Joseph Smith, Charles Anthon and the Egyptian Translations
By Bonnie Lach Oswald, BFA, MA
Editor's note: This is the first of a series of articles covering art in the Old Testament. Unless otherwise indicated, all artwork and photographs were done by the author. Nephi tells us in the Book of Mormon that he makes a record in the language of his father, "Which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians."(1 Nephi 1:2). Mosiah explains further that Lehi was able to read the writing on the Liahona because he had been taught the language of the Egyptians (Mosiah 1:4). Mormon, about 1000 years after Lehi, tells that he writes on the plates in a form of Egyptian: And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we would have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have no imperfection in our record (Mormon 9:32-33). Most scholars agree that language evolves over a period of time, and the Nephite language, including that written in the Book of Mormon, would have changed over the period of 1000 years from the original Egyptian. The question is this: Could Charles Anthon, or other linguists of the 1820's or 1830's have read the heiroglyphics of the Book of Abraham, or the Book of Mormon? Charles Anthon was born in New York City and received a law degree from Columbia University, but never practiced law. He was fascinated by ancient languages, studied all that was available to him at the time, and eventually taught Greek and Latin at Columbia. He studied Sanskrit and Egyptian, and many other ancient languages. He died in 1867. When Joseph Smith obtained the plates of the Book of Mormon, he began to copy the characters, and with the help of the Urim and Thummin translated some of them. He then authorized Martin Harris to show these copied hieroglyphics and translations to some learned men. In 2 Nephi 27:15-18 we read: But behold, it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall say unto him to whom he shall deliver the book: Take these words which are not sealed and deliver them to another, that he may show them unto the learned, saying: Read this, I pray thee. And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book and I will read them. And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will they say this, and not for the glory of God. And the man shall say: I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed. Then shall the learned say, "I cannot read it." Sometime in February of 1828, Martin Harris went to New York. He visited a Doctor Mitchell, who had an interest in Egyptian and later possibly purchased a mummy from Michael Chandler, and also Charles Anthon. Martin Harris later related to Joseph Smith the familiar story of his encounter with Anthon, who tore up the certificate he had written, saying that he could not read a sealed book and there was no such thing as the "ministering of angels." Harris also said that Anthon told him that the characters were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyric and Arabic, and they were true characters. Following this encounter, and the recounting of the experience by Joseph Smith and others, Charles Anthon wrote several letters about the occurrence, each widely differing, and later denied that there had been any Egyptian characters on the page shown him by Harris. Harris was not a linguist, and he could have been confused by some of the things Anthon told him. Thus, when he related that Anthon had told him that the writings contained Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyric and Arabic, his memory could have been faulty. Egyptian would have stuck in his mind, but the other languages could have been inaccurate. Had Harris confused Hebrew, cuneiform and demotic? The mention of Arabic is particularly curious. Aramaic, the language of Christ, was a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew in use from 1000 BCE, and the most common language in the middle east until hundreds of years after Christ. Arabic, however, replaced Aramaic in the 7th century CE, following the Arab conquest. Any document from 600 BCE would not have been in Arabic. Harris could have confused the similar terms, of Anthon could have been wrong. An investigation of the validity of Charles Anthon's knowledge of Egyptian must go back to the events leading to the time when the code of the Egyptian language was cracked. Prior to Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, scholars worldwide were baffled by the hieroglyphics found on tombs and temples in Egypt. It was assumed that they were an ideographic written language, based on pictures, as are Chinese and Japanese, and not on phonetic symbols as is our language. In 1799, Napoleon's troops, digging trenches near Rashid (or Rosetta) in the western delta of Egypt, found a broken slab of black basalt containing an incised proclamation in 3 languages, praising Ptolomy V, in 196 BCE. The top third was in Egyptian Hieroglyphics (priestly writing of religious and official documents); the middle was in Demotic Egyptian (common everyday Egyptian of the time); and the bottom was in Greek. The stone today is in the British Museum, taken from Napoleon when he was defeated by the British. Napoleon had intended it to go to the Louvre. Once the middle section was deciphered, it became apparent that the Demotic and the Greek contained the same proclamation and the Hieroglyphics probably said the same thing. He hunt was on to decipher the Hieroglyphics. 
Jean Francois Champollion, a brilliant young linguist in France, began his attempt to decipher the stone in 1808, working only from drawings or tracings of the Rosetta Stone. It took him 14 years, and thus, twenty three years from the date of the discovery of the stone, before the hieroglyphics began to reveal their secrets. Before this time, some bits of the writing, primarily numbers and some names, had been tentatively identified by scholars and linguists, who were still unsure whether hieroglyphics were a phonetic or ideographic written language.
Champollion was born December 23, 1790, and was fascinated by Egyptology from an early age, presenting papers to the prestigious Grenoble Academy as young as age 16, in which he proposed the Coptic language in contemporary Egypt was the same spoken language as ancient Egyptian. He taught himself eleven languages, studying Coptic, and composing the first Coptic alphabet. He was appointed at age 18 to teach at Grenoble University, where he continued his studies of Egyptian culture and language. He struggled with the hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone for many years, believing it was primarily a picture form of writing (ideographic). The Greek and Demotic portions of the stone both displayed the name "Ptolemy" in the same relative position, and in that same position on the hieroglyphic section was a cartouche (an outlined design with figures inside, which was thought to mean a proper name.) This cartouche and figures were considered to mean "Ptolomy."
Then in 1821, while studying a transcription of Greek and hieroglyphic texts on an obelisk from Philae, Egypt, he recognized the name Kliopatra. Many of the same sounds occur in "Ptolomy" and "Kliopatra", and by comparing the two, he was able to determine that the symbols were in the right positions to correspond to phonetic sounds in the names. For the first time, he gained the embryonic understanding of hieroglyphics as a primarily phonetic written language. The next year he was able to present the idea to the French Acadamie des Inscriptions. However, at this point, he was not able to read Egyptian.
Because we recognize the letters in German, we cannot read and understand German. It took a great deal of time for him to isolate other letters and the sound they would represent, and to understand that some hieroglyphics are ideogramatic. There are also many symbols and hieroglyphics that are not phonetic, and since hieroglyphics lack vowels, and additional figure was needed at the end of some words to show context. For example, without a determinative, the words "break" and "brook" would both be written "BRK." Champollion had many years of work ahead to be able to actually read and understand hieroglyphics.
He traveled to Egypt in 1828, extensively studying history and geography, publishing two books on the subjects. He became the curator of Egyptian artifacts at the Louvre. He did publish some very early incomplete studies of hieroglyphic language, one of which was found among the effects of Anthon at his death - although it is not known when Anthon obtained it. It was an early work, and the details included would not have yet made it likely that anyone using it could read Egyptian.
Champollion died suddenly of a stroke in 1832, at age 42. His study of Egyptian grammar was published in 1836, and his Egyptian dictionary in 1842 - both many years after Martin Harris's encounter with Charles Anthon. Until these books were published posthumously, no one could yet read Egyptian hieroglyphics. Until those books were available it was highly improbable that Anthon could have read Egyptian. His knowledge would have been at best, a simple ability to decipher numbers, and possibly some proper names.. There is no record of his traveling to France to meet Champollion, or correspondence between them. Thus, his statement that he recognized Egyptian characters, was probably correct, but it is impossible for him to read the "reformed Egyptian." "Unlearned" Joseph Smith, with the help of the Lord, was undoubtedly the best translator of Egyptian in the world.
In late June 1835, Michael H. Chandler arrived in Kirtland with four mummies of an original eleven, and some papyrii that he had somehow obtained. He had exhibited them as curiosities in the eastern states, and had heard of Joseph Smith's skill in translating Egyptian hieroglyphics, possibly from those ridiculing Smith.
When he reached Kirtland, after arranging for a show of the mummies that evening, he sent the son of the hotel proprietor, Gideon Riggs, to Joseph Smith, inviting him to the show that evening. Smith sent word that he would be unable to come that evening, but would meet Chandler the next morning. Chandler had visited several linguists in the east, including Dr. Mitchell and Charles Anthon, and had documents indicating some of the ideas of what the papyrii might mean.
Since this was prior to the date that Champollion's studies were published, they would not have been able to translate the papyrii. Joseph was permitted to take home the papyrii and returned the next day with the pages that he had translated. Chandler compared it with the "translations" done by Anthon as far as Anthon was able to translate it. Young John Riggs was present at this meeting as stated that while some of Joseph Smith's translations agreed with those of Anthon, "There was one language Professor Anthon could not translate which the Prophet did".1
Joseph Smith was interested in purchasing the papyri, but Chandler would not sell them without selling the mummies too. It is unknown how soon the Prophet became aware of the import of these documents. Joseph was assisted financially and purchased the mummies for $2400, a large amount at the time, particularly considering the poverty of the Saints. These papyrii contained the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph. Based on descriptions of the papyrii from those whose saw them at the time, we have only a portion of what they originally contained.
1 Edward W. Tullidge, "History of Provo City." Tullidge's Quarterly Magazine 3 no.3 (July 1884):283.
Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© Meridian Magazine. All Rights Reserved.