiming to translate a portion of the KP is weaker and less straight-forward than one might suppose. And when we look at the other half of the coin, a different picture emerges with very different implications which may help us correct our course in understanding Joseph Smith.
We will dissect and analyze what Clayton said, and afterward we will dissect and analyze the description for "Ho e oop hah."
Deconstructing Clayton's Translation Claim
In his journal, dated May 1, 1843, William Clayton made the following claim:
"Pres J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and 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 and earth."
Let's break it down.
Clayton writes, "Prest J. has translated a portion..."
This could possibly mean Joseph Smith himself said he "translated," but that would be reading more into it than what Clayton said. On its face, this simply means William Clayton believed Joseph "translated a portion..."
You might think, "but Clayton was a close, personal scribe, so he obviously would know." But remember, we're not talking about a regular translation. According to the dominant narrative itself, we're talking about Joseph comparing a character on a Kinderhook Plate with a character he had previously copied down from a different source and had previously written an explanation next to. That's very different than anything else William Clayton is known to have ever witnessed. Yet, it has the trappings of translation, i.e. a person sees a word written in a foreign language and then looks for it in a lexicon-like resource, and so one might assume they used the resource to translate the word, without the person themselves ever using the word "translate," or even thinking in their mind that they had conducted a translation.
On May 7, almost a week after Clayton penned his journal entry, a different witness stated that Joseph had "compared" the characters to each other, which is not the same as "translate" but may have looked nearly the same as what Clayton witnessed. This witness, who made his statement in a letter printed anonymously in the New York Herald under the name "A Gentile," went on to say they were "evidently the same characters" and Joseph "therefore will be able to decipher them." Setting decipherment in the future evinces a different impression on the part of "A Gentile" than Clayton's apparent understanding. How do we reconcile that? Of course, it could be the case that Joseph didn't tell his later audience as much as he had told Clayton, but keep in mind this was almost a week later and Joseph evidently had his resources open in front of the audience and they were probably there specifically for this purpose. So, it could instead be the case that Joseph told his audience more, not less, than Clayton, and his audience was therefore able to realize that Joseph was just trying, at that stage, to see if the characters might be authentically ancient. The indication that Joseph had not yet translated is also supported by Wilber Fugate's claim that Joseph "would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England." And, more importantly, the Willard Richards account in Joseph's own journal describes Joseph exhibiting the KP on May 7, but does not indicate any actual translation.
Does the suggestion that Clayton made an understandable mistake have any plausibility problems? No. In fact, the dominant narrative proposes quite casually that "A Gentile" made a completely understandable mistake. He claimed Joseph compared the KP characters with characters from the Gold Plates. The dominant narrative assumes the individual who signed his name as "A Gentile" just didn't know very much about the papyri. But do you know who else didn't know very much about the papyri? William Clayton. Clayton didn't show up until years after the initial excitement surrounding them had died down, and he doesn't seem to mention them ever. Now, for the record, I personally have suspected that, in his Egyptian papers, Joseph was looking for convergences in form and meaning between Reformed Egyptian and Egyptian, and thus the Gold Plates may have been relevant and "A Gentile" may have been making a claim that isn't mutually exclusive with other information. But the point is, most people would probably agree that confusion on his part would be very understandable and, therefore, we are not under obligation to treat what "A Gentile" said about the Gold Plates as fact, and likewise, confusion on Clayton's part is also understandable, and, therefore, we are not under obligation to treat what he said as fact, either.
Clayton continues, "...and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found..."
Okay, how would Joseph know, through traditional translation means, that the brass plates (KP) not only were in the possession of, but the writing on them was about, the person with whom they were found (incidentally, there was actually no person, just a few bones)? Let's think about this for a minute. Why would Joseph assume this, when he had written about another set of brass plates in the Book of Mormon and yet the content on those plates was not about any of the characters in the Book of Mormon who possessed them? Moreover, Joseph knew from his own personal experience with buried plates that the reasons for burying plates can be complicated. It seems unlikely that Joseph would have jumped to that conclusion.
The most one could deduce along those lines from the "Ho e oop hah" description is that the plates are about someone who fits that description. And if they were buried with a person, that person would be the top candidate. But that's speculation. Clayton is very matter-of-fact in stating not that Joseph offered speculation, but that Joseph outright said they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. Moreover, Clayton implies Joseph learned this from the translation itself, i.e. Clayton said Joseph translated a portion, then proceeded to describe what the content of that translation was. Did the translation somehow specify the person it was about?
Maybe you think I'm asking for too much. Maybe the idea of a document specifically identifying the person it would be found with seems far-fetched. But if, however, Joseph was talking about the "Ho e oop hah" in relation to his original source for the character, i.e. the Hor papyrus, things start to make more sense. You see, the Hor papyrus actually says on it that the scribe is to physically wrap it to the breast of the person it is written about. So, you can literally say it is about the person with whom it is found. And, again, it is the very source of the "Ho e oop hah." We are starting to see the other side of the coin. And the dominant narrative itself postulates that Joseph was talking about the "Ho e oop hah," so it follows that the context of the conversation with Clayton related to the Hor papyrus.
Further evidence comes from Clayton's journal earlier that day (May 1), where he claims the KP were found on the breast of the deceased. That is a very specific claim. And that claim is false for the KP, but is true for the Hor papyrus. And, I might add, it is only true for that type of papyrus and not for any other type of document known to man. So we have Clayton directly mixing up the KP with the Hor papyrus.
Let's think about this.
1. Clayton was fully capable of mixing up the KP with the Hor papyrus. He actually did so, as just explained.
2. Other sources tell us Joseph Smith translated part of that papyrus and through translation discovered it was about the mummy (eg Emma Smith in the bill of sale, and William Appleby)
3. Clayton says Joseph "translated a portion" but that does not mean Joseph specified that he was talking about the KP
4. Joseph talked with Clayton about a description associated with a character on both the KP and the Hor papyrus
5. Clayton may have for a second time mixed up the KP with the Hor papyrus, or may have assumed the content was applicable to both
Another problem with treating Clayton's "translated" claim as clear-cut is the Kinderhook Plates were not called the "Kinderhook Plates" at the time. Even the papyri were usually just referred to by Joseph as ancient or Egyptian records, etc. So if Joseph referred to a particular character, but both the papyri and the KP had that character, how would Clayton always know which one Joseph was referring to? Remember, "A Gentile" came away thinking Joseph was talking about finding matches with characters from the Gold Plates. And, for that matter, one of the actual Kinderhook Plates sat in a museum for years, falsely labeled as one of the Gold Plates from the Book of Mormon!
If we think about the different ways wording could be orchestrated to avoid confusion, we're just looking at it in hindsight. In practice, there's a reason Clayton mistakenly claimed the KP were on the breast of a skeleton - a claim he never corrected - and we are under no obligation to assume he had a correct enough understanding of this situation to accurately interpret everything he was seeing and hearing.
Clayton continues, "...and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt..."
Although being a descendant of Ham could potentially be assumed from someone being of the loins of Pharaoh, it is a pretty specific reference and "Ham" is outside the wording of the "Ho e oop hah" description.
By the time this got to Parley P. Pratt (perhaps from Clayton), this had evolved into a claim that the KP contained a "genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah." And that's problematic for the dominant narrative, because no reading of the "Ho e oop hah" description would imply a genealogy had been written out, let alone that it went specifically to Ham.
Although the dominant narrative doesn't account for this, it can be accounted for on the other side of the coin. First, the Hor papyrus actually does contain Hor's genealogy, at least as far as giving the names and occupations of his parents - and, second, a description centering around the words "a true descendant of Ham" is located not in but near the description for "Ho e oop hah." It is in the entry for "Ho e oop," which could easily be mistaken for "Ho e oop hah." And although the character associated with "Ho e oop hah" is on a Kinderhook plate, the character associated with "Ho e oop" is not. Joseph Smith would have known they were separate entries, but someone who didn't know better could have looked at the page and seen the words, "Ho e oop" and assumed it was the same entry. The "Ho e oop" entry is written darker, stands out more, and the next letter is even an "A."
So if someone was not closely studying the document but just saw it open while Joseph was working on it, and a couple days later talked with Pratt, it seems plausible that "descendant from Ham" could be taken by Pratt to imply the presence of a genealogy. And as far as the Jaredite idea goes, it's difficult to see how that would have come from a traditional translation by Joseph Smith, but it's easy to see how Pratt could have deduced it based on the finding being on American soil and not supposing Nephi would have descended from Ham.
Clayton concludes, "...and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."
This seems a bit of a stretch for the dominant narrative, as it changes "possessor of heaven and earth" into receiving his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth, but I will get into that more in the next section.
Deconstructing the Description of "Ho e oop hah"
In Joseph Smith's Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, the first explanation given for "Ho e oop hah" is:
"honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharoah. possession by birth one who riegns upon his throne universally - possessor of heaven and earth, and the blessings of the earth."
We see both "honor by birth" and "possession by birth," so let's talk about them together.
When one is born, they have two parents, correct? I propose one is represented here by "honor" and the other by "possession."
So, does the Hor papyrus mention his birth? Yes. What are the odds the document from which the "Ho e oop hah" was derived would actually make an issue of the birth of the person, like the "Ho e oop hah" description does?
The papyrus hails Hor as being "born of Taikhibit" (his mother) and as the son of Osorwer, his father. Of course, the "Ho e oop hah" description doesn't just say birth, but "honor by birth," and the references to being born of his mother are clearly indeed honorific.
In this short document of only 10 extant paragraphs, his birth is referred to 11 times. And that's not counting a reference to it in Facsimile 3. In addition, he is declared the son of Osorwer twice. And it is through Osorwer that he possesses his titles, thus the Hor roll declares Hor and his father are "similarly titled." And they are not ordinary titles. In fact, Hor was born into what Marc Coenen calls "an important Theban priestly family," and Coenen states that Hor's father is "easily identified as the most important member of this family," adding that descendants as late as the fifth generation stress their family link to him. So it meant something for Hor to have those titles through his father, listed in the Hor papyrus.
The description states, "...kingly power by the line of Pharoah..."
I think the phrasing there is interesting. If he's talking about a pharaoh, why not just say "a pharaoh?" It's a reference to the power, not the person. The Hor papyrus says, "You are on the throne of Osiris." He's accessing the power of Osiris, i.e. "kingly power by the line of Pharaoh."
And, keep in mind the papyri are all about esoteric Egyptian mythology which Joseph had no way of explaining to people in terms they would understand. So, for instance, in the words of Robert Ritner, the dead Pharaoh Osiris was "king of the universe," and Hor, the male mummy, had become Osiris, and thus the male mummy was king of the universe, through the pharaoh Osiris. Joseph didn't talk a lot about it, but his mother liked to tell people the male mummy was a king.
The description states, "...one who riegns upon his throne universally..."
In the context of a supposed skeleton in an unassuming mound in frontier America, claiming the man was a universal ruler could seem a bit bombastic, which might be the reason Clayton toned this down in his journal. But in the context of the Hor papyrus, it is right at home. It tells Hor, "you exist as the Great God, Foremost of the gods" and that he is "enduring upon" his "throne in the sacred land." Ritner states that "Hor is repeatedly and explicitly stated to be deified, a member of the company of the gods, and a form of Osiris," going on to say that the "entire Breathing Document is an extended prayer" to Hor. (2011, p 97, n 85)
The description concludes, "...possessor of heaven and earth, and the blessings of the earth..."
Let's take a minute to think about what it's supposed to mean to possess "heaven and earth," and what it's supposed to mean to possess "the blessings of the earth."
A mortal human obviously doesn't possess heaven, so Clayton evidently tries to make this make sense by changing it in his journal to, "...he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."
But even if one sticks to the theory that Joseph made the change, it doesn't change the fact that a change is still a change. In other words, before the KP were ever discovered, Joseph had the words, "possessor of heaven and earth," and we have to ask what that was supposed to mean and where it came from.
What are the odds that it would accurately describe the theme and purpose of the short document from which the "Ho e oop hah" was derived? And yet that document, called a "book of breathings," is filled with and even titled after that exact concept.
As Robert Ritner explained, the deceased "is elevated to divine status ... and is thereby guaranteed powers of rejuvenation. These powers, including mobility, sight, speech, hearing, and access to food offerings, are summarized in the term snsn, or "breathing" which refers to the Egyptian expression 'breath of life,' the fundamental characteristic that distinguishes the living." (2003)
And thus Ritner, in the above quote, gives us the context for the document itself giving explicit references tying Hor with the earth, as follows (translated by Ritner, 2011):
"You shall not be turned away in heaven or on the earth"
"Your flesh is on your bones in accordance with the form you had on earth"
"That you might regain the form that you had on earth among the living"
"So that you might go forth to the earth every day"
Conclusion
I encourage the reader to set aside any meta-reason they may have for drawing conclusions a certain way on this issue. For instance, some believers may reject the idea that Joseph knew what he was doing, because they feel it would open a can of worms they don't know how to deal with. After all, the idea that Joseph didn't know what he was doing can be a powerful apologetic card to play. But in light of the evidence above, perhaps we should replace it in apologetics with the fact that WE don't understand what Joseph was doing, and those around him in his lifetime didn't really understand what he was doing. If you are concerned about the can of worms, don't be. Read my other blog posts, as I address most of the Book of Abraham issues and there's nothing to be afraid of once you understand the posts.
Our role is to consider possibilities. Understandably, for their part non-believers might only accept secular possibilities. But I hope all readers will at least try to judge this issue objectively, on the merits.
