Plausible Suggestions For Studies on the Joseph Smith Papyri
Comments by Kerry A. Shirts
G. P. F. Van Den Boorn’s article "Wd’-ryt and Justice at the Gate," in the "Journal of Near Eastern Studies," Vol. 44, #1, Jan. (1985):1-25 is a wonderful study of how an Egyptologist goes about finding the meaning of a word or groups of words, which have not only meanings, but extended meanings beyond their obvious first translated meaning from the Worterbuch. While his item is not seriously significant in any context I have found yet, he does bring out some points I wish to call your attention to. My reason is because these are points which we LDS are sometimes criticized for when we work with the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.
The historian of ancient Egyptian history has a few problems to deal with according to Van Der Boorn. First, his imperfect understanding of Egyptian concepts, and the idiomatic way they are expressed and articulated through the Egyptian language.
Second, a wide cultural gap and considerable time barrier hampers our understanding of the cultural background and meaning of an Egyptian expression. (p. 1).
Van Der Boorn discusses the significance of an Egyptian word for "gate," and then demonstrates that this word can not only mean a mere gate, but actually has an extended meaning of being a room which is sealed off or closed off by a gate, where justice is served. This is the purpose of his entire article.
After he examines how the word has changed meaning through time, he makes a very important statement we all need to keep in mind when studying the papyri and the Book of Abraham. "Egyptology only advances by a reappraisal of its sources." (p. 21). Van Der Boorn is quoting another Egyptologist who said this in 1976, and which Van Der Boorn agrees with in 1985. And this is so true. I believe the same can be said for the Joseph Smith Papyri and Book of Abraham. We constantly need to reappraise our sources on these things and make sure we understand clearly enough to explain the papyri to interested folks. In fact, that is the essence of research. Isaac Asimov, the science and science fiction writer said it best: "’Research’ means ‘to search again.’ Why not? Sometimes, a new interpretation emerges that is of vast importance." ("Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations," Blue Cliff Editions Book, 1988: 239).
This is also Hugh Nibley’s idea constantly in his series of articles, "A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price." The whole point of reading and learning all this Egyptian stuff is to keep the door open, to deal in probabilities and plausibilities that something just might be worth looking into, no matter how incomplete our knowledge and evidence may appear to be. (Hugh Nibley, "Taking Stock," "Improvement Era," May, 1970). And here we also see 15 years later, Van Der Boorn also notes "In the course of this analysis, furthermore, it has been possiblwe to make a plausible suggestion… after determining the grammatical relationship between the two components of the term, it was possible to reconstruct the meaning…" (p. 22). And there we have it. Egyptologists don’t deal in proofs at all. They work with hypotheses as well as plausible possibles. We LDS can work with the same principles as well. We can’t prove anything to anyone, but can show why there is room for faith unto belief. Erik Hornung has shown that the early preliterate evidence for the gods is sparce and definitely ambiguous. ("Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt," Cornell Univ. Press, 1996: 103). We can’t deal with certainty working with ancient knowledge, hence we can plausibly suggest this or that concerning the papyri, always keeping in mind that perhaps what we think today will have to be changed tomorrow. Michael D. Rhodes study "The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus Seventeen Years Later," begins with this idea. "Seventeen years ago I published a translation of Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham. In the intervening years there have been numerous advances in our understanding of this interesting document, and I felt that the study needed revision in the light of those advances." (p. 1) (FARMS Rho-94 – 1994). Paul Y. Hoskisson, "Where Was the Ur of Abraham?" ("Ensign," July, 1991: 62-63), shows various possible sites and locations for this ancient place of Abraham’s day. The range is quite large, some favoring a northern Ur while others demonstrate evidence is in the Southern Ur. No final conclusion can be made yet, but various suggestions are worth looking at, and evidence is being researched yet once again no this fascinating topic. Robert G. Morkot, "Nb-M3’ t-R’ – United with Ptah," in "Journal of Near Eastern Studies," 49, #4 (1990): 323-324), shows how the Egyptologist Alan Gardiner published a text, and then years later, went back and revised some of his readings on it. Now the writer Charles Larson in his book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus," may think Nibley is wrong in claiming Egyptologists are revising their information, knowledge, and assumptions due to a continually increasing stream of new light on ancient Egypt through archaeological, philological, and chronological studies, but it is Larson who is wrong. It is important to remain flexible in these things.