Meditations on Vogel, Appendix A: How The Kinderhook Translation Relates

The Kinderhook Plates explanation put forth by Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee makes sense, although I believe they overlooked some profound implications, and their conclusion is premature. 

I do not believe Joseph Smith attempted a translation of the Kinderhook Plates. We have very good reason to believe William Clayton took something Joseph Smith said about the papyri and extrapolated it to the KP, based on Joseph telling Clayton about a character which Joseph had derived from the papyri which was similar to a prominent character on a Kinderhook Plate. 

We actually have Bradley and Ashurst-McGee showing us that the translation referred to by Clayton was derived from the papyri, but they stop short of realizing that this creates a dependence of Clayton’s journal, on the papyrus. The translation not only was derived from but is a correct description of the content of a piece from the papyri collection. 

The first thing we should do is familiarize ourselves with their theory. Click and read that link. 

Okay, so there are several data points to cover here. 

First, while Clayton generally focused on accuracy, and I don't want to discredit him, in this journal entry he said the plates were on the breast of a skeleton, which is wrong. Clayton said the plates were found in Adams County, which is wrong. Clayton said the skeleton was "nine foot high," which is wrong. So at the very least, we know Clayton was not confirming info before writing it down in this particular situation. He was excited about the discovery of the plates, and so maybe since he was writing in his own personal journal he felt he could take the liberty of making some assumptions. And if I'm correct that Joseph was describing esoteric Egyptian mythology, we have to especially leave room for people like Clayton to not fully understand what Joseph meant and to not differentiate between an explanation of what the papyrus said, versus an explanation of real life.

Second, where would Joseph Smith have gotten the impression that the Kinderhook Plates contained the history of the person with whom they were found? After all, Nephi had brass plates too, and they contained a history but it was not about him, so that would seem like an odd assumption for Joseph to make.

This is especially true when we consider that when Clayton places that claim in his journal, he implies that the claim came from the translation itself. 

But think about that for a minute. Joseph would have had to translate a document which literally says it is about the person on whom it is found. That goes above and beyond the ho e oop hah description. Since that claim did not come from the ho e oop hah description, and it could not have come from the KP, because they are fake, what document could Joseph have been talking about? 

Well, the Hor Book of Breathings does make the claim, and explicitly so. It specifies very clearly that it is about the person on whose breast it is wrapped. And more than one source tells us that Joseph did translate these papyri. For instance, William Appleby correctly tells us that the papyri include geneaologies of the mummies, among other correct details.

So, Clayton said the Kinderhook Plates were on the breast of a deceased person, which is not true and would only be true if Clayton was confused and the statement was actually about the Hor papyrus rather than the KP. 

And Clayton implied that through translation Joseph knew that the writing was about the person with whom it was found - which again is not true of the writing on the KP but is true of the writing on the Hor papyrus (Emma, for instance, says, on the bill of sale for the mummies, that Joseph discovered by translating those papyri that they were about the mummies - see my analysis of her account for more info)..

And, as Bradley and Ashurst-McGee explained, people were discussing and comparing the KP with the papyri, which makes confusion more likely. 

And of course the "ha e oop hah” is directly linked to the papyrus (the character is common on the papyri), so if Clayton thought the presence of that character on the Kinderhook Plates had implications, the fact is those implications came in the first place from the papyri and only from that could it potentially be extended to something else like the KP.  

This makes the KP description in Clayton’s journal entry merely a middle man in a larger explanation which is necessarily more about the papyrus than the KP. 

Third, Egyptologist Robert Ritner tells us Osiris was "King of the Universe." He also tells us that the papyrus explicitly and repeatedly declares that Hor (the male mummy purchased by Joseph Smith) is a form of Osiris. In mythology, Osiris was believed to have been a real Pharaoh before he died. The Egyptians believed that every pharaoh, after dying, became Osiris.

The description in the GAEL of "ha e oop hah" is essentially a description of Hor becoming Osiris: [See further below for a deeper break down] "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." This all matches the description in the Hor Book of Breathings of Hor becoming a form of Osiris. What earthly king would be described as having a "universal" reign and being a possessor of both heaven and earth? Yet this was believed to be the case with Pharaohs and any other elites (who were essentially adopted "into the line of Pharaoh" through the funerary texts) who became Osiris.

Fourth, regarding the plausibility of Clayton being confused, Bradley and Ashurst-McGee themselves make the case that there was plentiful room for confusion in all of this:  "Joseph Smith had displayed the transcript of the Book of Mormon characters to George Moore several months earlier. So it is not unlikely that Joseph Smith had displayed it again on May 7, along with the 'Egyptian Alphabet' volume, when visitors came to see the Kinderhook plates. In that case, the juxtaposition of Egyptian characters from both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham could have easily added to his 'Gentile' guest’s confusion over which Book of Mormon scripture the 'Egyptian Alphabet' characters came from."

If this was the case with "Gentile," and we know Clayton was indeed confused on a number of details, why would the idea of “Gentile” being confused after talking with Joseph seem perfectly natural, but Clayton being confused in a similar way after talking about the same issue with Joseph be unlikely? 

Finally, how then do I propose to reconcile the different approaches? There may be a number of ways, but currently I favor this simple scenario: I think Joseph told William Clayton how he derived the ha e oop hah description, and he was talking about deriving the description from the funerary papyri. Joseph also pointed out that a prominent character on a Kinderhook Plate matched the ha e oop hah, and Clayton, in his exuberance, assumed that the presence of the ha e oop hah character on the Kinderhook Plates meant that the KP contained the information Joseph was discussing. 

Clayton is the only one who, at the time, was making any claim about Joseph having translated any portion of the KP, so Clayton is the prime suspect for being the person who told Parley P. Pratt, and Pratt then became the second person making such claims. Everyone who was actually present on May 7 left no signs of thinking that Joseph had performed a translation, including Joseph's own scribe, Willard Richards. "Gentile" only spoke in terms of Joseph comparing the characters, and translation was only mentioned as something he anticipated future-tense.

From Joseph Smith’s perspective, he may have simply thought that the presence of the character was a hopeful sign which indicated a potentially real language to translate. This matches the apparent understanding "Gentile" had. The fact that “Gentile” implied that Joseph had not yet undertaken a translation points to Clayton being confused a week earlier. 

It seems to me that we are in a position where we have to say assumptions were made. It’s only a question of who made them, William Clayton or Joseph Smith. And we already know Clayton was confused and was making a number of false assumptions.

Let's compare what the Hor Book of Breathings papyrus says (This happens to be the Michael Rhodes translation, but Ritner would work just as well), with the content of the GAEL's ho-e-oop-hah description.

Ho-e-oop-hah:

Honor by birth

Hor Papyrus:

Hor, justified, the son of one of like titles, master of the secrets, god’s priest, Usirwer, justified, born of the house wife, the musician of Amon-Re, Taykhebyt

Explanation: The description of Hor being the son of a man and woman of high honor and distinction directly indicates "honor by birth."

Ho-e-oop-hah:

Kingly power by the line of Pharaoh

Hor Papyrus:

You are on the throne of Osiris

...established upon your throne in the Sacred Land

May you, Osiris, Hor, abide at the side of the throne of his greatness

Explanation: Osiris is the dead Pharaoh. Every dead Pharaoh was thought to become Osiris. Hor is essentially being adopted into the line, in order to become the dead Pharaoh, Osiris.

Ho-e-oop-hah:

Possession by birth

Hor Papyrus:

[Again] Hor, justified, the son of one of like titles, master of the secrets, god’s priest, Usirwer, justified, born of the house wife, the musician of Amon-Re, Taykhebyt
Explanation: Rhodes explains in footnote 3: "In the Greco-Roman period sa mi nn means that the son was of similar priestly rank, not necessarily having the exact same titles." Hor was not merely a lay priest, but was a Prophet, and "possessed" his rights of a priest by virtue of his birth.

Ho-e-oop-hah:

One who reigns upon his throne universally

Hor Papyrus:

You are the Great God, foremost among the gods

Explanation: Not merely the sentence I chose, but the entire Hor Papyrus, is about Hor becoming the Great God, Osiris. He certainly reigns upon his throne universally. The same could not be said of any earthly ruler.

Like Ritner said, Osiris was King of the Universe.

Ho-e-oop-hah:

Possessor of heaven and earth

Hor Papyrus:

Your soul is living in heaven every day

May you go forth to the earth every day

Explanation: The Hor Papyrus is a match for both the heaven and the earth themes

Ho-e-oop-hah:

...and the blessings of the earth

Hor Papyrus: 

May you assume again your form on earth among the living

Your flesh is on your bones, made like your form on earth

May your soul make for you invocation offerings of bread, beer, beef and fowl, libations and incense during the course of every day

May you drink with your throat. May you eat with your mouth.

Explanation: Not only is Hor able to live in heaven and on earth, but Hor is able to enjoy the earth with his earthly senses

How Clayton Makes The Book of Breathings Relevant:

Clayton's Journal: 

They contain the history of the person with whom they were found 

Hor Papyrus: 

The Osiris, God’s father, priest of Amon-Re, king of the gods, priest of Min, who massacres his enemies, priest of Khonsu, who is powerful in Thebes  . . .  Hor, justified, the son of one of like titles, master of the secrets, god’s priest, Usirwer, justified, born of the house wife, the musician of Amon-Re, Taykhebyt.

Explanation: The Hor Papyrus actually does contain the history of the person with whom it was found

Clayton's Journal:  The plates were on the breast of the skeleton

Hor Papyrus:

the Osiris Hor, justified born of Taykhebyt, justified, after his two hands have been clasped to his heart. The Document of Breathing which made shall (also) be buried, which is written on both the inside and outside of it, (and wrapped) in royal linen, being placed under his left arm near his heart

Explanation: The Hor Papyrus actually was on the breast of the deceased. The KP were not (contra Clayton). 

How could Clayton have gotten that idea? By conflating something said about the Hor Papyrus with something said about the Kinderhook Plates. It’s perfectly natural because the act of Joseph talking about the Egyptian Alphabet entry is automatically a discussion of the papyrus from which the entry was derived. In other words, both the Hor Book of Breathings and the Kinderhook Plates were discussed by Joseph in his explanation to Clayton. And Joseph usually just referred to the papyri as “ancient records,” which to Clayton could easily be taken as meaning the Kinderhook Plates just as “Gentile” took Joseph’s explanation as a reference to Book of Mormon characters. In fact, “Gentile” coming away with a false impression of what Joseph was referring to shows us that Joseph’s explanation was capable of confusing even sophisticated, well-read people. This makes it more likely, not less likely, that Clayton also misunderstood.

Another worthy observation is that conflatable terminology was not only applied to the “ancient records,” but also to the Kinderhook Plates, because they weren’t called the “Kinderhook Plates” at the time, and Clayton would have had no expectation regarding the words Joseph Smith was going to use to refer to them. All of which makes conflation on Clayton’s part more likely.