Rev. Spalding's Answer to Dr. Widtsoe

My Dear Doctor Widtsoe-.- • have included a careful summary of I pardon mv delay in trust you will the evidence, a thorough analysis of replying to your letter of January 11, the opinions of the scholars quoted and 1P33. In that letter you wisely ad- an extended series of "minute comparivised against undue haste, suggesting, sons and bibliographic researches." In you will remember, that I should have the second place you insist that the postponed the publication of the testimony of eight scholarly witnesses pamphlet— ye u have been so kind as to is altogether insufficient, and that a discuss— even a "year or two." You man of scientific spirit would have will therefore, I am sure, overlook a consulted perhaps eighty competent exdelay of. not years, but weeks. perts. If I understand your letter, and I In reply to the first of these critihave read it carefully, you criticize the cisms, T can only urge that you are pamphlet "Joseph Smith Jr. as a asking values of the writer of the Translator" as being unscientific, and pamphlet that he does not profess to you base this opinion upon two con- be able to give. You are judging the siderations which you urge with can- pemphlet by a standard which it nodor and with spirit. You feel, in the where claims for itself. You and othfirst place that if the pamphlet is to ers who have discussed the opinions of be given scientific standing, it should the scholars quoted, are quite as com-

From the Deseret News, March, 7, 1913.

"JOSEPH SMITH, JR., AS A TRANSLATOR' 611

netent to grasp their meaning, and es- I attempted to harmonize the apparent logical references, I should have been assuming a degree of xearning on my own part, and of ignorance on the part of the thoughtful men the pamphlet was intended for which would have been quite unjustifiable. I am at a loss to understand the statement of President Joseph F. Smith in the February number of "The Im- provement Era" that the pamphlet has been "circulated especially among the School." I have only given copies to be interested in the opinions of the scholars cited, and whose intelligence I did not care to question by giving explanations they were quite as capable of making as I was myself. The pamphlet makes no pretension of being a scientific treatise, as you de- fine that term and I respectfully sub- ; Joseph F. Smith is a "seer, a revelatimate their importance as I am. Had tor, a translator and a prophet, hav- ing all the gifts of God which he bediscrepancies or to explain the mytho- stows upon the head of the Church." (Doc. and Cov. Sec. 107: 94; and Tal- mage "The Articles of the Faith," page 213). The test which the pamphlet "Joseph Smith, Jr., as a Translator" proposes has become not only a test of the com- petency of the First Presidency of the Church, but also of the reliability of the present head of tne churcn. I am sure you will appreciate as I do, the great seriousness of the subject. Presistudents of the Latter-day Saints High dent Smith frankly stakes his own standing as "seer, revelator, translapersonal friends, to the authorities of tor and prophet," in a word as compeyour church, to teachers of the state tent head of the church upon the deand to those who asked for copies in — cision of reliable scholars as to the ac- curacy of the translation we are cona word, to those whom I thought would sidering. I therefore sent to Dr. Mercer of Chi- cago and Dr. Barton of Bryn Mawr copies of Mr. Roberts' discussion as printed in the Salt Lake Tribune of Dec. 15, 1912, and the editorial in The Deseret News of Dec. "17, 1912. Dr. Mercer's reply, which was read and

mit that it is not fair to criticize it amended by Dr. Breasted is as follow? -

,

for not belonging to a class it does 6th January, 1913, not pretend to belong to. It seemed 2735 Park Ave. necessary to explain my object in se- Chicago, 111.

curing the judgment of scholars as to Rt. Rev. and Dear Bishop. the accuracy of the translations of the Dr. Breasted was out of town till Egyptian texts printed in "The Peari last Saturday — hence the delay. of Great Price" as part of "The Book Enclosed you will find my notes on Of Abraham," to give a brief account the article which you sent me. I subcf the originals and their translations, mitted the notes to Dr. Breasted and he made the pencil notes which you to copy in full the letters from the experts exactly as I secured them, and will see in the margin. He agrees in common honesty to state the con- thoroughly with what I have written and thinks there is nothing further to clusions to which I myself had been led. add. He seems very much interested in the matter. I saw him on Saturday When Mr. Roberts and yourself had evening, and he says there is absolutely called attention to the .differences in no doubt about the conclusions of the the opinions printed in the pamphlet, scholars, but thinks it almost useless it did become my duty to try to obtain to reply. That opinion I share in genan analysis of those opinions by some eral. But in this particular case I think competent person. you are right in following up what I am sure you must feel that the you have already done: and I shall whole discussion has increased great- be glad to help you as far as my time ly 'in importance since President Joseph will permit — and I know Breasted will F. Smith has done us the honor of be always ready to answer questions. taking part in it. In the "Improve- Notes on B. H. Roberts' article: "Rement Era" for February he wrote as marks on 'Joseph Smith, Jr., as a follows: "Not only do we testify that Translator'— a Plea in Bar of Final Joseph Smith was inspired when he Conclusions."The Salt Lake Tribune, gave to the world the Pearl of Great Sunday morning, Dec. 15, 1912. Price, but we declare that it was by 1. To quote Mr. Roberts: "All of the inspiration and power of God that the jury, save one, insist that the athe translated the Book of Mormon, or- tempt at reproduction has been badly ganized the Church of Christ, and executed," and to add that one's opin- 2"ave mankind the precious revelations ion though not expressed on this parcontained in the Doctrine and Cove- ticular point, coincides with the opinnants and it is our firm belief that sci- ion of the rest of the jury, and shows entific investigation and discovery will that there is, therefore, on this point confirm our testimony rather than decided unanimity. weaken or repudiate it." As succes- 2. In answer to Mr. Roberts's quessor of Joseph Smith, Jr., President tion, "If all this be true of the alleged

612 IMPROVEMENT ERA facsimiles, how may the learned gen- the hawk of Horus. Further, as any tlenian pronounce judgment upon mem dead Egyptian was referred to as an with b ich certainty?" it may be Baid Osiris so his soul was referred to as an that nol one of the jury pretended to Tsis. There is therefore, here, no distranslate the poorly copied hiero- crepancy. (Note by Breasted. "One glyphics, but interpreted the figures,, man says fifty cents, another half a which are found so often in the same dollar.") and similar groups and combinations on Egyptian papyri and inscriptions Fig. 2. Dead Person —Petrie. with explanations in the hieroglyphic, Body of the Dead — Meyer. that their true meaning is quite ob- Dead Man —V. Bissing. vious and constant. In addition, it is Osiris rising from the deadquite obvious that the imperfection in Breasted. the copying of figuies does not make (Osiris coming to life — Deveria.) their interpretation much more diffi- .Again, to the expert there is here no cult; while imperfect hieroglyphics discrepancy. Every dead person is an would give rise to r.iany difficulties in Osiris. Every dead person being an translation. Osiris necessarily, according to Egypt- 3. The bad copying (though not "pur- ian Theology, rises from the dead posely altering" as Mr. Roberts would There is no discrepancy in referring to try to make his readers believe the Fig. 2 both as the dead person and as — scholars to have said but the schol- Osiris rising from the dead or coming ars were careful not to use such a to life, since as soon as embalming phrase since they hold the bad copy- takes place the dead, being Osiris, ing to be due to ignorance) cannot be rises. taken to indicate a document of a dif- •Figure 3 Anubis Petrie ferent period in the development of Embalmer Peters Egyptian writing. We have many doc- Officiating Priest Breasted uments from alf Egyptian periods, from A priest Meyer earlier than 3,000 B. C. down, and they V. Bissing Priest can all be read with comparative ease. (God of Anubis Deveria) 4. Because the prophet described the original documents as "Beautifully [ Anubis is usually represented with written" there is in that no proof (as — the hef>d of a jackal Cf. Devc'a's Mr. Roberts would have his readers remark.] § HIT ]

believe) that Smith, or anyone else ig- Since Anubis is the God of embalmnorant of the Egyptian script, was able ing and conductor of the souls of th>5 to or did copy them correctly. No dead, the priestly embalmer, fig. S, is scholar claims that Smith "purposely therefore, often represented under the altered" the hieroglyphics, but they do form of the God Anubis. Deveria is not believe that the script was ignorantly wrong in saying that the God of Ancopied. ubis* [*That is, God Anubis.] (the 5. Alleged "disagreements among the embalmer under that form) effects jury of savants." 1. As to plate No. 2, the resurrection of the dead Osiris. Roberts can find no disagreements. 2. (Note by Dr. Breasted "The officiating We shall find (contrary to Roberts) Priest wears the head of a wolf or that anyone knowing the least about jackal to impersonate Anubis"). (Often- Egyptian religion and mythology can er Jackal) Mertfer. see that there is complete unanimity in As far as the scholars thought it the interpretation of plate No. 1. necessary to interpret the other figures Here is, in tabular form, the schol- of plate No. 1, their interpretations are ars' interpretation of Plate No. 1: correct and give no cause for misunr'^r- Fig. 1 Hawk of Horus —Petrie. f tanding.

A bird representing Isis— Breas- There is also no misunderstanding ted. about plate No. 3, as Mr. Roberts ad- The Soul (Kos)— Peters. mits. A writer, however, in the Des- The Soul — Meyer. ert Evening News of Tuesday, Dec. 17, The Soul—V. Bissing. 1912. finds some difficulties. The cause The layman would naturally see here as in the case of Mr. Roberts, is to be a discrepancy. Peters, Meyer and V. found in the fact that the writer is a Bissing call the bird "the Soul" (with layman in things Egyptian. He conthem agrees M. Deveria who calls it the fuses the interpretation of figures with soul of Osiris under the form of a the translations of hieroglyphics; while hawk ) [ The hawk often has a hu- ; the translation of ignorantly copied man head, as Deveria holds it ought to hieroglyphics is a precarious proceedhave here.] Petrie calls it the hawk of ing, the interpretation of Egyptian Horus; and Breasted a bird represent- fig 'res is a comparatively simple mating Isis.The expert sees no discrepancy. It was a regular custom for the Fis ure 1 Osiris Sayce Egyptian artist to represent The Soul Osiris Petrie under the forms of the Horus bird or Osiris Breasted

— "JOSEPH SMITH, JR., AS A TRANSLATOR' 613

Figure 2 Isis Sayce transliteration of a foreign word is a Isis Petrie subjective matter, to a certain extent, Probably Isis Breasted yet there are some general rules fol- Figure 3 Offering Petrie lowed by all scholars. No modern Not referred to by the other scholar would transliterate Resh, scholars. koph, yod, ain, or yod, he, vav, he, as All would, however, agree Smith does, nor can my critic find in with Petrie. any scientific Hebrew grammar of the Figure 4 Maat Sayce period of Joseph Smith any translit- Nebhat or Maat Petrie eration like Smith's. This would show, Goddess of Truth Breasted as I stated, that Smith's translitera- Any dilettante in Egyptian knows tion "Is far from accurate." Moreover that Maat [ Breasted does not trans- yod, he, vav, he, is NOT an Egyptian literate the name of the Goddess as word as Smith asserts and believed. Ma't, as the writer would have his Further. Dr. Peters who well knows readers understand.] is the Goddess of Egyptian and Babylonian history, does Truth. Petrie is naturally uncertain not deny political relationship beas to whether the figure is that of tween the Egyptians and Babylonians. Nebhat (otherwise translated Ne- He. however, truly states that "The inphthys) or Maat, because of the im- terpretation" of the plates "displays perfect drawing. Nephthys (Nebhat) an amusing ignorance," in which, in the sister Goddess to Isis might well be the mind of Smith, the "Chaldeans and expected here, as in many other sim- Egyptians are hopelessly mixed toilar scenes. gether." Figure 5 Pharaoh Fayce It is complained that the scholars Dead person Petrie did not interpret all the figures of A Man Breasted these facsimiles and comment upon all The writer's cavil about Sayce's use of Smith's — interpretations, -They of the article with the; word Pharaon probably felt as I did, that their time is not to the point. .Sayce does not re- was too valuable to spend on such fer to any "well known Pharaoh." He scientific work as that of Joseph uses the word Pharaoh in a correct Smith's guesses. Smith's explanatory — way as we would use the word king-- notes "cannot be taken seriously by any scholar." as a title e. g. "The Pharaoh," "The King," "The Emperor." The point is SAMUEL A. B. MERCER. that some dead person, whether the Here is Dr. Geo. A. Barton's reply Pharaoh or any other man, is being PENNSYLVANIA SOCIETY OF THE led, in the next world, before Osiris. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE Figure 6 Anubis Petrie OF AMERICA. Shadow (of the dead) V. Bissing. Bryn Mawr, Pa., Dec. 30, 1912. There may well arise the difference George A. Barton, Secretary. of opinion here as to whether this Right Rev. F. S. Spalding, D. D., figure is Anubis or the dead man's Salt Lake, Utah. shade, not only because of the poor- My dear Sir: — ness of the drawing, but also because AVith reference to the explanations of the fact that both interpretations of the plates from Joseph Smith's Book are exemplified in many similar Egyp- of Abraham given by eminent Egypttian scenes. The point about the white ologists as quoted in your recent pamapron is again a cavil. The Egyptian JOSEPH SMITH JR. AS A phlet, artist was no more logical in his rep- TRANSLATOR, and the remarks made resentations of the departed than are thereupon bv B. H. Roberts in the modern artists. The apron, however, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE of Dec. 15th, would lead one to believe that Petrie's and editorially by the DESERET EVEinterpretation is the more correct here. NING NEWS of Dec. 17th, I beg to In reference again 1o the article in make a few observations. The Deseret Evening News of Tues- Permit me first to sav that, while I day, December 17th, 1&12, it may be have a smattering of Egyptology, I said that the writer in his section en- am not an Egyptologist, but an Astitled "A Question of Words" ignores syriologiitt and Hebraist. For ten the fact that scholars can easily de- years I have, however, taught Egyptermine whether a word is Egyptian or tian history, and am fairly familiar not. Such a linguist as Sayce can be with the best results of Egyptological depended upon when he says that "Kolob" not Egyptian. Neither is is research. With reference to the claim of Mr. Roberts that the opinions of the the word Semitic in the sense in which Smith used it. The writer's criticism scholars which vou quote are invalidof my own remarks completely misses ated by their disagreement?, the folthe point. I pointed out that while Jo- lowing fact.3 should be noted: — seph Smith, or his assistant, knew 1. In Egyptian lore, Osirif? died anc* SOME Hebrew, he gave evidence of was raised to life again. He becamabsolutely no knowledge of Egyptian. in time, accordingly, the representa- I am quite aware of the fact that the tive of a life into which every dead

614 I MPRi >VEMENT KRA

man hoped to enter. Isis imparted truth so as not to wound Mormon her life the dead Osiris; the soul to sensibilities) Joseph Smith Jr. is had given life to the body. These shown by these examples of translapictures were differently interpreted at tion to belong to the same class of Unas by the Egyptians themselves, faker as Dr. Cook. and the supposed disagreements of the You are at liberty to make any use Egyptologists consist of the Cact that of this which you please. some have given the original interpre- Very sincerely yours, tation of the symbolism, and some, the GEO. A. BARTON. later Egyptian interpretation In re- In acknowledging the pamphlet, I reality these disagreements are simply ceived the following interesting letter marks that the scholars wrote without from Dr. John P. Peters of New York: collusion. is no disagreement There My Dear Bishop Spalding: in fact. WhenMr. Roberts appeals I received your pamphlet promptly on to this disagreement, he reveals the the tablets in "the Pearl of Great absolute weakness of hii case. Price" and read it with much interest. 2. He asks why, if scholars can I also, at the last meeting of the Oriread Egyptian so well, did they not ental Club, showed the pamphlet and translate some of these plates? The told why it was written and its origifact is, the plates are so badly copied nal contents. The Orientalists were that they are untranslatable. One can very much interested. One of those see that it was Egyptian characters present told me that some young Morthat Joseph Smith was trying to imi- mons in the University of Chicago had tate, but the characters as they stand privately applied to Breasted, the do not faithfully represent any known Egyptologist, to ask him to write fully writing. some one should Suppose on this same subject. They wanted to send Mr. Roberts some English, in hear and have published to the world which the letters were so mingled what an Egyptologist would say, but that only now and then they made an they did not wish to have their names English word, and half the letters were so mutilated that they were not appear in any way. Some odd little letters at all, would it be fair to con- facts came out in the discussion, one clude that he could not read English which you may like to know: because he did not produce a render- On page 20, in the explanation of ing of it? Any one of the Egyptolo- Plate No. 1, No. 12 commences "Raugists quoted will, I doubt not, be glad keeyang, signifying expanse, or the to furnish Mr. Roberts a translation firmament over our heads; but in this of the text which ordinarily appears case, in relation to this subject, the upon these texts, and he can then Egyptians meant to signify Shaumau, compare it with Joseph Smith's ren- to be high, or the heavens, answering dering at leisure. to the Hebrew word Shaumahyeem." 3. Had this been a genuine book of Raukeeyang is evidently a corrupt pro- Abraham, it would not have been nunciation of the letters Resh Koph written in Egyptian characters at all, Yod and Ain in the sixth verse of the but in Babylonian cuneiform. That first chapter of Genesis; but the spellwas the language and script of Abra- ing shows that it was taken from the ham's native land, and was the meth- pronunciation of a Sephardim Jew. od of writing used in Palestine even Most Jews whom we have in this counby Egyptian governors. try today are Askenazim, who pro- 4. It is a grotesque idea that, if nounce quite differently, (the older Abraham had originated the disc Jewish immigration which was small, which was placed under the heads of was Sephardim). Christian teachers the dead in later times, the Egyptians have, as a rule, learned their Hebrew would have used it so widely. Abraham was no saint to them. They de- from other Christian teachers, going spised the Asiatics. back to the period of the Reformation, 5. The suggestion that the cause and they have a more and scientific of Mormonism is safe, because this accurate than either pronunciation sort of art appeared in Egypt only 500 Sephardim or Askenazim. Smith did or 10 00 years after the time of Abra- not get his "Raukeeyang" from a ham, is also amusing. How does it Christian teacher, or a minister taught happen, if Abraham was the originat- by a Christian teacher, but from a Jew. or of this, that the figures in his book Incidentally it appears to be evidence do not wear the style of dress of his that he was, in his way, at that time age, but that of several centuries studyinar these old languages. later? Did he set the fashion to the Von Rissing's suggestion, contained Egyptians in dress as well as in re- on the last page of the pamphlet, that ligion? Abraham as a modeste would Smith probably "used Athenasius Kirsurely be the Father of the Faithful sher the Jesuit's work" on Egyptian, in a new role! approved itself to those present. In- The fact is, (I wish there were deed it was suggested by them before I some way of stating the unwelcome had come to that passage. Kirsher's

"JOSEPH SMITH, JR., AS A TRANSLATOR' 615

work was not a whit more foolish or speak as a linguist when I say that I improbable than Smith's work. It was if Smith knew Egyptian and correctly precisely because it was of such a interpreted the facsimiles which you character that, for a good while, the submitted to me, then I don't know interpretation of Egyptian hieroglyph- a 'word of Egyptian, and Erman's ics was discredited. His book had a Grammar is a fake, and all modern wide circulation. It appealed immense- Egyptologists are deceived. ly to half educated and uneducated In the case of Smith, we have a conpeople and repelled the better educated. crete example of one of two things— The suggestion from that is that Smith either of his deceit, or of his self-decepjust as honestly as Kirsher, believed tion. Scholars have proved concluthat he had found a clue and was a sively that he could not do what he real discipherer; that, in other words, ?laimed to have done. I do not queshe was not a pure fraud, but an ignor- tion the Mormon system, nor the type ant, vain, self-deluded man, who imag- of character produced by Mormonism, ined he knew what he did not know. any more than I do Christianity or the Tours faithfully, Christian character. The point in dis- JOHN P. PETERS. cussion is the sincerity of the founder And may I also discuss more briefly of Mormonism. If scholars and scienyour assertion that the opposing evi- tific-men could prove the deception or dence of eight scholars does not in- self-deception of Christ as clearly and validate the accuracy of the only trans- conclusively as they can that of Joseph lations of Joseph Smith Jr. which can Smith. I should willingly accept then be tested by modern scholarship. I decision. sent to Dr. Mercer of Chicago a copy I am yours most sincerely and obeof the Deseret Evening News of Jan. diently, 11, 1913, containing your letter.- His SAMUEL A. B. MERCER." romment is as follows: must frankly say that to my ad- I Rt. Rev. and Dear Bishop. mittedly unscientific mind the judg- I have read Dr. Widtsoe's letter in ment of eight witnesses seems suf- The Deseret Evening News. Jan. 11, ficient to establish the meaning of the and while I have respect for any Hai Egyptian text. If I were in doubt as vard man (I am also one), yot his let- to themeaning of some language unter, like all others on the subject, is known to me and eight linguists of not convincing to any Egyptologist. international reputation agreed sub- He asks why only eight Egyptologists stantially as to its translation, I should were approached. If he knew any- certainly feel that I had tne meaning thing about linguistic work of the na- of the text. If I found a plant whlcn ture of hyeroglyhics he would, not ask I could not classify, or a mineral I such a question, for any ancient lin- coulc not name, and eight scientists in guist knows that the unanimous testi- eight universities independently agreeo. mony of eight scholars is the same as as to the plant and mineral, I should that of eighty and eight. This is es- feel that I need inquire no further. pecially true, as I have already shown, that to an Egyptologist there was ab- No doubt you have noticed that the solutely no discrepancy in the replies number of experts has been increased to eleven. M. Deveria, whom I had of the scholars. hesitated to quote because he was de- Dr. Widtsoe questions your method scribed as a"young savant," has been of presenting the case to scholars. A» accepted by the editorial writer of the I understood it. you merely wished to "Deseret Evening News" and his opinknow from Egyptologists whether, in ion which Dr. Mercer shows above to their judgment (after comparing their own knowledge of Egyptian with be in substantial agreement with that of the other experts printed in full in Joseph Smith's as revealed by his in- the issue of January 4, 1913. The conterpretation of the facsimiles), Smith firmatory judgment of Dr. E. A. W. knew enough of the Egyptian language Budge of the British Museum was most to translate texts. All the scholars kindly contributed to the News of Decame to the same conclusion, viz.: that Smith could not possibly correctly cember 19,1912 by Mr. Junius F. Wells. translate any Egyptian text, as his In your letter you express regret that interpretation of the facsimiles shows. Dr. Lythgoe's opinion was not given, Any pupil of mine who would show but vou must have noted with satis- faction that "The New York Times" such absolute ignorance of Egyptian as Smith does, could not possibly ex- of December 29th 1912, published a pect to get more than zero in an ex- statement of Dr. Lythgoe's general amination in Egyptology. agreement with the otner scholars. The science of Egyptology is well This Bgvntologist's views were discuss- ed by Robert C. Webb, Ph. D., in the established as any one knows who is .News January Deseret Evening of acquainted with the great Grammar 19th, 1913. of Erman, a 3rd Ed. of which appeared in 1911. The number of opinions before us is

616 IMPROVEMENT ERA

therefore not eight, but eleven, and shall review the history of the growth the question upon which we seem to of science, and shall judge men by differ is as to the value of the practi- the record that they have left behind cal agreement of eleven admittedly them, he will place Joseph Smith as competent Orientalists. the greatest philosopher of science of am to convince you that there If I the nineteenth century, and possibly of is conclusive value in the testimony the twentieth." adduced, my argument must be AD May I remind you that the man HOMINEM, a method of argument whom you thus describe, when he not always legitimate, and yet in the wished to give the world testimony use of which you have yourself set me to the importance and accuracy of a an example. In 1908 you published a literary production, did not secure bonk entitled "Joseph Smith as eighty witnesses, but eleven! You will The Scientist." book expresses not remember that Joseph Smith Jr., only your own deliberate judgment, whom you describe as the greatest hut that of the committee "appointed scientific philosopher of modern times, by the First Presidency to read the relied on eleven witnesses to the Book manuscript." In this important volume, of Mormon. on page 161, you write as follows: — Yours Faithfully "When the historian of future days F. S. SPALDING.