---
title: Improvement Era
description: Monthly periodical of the Mormon church, 1897 onward. This library holds the issues of November 1897 to December 1930.
authors:
  - Webb, Robert C.
collections:
  - periodicals
tags:
  - magazine
  - improvement-era
periodical: Improvement Era
volume: 16
number: 11
published: 1913-09
publisher: Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations
publisher_place: Salt Lake City
language: en
type: magazine
reference: 'Webb, Robert C., "Truth Seeking: Its Symptoms and After Effects," *Improvement Era* 16, no. 11 (September 1913): 1075–1091.'
source:
  url: https://archive.org/details/improvementera16011unse
  transcription: Transcribed from the Internet Archive scan of each issue (the item for each issue is named in the issue's own source); unnumbered advertising leaves are omitted, printed page numbers are kept as page markers.
  identifier: improvementera16011unse
start_page: 1075
end_page: 1091
rights:
  status: public-domain
  basis: US publication 1930 or earlier (published 1913-09)
  source: https://archive.org/details/improvementera16011unse
  publication_year: 1913
  note: The Internet Archive item metadata carries a blanket "© Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc." notice. The library owner judged it inapplicable because this issue was published in 1913, before 1931; a scan-level notice does not restore copyright.
---

# Truth Seeking: Its Symptoms and After Effects

<!-- page:1075 -->

Truth Seeking: Its Symptoms and After Effects*

BY ROBERT C. WEBB, PH. D.

To the Editor of The Deseret Evening

News — Sir:

Did you ever stop to consider what a really remarkable phase is this fa- miliar obsession of becoming- an avowed and accredited "searcher after the truth?" I do not wish to discredit the earnestness of mind which is ready to accept truth wherever it may be found, nor yet that intellectual honesty that seems to belong almost exclusively to a high average intelligence, because it is willing to acknowledge mistakes and misapprehensions, when honestly point- ed out. I am firmly convinced, on the contrary, that real "culture" consists less in what one knows than in the willingness to acknowledge that there is very much more that one does not know. Real culture is intellectual hu- mility; the quality, in short, that en- ables one to fulfill the scriptural in- junction, "prove (test) all things, hold fast to that which is good." Over and above this excellent quality, there may be also the element of earnest convic- tion, which often acts as a distinct "bias" to the mind, constituting a limit of free thinking in any given line. This, however, as our religious authorities tell us, should also be manifested with "humility." This humility, indeed, is the mark of the "superior man" so eloquently eulogized by Confucius, and other sages. Only such a "superior man" can possibly be a real "searcher after truth."

There is, however, another type of mind, apparently less reflective or less "cultured," possibly, also, more en- grossed with practical considerations, which limit its thinking capacity, al- though, in spite of all this a professed "searcher after truth." This type of mind searches less for truth than for some means to compel others to recog- nize the ultimate sufficiency of its own beliefs, which eventually partake of the nature of real "fixed ideas," rather than of convictions of the genuine va- riety. Such a type of mind will not conduct a frank investigation, and hon- estly acknowledge its mistakes when demonstrated. It is the type that "convinced against [its] will, is of the same opinion still."

To come quickly to the point, I wish to call your attention again to some phases of the recent "controversy" on the meaning of certain Egyptian pic- tures, usually included in the Book ol Abraham, and believed to illustrate it. I had the pleasure of writing: to you on this controversy on two different oc- casions, both times on the assumption that the facts indicated by myself— and they represented the results of con- siderable study End attention— would move the critics of Joseph Smith's in- terpretations to some further research, and, possibly, honest acknowledgements that he had certainly "guessed" nearly right in several particulars. When no such evidences of the "honest search- er after truth" were forthcoming, I was not in the least hurt, supposing that further investigations were in nrosress, and that we should presently read some counter-attacks. If the "con- ductor" of this "innuirv" really wished to convince the "Mormons" that they ivpre wrons: and hp was rierht, some "come-back" might have been expected logically. What was my amazement, therefore, to find that the e-eneral pub- lic is being deliberately led to believe t^at B'shop Pnaidin<r has thoroughly discredited Joseph Smith's internreta- t;ny,c, ptt-1 that th° "effect" noon the T,atter-day Saints is problematical. A f*ir sample of this sort of thing is shown in the accompanying editorial f'nm one of his denominational maga-

BISHOP PPAT/DTNO'S STTTDV OF A "MORMON" DOCUMENT.

Bishop Snalding. of Utah. ha« con- sistently' refrained from unfriendlv controversy with the "Mormons" or bitter denunciation of their religious convictions. He regards many of them as his friends and credits them with being as honest searchers after truth as he himself tries to be. The bishop has recently been conducting an in- quiry with regard to the reliability of Joseph Smith, Jr., as a translator. It was Smith who gave to "Mormonism" the Book of Mormon. "If this book be true," Bishop Spalding declares, "it is

*From the Deseret Nezvs July 5, 1913.

<!-- page:1076 -->

1076

IMPROVEMENT ERA

next to the Rlhle the most Important hook In the world." This Is a fact ap- preciated hy the members of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Tetter- day Points and by them alone. Be- lievers In a book of such transcendent importance must be prepared, as some or the most enlightened "Mormons" have declared themselves to be, to sub- mit it to the test of literary and his- torical criticism. The Book of Mor- mon itself cannot he submitted to pres- ent-dav criticism because it is claimed that the golden plates from which it was translated were returned to the heavenly messenger who originally de- livered them to Joseph Smith, Jr. Years ago, to satisfy the questions of a certain Martin Harris, one of his fol- lowers, concerning the accuracy of the translation, the prophet drew off from the plates certain characters and au- thorized Mr. Harris to submit them to expert examination. They were placed before Dr. Charles Anthon, of New York who pronounced them a very clumsy hoax. This fact, however, has made little impression upon "Mor- mons" even if it be known to any number of them.

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM.

Since under the circumstances the Book of Mormon itself cannot be sub- mitted to the criticism of scholars Bishop Spalding turns to the Book of Abraham, one of the sections of the Pearl of Great Price, one of ' Mor- monlsm's" sacred books. Mr. Brigham H Roberts, one of the leaders of the Latter-day Saints, has reprinted in his History of the Church, Joseph Smitn Jr's account of the discovery of the Book of Abraham and its translation. It appears that in 1835 Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland, exhibiting some Egyptian mummies. With them had been found several rolls of papy- rus covered with hieroglyphic inscrip- tions. Mr. Chandler knew nothing of their meaning but was curious to as- certain it. He was told that Joseph Smith, Jr., could translate them and to him they were accordingly submitted. Soon after the mummies and papyrus were purchased by some of the Saints of Kirtland. Joseph Smith, Jr., began to study them more carefully and "much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writing of Abraham another the writing of Joseph, of Egypt." The result was the transia- «S and the publication in 1842 of the complete Book of Abraham described by Joseph Smith, Jr., as "a translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands rrom the cata combs of Egypt; the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called

the Book of Abraham, written by his Own hand upon papyrus."

THE VERDICT OF SCHOLARS.

While the original papyrus from which it is alleged the translation of the Book of Abraham was made is not available for direct inspection and criticism, the book Itself contains cer- tain hieroglyphics which Joseph Smith declared were reproduced rrom the original papyrus. Bishop Spalding has submitted three of these to such em- inent authorities as Dr. A. H. Sayce. of Oxford, England; Dr. W. M. Flin- ders Petrie. of London university; Dr. James H. Breasted, of the University of Chicago; Dr. Arthur c. Mace, of the .Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Dr. John P. Peters, who had charge of the University of Pennsyl- vania's expedition to Babylonia, 1888- 1895; Dr. Edward Meyer, of the Uni- versity of Berlin, and Dr. F. F. Von iBissing, professor of Egyptology in University of Munich. These gentle- men, giving independent opinions, are unanimous in declaring fraudulent the hieroglyphics and the explanations given of them in the Book of Abra- ham. THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION.

Bishop Spalding is well within the mark in sayine: that since the fraudu- lent character of the Book of Abraham is thus so clearly demonstrated, every thoughtful man will feel compelled to repudiate the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the whole tody of be- lief built upon it. In adopting this method of studying the "Mormon" documents the bishop has rendered a great service. Whether or not his rev- elation of the character of the Book of Abraham and the consequent over- turning of the claims made concerning the Book of Mormon, will have any effect upon "Mormons" of an older gen- eration, remains to be seen. It is hardly likely that it will. Their atti- tude is fairly well expressed by one of the bishop's correspondents who says: "For my part, with Joseph Smith on one side and the scientists on the other, I will take Joseph Smith every time." This method of study and its result will hardly fail, however, to impress deeplv the minds of younger "Mor- mons." There, after all, lies the main hope of freeing a half million or more of the people of this country from a delusion that has wrought such serious personal and social harm.

Now, Mr. Editor, those of us who have followed this discussion know perfectly well that there are several very serious misapprenensions in this editorial, also, as any one can see, a

<!-- page:1077 -->

TRUTH SEEKING

1077

rather distinct assumption of superior intelligence and virtue. I am sorry that the "cause of Christ" must be furthered in such a state of mind, and wish that it might be otherwise. I have, how- ever, no quarrel with Blsnop Spalding, who, as I understand from those who have met him, is an excellent Christian gentleman, but I believe that public at- tention should be very effectively called to the real nature of this investigation, in order to judge as to what facts have been actually demonstrated. Several of the opinions have evidently been so col- ored with prejudice, impatience and contempt, that they are much reduced in value. If opinions emitted in this "unscholarly" state of mind furnish ac- ceptable evidence to the American pub- lic, either that "Mormonism" has been quashed, or that their own beliefs have been upheld, it is a sad comment on the discriminative intelligence of our peo- ple. A "great name" is not always a- perfect guarantee, nor does a university degree or a professorial chair always involve completely "ripened scholar- ship." Intolerance and boastfulness are both "unscholarly" states of mind.

Now, on the assumption that these "experts" have really said anything that constitutes a finality, as viewed from any standpoint of scholarly ac- curacy, there is positively no room or reason for such a paean of triumph as the above editorial. These "experts" have given us a lot of opinions, which they have not attempted to prove bv authoritative demonstration, and which consequently, constitute no nearer ap- proximation to finalities than any other variety of offhand "experfopinion. The true man of science in any branch of human knowledge is under constant and unescapable obligation to demon- strate the accuracy of his conclusions. There is the advantage of the scientific method. Nor is there the slightest ex- cuse for the attitude of mind which tacitly assumes the infallibility of its own conclusions, where reason indicates the need of adequate demonstration in several particulars. Thus, if an "ac- credited expert" perpetrates a silly blunder, there is no sense in accepting such dictum as an oracular deliverance. A blunder is no more honorable in him than in the densest ignoramus. More- over, the true scholar dreads a blunder as the rest of us dread a sin.

There can be no doubt that a physi- cian, making a specialty of insanity, knows immeasurably more about that specialty than the best equipped schol- ar in Egyptology knows about ancient Egypt and its customs. The insane, like the poor, are "always wltn us," and it is a comparatively simple matter for a qualified physician to become fa- miliar with their ways and symptoms.

How absurd, then, the spectacle of "distinguished alienists" haggling and cross-testifying on the question of the actual insanity of a murderer at the bar! This sort of thing nappens so often that one really doubts whether there is a sharply-marked distinction between sanity and insanity. So much for the value of expert testimony on matters admitting of the slightest mar- gin of doubt. We are concerned wholly with opinion, pure and simple, and not with anything that may be proved conclusively.

Another thing that must not be over- looked in such a discussion is the in- evitable narrowing effect of a specialty. The specialist in any branch, with the sole exception of the practical sciences, usually reaches the point at which he knows little or nothing outside his branch, and even suffers from a sad defect of imagination. Thus, a state- ment made in terms other than those with which he is familiar, or a state- ment involving any new line of in- vestigation, is obliged to "run the gauntlet" of expert disapproval, un- til so evidently demonstrated that even scholars cannot deny its accuracy. This has been the ordeal prescribed for every advance in human knowl- edge from Galileo to railroads. Speci- alists all along the line have demon- strated their superior intelligence more by propounding difficulties and mak- ing criticisms than by honestly inves- tigating to "see if those things are true." The medio*] profession dealt hardly with Morton, the discoverer of anaesthesia, and the "germ theory of disease" was long debated from the standpoint of "established principles." How many "impossible machines" are now serving the daily needs of man- kind! It seems strange that Fulton was actually called "crazy," only a little over a century ago, because ho proposed to build a steam-propelled boat. There were numerous difficul- ties in the way of its success. All these errors of the "learned" rose solely from defective imagination.

In spite of these facts, it would be senseless to deny the value of real attainments in any branch of knowl- edge or learning. It is necessary only to recogn'ze the essential limitations of the intellectual temperament, and to deal with it accordingly. Nor is ii: altogether incomprehensible that a person trained in any given line should view with impatience the ef- forts of one not so trained. He is prejudiced at the start, by the knowl- edge that the opinions or theories, which he is asked to criticize, have emanated from an "untrained mind." Very often this attitude is justified, but sometimes it is premature. What-

<!-- page:1078 -->

1078

IMPROVEMENT ERA

ever may be the truth Of the matter jn any given ease, 11 Is decidedly worthy and scholarly to give i areful i onaideration to all claims and

mi ler discussion, before "rush- Ing Into print."

With the knowledge <>r what would Inevitably be the prejudices of "col- lege professors" and ministers al the mention of Joseph smith or of "Mor- na," it might have occurred to an "hsSBSSt searcher after truth," wishing in good faith to Investigate the facts about the Book of Abraham, and the interpretation of it:-, accom- panying figures, to have removed the captions from these figures, and asked a selected jury of experts to give their significance, as understood by modern s< holarship. Such an "honest sea.-ch- er" should have known perfectly well that "scholars" would object to and il UMiince Smith as a "scab trans- lator," precisely as the clergy have always denounced him as a "scab preacher," and would have, therefore, given him the "benefit of the doubt," by first obtaining the opinions of Egyptologists on these plates, and comparing their findings with what Smith had said. As it is, the opin- ions of the Bishop's experts are evi- dently so colored by their prejudices that they are in no sense conclusive; and this, as I believe, I strongly sug- gested in a previous communication.

"Whether this is the correct method of conducting such an inquiry, or not, the fact remains that it was not Bishop Spalding's method: as he was the "boss of the job," he would prob- ably assert his right to conduct it in his own way. He has no right, how- ever, to allow the public to assume that he has done what he has not done, nor has he any right to ignore plain facts respectfully brought to his intention, on the authority, as else- where expressed, of some of his own coterie of witnesses.

The first result of the false method of conducting the inquiry is to blindly prejudice the witnesses. Thus, the Rev. Professor Sayce, himself a scholar of no mean repute, remarks painfully how difficult it is "to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impu- dent fraud." If the rest of Profes- sor Sayce's opinions are in line with this sentence, we may justly state that they are based upon no careful thought or attention to the matter in hand, but upon simple resemblances and familiar analogies. How is it that Joseph Smith's professed transla- tion of a papyrus and his interpreta- tion of certain drawings is an "im- pudent fraud" any more than assumed translations of Seyffarth, Spohn, Voung. and others, who worked be~

fore Champolllon's disci. ques-

tioned some points asserted by him?

fOry with tin in, in the sense that he worked before there was any science of Egyptology. Consequently, if Sayce, or an can prove that he was entirely mis- taken, his honesty and sincerity are by no means impugned. No senti- ment other than prejudice could ex- press itself in such a phrase, and this is proof nunil er one that the witnesses have been biased at the start.

With t'ni-; unpromising beginning. the Professor proceeds, as follows: "11 is facsimile from the Book of Abra- ham No. 2 Is an ordinary hypocepha- lus, but the hieroglyphics on it have been copied so ignorantly that hardly one of them is correct." The fact that this is an "ordinary hypoce- phalus" sesms very enormous in the Professor's eyes, and blinds him to the fact that far more than one of the figures on this plate are recogniz- able by any one having before him a list of hieroglyphic characters. He also forgets that this "hypocephalus" character is no necessary refutation or' Smith's interpretations of the con- tained figures.

In the second place, we may judge of the finality of the "scholarly" con- clusions, which are now being featured as the "death warrant" ot Smith's reputation as a translator, by the ability of these scholars to translate or their own account; and this is an important point to consider. In the iss.ue of your newspaper for March 7, 1913, I note a vigorous rejoinder by Eishop Spalding to Doctor John A. Widtsoe, in which he includes a let- ter from the Rev. Professor Mercer, which argues, in effect, that the opin- ions published in the original pam- phlet were not, and could not be, con- tradictory. "We will notice this let- ter later, but, at present, 1 want to call your attention to the Professor's easy avoidance of one point, on which there seems to be a difference- of opin- ion. This refers to the question of whether the hieroglyphic figures on Plates 2 and 3 are really legible or not. We have it on the authority of Sayce that these "hieroglyphics . . . have been transformed into unintelli- gible lines;" on the authority of Pe- trie that "the inscriptions are far too badly copied to be able to read, them," although he thinks that the name "Shishak" can be deciphered "so far as the copy shows it." Breasted, however, does not hesitate to state that, although the hiero- glyphics "have been much corrupted in copying," they "contain the usual explanatory inscriptions regularly found in such funerary documents;"

<!-- page:1079 -->

TRUTH SEEKING

1079

while Dr. F. F. von Bissing gains our envious admiration by the confi- dent statement that "none of the names mentioned . . . can be found in the text." As a matter of fact, it is highly improbable that the hieroglyphics on either plate can be read at all, whether they are "ignorantly copied" or not. Con- sequently, Prof. Breasted's statement about "explanatory inscriptions" is wholly an inference based on some points of resemblance to other known plates; while the German professor's remark is wholly gratuitous— no one. so far as I have heard, has asserted that "the names mentioned" are to be found in the text. As previously in- dicated, also, Dythgoe of New York states confidently that the hiero- glyphics on the second plate contain "snatches of a hymn to the Sun God." It would be an excellent move, if some of these experts should make a trans- lation of these inscriptions, of widen they know so much, but which, ac- cording to others again, are illegible. Such a translation, however, must be fully, justified, or else, it may be, some challenges of its accuracy may appear.

Now, Mr. Editor, while I cannot state, as a fully demonstrated fact, that Smith's interpretations of these plates are wholly accurate, I am en- tirely satisfied that the judgments of his critics constitute no finalities in a contrary direction. In the first place, as regards plate 1, there are certain points, as indicated in my previous article on this subject, that go far to enforce the conclusions that the pose of the reclining figure is exceedingly unfamiliar, if not unknown, and that the standing figure, also, is by no means regular. Consequently, when Breasted asserts that, "we orientalists could publish scores of these 'facsimi- les from the Book of Abraham' taken from other sources," th<^ thought in- evitably occurs to the "honest search- er after truth" that such publication might be valuable. If the doctor would kindly refer such to any books or museum collections in which a few from these "scores" could be found and studied, he would confer a distinct favor. In default of tnese helps from a "real scholar," I can see no reason for revising my former statement that this plate "as shown in the Book of Abraham, is not familiar to Egyptol- ogists, and that no duplicate is known." I made some extensive researches be- fore I made that statement, and have made others since. I stand for cor- rection.

As regards the third pla.te, also, I see no mason for mocU'ying my former con- clusion that the differences shown are sufficiently great to constitute a real

doubt as to what it really indicates. There are evident variations from the ordinary Book of the Dead scenes, and there are grave difficulties in the way of the assumption that it has been altered. Here is another case, in which a sample "facsimile" or two from the doctor's "scores" would be exceedingly enlightening. It would cost him very little time and trouble to give us a few titles and page references, as a guide in our researches.

Whatever may be the demonstrable truth about plates 1 and 3, the large number of "successful guesses" in plate 2, the "hypocephalus," are interesting. Here, anyone inclined to make the kind of unprejudiced examination, worthy of an "honest searcher, etc.," must admit that there are a few sur- prising coincidences, to say the least. But, the chorus of condemnation of Mr. Smith's interpretations evidently arises, not so much from his alleged inaccuracy, as from the ract that he uses unfamiliar terms in describing the several figure-elements. Here is a sit- uation very embarrassing to the aver- age specialist, as already hinted. Had any of the usual terms of Egyptology been used here, the result would have been different, undoubtedly. For ex- ample, when the German professor writing for Dr. Spalding, calls Fig. 4 "the God Sokar in the Sacred Book (Boat)," and Prof. Petri.2, in his "Aby- dos" (part I), calls a precisely similar figure on another hypocephalus, "Ho- rus," the Egyptologists have something familiar to discuss, and can weigh the arguments for and against the accur- acy of either statement. When, how- ever, there is found a caption contain- ing the statement "signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens," a wholly inadmissable proposition is en- countered, in spite of the fact that Horus, at least, seems occasionally to be the "Sky God." As Prof. Breasted remarks, annotating Mercer's letter, "On3 man says fifty cents, another half a dollar." But, strangely enough, whsn still a third man says "two shillings," we have to stop and figure it out, before we recognize that there is only about two cents difference.

Misled by unfamiliar terms, or rather by the absence of familiar names, Dr. Friedrich F. von Bissing confidently asserts of the second facsimile, "None of the names mentioned by Smith can be found in the text, and he has mis- interpreted the significance of every one figure." In order to demonstrate this sweeping statement, the profes- sor proceeds, forthwith, to mention and name three figures, two of which have been described with perfect accuracy by Smith. "Fig. 5," says he, "is the divine cow of Hathor, 6 are the four

<!-- page:1080 -->

1080

IMPROVEMENT ERA

children of Home as the Canoplo Gods, ■t is the <;<>d Bokar in the sacred boat, etc." Smith says of Fig. 5, "said by the Egyptians to be the «u.i." The divine cow Hathor Is one of the several sym- bols of the sky, and is known in some connections as the "eye of the sun," or the "eye of Ra." Hathor repre- sented not only the sky, in general, but, as specified in some places, "that part of the sky where the sun is"— her name, Het-Her, signifies literally, "house of Horus." She later becomes the goddess of the west, who receives the setting sun. That, both by name and ascribed functions, she is inevit- ably associated with the s-.un cannot be denied.

In order still further to enforce his sweeping condemnation of Smith's in- terpretations, he mentions that "6 are the four children of Horus as the Canopic Gods." Smith said of 6, "rep- resents the earth in its four quarters." The four sons of Horus are the gods of the four quarters, as amply demon- strated in the lengthy quotation from Prof. Budge included in my first ar- ticle on this pamphlet and its allega- tions. Why will "great German Schol- ars" make such blunders? In the pres- ent case, because Bishop Spalding has chosen to allow his "experts" to be- como prejudiced at the start. If Smith was wrong in this matter, the Ger- man will have to settle the score with Prof. Budge, whose authority upholds the accuracy of Smith's judgment.

On the issuance of Bish >p Spalding's pamphlet a number of discrepancies appeared to exist in the experts' testi- mony, and this fact, of course, seemed to many minds a distinct evidence that these gentlemen weie no: quite as sure of their ground as should be the case, if, indeed, "scholarship" is to serve any effective part in sectarian propaganda. Rev. Prof. Mercer, accordingly, under- took to neutralize the effect of these "apparent discrepancies" by preparing a line of arguments lending to show that there was complete and harmonious accord among the authorities; indeed, that there could be nothing else. These arguments he composed into a letter, annotated by Prof. Breasted, and It appeared as part of Spalding's rejoin- der to Dr. John A. Widtsoe in yours of March 7.

I was exceedingly sorry to read this communication of Dr. Merctr's, not because he had established points against anything I had argued for, but frankly, because it is unworthy of him or of any other person professing to to be a careful scholar. Had he been content to allow the obvious facts that human nature, even among the learned, is fallible and liable to mis- of Egyptology is by no means exact

apprehensions, and that the s In any sense — a very large number Of things being still entirely unknown or uncertain — one could readily have respected his candor. When, however, he argues, in effect, that schi lara his department can make no mistakes, it is very disheartening. Furthermore, as I do not hesitate to assert, he has proved nothing for all his pains.

With broad confident strokes the reverend gentleman proceeds, as fol- lows. Speaking of fig. 1, Plate 1, which some of Spalding's contributors had called the "soul," others, "Isis," "hawk of Horus," etc., he says: "The layman would naturally see here a discrepancy. . . . The expert sees no discrepancy. It was a regular cus- tom for the Egyptian artist to repre- sent The Soul under the form of the Horus bird or the Hawk of Horus. Further, as any dead Egyptian was referred to as an Osiris so his soul was referred to as an Isis. There is, therefore, no discrepancy."

On fig. 2 he finds several apparently different interpretations, thus, "dead person," "body of the dead," "dead man," "Osiris rising from the dead," and proceeds in the same confident vein: "Again to the expert there is here no discrepancy. Every dead per- son is an Osiris. Every dead person being an Osiris necessarily, according to Egyptian Theology, riseo from the dead. There is no discrepancy in re- ferring to fig. 2 both as the dead per- son and as Osiris rising from the dead or coming to life, since as soon as em- balming takes place the dead, being Osiris, rises."

On fig. 3, he finds several appar- ently different identifications, thus, "Anubis," "Embalmer," "Officiating Priest," "A priest," "Priest," and con- tinues his reconciliations: "Since Anubis is the God of embalming and conductor of the souls of the dead, the priestly embalmer, fig. 3. is therefore, often represented under the form of the God Anubis. Deveria is not wrong In saying that the God (of) Anubis (the embalmer under that form) ef- fects the resurrection of the dead Osiris. (Note by Dr. Breasted 'The officiating Priest wears the head of a wolf or jackal to impersonate Anubis'). (Oftener Jackal — Mercer).

"As far as the scholars thought it necessary to interpret the other fig- ures of plate No. l. their interpreta- tions are correct and give no cause for misunderstanding.

"There is also no misunderstanding about plate No. 3, as Mr. Roberts ad- mits. A writer, however, in the Des- eret Evening News of Dec. 17, 1912, finds some difficulties. The cause, as in the case of Mr. Roberts, is to be found in the fact that the writer is a

<!-- page:1081 -->

TRUTH SEEKING

1081

layman in things Egyptian. He con- fuses the interpretation of figures with the translations of hieroglyphics; while the translation of ignorantly copied hieroglyphics is a precarious proceeding, the interpretation of Egyptian figures is a comparatively simple matter."

The process by which Dr. Mercer ar- rives at his vigorously-asserted con- clusions strongly reminds one of what is called, in vulgar parlance, "cooking the evidence." In making this re- mark. I have no desire to character- ize his work in any way beyond in- sisting on the very obvious proposi- tions: (1) that whatever he has es- tablished in these laborious para- graphs is of doubtful value, except in a very general sense; (2) that it is of no value as further interpretation of the plates in question; (3) that it forms a very doubtful contribution to the discussion of the several "scholar- ly criticisms," which it professes to reconcile. Several of the things said, while true, possibly, in some certain senses or connections, are not strictly accurate in others; and, while good general propositions, if susceptible ot proof, are quite out of place here.

Thus, when he states that "as any dead Egyptian was referred to as an Osiris so his soul was referred to as an Isis," he is saying something that is neither accurate nor defensible. It Is perfectly true that the spiritual part of the deceased is often represented as a bird, because it "flew away," to dwell in the trees or in the regions of Amenti, the West, or underworld, and that he is called "an Osiris" (thus Osiris Henefer or Osiris Ani), also, the "justified in Osiris," who was the King of the Dead and the righteous judge. It is not equally clear, however, that "his soul was referred to as an Isis." According to the several variations of the Osiris and Isis legend or myth, Osiiris. having been killed, is watched over by his sister-wife Isis, until his resurrection, brought about by the filial devotion of their son Horus, who had been conceived and born in the meantime. Carrying out the analogy of this myth in the history of every justified deceased, Isis is represented as watching over his mummy in the death chamber, often accompanied by her sister Nephthys, or Nebhat, both in the form of hawks. In such a con- nection, Isis does not represent the "soul" of the deceased, but rather his "double,'' or Ka — his wraith or Dop- pelganger, as we have it in modern phrases, as nearly as the idea can be reproduced in our thought — whose duty it is to watch over the mummy until the resurrection. If there are definite cases where there is another identification, they represent only

some of the several variations of this idea. Consequently, it is absurd to ar- gue that, when one man calls the bird "the soul flying away" and another calls it "Isis," both have the same idea in mind, and are merely using, accord- ing to preference or habit, one of two perfectly synonymous and inter- changeable expressions.

Apart from this, the conclusion reached by Doctor Mercer is evidently forced, a play on words, in fact, and in no sense an explanation of any ap- parent or real discrepancy. This is true because, when the several Egyp- tologists were commenting on these plates and figures in the Spalding pamphlet, they were using the names Osiris, Isis, etc., in one sense, and, in this letter Dr. Mercer is using them in a different sense entirely. Thus, in the pictures we would have these deities represented as definite person- alities, each with his or her recog- nized function in the mythology of Egypt. When, however, the names are used in the senses proposed by Dr. Mercer, we use them in a very figurative and "spiritual" sense, which could not have occurred to any one attempting to interpret a picture rep- resenting them. I may illustrate this by an example, which, I trust, will not seem irreverent. When Paul says: "Not I, but Christ which is in me,, etc.,'' he is evidently referring to the spiritual presence of Christ, through the "indwelling of the Holy Ghost," and not to the resurrected God-man, who said, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." Similarly, in the par- able of the Prodigal Son, we have, as is generally believed, a representa- tion of the defection and return to God of the human soul. But, no one would think of labeling a picture of the "Prodigal's Return" with any such caption as "God Receiving the Re- pentant Soul." This is a very good ex- ample of the very distinction upon which I wish to insist in the present connection. If Dr. Mercer, or any of his colleagues, thinks differently I would respectfully inquire whether,' in commenting on the Third Plate, he would consider himself justified in call- ing Fig. 1 a "dead Egyptian . . referred to as an Osiris," or in calling Fig. 2 "his soul . . . referred to as an Isis."

His attempted "reconciliations" in connection with Fig. 2 of this same plate are equally unsatisfactory. Thus, on the assumption that this plate is a part of "the usual equipment of the dead," there occur two perfectly reas- onable variations of interpretation, which constitute no possible suspicion in any informed mind that there is a lack of knowledge involved in the dif- ference of opinion. Because of the un-

<!-- page:1082 -->

1082

IMPROVEMENT ERA

usual pose of the reclining figure, one of the critics, ;it least, calls it "Osiris rising from the dead," while others re- fer to it merely as a dead person about to be muinmhied. Dr. Mercer, however, will not "let good enough alone," but must improvise a "bull of infallibility" to blanket all Egyptological deliver- ances. Consequently, he proceeds to de- liver the following opinion: "There is no discrepancy in referring to Fig. 2 both as th? dead person and as Osiris rising from the dead or coming to life, since as soon as embalming takes place the dead, being Osiris, rises." This is probably accurate, in the sense above explained, but It has nothing to do with the case in hand; as an attempt at •'reconciliation of apparent discrepan- cies," it is a flat-footed failure.

To be sure ;:s it appears in the Doc- tor's letter the cass is perfectly clear and beautifully concise. Unfortunately, however, he is not making general statements, to apply in the entire range of his science, when one "expert" calls such a figure a "dead man" and another "Osiris rising." He is, or is supposed to be, commenting on a definite docu- ment to wit, the Spalding pamphlet. Accordingly, when he attempts to set in contrast the above two judgments by themselves, he is suppressing matter, equally relevant to the discussion, which persists in cold black type on FVshop Spalding's pages. To be sure. Prof, von Kissing calls this figure "the dead man," but he adds immediately after, "The soul is leaving the body in the moment when the priest (3) is opening the body with a knife for mum- mification." Consequently, if Prof. Bissing's words express his idea, this particular "dead man" is not yet "Osiris risine-." which he should become, according to Mercer, "as soon as em- balming takes place." Whatever one may insist is meant by the words, "takes place" the clear sense from the Egyptian point of view is that the indicated res lit follows onlv when the mummification is completed (not merely begun), according to prescribed ritual. Tn the same vein, the Doctor ouotes Prof. Meyer as saying that this figure represents tl^e "body of the dead" but Meyer sees "the soul in the shape of a bird flyina: above it and a priest approaching it." Evidently, he. also. believes that the mummification is not yet complete, according to rit"al and that consequently, the dead is not yet "Osiris rising." In addition to these two obvious cases of neglected context, we find the noinion of the Reverend Dr. Peters, which has, apparently, slipped Doctor Mercer's attention. This gentle- man who, as the Doctor informs us "well knows Egyptian and Babylonian history." also has no patience with the theory that the reclining figure has as

yet become a fully qualified "Osiris," for he declares, without hesitation:

"Apparently, the plate . . represents an cmbalmer preparing a body for bur- ial. ,\t Hi'' bead, the soul (Kos) is Hy- ing away in the form of a bird. Under the bed on which the body lies are the canopic jars to bold the organs and entrails removed from the body In the process of embalming. In the waters below the earth I see a crocodile wait- ing to seize and devour the dead if he be not properly protected by ritual em- balming against such a fate."

On the third figure the Doctor fol- lows a similarly inconclusive course, finding three separate Identifications, •priest," "emtalmer," and "Anubis," he writes: "Since Anubis is the God of embalming and conductor of the souls of the dead, the priestly embalmer, fig. 3, is therefore, often represented under the form of the God Anubis." This is no eminent example of "reconciliation," since the figure accords neither to the conventional representation of Anubis, with a wolf's or jackal's head, nor yet is he attempting to personate an in- dividual so afflicted. It would be much more to the point to indicate instances in which the God Anubis is evidently shown with a human head. That would reconcile the apparent discrepancy created by Prof. Petrie, who calls this figure "Anubis" without qualification. Dr. Lythgoe of New York, to be sure, has asserted that this figure has been changed, and that a "human and strangely un-Egyptian head" has been substituted for the familiar visage and cranium of Anubis. None of the other experts, however, have asserted that, this or other figures were changed. And this is very surprising. If they know of a duplicate to Plate 1, where may it be found ?

In spite of the evident deficiencies of Doctor Mercer's demonstrations, as nbove indicated, he writes to Bishop Spalding, in reply to Prof. Widtsoe's criticism that only eight Egyptologists were consulted in the present contro- versy, in the following words: "He asks why only eight Egyptologists were ap- proached. If he knew anything about linguistic work of the nature of hiero- glyphics he would not ask such a ques- tion, [Prof. "Widtsoe will be more cart- ful after this rebuke] for any ancient linguist knows that the unanimous tes- timony of eignt scholars is the same as that of eighty and eight. This is es- pecially true, ps I have already shown, that to an Egyptologist there was ab- solutely no discrepancy in the replies of the scholars. "

I am very much afraid that the Doc- tor is mistaken in his last statement or else, as we must conclude, the study of Egyptology exercises a singularly maladive influence on the reasoning

<!-- page:1083 -->

TRUTH SEEKING

1083

powers of some of those pursuing it. However the Doctor pursues his chosen course of expression with still further denunciations of Smith's findings:

"As I understood it," he says, speak- ing of the Bishop's method of cond jct- ing his "inquiry" and forming his pam- phlet, "you merely wished to know from Egyptologists whether, in their judgment (after comparing their own knowledge of Egyptian with Joseph Smith's as revelaed by his interpreta- tion of the facsimiles), Smith knew enough of the Egyptian language tu translate texts. All the scholars came to the same conclusion, viz.: That Smith could not possibly correctly translate any Egyptian text, as his in- terpretation of the facsimiles shows. Any pupil of mine who would show such absolute ignorance of Egyptian as Smith does, cculd not possibly expect to get more than zero in an examina- tion in Egyptology."

Doctor Mere* r evidently agrees with Emerson in the statement that "con- sistency is a superstition of small minds." In his first letter, previously quoted, he sharply rebukes a certain "layman in things Egyptian" because, un-scholarly enough, "he confuses the interpretation of figures with the trans- lation of hieroglyphics," things which are evidently quite different. In the present instance he seems to forget tnat one might be quite expert, in inter- preting Egyptian figures, "a compara- tively simple matter," and yet be un- learned in the language; also, that even accomplished linguists are not always able to tell for sure whether the figure of a plair. "dead man" or of "Osiris ris- ing from the dead," is before them. However, the Doctor reaches the climax of his argument in the following ser • fences:

"The science of Egyptology is well established as anyone knows who is acquainted with the great Grammar of Erman, a 3rd Ed. of which appeared in 1911. I speak as a linguist when I say that if Smith knew Egyptian and cor- rectly interpreted the facsimiles which you submitted to me, then I don't know a word of Egyptian, and Erman's Grammar is a fake, and all modern Egyptologists are deceived."

I have not carefully examined the third edition of Doctor Erman's Gram- mar, but, on the basis of acquaintance with previous editions I am inclined to the belief that Smith might have known some Egyptian without entirely dis- crediting the great German authority; also, in a previous article, I showed, I believe, that Smith certainly made very good "guesses" at the meaning of some of these figures, at least. I doubt the correctness of the doctor's state- ment about Erman; that on himself, I will leave to his own judgment. As to

Egyptology being a well established science, if he means entirely certain and accurate, he is wrqjig: there are too many uncertainties as to transla- tion to admit of such perfection.

But the doctor believes in doing things thoroughly. Thus, having start- ed out to discredit Joseph Smith, he seems determined to carry the fight into every region. He likes his explan- ations of the Egyptian pictures ill enough, and his method of transliterat- ing Hebrew words even less, if that were possible. He mentions this latter in his communication to the Spalding pamphlet, and by the time he writes his first letter, as quoted by the bishop, it seems to be a very sharp thorn in his tlesh. Here he writes: "1 am quite aware of the fact that the translitera- tion of a foreign word is a subjective matter, to a certain extent, yet there are some general rules followed by all scholars. No modern scholar would transliterate Resh, koph, yod, ain LRaukeeyang] or yod, he, vav, he [Jah- oh-eh] as Smith does, nor can my critic find in any scientific grammar of the period of Joseph Smith any translitera- tion like Smith. 's This would show, as I stated, that Smith's transliteration 'is far from accurate.' Moreover, yod, he, vav, he, is NOT an Egyptian word as Smith asserts and believed."

It is, indeed, difficult to read such a statement about "scientific methods" and "scholarly accuracy" from a quali- fied Hebraist, without some reeling of surprise. As a Hebraist, Doctor Mer- cer is undoubtedly aware that Hebrew transliteration is a real problem. Why should any man, whetner knowing "some Hebrew," or a great deal, trans- literate a word, often rendered into English letters as RAQIA, with such a monstrous combination as RAUKEE- ANG? One would logically try to find some explanation for the enormity be- fore denouncing the act as one of "es- sential ignorance." This does not look like ignorance, but strongly like adher- ence to some rule of pronunciation, not always followed. There must be a rea- son for it. It is scarcely remarkable, therefore, although somewhat of a Com- ment on Bishop Spalding's method of presenting a case, that we find, in this same "Reply to Dr. John A. Widtsoe," a letter from the Reverend Dr. Peters containing the following very sugges- tive passages:

"On page 20, in the explanation or Plate No. 1, No. 12 commences 'Rau- keeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heaas; DUt in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word Shaumayeem.' Raukeeyang is? evidently a corrupt pro-

<!-- page:1084 -->

1084

IMPROVEMENT ERA

nunciailon "i the lettera Reah Kopfa

v'"1 and Ain in the sixth verse 01 the Bral chapter ol Qeneala; but the spell- ing shews that it was taken from the proaunciatlon of a Bephardim Jew.

.Must Jews, wliom we have in this coun- try today are Askenazim, who pro- nounce quite differently, (the older Jewish immigration, which was small, wan Sephardim). Christian teachers have, as a rule, learned their Hebrew from other Christian teachers,* going back to the period of the Reformation, and they have a more scientific and ac- curate pronunciation than either Sep- hardlzn or Askenazim. Smith did not get hi3 'Raukeeyang' from a Christian teacher, but from a Jew. Incidentally it appears to be evidence that he was, in his way, at that time studying these old languages."

There can be no doubt but what Dr. Peters has furnished the true explana- tion of the matter. As related by Jo- seph Smith ("History of the Church," Vol. II) he actually studied Hebrew, first with a certain Doctor Piexotto, later with a certain Doctor Seixas, both of whose names suggest the Sephardic origin of their bearers. The Sephardim were the Jewish remnants of those ex- pelled from Spain and Portugal in the fifteenth century. But, of course, we are "no forwarder," as Herbert Spencer phrases it, by transferring the burden of "ignorance" from the shoulders of Smith to those of one of the Sephardim. What reason, if any, is there for this method of transliteration? Is it habit, or preference, or mere carelessness in the talk of a band of persecuted refu- gees? It is neither the one, nor the other, nor yet the third: the translitera- tion is perfectly defensible, although probably very irregular, by the simplest rules of Hebrew. The complete analy- sis of this word in Hebrew, including the Massoretic vowel points, is Resh, Qames Koph, Chireq (long), Todh, Ayin, Patach. The Qames represents long "a" (under certain conditions, also, short "o," when it is called Q. chatuph). The transliteration "au" (probably to be pronounced as in the English words "taught," caught," etc. » emphasizes the guttural tendency of "a," after the analogy of Sanskrit and other oriental languages. The Chireq, regularly long before Yodh ("y"), has a pronunciation closely like "ee" in "meet." The Patach, according to most authorities, has a sound closely re- sembling the English short "a„" as in "cat," "mat," etc. These equivalents are given by Smith.

Undoubtedly, the sorest point in this transliteration is the final "ng." It would naturally occur to a "layman" to inquire as to how it can be that a letter (Ain or Ayin), which is believed

'" have "no prop r sound," should hert assume such aggravated proportions. ■\s a matter of plain, simple tact, the

""■''I "'ik" in this caM slums that the

man who Brat wrote tins word as we have ft bad ■ very vivid and sufficient sense of the essential dlffi pence be- tween the two guttural breathings,

-x,"',h :""' A':. We might reasonably expect a professor of Hebrew to recog- nize this fact, and commend it accord - Ingly. That it is both absurd and slov- enly to give the equivalents of these characters as mere unmodified sounds or of other vowels, according to "Pointing," is a fact patent to any Hebrew student. The following pas- sage from Gesenius fully explains tht. .^it u. -it ion.

"Among the gutturals, Aleph Is the slightest, a scarcely audible breathing from the lungs, ... on the princi- ple that an initial vowel is naturally preceded by a soft breathing. Even be- fore a vowel, it is almost lost upon the ear, like the 'h' in the Frencn 'habit,' 'homme,' Eng. 'hour,' but after a vowel it is mostly lost in that vowel sound. . . . Ain is related to Aleph but stronger; and is a sound peculiar to the organs of the Semitic rare. Its hardest sound is that of a 'g* slightly rattled in the throat. |"The "Septuagint" version of the Old Testament renders into Greek many words, having initial Ain in Hebrew, with initial "g." thus: Gaza, Gomorra, etc.] It is elsewhere a weak- er sound of that sort, which the Pen- tungint (translators) indicate only by a breathing [rough, as in 'Eli (hEli) or smooth, as in 'Amalek (aAmalek)]. Tn the mouth of the Arabs, the first often strikes the ear like a soft guttural 'r.' the second as a sort of vowel sound like 'a'. — To pass over (Ain't, as many do in reading and in the expression of Hebrew words by our letter* (e.g. Eli. Amalek). and to pronounce it as 'g' or as nazal 'ng'. are both incorrect. An approximation to its stronger sound would be 'GH' or 'rG'."— Grammar (Mitchell's Ed.-) 1<^3. pp. 26-27.

We learn here three things: first, that there is a very real and sensible dif- ference between Aleph and Ain, which should be carefully remembered hv any Hebrew student: second, that the nrorer sound of Ain is often hard, having been given as "g" in som" rrc- ognized transliterations; third, that the sound is peculiar to the Semitic languages, and may not be perfectly In- dicated in English by any combination of printed letters. As nearly as T have heon able to identify and describe it. it would seem fairly accurate to say that the rough sound is a harsh guttu- ral utterance, or breathing, somewhat resembling the sound made in attempt-

<!-- page:1085 -->

TRUTH SEEKING

1085

ing to imitate a "growl." It involves a distinct vibration of the soft palate, but avoids being a "gurgle." The soft sound is more like a "sigh." If the harsh sound is continued at the end of the word, it resembles those men- tioned above: if it is suddenly discon- tinued in utterance, it has an effect close to hard "g" or "ng".

But, Doctor Mercer, seems inclined to award Smith the "extreme sentence," for the crime of trespassing on the sacred "preserves" of learning. Ac- cordingly, he speaks the "slow, irre- vocable words" of condemnation, as follows: "No modern scholar would transliterate .... yod, he, vav, he, as Smith does, nor can my critic find in any scientific grammar of the period of Joseph Smith any transliteration like Smith's. . . . Moreover, yod, he, vav, he, is not an Egyptian word as Smith asserts and believed."

As to whether this word is Egyptian, or as to whether Smith states that it was, we will discuss later. The word in question, the Hebrew tetragra.mma- ton, JHVH (more correctly, YHWH,) is the Old Testament name for God, usually rendered "Jehovah," but, pre- sumably, varied by Smith into "Jah- oh-eh." There is, or has been, consid- erable uncertainty as regards the pro- per pronunciation of this word, and this, from the peculiar method followed by the Ancient Hebrews in writing their language. In the most ancient period there were no vowel indica- tions in written Hebrew; hence, there was a wide margin of uncertainty in many cases as to the true pronuncia- tion, hence, also the true meaning, of very many words. One could under- stand this by writing even a brief para- graph composed entirely of consonants (except possibly, where initial vowels occur), and then attempting to read it a few weeks afterward. One might find numerous uncertainties; for exam- ple, we could not be sure whether "Jns" is Jones or Janus; whether he is a Minister or a Monster; whether he is the owner of a Shop or a Ship, etc. This difficulty in written Hebrew was removed to a great extent by the intro- duction of the "Masoretic points," arbitrary arrangements of dots and dashes indicating the several vowel sounds, to be placed under the conson- ant letters. Of course, in very many cases, the scribes used their own judg- ment about the proper points to be used in combinations of consonants: hence we have variations of reading, also, probably, incorrect renderings, in many important passages of Scripture. This is one matter which largely en- gages the attention of textual critics of the Bible.

The proper vowel-pointing of a

Hebrew word becomes a very impor- tant matter, when Ave consider that, probably a large percentage of disputed readings, also of passages, evidently mistranslated, because out of harmony with their contexts, are to be accounted for on the theory of incor- rect pointing. The fact may be recog- nizer] when we have several manu- scripts showing variations in this par- ticular. In default of such variations, something of the kind may be sus- pected in the case of an obscure or in- harmonious reading. A good example is to be found in the striking passage, Job. xix. 25-27. Here Job is represented as saying: "And (though) after my skin (they) destroy this (body)," etc., but the margin contains an alternate reading: "And after I shall awake (though) this (body) be destroyed," etc. There is quite a difference be- tween "skin" and "awake" to be sure, but the whole confusion in the Hebrew text consists in a question as to the proper placing of a single dot. The word in question is represented by the consonants A in Waw Resh, and, ac- cording to pointing, it may read either, gOR or gUR (the lower-case "g" rep- resenting the sound of Ain),

The first meaning "skin" (noun) the second, "to awake, arise, excite, lift up. etc." There is found, therefore, a con- siderable difference of meaning, accord- ing to the word used; and both have manuscript authority. It is probable, however, that much more radical changes could be made in this passage, to bring it into harmony with its con- text. It is one of the numerous cas— - of evident mistranslation in the Book of Job, which is conspicuous for this sort of thing.

While on this subject, it is in point to remark that, to the trained Hebraist, the defective translation of the Bible is a matter only too obvious to need discussion. He knows perfectly wel. also, that some of the most striking passages depend upon the doubtful au- thority of Masoretic reading, others, upon the unmistakable misapprehen- sion of the original translators. In other words — and this is not "destruc- tive criticism" — the translation cf the Bible is in no sense either scient.fij or "scholarly."

There are several conspicuous cases of the same thing even in the New Testament, where the excuse of Mas- oretic variations does not exist. Some of these are on nice points of Greek grammar, others on manuscript varia- tions. We may mention here one case, which is neither the one nor the other. In the xxist Chapter of John's Gospel occurs the striking colloquy between Christ and St. Peter, in which the Sa- vior three times asks the question,

<!-- page:1086 -->

1086

IMI'K< >VKMKNT I-.KA

"Loves! thou .no," and throe times re- celvee the answer, "Thou knowest thHt i love thee." The entire point of the dialogue is lest, however, In the ESng- lisii translation, in the original Oreeh there is r sharp contrast between two verba having tie general moaning, "to love." Thus, Christ usee the word \';\r\o, monnitii,' "I love, t run de- voted to"- this is tlio word giving the noun translated "charity" In the xiiith of I Corinthians — whereas Peter per- sists in using the word PIITLEO. moan- Ing "I love, t am friendly to," which is, in New Testament usage 8 much w taker word. On the first two occa- sions, Christ uses the first of these wrds. the second tim". evidently in way of insistence, after nn unanswered question; but, on the third occasion he uses the second, thus Implying a doubt as to Peter's "friendship," which might have been reasonable, jn view of his three denials before the crucifixion. Tt is said therefore that "Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time Lovest thou Care you a friend to) me." and this because of the word used and not because pf the three repetitions of the question. Thus, we lose a fine and striking pas- sage, because of the carelessness and defective imagination of the original translators. The passage is not oor- rectlv rendered by the Revisers.

These examples, together with hun- dreds of others, justify the article, "We believe that the Bible is the word of God. so far as it is correctlv trans- lated." Tn this point. Smith and scholarship are in accord.

Pelurning now to the criticisms on Hebrew transliterations, we find that in thp matter of the Hebrew name for Cod an interesting special situation exists, which has caused a grave sus- picion in learned minds that the tradi- tional pronunciation "Jehovah" is not the one used in primitive times. This suspicion is founded on the tradition that the Jews, on the basis of a rigid interpretation of the third command- ment, held that this name should never be uttered by human lips. Consequent- ly, wherever it occurred in the text, it was always read "Adonai," which means "Lord." According to this tradi- tion, also, it has been held that the vowel points of the word for "Lord" were substituted for those proper to the word for "God." Hence, there has been some uncertainty as to what were the proper vowel sounds, hence what is the true pronunciation for the name of God. Hebraists at the present day prefer the spelling "Yahweh." on the general grounds that such form best accords with the assumed authorita- tive derivation from the verb meaning "to be," etc.. (this is hayah or hawah),

thai the several abbreviated derlv. atlves or th<- name nr God (Jah, Je, etc.) are mosi rea Illy d*rlv< 6 from this form of thi word. However, the name ii i"t a perfectly clear derivative from

either of the verbs meaning "to be,"

etc Pom h ive held that this propo e I vat ion rests on appearances, mere- ly, like the English words, "God" and "good," whose affinity is not perfectly

establishe I

Some authorities have proposed the spolliie-s. TA-He-OH or TA-He-UH,

as neer'y as the Hebrew letters may be rr presented in English— the lower case "o" in both these words. repre- senting a Hebrew "semi-vowel." which should be uttered somewhat after the man ;fr of the i\a\o , Tilled bv mUSlclans "appoglatura," or "grace-note," that is Uttered nuicklv. suddenly, almost im- perceptibly. Thus, in pronunciation. the-"1 words would he very nearlv TAK-OH or YAH-nOH. Except for the fact that Yodh is rendered by "J" instead of by "y," such pronunciation accords nerfectly with that indicated bv Smith, although no rvidently in- tends to account for the final "h" by an extra syllable, "eh," in which the "e" oossibly should have th° sound as in "get." "wet." etc. Tt is possible, also. to held that the form=, "Je-ho-wah," and "Jabo-web"— if, indeed, the latter form is authoritative — may be changed to uad "Joh-o-ah" and "Jah-o-eh." respectively, in accordar.ee with the rule that the feeble "vowel letters." Yod ("y") and waw ("w") may be ab- sorbed into the corresponding vowel sounds, "e" or "i," in the first, and "u" or "o," in the second, when such "vowel letter" is both preceded and followed by a full vowel : ound. Thus, "Jah-oh-oh," was an indicator of a possible sound of the word YHWH is not such a "bad break," after all. That "no modern scholar would transliter- ate" it in this manner is not fatal. "Modern scholars," like their ancient and mediaeval prototype?, have reach- ed no finalities, particularly in the study of some of the ancient lan- guages. ^ >

One valuable assistantjjin the study of ancient languages is flHe "testimony of antiquity." One forrdBof such tes- timony, as found in Greek manuscripts, at least, has afforded a fairly good clue to the pronunciation of the ancient Greek. Thus, knowing that the an- cient scribes commonly worked in either one or two ways — copying from an original before the eyes, or taking down the dictation of a reader— we know that two familiar sources of error lie in (1) words that "look alike" and (2) words that "sound alike." In the first case, we know that a word mak-

<!-- page:1087 -->

TRUTH SEEKING

1087

in? bad sense in a given context has been substituted as the result of either one of the two orders of error noted above. Those errors, otherwise incom- prehensible, are, therefore explainable on the theory of their similarity in sound to the evidently appropriate words found in other manuscripts.

Another, although different, "testi- monv of antiquity" relates to this very Hebrew word YHWH, and furnishes the investigator with a method of pro- nunciation that claims a certain meas- ure of authority. It is thus explained bv Gesenius (Lexicon, Robinson's 8th Ed., in loc. JHVH):

"Many interpreters regard it as (YAH. OH), . . • justly appealing to tbr> authoritv of several ancient writ- ers, who relate that the God of the Hebrews was called IAO, [note, the Greek letters are here used in the text] e g Diodorus Siculus 1. 54; Macrobius, Sat. 1. 18; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, p. 666, Oxon. ... To this may be added, that the same form is conspicuous as the name of God on the gems of the Egyptian Gnostics; Irenatus, Adversus Haeres., 1. 34; Bel- lerm&n, ueber die Gemmen der Alten mit dem Abraxasbilde, I. II."

Two things are notable here: (1) that, on the authority of antiquity, there is resectable evidence for pronouncing this name, partially at least, as IAO, or better, YA-O; (2) that the name was actually so pronounced, in part, at least, by certain Egyptians about the time of the Christian Era, and shortly thc-oafter The Gnostics, whose gems, etc., are mentioned by Gesenius, repre- sented, so far as we have definite and reliable testimony concerning them, an eclectic theosophic sect, which, like tne Manicheans, and several other heretic- al cults of the times, combined with certain terms, introduced with Chris- tianity, considerable of the lore and philosophy of the heathen orient. Un- doubiedlv, many of their teachings, also of their words and terms, were derived from antiquity. Since they flourished in Egypt, it is not inadmis- sable to assume that their pronuncia- tion of the divine name YHWH was taken from that of Egyptians of re- moter periods. Nor is there distinct evidence to limit this remoteness in time. I see no insistent reason, there- fore, for rejecting the statement, "called by the Egyptians Yah-oh-.eh" (after we have, for sake of better cor- rectness, substituted "y" for "j"), and ignoring the criticism that this "is not an Egyptian word," which no one has assorted.

It may be very justly objected, how- ever, that the rendering mentioned by Gesenius, as above noted, gives YA-O, and not YA-O-EH, and that, therefore.

th« justification of the latter is not complete. This may be answered in two distinct ways : (1) that, after the waw ("w") has been assimilated to "O," thfeie mav be a difference of opin- ion as to whether it should be com- bined direct with the final "h," or whetler that final should Pe accounted for by an extra short syllable, as al- ready indicated— as to whether, in short, this name YHWH is properly to be pronounced in two syllables or in three: (2) that, on the supposition that this final should be accounted for by a distinct syllable, and net combined with the "o," it would not be appre- ciable in Greek writing. The Greek transliteration mentioned by Gesenius, IAO (Iota Alpha Omega), is the only combination in which either of the two form;-- just discussed could readily be represented. The Greek letter Chi ("ch") could not properly represent the Hebrew final quiescent He ("h"), be- ing properly the correspondent of the Hebrew Cheth ("ch"). In the above quotation from Gesenius the Greek form is evidently transferred to He- brew letters.

Such approximations of probabilities, as we may have reachad, will become perfectly evident in the following. Solely with the desire of being fair, we must call attention to tne fact, that- although Smith's transliterations of the two words in discussion are de- fensible on certain grounds, he was, evidently, concerned more immediately in representing the sounds, as he understood them, of these words, than in giving any real or assured equiv- alents of the Hebrew letters. This is shown in his rendering of the word Kokabim by Kokaubeam. As any Hebraist knows, the final syllable, "beam," in no sense indicates the Hebrew spelling, although giving a good representation of the sound. In precisely similar fashion, we may as- sert that his "Jah-oh-eh" also repre- sents his idea of the proper pronun- ciation of the word, rather than its transliteration— the presence of the ex- tra "h" in "oh" would indicate this; it is evidently present only to length- en the sound of the "o," as in our English interjection. Then substitut- ing "y" for "j"— not from partiality to Mr. Smith, but because it is more correct — and pronouncing this word, as a word, not as a series of three sounds (e. g., a, b, c, or 1, 2, 3). we have a very close approximation of "Yaoway," which is so nearly the pronunciation for the accredited "Yahweh," as given, viva voce, by Hebraists, (the "e" be- ing given as in European languages, like the English long "a" in "fate," "gate," etc.) that it is needless to

<!-- page:1088 -->

loss

IMI'Ri >VEMENT EB \

quibble over the difference. In sj>it«' of tin- fact, therefore, that Smith's rendering haw been condemned aa "far from accura ti ." he Is, evidently, In very good accord with hoth Atitiquit? and modem learning. The principal difference between them is whether th' nv.mw remains consonant, or la assimilated t<> "o."

A large pnrt of the further assumed attacks and dlscredltlngs of smith's interpretations partake of the nature erllla warfare. Thus Doctor von Fussing throws out a remark in his iott°r for the pamphlet, which rather suggests that ho is something of a humorist. He says: "Jos. Smith certainly . . . never do"ipliere<l 1 ier- oglyphio texts nt all. He probably used Athanasius Klrscher the Jesuit's work, and there found a method of reading the oil Egyptian siems very much like his own."

The humor of the Do?tor's remark seems to appeal strongly, for we find th< Revef nd Dr. Peters taking it up, and enlarging It greatly. Relating, In his genial letter included in the Bishop's Reply to Doctor Wldtsoe, how that at a meeting of the Oriental Club he had shown the Spalding pamphlet to those present — and they were "very much interested" — he proceeds, as fol- lows: "Von Passing's suggestion, contained on the last page of the pam- phlet, that Smith probably "used Atha- nasius Kirschor the Jesuit's work" on Egyptian, approved itself to those present. Indeed it was suggested by ♦hem before T had come to that pas- sage. Kirscher's work was not a whit more foolish or Improbable than Smith's work. Tt was precisely be- cause it was of such a character that, for n Erood while, th^ interpretation of Egyptian hieroglyphics was discred- ited. His book had a wide circula- tion. Tt appealed immensely to half educated and uneducated people and repelled th^ better educated." Th" Doctor evidently .?o<->s to so preat length in describing Kirs^hner's work (or "bonk") as a fitting introduction re his grand climax: "The suggestion from that is that Smith, just as hon- estly as Kirschor. believed that he had found a clue and was a real deciph- erer: that, in other words, he was not a nure fraud, but an ignorant, vain, se'f-delnde-l man. who imagined he knew what he did not know."

T'nder the Doctor's elnraoterization. Mr. Smith was certainly in a larere and representative comoany, Including many of the people, whose names shine in history, also, quite a few "scholars." Apparentlv. the Doctor has "traced error to its foul nest." Tf. as Mercer remarks, "the unanim- ous testimony of eight scholars is the

i .Mil'- iity and i Ight," we

may conclude that the "testimony" of two scholars, backed a I <>. by the membership of the Oriental Club, is oi nearly equal force. One encounters grave difficulties, in one point, bow- ever, i hould like to be enlightened. Although, as I rememl of the

critics of Spalding's pamphlet, finding the remark <>t Doctor Bayce -"Maat leading the Pharaoh befOTi 0 iris" — asks, Innocently, "what Pharaoh?" and is censured for "cavilling," i win risk the same rebuke by asking "which book." Doctor Peters would confer an immense favor by giving the title and the date of publication of that work of Athanasius Kirs her, which had a "wide circulation," "appealed immensely to the half educated and uneducated," discredited the Interpre- tation of Egyptian hieroglyphics "for a good while," and "repelled the bet- ter educated." It might seem, on his terms, that the "crediting" of hiero- glyphic interpretation was the result ol popular vote in some sense

As a matter of fact, Kirscher's theo- ries embarrassed the final work of de- ciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics to just about the same extent that the itinerary of Ulysses, as set forth in Homer's "Odyssey," would confuse the compiler of a "Guide Book to the Me- diterranean," at the present day. On the other hand, if, as the Doctor as- serts, any book of his "repelled the better educated," the "repulsion" came by some sort of "long-distance transmission" in the Doctor's case. In making the statements above quoted, Doctor Peters shows conclusively that he has the vaguest possible idea of the identity, period, significance, and work of Kirscher, also that, if he ever saw or read any book of his, it has made no deep impression on his mind. I am very sorry that Doctors Von Bis- sing and Peters, and the members of the Oriental Club, have made such a suggestion as this about "Kirscher's wi irk." Tt sounds very like an off- band and ill-considered remark, and rather shakes one's faith in the suf- ficiency and accuracy of their other findings.

Athanasius Kirschor. a Jesuit priest, who lived in the seventeenth century, and was one of the most learned men of his day, wrote over thirty books treating of a wide range of subjects, including mathematics and physh s. linguistics and travel. Judging from the quotations in several of his works, he was "at home" in a dozen lan- guages, including Arabic, Syriac, He- brew, Greek and Latin. He wrote a book on China, with notes by the way on India, Tibet and Japan, that reveals an active and acquisitive

<!-- page:1089 -->

TRUTH SEEKING

1089

mind and, within the inevitable limi- tations of his day. also a faithful ob- server. In this latter book he in- cludes an analysis of the Sanscrit writing (Nagari), which shows but few defects, and discusses the mythol- ogy of India, and of the other coun- tries reached by him in a manner, both intelligent and exhaustive. He propounds, also, a theory of the origin and use of the Chinese written signs, which is brilliant, even if unscientific, according to the findings of the pres- ent day. Furthermore, in no one of his books does he make any distinct effort to appeal to the "half educated and uneducated." Such people would be very much annoyed at running upon some of his plenteously distribut- ed quotations in Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and other "outrageous" lan- guages at about every other page. His books come just about as near to "popular science" as does the Book of Mormon to a novel.

In addition to his other works, all discouragingly learned and brilliant, he wrote and published, not one, merely, but no less than six distinct books dealing with the language and hieroglyphics of the ancient Egyp- tians. All these books were written in the crabbed, mediaeval Latin of his contemporary scholars, and none of them, so far as I have been able to discover, has ever been translated into English. In order, however, that Doctor Peters may indicate the one that appealed especially to the "uneducated," I will include their titles and dates, as fol- lows: "Prodromus Coptus" (Rome, 1636); "Lingua Aegyptiaca resti- tuta" (Rome, 1643); "Obeliscu? Pamphilius in foro Agonal)

Erectus" (Rome, 1650); "Oedipus Aegyptiacus" (Rome, 1652-54); "Obe- lisci Aegyptiaci. . . Interpretatio hieroglyphica; novo methodo tradita" (Rome, 1666); "Sphinx Mystagoga" (Amsterdam 1674). He is also credited wi<:h another bearing tne title, "Ars Veterum Aegyptiorum hieroglyphica" (hieroglyphic art of the old Egyp- tians) which I have been unable to find on published lists, or in library collections: consequently, no date.

Kirscher believed that the Egyptian hieroglyphics represented "picture writing" merely, and not combinations of sound-equivalents, ideograms, etc. Like several other theorists of pre- scientific times, he made a bold com- parison with the Chinese method of writing to a great extent, apparently, identifying the two. As a Churchman, also, he imported numerous ideas con- cerning the "mysteries of religion" into his attempted interpretations. That he evidently guessed wrong in

most cases is no reflection on his in- telligence; he was. in his day, before the Rosetta Stone had been discov- ered and deciphered, in precisely the same position, as regards Egyptian inscriptions, as are the learned of the present in discussing the Maya inscrip- tions of Yucatan and Central America. In spite of the inevitable shortcomings of his work and methods, Kirscher recognized the relevancy of the study of Coptic to the understanding of An- cient Egyptian, and, accordingly, in- cludes in his "Prodromus Coptus" an elaborate lexicon of the former lan- guage.

I have included this rather lengthy discussion of Father Kirscher and his work merely to demonstrate the com- plete idleness and futility of the afore- mentioned criticisms involving his name and "book." If, as von Bissing and Peters suppose, Smith "used . . the Jesuit's work," they credit him with a very good and exhaustive knowledge of Latin, also with a really scholarly discrimination, which pre- vented him from following "his mas- ter" in the latter's more unscientific and indefensible hypotheses. So Smith knew "some Hebrew" and a great deal of Latin, yet these facts, vigorously asserted or suggested, mili- tate against the notion that he could possibly have read any Egyptian texts. Whatever Smith may have known, or may not have known, about languages, or other matters, it is quite clear that there are very many people who know little or nothing about Smith.

Although, as an interested investi- gator of matters religious, sociological and linguistic. I first entered this dis- cussion with the sole intention of dis- covering and stating the real facts, to the best of my humble ability, I must confess surprise at the large number of occasions in which the balance of evidence is on the side of Joseph Smith also, at the futility of a large number of the arguments made against his claims and character. Since the opening of this Spalding pamph- let investigation, my respect for him and his teachings has greatly aug- mented. There can be no doubt but what he is destined to occupy a re- spected position among historic re- ligious teachers and moral and soci- ological innovators. It would seem that he has already become a riddle, which is not readily to be solved, even by the learned. Whatever else may be said about him, I am determined, to the best of my ability, to see that he gets fair and candid treatment. Treat- ments of other varieties have already been overdone in his case. The pres- ent controversy is no conspicuous ex- ception.

The learned participants in the pres-

<!-- page:1090 -->

109(1

IMPROVEMENT ERA

,nt controversy follow very much the S;,IM(. lines «.f procedure aa baa a- «ray« been followed by unleaj ae I

is," in general. Thoy assume

very much thai has not been eaid or claimed and, then proceed to argue Bt ' it. Thue, in the numeroua

n-pumenls based on the apparent late period of the figures on the three platea of the Book of Abraham, alto- gether too much has been said on the assumption of a claim that Abraham originated these plates, or even that they may be considered the original drawings Included in the first copies ,,f this assumed ancient work. We might aa reasonably say of a r< edition of Pickens' novels: "These books cannot be by Dickens, because are illustrated with half-tone plates made from drawings by a mod- ern artist, and there were no half-tone plates in Mickens' time." We would be mistaken, of course, in such a criticism; the whole point of the mat- in- being whether the illustrations in question belong in and illustrate Dick- ens' novels, or whether they belong with stories by Scott, Zola or Beacons, field. In the same way, the sole ques- tion before us in the present case is as to whether Smith's descriptions and interpretations may be justified by any respectable line of argument. The question nf the date is quite secondary, as suggested above.

Thus if any of the critics can clearlv 'indicate an Egyptian drawing like Plate 1. which shows the same agitated pose of the reclining figure, and the "priest" without the Anubis head, that would be of real value. I know of no such drawing, and be- lieve that such cannot be produced. Tn regard to the second plate, the hypocepbalus. i have seen positively no statement of a claim that Abraham originated it; but, as I believe, I made fairly good approximations to demon- tratlng that Smith's interpretations hovered somewhere in the neighbor- hood of truth, and that, on the testi- mony of nn smaller scholars than Petrie. Budge and Lythgoe. What may have been its real origin I did not attempt to determine, partly because I coul 1 find no perfectly conclusive data nn the subject; partly because T con- sidered that the discussion should deal solely with Smith's interpretations.

Tn another point, also, our scholarly critics are somewhat afflicted with a misapprehension, and this is in the statement made by both Doctor Mer- cer and Doctor Barton, to the effect tbat. as the latter puts it: "Had this been a genuine Book of Abraham, it would not have been written in Egyp- tian characters at all, but in Baby- lonian cuneiform. That was the lan- guage and script of Abraham's native land, and was the method et writing

used In Palestine even Dy Egyptian governors." This, also, is a matter

Which we need not pans.- to dJSCUSS at

since no one, ho far as I have

beard, has seen the original of the

In question, in order to Inform

us as to whether it was written in Egyptian hieroglyphic, Baby] cuneiform, or some other script, or CO judge as to whether It was an original or a translation, or to show us how far the scribes of a "degenerate and debased age in Egyptian civilization" had altered the drawings and botched the inscriptions. The fact remains that Smith made no attempt to inter- pret the inscriptions on these plates. We might even hold that the text of the book really was in cuneiform, and that these drawings, with hiero- glyphic inscriptions, had been supplied by a hand other than the one that wrote it. Even on the supposition that Smith really found the key to the translation of an ancient document, we have no guarantee that he knew definitely the origin of its letters or of its language. Many fairly intelli- gent people of the present day cannot tell Hebrew from Sanscrit, nor Cunei- form from Chinese. The illegible in- scriptions, which he did not pretend to translate furnish no clue to the character of the text which he did pro- fess to translate. Hence we are, at the end of the discussion, precisely where we were before we began talk- ing.

There seems little necessity of add- ing more to demonstrate the fact that all the "experts" consulted by Bishop Spalding have actually established in a scholarly and scientific form little or nothing against Smith's proposed ex- planations of these plates. That they have established the fact that, in the words of one of their number, "Smith has misinterpreted the signification of every one figure," is an absurdity. Not only have I shown that he made some good approxi- mations to the meanings of several of the figures, at least, especially on the "hypocephalus" and that on the authority of recognized writers on matters Egyptian, but I have shown also that the adverse criti- cisms were made in a spirit far from that in which one could reasonably ex- pect to discover the truth of anything on earth. I can not understand, there- fore, how that Bishop Spalding can continue to assume that he has dis- proved all of Smith's findings in con- nection with these plates, nor do I understand how such an assumption comports with his assumed character of an "honest searcher after truth." What- ever he may think, or say, on the mat- ter is of small consequence, however, besides the fact that he allows editors of his own and other bodies to assume

<!-- page:1091 -->

TRUTH SEEKING

1091

the truth of such statements as are made in the editorial enclosed herewith.

In his reply to Doctor Widtsoe the Bishop reveals his attitude, as follows: "I must say that to my admittedly un- scientific mind the judgment of eight witnesses seems sufficient to establish the meaning of the Egyptian text. . . . If I found a plant which I qould not classify, or a mineral I could not name, and eight scientists in eight universities independently agreed as to the plant ind mineral, I should feel that I need . nquire no further."

Anyone having the remotest idea of 'he conditions and qualifications of an adequate scientific judgment knows perfectly well that the Bishop's as- sumption is very ill taken. In the case of a mineral, at least, there are very many cases in which an exhaus- tive analysis might reverse an opin- ion based on superficial resemblances. There are some instances in which the exact nature and identity of a given specimen of mineral may not be fixed, without photometric tests to determine its "axis of refraction," and other phy- sical and chemical qualities, which are nature's hieroglyphic equivalents for its precise description. The whole basis of an adequate judgment, in any field of .scientific inquiry, is the exhaustiveness of the analysis. We have seen noth- ing of the kind in the opinion of th_ 'rpalding experts, nor any attempt to justify their sweeping statements by a single reference to a recognized text- book or document bearing on the mat- ter in hand. In default of these data, It may be asserted that their judg- ments are not perfectly scientific, hence, not perfectly reliable.

I suppose, Mr. Editor, that there are still people in this world who would not believe, "though one rose from the dead," but I am truly astonished at the high "horse-power" it requires to dislodge from the minds of the Bishop and his witnesses the notion that they have been concerned, to the minutest extent, with establishing "the meaning of the Egyptian text." I have seen no "text" under discussion and in this "con- troversy," except a few hieroglyphic lines, which no one has attempted to translate. Furthermore, if he is con- cerned with the analysis of such a text, why does he persist in consulting per- sons who are not qualified Egyptolo- gists? Doctors Peters and Barton are self-confessed Semitists, whose Egyp- tological knowledge consists largely in historical information. The theory of summoning these Semitists is probably that, as they "know one foreign lan- guage already," they are competent in foreign languages in general.

But, the climax of the Bishop's argu- ment is characterized by the same charming and "unquestioning faith" in

the deliverances of people, who are reputedly competent "scholars." His at- titude seems t- be that of the late Car- dinal Newman, who, when his unbe- lieving brother Francis proposed that they assume some self-evident basis of fact for a discussion of their differ- ences, said: "What is the matter with the infallibility of the Pope?"

If this is the Bishop's attitude there is nothing to be said in criticism. An "admittedly unscientific mind" must needs "lean." Would he, however, fol- low the deliverances of "scholarship" and learning into all bypaths blazed by special investigation? In other words are specialists in other departments as dependable as are those in Egyptology ? If he has eleven voices against the Book of Abraham, and hence concludes that he "breaks neck-and-neck," as against the eleven witnesses for the Book 01 Mormon — and he will do better next time— does he consider that the num- ber and unanmity of the witnesses es- tablishes every point in every dispute? Would he repeat the same profession of faith if, instead of "hitting a body blow to "Mormonism," as he assumes, the deliverances of "scholarship" dis- credited some of the fundamental be- liefs of his own body? If this is his attitude toward learning, what effect should follow from the fact that the Roman church authorities, after an in- vestigation, which seems to have been honestly made, announce unqualifiedly that the Church of England has no right or claim to the "Apostolic Succes- sion?" What effect should follow from the same denial of the reality or sig- nificance of this valued Episcopal be- lief, made by the entire body of Protestant scholarship? If the deliver- ances of scholars are to be ignored sometimes, why are they so very infall- ible at others? This is a fair question for an "honest searcher after truth."

There are only two consistent courses left open to the Bishop. The first is to acknowledge frankly and honestly that he has not made his case. The second is to pursue his investigations "to the bitter end." If he takes the latter course, I shall be justly delighted to meet him on every Semitic and Egyp- tian point he may try to make. If he chooses the former, everyone will ac- knowledge that he has made good, at least, on . his profession as an "honest searcher after truth." I have seen the query propounaed in several periodicals, "What will be the effect on the 'Mor- mons,' now that the world's greatest scholars have spoken?" I can only an- swer: If they speak no better than some of them have so far spoken, they "could not possibly expect," as one of our friends would say, "to get more than zero."

ROBERT C. WEBB.