Sethbag wrote:Ok, well since Don apparently doesn't sit around looking at this board just waiting to respond to posts directed at him, and hasn't responded in my other thread, I'll ask the question to you.
If you have come to the conclusion, as Don has, that Joseph Smith did indeed attempt a translation, only it was a "secular" translation, then would you mind opining on what sort of "secular" translation process would lead a man to believe that some gibberish characters actually mean that some guy was a king, from the loins of Ham, and that he received his kingdom from the God of Heaven and Earth?
Here is what I wrote some time ago (one or two of the links are broken, and I don't have the time right now to chase them down):
However, even if one wishes to grant the possibility of a "partial translation," the question may be raised as to the nature of the alleged "partial translation". Was it a formal translation (using either supernatural or secular means), or an informal translation or off-hand surmising based on rumor, and was it done in earnest or in jest?
Perhaps the answer to these questions may be found by examining the Egyptian Alphabet used by Joseph Smith at the time in translating the Book of Abraham from papyra (see: Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers--JSEP--pp. 1 - 15), along with the Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, and compare the characters found therein with the characters and symbols etched onto the Kinderhook plates (photos of the facsimilies may be viewed HERE).
From my own cursory glance, there wasn't much that matched up. I did, though, find two characters that could possibly fit. First, there was a character that consisted of a circle that had a dot in the center (actually, there were several of these characters). And, as I understand it, this character in Egyptian represents the sun, or light, or depending upon its placement in relation to other characters, it could refer to seasons, or God, or ruler, etc.
More interesting, though, was an oval shape that looks like the Egyptian hieroglypic for the letter "r" (click HERE).
On page 4 of the JSEP (see the link above), that character is described as follows: "Kah tou mun: a lineage with whom a record of the fathers was intrusted by tradition of Ham, and according to the tradition of their elders, by whom also the tradition of the art of embalming was kept." (Emphasis added)
With these two characters in mind (and the only two characters that appear to me--a non-Egyptologist--to remotely resemble Egyptian), let's quote Clayton's description of the "partial translation":
"Pres[iden]t J[oseph]. 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 from the ruler of heaven and earth."
Is it possible that Joseph, who had been acquainted with the Egyptian alphabet since 1835 (8 years prior to the Kinderhook event), pointed out these two characters to those gathered around, and explained what they meant, and this may be what Clayton had in mind when he spoke of a "partial translation"? If so, then there may have been an informal translation of a portion of the plates.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
