Did Joseph Smith Translate JSP XI?

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

Did Joseph Smith Translate JSP XI?

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

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

This argument involving JSP XI got its start near the time of the recovery of 10 of these 11 fragments in 1967 by the Church. Critics Gerald Tanner and Grant Heward put forth the theory that Joseph Smith translated JSP XI in an issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought in 1968.[1]

None of the Egyptian characters on the Joseph Smith Papyri, including those on JSP XI, include the Book of Abraham. Thus, if Joseph Smith did indeed attempt a fraudulent translation of JSP XI, this would establish Joseph Smith as a highly deceptive person at worst and an ignorant, deluded knave at best.

Heward and Tanner's argument has been repeated in numerous works that are critical of the Church and there have been several pieces of evidence used to establish their theory. This page examines each piece of evidence.

The Negative Evidence

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

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

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

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

JSP XI is a fragment of an Egyptian papyrus that originally contained what is known either as a "Sensen" text, "Breathing Permit," or "Book of Breathings." "Sensen" just means "breathings" in Egyptian and so the three terms are used variably by scholars. The Book of Breathings is a document that Egyptians placed with some of their dead to allow them safe passage in the underworld and to eternal rest. There are 33 extant copies of the Book of Breathings today. “The known copies belonged almost exclusively to members of families of the priesthood of Amun-Re at the Karnak Temple in Thebes, ‘which suggests the text might be associated with that office.’”[2] This particular copy of the Book of Breathings belonged to an individual named Horos—a priest from Thebes, Egypt. JSP I and XI, JSP X—as well as the original of Facsimile 3 of the Book of Abraham— are thought to have been found adjacent to one another in the same papyrus.

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

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

Barker Slide 1.png
Barker Slide 2.png

There are, however, several problems with this theory.

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

Facsimile 2 undated draft copy.png

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

Barker explains:

The lucanae for Facsimile No. 2, did indeed come from other parts of the Joseph Smith Papyri collection. I’ve highlighted 1/3rd of the hypocephalus rim or Figure 18 (the right hand side of the rim), and half of Figures 13, 14, and 15 on the right-hand side as well, just as Heward and Tanner depicted in their 1968 article. These highlighted portions can all be traced back to JSP XI.
Barker slide 3.png
Starting with the rim, or Figure 18, I’ve laid the semi-circular text in a horizontal row. The text was inserted upside down, but when turned right side up and flipped around, the text can be aligned with hieratic text in JSP XI from rows 2, 3, and 4. The transfer of hieratic characters to the hypocephalus isn’t as clean as one might have hoped for, but a clear match can be made when looking closely at JSP XI and Facsimile No 2, and in the case of JSP XI row 4, from Book of Abraham Manuscript C.
Barker slide 4.png
Similarly, on Figures 13, 14, and 15, these figures need to be turned right side up and flipped around as well (although the numbering from Figures 12 through 15 in the original 1842 publication of the Book of Abraham was printed upside down as well, potentially indicating that the text was deliberately inserted upside down), nonetheless, the text can be aligned with the hieratic text in JSP XI, row 4. Again, the transfer of hieratic characters to the hypocephalus isn’t as clean as one might have hoped for, but a match can be made when looking closely at JSP XI and Facsimile No 2.
Based on Heward and Tanner’s theory, using our current versification, Abraham 2:1 through most of 2:2, and half of 2:9 through 2:18 were all included in Facsimile No. 2. Fortunately, we know what Joseph had to say about this text since he provided the explanations to Facsimile 2.
Barker slide 5.png
Interestingly, looking at the undamaged portions of the hypocephalus and the damaged portions (but filled in with various Egyptian hieroglyphic and hieratic characters), Joseph chose to comment on some “Figures” and refrain from commenting on others. Sometimes he provided explanations for undamaged figures, and sometimes he refrained from explaining undamaged figures. Sometimes he provided explanations for damaged figures, and other times he refrained from explaining damaged figures.
Barker slide 6.png

And then, the shotgun blast from Barker:

It just so happens that literally every Figure containing any hieratic text from JSP XI, Joseph’s response is that the explanations “will be given in the own due time of the Lord.” And he concludes by saying, “The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.” In other words, literally all of the JSP XI hieratic characters included in Facsimile 2, Joseph Smith deliberately declined from commenting upon because he believed that the translation would at some future time be given in the own due time of the Lord. Joseph clearly indicates that he did NOT translate JSP XI.[3]

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

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

Of the twenty-one times I found text in the GAEL that matched text in the Book of Abraham, I found only one time that the corresponding Egyptian characters matched, four times when part of the characters matched, and sixteen times in which there was no match whatsoever. This indicates that the GAEL was not used to translate the papyri, nor is there any demonstrable translation relationship between the characters in the papyri we currently have and the text of the Book of Abraham.[4]

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

The Kinderhook Plates

Critics have attempted to bolster the conclusion that Joseph Smith used the GAEL when translating the Book of Abraham by pointing to Joseph Smith's use of the GAEL to translate the Kinderhook Plates. The Kinderhook Plates were a set bell-shaped plates that were forged, buried, and unearthed by some men in Kinderhook, IL—about 75 miles south of Nauvoo where Joseph Smith was— and brought to Joseph Smith to trick him into translating them.

Joseph Smith appears to have made a cursory comparison between a part of one of the characters on the plates and one of the characters on the GAEL.

A character in the GAEL that matches a character in a facsimile of one of the Kinderhook Plates. The explanation in the GAEL is in the hand of W. W. Phelps.

William Clayton recounted, "President Joseph has translated a portion, and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found; and he was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom through the ruler of heaven and earth."[5]

Clayton's description matches the description next to the "translation" of the "sail boat" character in the GAEL which reads as follows: "Honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh; possession by birth; one who reigns upon his throne universally —possessor of heaven and earth, and of the blessings of the earth."[6]

From this evidence, critics conclude that Joseph Smith considered the GAEL a legitimate tool for translating the Egyptian language. That's only sort of true. Research suggests that the GAEL was created because of early 19th century beliefs that Egyptian and Hebrew had ties to the original language spoken by Adam. Joseph Smith and his associates may have created the GAEL as a means of attempting to recover the Adamic language.[7]

Joseph Smith nor any of his associates claimed that the GAEL came as a product of revelation from God. Also, this evidence obviously does not do anything to prove that Joseph Smith used the GAEL to translate any papyri that would become the Book of Abraham. Thus, this evidence does not tell us much about Joseph Smith's prophetic abilities nor the authenticity of his translation that became the Book of Abraham.

Textual Allusions to the Facsimiles

In Abraham 1:12 and Abraham 1:14, there are references to Facsimile 1.

12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record (Emphasis added).
14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics (Emphasis added).

Through historical investigation, we know that JSP I and JSP XI were originally delivered as a singular fragment to Joseph Smith. The fragments were mounted on backing paper by either Joseph Smith or one of his associates. "Sometime after the single fragment of papyrus was mounted on paper, it was cut roughly in half vertically, creating two pieces [JSP I and XI, respectively]."[8]

JSP I and XI.png

If Joseph Smith was indeed translating beginning at the top, right-hand side of JSP XI, proceeding from right to left, and if JSP I (which contains the original of what would become Facsimile 1) was on the same papyrus as JSP XI, it would seem natural that Joseph Smith would refer to JSP I as "the beginning" of the record by Abraham and, since our critics consider him a fraud, this is exactly what they believe Joseph Smith did. These references to Facsimile 1 bolster the critics' belief that Joseph Smith translated JSP XI and I.

However, the earliest manuscripts of Abraham 1:12 and 14 have the text squeezed either between lines of text or in the upper margin of the earliest manuscript of these verses (Earliest manuscript for Abraham 1:12 | Earliest manuscript for Abraham 1:14). Abraham 1:12 is in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, one of Joseph's scribes. Scholarly consensus is that these lines in Abraham 1:12 and 1:14 were later, interlinear additions to the text—perhaps even with the approval of Joseph Smith.[9] These were likely explanatory glosses by Joseph Smith that, unlike the actual translation of the Book of Abraham, did not come by revelation.

Earliest manuscripts of Abraham 1:12 and Abraham 1:14.

One data point that strengthens this theory is that, when one is reading the text of the Book of Abraham, the narrative becomes smoother with the omission of these phrases. The translation retains coherency even without the textual insertions. Thus, these insertions cannot be considered good evidence that Joseph Smith translated JSP XI and I.

Alleged Simultaneous Dictation of the Book of Abraham Translation Manuscripts

One of the evidences that was put forward in favor of the theory that Joseph Smith translated JSP XI is the supposed simultaneous dictation of two of the three early translation manuscripts of the Book of Abraham.

This theory was first proposed by scholar and disaffected Latter-day Saint Edward H. Ashment. Ashment proposed that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Abraham by first creating the GAEL and then dictating the text of the Book of Abraham as he claimed to translate it from JSP XI. In Ashment's view, Joseph Smith feigned to create the GAEL by revelation and then "translated" the Book of Abraham by first assembling his two scribes, having them copy a character from JSP XI to the margins on the translation manuscript pages, and then dictating the text of the Book of Abraham from the GAEL (the text on the GAEL coming from his fraudulent translation of JSP XI).

Ashment lists a couple of perceived evidences that the GAEL was created first and then the translation manuscripts. The simultaneous dictation theory is one of these evidences.[10]

All of this effort was made by Ashment to refute the work of people like Latter-day Saint apologist Hugh Nibley who proposed that the Egyptian characters were added to the translation manuscripts after the translation had already been complete. Nibley proposed this in part to distance Joseph Smith from JSP XI which obviously does not contain the text of the Book of Abraham.

This theory would ordinarily not be worth responding to for the simple fact that Kerry Muhelstein's research quoted above shows just how unlikely it is that the GAEL was used as a tool to translate anything including JSP XI. Thus, worrying about whether the GAEL came before the manuscripts or after is pointless. However, the theory has received support from the two editors of the Joseph Smith Papers volume on the Book of Abraham—Robin Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid (Hauglid now being a disaffected from the Church) and their work created a small storm in Latter-day Saint academic literature.[11] Our critics may use Hauglid and Jensen's work as fodder for their own theories and thus this point becomes important to respond to.

There has been extensive work done by John Gee (another Latter-day Saint expert on the Book of Abraham) that shows how unlikely the simultaneous dictation theory is.[12] Gee analyzes the textual evidence from the manuscripts as well as historical data to show the it is historically unlikely that the two scribes that produced the manuscripts (Warren Parrish and Frederick G. Williams) were ever even able to be together in the same room for the simultaneous dictation to occur and that the textual evidence appears to indicate that Williams copied from an earlier manuscript and Parrish copied Williams' manuscript and visually corrected it as he copied it.

Did Joseph Smith Claim Knowledge of Egyptian?

Some critics claim that Joseph Smith claimed knowledge of Egyptian and how to translate it. If Joseph Smith were to claim this, this would be problematic on its face since the only tool that he would have had that he would have claimed gave him knowledge of Egyptian would be the GAEL and, as the Church has written in its Gospel Topics Essay on the Book of Abraham, "Neither the rules nor the translations in the [GAEL] correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today."[13]

However, none of the supposed evidence that the critics point to that suggests that Joseph claimed knowledge of how to translate Egyptian works to establish that proposition.

One source that critics point to is an 1844 publication entitled Appeal to the Freemen of the State of Vermont, the "Brave Green Mountain Boys," and Honest Men that was purportedly written by Joseph Smith and in which an appeal to the GAEL is made to provide a translation for an Egyptian-sounding phrase.[14] However, this publication has been demonstrated to have been ghostwritten by W.W. Phelps acting as Joseph Smith.[15] W.W. Phelps likely got his "translation" of Egyptian from the GAEL which is another source critics point to.

A second source is the GAEL itself and Joseph's use of it when doing his one-character "translation" of the Kinderhook Plates. As Latter-day Saint historians Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst McGee have observed in their definitive treatment of the Kinderhook plates, "[Joseph] Smith’s autonomous use of the Egyptian Alphabet book...in the translation of the Kinderhook plates shows that he considered it a legitimate translation tool."[16] Though, recall that the GAEL appears to be part of the much larger project of recovering the Adamic language. Joseph Smith likely thought that the GAEL had some value in translation; but not for Egyptian per se and, as is more likely, for the remnants of Adamic that Joseph believe might be found in Egyptian and other languages like Hebrew. Joseph Smith's one character, cursory comparison of the GAEL to the Kinderhook Plates does not establish the notion that he claimed to have knowledge of how to translate the Egyptian language.

The final source comes from the Gospel Topics Essay on the Book of Abraham which states the following:

Phelps apparently viewed Joseph Smith as uniquely capable of understanding the Egyptian characters: "As no one could translate these writings," he told his wife, "they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were."[17]

This quotation from Phelps has been interpreted by critics to mean that Joseph Smith was claiming to know the Egyptian language.[18] However, it is clear from context that this did not mean that Joseph was claiming to have a working knowledge of Egyptian that he could use to translate documents mechanically, but that he was capable of discerning the meaning of the Egyptian writings by revelation given to him because of his role and stewardship as prophet of God and President of the Church.

The Positive Evidence

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

Eyewitnesses to the Translation

Recall that Joseph Smith was given two long rolls of papyri as well as various fragments along with the four mummies by Michael Chandler. All of the eyewitnesses to the translation make it clear that the translation was done by reference—not to the papyri that we currently have (nor the scroll that some of the papyri fragments came from)—but the other, long roll of papyrus given to Joseph Smith by Michael Chandler of which we have no surviving fragments today.[19] This throws a huge wrench into the critics' theories that the Book of Abraham was translated from the fragments we currently possess.


Notes

  1. ↑ Grant S. Heward and Jerald Tanner, “The Source of The Book of Abraham Identified,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3, no. 2 (Summer 1968): 92–97.
  2. ↑ BMC Team, “What Egyptian Papyri Did Joseph Smith Possess?” Pearl of Great Price Central, January 28, 2020, https://pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/what-egyptian-papyri-did-joseph-smith-possess/. Quoting John Gee, “Book of Breathings,” in The Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Deseret Book, 2017), 69.
  3. ↑ Tim Barker, "Translating the Book of Abraham: The Answer Under Our Heads," FAIR Conference 2020. Emphasis added.
  4. ↑ Kerry Muhelstein, "Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Introduction to the Historiography of their Acquisitions, Translations, and Interpretations," Interpreter 22 (2016): 34.
  5. ↑ "History of Joseph Smith," Deseret News, September 10, 1856, 1.
  6. ↑ Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, circa July–circa November 1835, The Joseph Smith Papers website, accessed July 31, 2025.
  7. ↑ Matthew J. Grey, “'The Word of the Lord in the Original': Joseph Smith's Study of Hebrew in Kirtland,” in Approaching Antiquity: Joseph Smith and the Ancient World, edited by Lincoln H. Blumell, Matthew J. Grey, and Andrew H. Hedges (Religious Studies Center; Deseret Book, 2015), 251–61; Michael MacKay and Daniel Belnap, "The Pure Language Project," Journal of Mormon History 49, no. 4 (2023): 1–44; Muhelstein, "Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri," 32–39.
  8. ↑ Source note for Fragment of Book of Breathing for Horos–A, between 238 and circa 153 BC, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 31, 2025.
  9. ↑ John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Deseret Book Company, 2018), 143–46; Brent M. Rogers and others, eds., Documents, Volume 5: October 1835–January 1838, Joseph Smith Papers (Church Historian's Press, 2017), 74–75; Robin Scott Jensen and Brian M. Hauglid, eds., Revelations and Translations, Volume 4: Book of Abraham and Related Manuscripts, Joseph Smith Papers (Church Historian's Press, 2018), 195–96, 239 nn. 57, 64. See also the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers website and their comments here and here.
  10. ↑ Edward H. Ashment, "Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study," in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (Signature Books, 1990): 221–35.
  11. ↑ John Gee, "The Joseph Smith Papers Project Stumbles," Interpreter 33 (2019): 175–86; Jeff Lindsay, "A Precious Resource with Some Gaps," Interpreter 33 (2019): 13–104; Matthew J. Grow and Matthew C. Godfrey, "The Joseph Smith Papers and the Book of Abraham: A Response to Recent Reviews," Interpreter 34 (2020): 97–104; Jeff Lindsay, "A Welcome Response, but Flaws Remain," Interpreter 34 (2020): 105–12; John Gee, "Taking Stock," Interpreter 34 (2020): 113–18.
  12. ↑ John Gee, "Fantasy and Reality in the Translation of the Book of Abraham," Interpreter 42 (2021): 127–70;
  13. ↑ "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng
  14. ↑ Robert K. Ritner, "'Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham'— A Response," MormonThink, accessed August 4, 2025, http://www.mormonthink.com/essays-book-of-abraham.htm.
  15. ↑ Samuel M. Brown, "The Translator and the Ghost Writer: Joseph Smith and W.W. Phelps," Journal of Mormon History Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2008): 26–62; Bruce A.Van Orden, "William W. Phelps's Service in Nauvoo as Joseph Smith's Political Clerk," BYU Studies 32, nos. 1, 2 (1992): 81–94; Bruce A. Van Orden, We'll Sing and We'll Shout: The Life and Times of W. W. Phelps (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company; Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2018), 356–60.
  16. ↑ Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee, "'President Joseph Has Translated a Portion' Joseph Smith and the Mistranslation of the Kinderhook Plates," in Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity, eds. Michael Hubbard MacKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020), 517.
  17. ↑ W. W. Phelps to Sally Phelps, July 19–20, 1835, in Bruce A. Van Orden, "Writing to Zion: The William W. Phelps Kirtland Letters (1835–1836)," BYU Studies 33, no. 3 (1993): 555. Cited in "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  18. ↑ Ritner, "A Response."
  19. ↑ Kerry Muhelstein, “Papyri and Presumptions: A Careful Examination of the Eyewitness Accounts Associated with the Joseph Smith Papyri,” Journal of Mormon History 42, no. 4 (October 2016): 31–50.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Did_Joseph_Smith_Translate_JSP_XI%3F&oldid=263953"