KevinSim wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:28 am
Chap, I can't agree with that until I understand what you're saying. You said the Egyptologists made plain their view that none of the material Smith produced beared any relation to ancient Egyptian. Well, of course it bore no relation to ancient Egyptian. What Smith produced was English, not ancient Egyptian.
OK, rephrased to clarify (bold text is modified):
"No-one disputes that Joseph Smith, a person of little education and convicted 'glass looker' from upper-state New York who claimed to have had visions of divinities and been given direct revelations from those entities, bought some Egyptian mummies from a travelling showman, and hence obtained some funerary papyri that accompanied them. Then, although he had never studied ancient Egyptian as a language, or its hieroglyphic writing system, he produced a text which purported to be a translation of the writing on some of those papyri, accompanied by various study aids. He represented these texts as being in part the work of the biblical figure Abraham. A series of non-LDS Egyptologists have made plain their view that none of the material Joseph Smith produced bears any relation to
an ancient Egyptian original text. The most detailed Egyptological study of the question is that of the late Robert Ritner, and it comes to the same conclusions as his predecessors, but argued in greater detail and at full length."
As for your last sentence, Smith did indeed produce a work that purported to explain the ancient Egyptian language at some length and with copious examples. See his:
Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, circa July–circa November 1835
in the Joseph Smith Papers. A specimen is shown here:
11 ✦
✦ This character shown dissected
✦
✦36 Kiah brah oam.37 Coming down from the beginning— right by birth— and also by blessing, and by promise— promises made; a father of many nations; a prince of peace; one who keeps the com mandment of God; a patriarch; a rightful heir; a high priest.38
✦ [3.15]39 Iota nitahveh ah que.40 Its signification is increased five times from the fourth.41
✦ [1.1]42 Ah lish43 The first Being— supreme intillegence; supreme power; supreme glory= supreme Justice; supreme mercy without begining of life or end of life comprehending all things, seeing all things: the invisible and eter[n]al godhead.
✦ [1.2] Phah eh. The first man, or Adam coming from Adam. Keys44 or right over Patriarchal right by appointment.
✦ [1.3] Phaah.45 The Largest riegn, the greatest dominion, possessions or power.
✦ ✦ [1.4a, b] Phah ho e oop—46 A king who has universal
✦47 dominion, over all the earth.
✦ [1.5] Ho oop hah48 Queen Kah tou mun,49 a distinction of of Royal <female> lineage or descent, from
[p. 3]
5th D
her whom Egypt was discovered while it was under water, who was the daughter of Ham.— a lineage with whom a record of the fathers was intrusted by the tradition of Ham and accordding to the tradition of their elders; by who<m> also the tradition of the art of embalming in was kept.
A few years ago, I took the trouble to study an introductory text on Middle Egyptian and the hieroglyphic writing system, which took me to the level where I could read fairly standard tomb inscriptions, and a few other easy texts (I am out of practice now). What I learned then confirmed – if any confirmation were needed – that the Egyptologists who dismiss Smith's "Egyptian" as nonsense are correct.