The Pure Language Project

In the summer of 1835, Joseph Smith and his associates purchased four mummies and some papyri scrolls from Michael Chandler.1 That summer Joseph would participate in a project that would produce a fascinating set of texts, referred to today as the Egyptian Language Documents (ELD), used and compiled mostly in Kirtland, but also consulted and expanded in Nauvoo.2 These documents, which include three incomplete variants of what was called an “alphabet” as well as an incomplete “grammar,” integrated a series of characters with explanations. The grammar included combinations of the characters with passages of text that would have parallels to chapter 1 and part of chapter 2 of the Book of Abraham. Yet, even as the grammar indicates a relationship between the ELD and the later Book of Abraham, the exact nature of that relationship is unclear.3 Some have argued that “at least part of the Book of Abraham was derived from the Egyptian language documents.”4 Others have theorized that Joseph must have had nonextant earlier copies of the text of the Book of Abraham that he was using to reverse engineer the original translation into the ELD.5 Though these theories differ from one another in specifics, they all agree that the ELD included parts of the Egyptian papyri acquired in 1835 and were, in some way, directly associated with the translation of the papyri.6This article calls for a reassessment of these theories by suggesting that the ELD were not a new project that began in 1835 but part of an ongoing project that may best be referred to as the “pure language” project that started in 1832, with roots as early as 1827, which was aimed to produce a more efficient form of communication that would reflect the cosmic scope of the newly restored gospel and the role of the priesthood in that cosmos. More specifically, we will demonstrate the textual and documentary relationship between the extant Book of Mormon characters (1827), the “Pure Language” documents (1832 and 1835), and the ELD (1835). The relationship between these documents enables a fresh look at two of the most detailed and important parts of the ELD: the Egyptian Alphabet and the Grammar and Alphabet. We will call this the “pure language project” to represent its purpose and origins. This also leads to interesting comparisons with the Grammar and Alphabet and the earliest Book of Abraham manuscripts.7 We will examine each of these documents individually and then make conclusions about them at the end of the article.The first document in our chain was created as part of the translation of the Book of Mormon. In late 1827 and early 1828, Joseph, Emma, and a few others copied characters from the gold plates.8 Some copies survived and later would be referred to as the “Anthon Transcript” in the twentieth century (figure 1). According to Joseph Knight Sr., Joseph, “with his wife Drew of[f] the Caricters exactly like the ancient and [later] sent Martin Harris to see if he Could git them Translated.” Along with Emma, there were at least two other people who helped, including Reuben Hale and Martin Harris. They produced far more than the small sample included in the “Anthon Transcript.” We are not told how many copies they made, but it required the help of three people to make all the copies. While the translated text of the Book of Mormon indicates that the characters were logographic in nature, meaning that each character could represent a word, concept, or syllable, it appears that at least some of the saints referred to the characters as an alphabet (single phonetic graphemes for each symbol). Lucy Smith wrote that Joseph Smith was “instructed to take off a fac simile of the alphabet composing the characters Alphabetically.” She went on to explain that Joseph needed “sufficient time to transcribe the Egyptian Alphabet” before they sent the characters to be translated by scholars in the east.9The “Anthon Transcript,” titled “Caractors,” is the only significant extant copy of the characters from the gold plates, and is a distinct stemma from a nonextant urtext.10 It appears to be a copy of a copy transcribed onto a page that was wrapped around Joseph Smith's Old Testament Translation (OT3). If it was created at the same time as OT3, it was created in the fall or winter of 1830. Though this was just a copy, it became representative of the characters on the plates since one of the versions of this document was copied onto a placard in 1844. The copy may have survived, unlike the others, because it was included with a larger manuscript (OT3). Joseph Smith and others referenced Book of Mormon characters in Kirtland and Nauvoo; by Joseph's death, characters were even published on a placard to memorialize his ministry. The characters he recorded in 1827 were copied and shown occasionally in Kirtland and in Nauvoo.11 On its own, the “Caractors” document may simply be an interesting sidenote in the church's expansion, but, as we shall see, the characters were put into use again as part of what can be called the “pure language” project.The second document in the chain was created in 1832 and included in the Book of Commandments and Revelations known as the “pure language” document.12 No explanation is given as to why the document was written in the first place. The concept of a pure language had been introduced in Joseph's translation of Genesis. In Moses 5:5–6, the reader is told that there was a “language of Adam . . . which was pure and undefiled.” What was meant by “pure and undefiled” is never explained, though in describing the text written with this language, it was done “with the finger of inspiration” suggesting that “pure and undefiled” had to do with an embodied process, or dexterous guidance through inspiration.13 Interestingly though, the pure language text of 1832 does not reference Moses 5. Instead, it appears related to a vision Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon experienced in February of 1832 (Doctrine and Covenants 76).Later referred to simply as “the vision,” the February 1832 vision witnessed by Joseph and Sidney was cosmic in scope. Spanning from the premortal rebellion of Lucifer to the final events of time when Christ will have “perfected his work” and turns his authority back over to the Father, the primary focus of the vision was on the different states of the resurrection and the interaction between those in these different states. The vision commands them to write about their experience, and ends with instruction concerning the difficulty of fulfilling the command to write it down. Joseph and Sidney were told that they were not to write about the “mysteries of the [God's] kingdom which he showed unto us . . . while . . . yet in the Spirit,” but that even if they wanted to, “neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:114–16), suggesting that there was no system of communication currently that could accurately transmit the information received via the visionary experience.A revelation in question and answer format concerning the book of Revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 77) was received a few weeks later that suggested the prophet believed his vision and the vision of John described in Revelation were similar, though not exact, and relevant to each other.14 Both described, according to Joseph, the “economy” of God. An introduction to the written version of the vision described it as “concerning the economy of God and his vast creation throughout all eternity,” and the book received by John in Revelation 5:1 as a text that “contains the revealed will, mysteries, and works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth” (Doctrine and Covenants 77:6).15 Around the same time as he received the question and answer revelation concerning John's record, Joseph Smith also revealed a “Sample of Pure Language” in a similar question and answer format (see table 1). It was copied into the Book of Commandments and Revelations as if it were another revelation, though it was never published with the others.16 Recorded in the heading, it states that it was “given by Joseph the Seer” and claimed that it was “A Sample of pure Language.”17Scholars have speculated about the nature of this document.18 One of the common notions about this document is that Joseph Smith tried to access a pure language that already existed (presumably Adamic), with the assumption that all other languages are defiled or insufficient.19 While this is possible, parts of the pure language provided in the text are English. For instance, while God is referred to as “Awmen,” Christ is referred to as “Son Awmen,” humankind as “Sons Awmen,” and angels as “Awmen Angls-men.” This suggests that the pure language was not so much a distinct language, but a type or concept of a form of communication that was clear in meaning and comprehension; an attempt to address the epistemic problem highlighted at the end of Doctrine and Covenants 76. Certainly, its subject material, the ontological relationships between different states of beings, and the economy of God, suggests that the vision was still on Joseph's mind.20The ontology discussed in the pure language document, which reads somewhat like a primer or catechism, established two things. First, that the different beings mentioned in the document were all the same type, and second that the type of being could be in various states. God or “Awmen” is described as “the being which made all things in all parts,” with Christ then referred to as “the greatest of all the parts of Awmen,” and humankind, or the “Sons Awmen,” were “the greatest parts of Son Awmen” (i.e. Christ). The exact nature of the ontological type alluded to is unclear, but the final question and answer portion of the document may suggest a particular relationship. The question refers to the meaning of “Awmen Angls-men” or beings referred to as angels. The answer states that they are “Awmen's Ministering servants Sanctified who are sent forth from heaven to minister for or to Sons Awmen [humankind] the greatest part of Son Awmen [Christ].” But instead of the ontological identification for angels being the focus (no reference to their being a “part”), it is their ministering function that is given precedence. It is also here that the pure language document may reflect the vision received just a few weeks earlier.While the concept of ministering angels was certainly present from the earliest writings of the nascent church, reflected both in the Book of Mormon and in the revelation that would be known as Doctrine and Covenants 20—which recounted an angel ministering to a young Joseph—a definition as to the ontological nature of an angel was not provided. The pure language document though indicated that an angel was a being that had been “sanctified,” suggesting that one who was an angel now was not always an angel. This in turn suggests that instead of representing a different class of beings ontologically from humankind, angels could be understood as individuals who had been sanctified, a change reflecting different ontological states, not necessarily ontological types. Such a being, according to the document, could be commissioned by Awmen to minster to Sons Awmen, presumably who were not yet sanctified. Thus, the pure language document expanded on the understanding of angel, introducing the concept that angelic ministration was not one of two ontologically distinct and different types of beings, but the interaction between two individuals who were the same type of being but in different ontological states. Such an interaction was also expressed in the vision.21Interactions between beings of the same ontological type, but in different ontological states, are a surprisingly important element in the cosmology present within the vision. As part of the description concerning those who would attain celestial glory, Joseph and Sidney were told that that “the just” were those who had been “washed and cleansed from all their sins” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:52), who were also “priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek,” “the church of the Firstborn,” and who would interact with those who came before who had also attained this state: “These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn” (v. 67). As the text suggests, those who would be of the Church of the Firstborn also interacted with those who were already part of the Church of the Firstborn. In this case, the interaction would be between individuals differentiated only by time of sanctification.Interaction between states continues in the descriptions for both those who attain terrestrial or telestial glory. According to the vision, though those who attain these states were not righteous while in mortality, they could be ministered to by those in higher resurrected states. Thus, according to Doctrine and Covenants 76:87, those of a terrestrial resurrected glory could receive the ministering of those who had attained celestial glory. Similarly, those with telestial glory would be ministered to by those with terrestrial glory (v. 86). The telestial would also be ministered to by “angels who are appointed to minister for them” (v. 88). Though “angel” is not designated in the vision as “sanctified,” the sanctified are mentioned as those who are before God's throne, a state that is later associated with those who attained celestial glory. Thus, by the time the pure language document is written, it is possible to understand that the angels mentioned in the vision who were to be ministers to those who had telestial glory were the sanctified who obtained celestial glory. In other words, those of a lesser ontological state were ministered to by those who were of a higher ontological state: the terrestrial by the celestial and the telestial by both terrestrial and angels, meaning the sanctified individuals who had attained celestial glory.22Though there does not appear to be any further, immediate development of this ontology and interactions between the different ontological states, in 1835 the ontological structure and the attendant role of ministering presented in the document are further refined in two texts: material found in a letter written by W. W. Phelps, and the documents that would be later described as the “Egyptian Alphabet” and the “Egyptian Grammar,” suggesting that the ontology and its relationship to ministering had not been forgotten, and instead had continued to be a subject of interest for the saints.A little over three years after the pure language document, on May 26, 1835, W. W. Phelps wrote a letter to his wife.23 At the bottom of the letter, following his signature, is a section that he referred to as “a specimen of some of the ‘pure language’” (figure 2). The section is divided into five columns with six lines. Each line represents an ontological state, while each column reflects different identifications for these states. The first column includes certain characters identifying a given ontological state, the second column is made up of “sounds” or phonetic designation for the character, while the third column appears to be the name of the ontological state associated with the character, and the final fourth column being the description or definition of the given ontological state. As to those states, they are the same ontological categories presented in the 1832 document. Thus, for example, line one, column two contains the sound “ah,” with column three indicating that the ontological state is “ahman,” column four simply stating that this is “God,” just like “Awmen” in the 1832 letter. In like manner, the second line has “anz” as the phonetic designation, “son ahman” as the name of the ontological state, and “son of God” as the definition for this state. The third line is “aintz” (column 2), “sauns ahman” (column 3), and “sons of God or saints in [Zion?]”24 (column 4). The fourth line contains “aine” (column 2), “anglo” (column 3), and “angels” (column 4). The fifth line is “ainzes,” “sons ahman,” and “children of men,” respectively. The final line has a different subject that does not appear to reflect the ontological states of living beings, but, by virtue of its association with the other subjects, must have been related in some fashion. It contains the phonetic representation “oh,” identified in column 3 as “oleah” or “olaoh” and defined in column 4 as “the earth.”A side-by-side comparison of the Phelps letter and the 1832 pure language document reveals similarities, suggesting that the Phelps letter is a direct product of the pure language document. The ontological categories denoting ahman, son ahman, sons ahman, and anglo are all categories the two documents share. Yet the Phelps letter shows further development and specificity. For instance, as can be seen above, there is the assignation of a character to the ontological category, the assignation of a phonetic representation, and significantly, new ontological categories. The category in the pure language document referenced as “sons ahman” was now divided into two categories: sauns ahman defined as “the sons of God or saints in [Zion?]” (phonetically designated as “aintz”), and “children of men” (phonetically designated as “ainzes”).Unfortunately, the reason for the differentiation is not provided, though the definition of the sauns ahman designating the “sons of God” with “the saints in [Zion]” suggests the distinction reflected whatever the definition of saints was versus the rest of humankind. As we shall see based on later evidence, it is possible that what Phelps had in mind was priesthood, thus sauns ahman and sons ahman reflecting those who had the priesthood and those who did not. In the letter itself, however, this is not clear. The second clause defining sauns ahman, “or saints in [Zion]” is also intriguing as it appears to define the saints in a particular state or place [Zion]. Again, as we shall see, this ontological formation will be expanded upon with place of the entity being an important distinguishing feature. In the letter though, the place remains a fascinating unknown. Yet, it is clear that spatial placement is now a part of the ontology as the final category—the earth—is represented. As for the differences in vocalization, namely the use of two different medial vowel sounds, this appears to be an arbitrary assignation rather than a reflection of deeper import. Vowel manipulation will play a role in the ontology present with the Egyptian Alphabet.Perhaps the most notable innovation is the assigning of a character to the given ontological category. While there is nothing that suggests the assignation is not arbitrary, the characters themselves appear to be similar, if not the same, as the characters found in the “Caractor” document (see figures 4 and 5).The organization of the specimen suggests that these characters may be understood as a letter or ideogram representing the given ontological category. Column 2, then, is the name of the character. The usage of the same characters does not necessarily indicate that Phelps or anyone else believed that the “reformed Egyptian” of the Book of Mormon, presumably the characters in the “Caractors” document, was the “pure language.” Instead, it seems that the certain characters were used in the creation of an entirely new system of communication, one that was to be used to explain the economy of God that Joseph had witnessed. In any case, as we shall see, elements such as the assignation of characters, the naming of the characters, the ontological categories, even the use of different vowel vocalizations will all be utilized in the ELD, suggesting that it is not so much an attempt to figure out Egyptian as it is the continuation and further development of a new language that could represent the 1832 vision—a pure, unadulterated language.In late June or early July 1835, after the letter and the specimen sample were written, the church purchased the Egyptian papyri from Michael Chandler. By October–November of the same year, three documents were produced by three principal authors, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and W. W. Phelps, which were referred to by the prophet and W. W. Phelps in their respective versions as the “Egyptian Alphabet.”25 Though each alphabet was written by a different individual therefore showing individual variations from alphabet to alphabet, the overall similarity suggests all three were written in conjunction with the others. As to the organization of the alphabet documents, they follow a similar pattern to the Phelps letter with columns identifying the character or symbol, the vocalization of the character, and the explanation or definition of the concept associated with the character.The alphabets are also organized into five “parts” of the “first degree.” What the first degree is, is not explained in any of the three versions, nor are the five parts complete. Only the first two parts are found in detail. In all three alphabets, part 1 contains twenty-three characters with their attendant names/pronunciations, and definitions/explanations.26 In terms of subject material, part 1 is somewhat eclectic, though the overall theme seems to be one of kingship, creation, and time measurements. The first five characters are concerned with principles of kingship (1.1–1.5).27 The first character signifies “the first being who holds Supreme power” (1.1), presumably God, but indicating his overall dominion. It is followed by the character for the first man, but reflecting his role as king (1.2). This is followed by the character for a “reign” of a king (1.3), then the character for any member of a royal family (1.4), and finally the character representing the concept for a queen (1.5). Royal distinctions continue in lines 1.6–1.11, which include characters for the female member of a royal line (1.6, 1.7), unmarried princess (1.8), unmarried prince (1.9), a daughter (1.10), and the character for a king (1.11). The remaining characters indicate the physical earth and the act of creation (1.12–1.23). Thus, the character in 1.12 represents “earth” while the character in 1.13 indicates “water.” Character 1.14 signifies concepts associated with sight; thus it can represent the eye, or sight, or the act of seeing, and sometimes as a rebus-type character signifying the first person pronoun. Character 1.15 appears to represent the relative pronoun “who.” Lines 18–23 contain characters that indicate time measurements and the act of creation. Thus, character 1.18 refers to the “beginning, first, or pointing to.” Character 1.20 signifies the state of being “in” and is used specifically with “the light in the world.” Character 1.21 denotes the first creation, while 1.22 indicates time demarcation that begins at the creation and ends at an undisclosed period of time. Part 1 ends with the final character representing any given time period.Though the Abrahamic text is not referred to explicitly, at least two characters suggest that material from Abraham 1 was utilized. Character 1.4, pha-ho-e-oop, is explained as representing “royal blood, royal blood, or pharaoh, or supreme power.” Character 1.15 actually appears to be a composite of three earlier characters: 1.10 (“zip-zi”: a daughter, either married or unmarried); 1.13 (“one-ah” or “ahe” or “oan”: below, under, water); and 1.14 (“iota”: to see, sight, eye, sometimes me or myself [I]), and it indicates “Egypt,” or, more accurately, “the land that was under water discovered by the daughter [of pharaoh].” This last description reflects the narrative found in Abraham 1:23–24.28 Yet, the alphabet also appears to be an expansion on concepts and subjects not found directly in the Abraham 1 translation.29 As noted earlier, the placing of God as the supreme power, the further identifications of royal family members (i.e., queen), the further identifying of time distinctions, and the creation, all suggest development from Abraham 1, but are not concepts explicitly found within the text.30 Since there is no Abraham 1 document or accounts of someone referencing a document that predates the ELD this still remains speculative, though the remainder of the article offers evidence that the Abrahamic manuscripts A, B, and C that postdate the ELD are not actual translations of the papyri and are not pure derivatives of the ELD.Perhaps more intriguing is the “second part, 1st degree” because of its relationship to the pure language text and Phelps's earlier letter, “A Specimen of some of the ‘Pure Language.’” In terms of organization, part 2 has fifty-nine characters, twenty-three of which are given names/pronunciations and attendant explanations, with another nineteen having only a name/pronunciation and no explanation/definition associated with the given character.31 There are also seventeen lines that contain characters with no identification either in terms of pronunciation or explanation. Of primary interest here are the first twenty-three characters given both names/pronunciations and an explanation/definition as they represent an expansion on the ontological categories found in the earlier documents mentioned at the top of this paragraph.The first eight lines (2.1–2.8) provide an ontological framework that appears to use the priesthood as the means of arranging the ontological states.32 Thus, the first character (2.1), “ahmeos” signifies “God without beginning or end,” followed by the second character (2.2), “aleph” that denotes “in the beginning with God, the Son, or the firstborn” (presumably an identification of Christ). Next is the character “albeth” (2.3) which denotes angels or disembodied spirits or the saints.” It is unclear whether the character can represent all three categories individually or if the character is reflecting a commonality that exists among all three ontological states. What the multiple identifications may indicate is that all three represent states of being that are third in position to the preceding two categories: God (2.1) and Christ (2.2). As to what they are exactly is not provided, but later characters and their explanations suggest that what is being laid out is the priesthood hierarchy with God presiding, followed by Christ in authority, and then the respective authority that could be held by those in these other ontological states.The character “albeth” (2.3) is then followed by “alkabeth” (2.4), which EA.A notes as “angels in an unalterable, immortal state.” EA.B contains an expansion, “angels in an unalterable state—sanctified or men after they are raised from the dead.” EA.C reflects both, “angels in an unalterable state, men after they are raised from the dead.” All three versions of the alphabet highlight the ontological state of the angel, namely its immortal, unalterable state, with EA.B and EA.C noting the origin of an angel, namely that it is a sanctified human who has experienced resurrection. The next four characters refer specifically to mortal individuals in relation to the priesthood: alkebeth (2.5) refers to “ministers of God, high priests, kings.” The character alkibeth (2.6) refers to “ministers of God under or the less” (EA.A); “ministers of God, less, or under the high priests” (EA.B); and “ministers of God less than high priests” (EA.C).” Alkobeth (2.7) refers to “ministers not ordained of God, sinful”; and finally, alkubeth (2.8) to “ministers who are less sinful for want of power.” The association of the last four characters with mortal states in association with priesthood suggests that all of the beings described so far in the second part are best understood in terms of the relationship between their ontological state and their priesthood. Thus, the character ahmeos (2.1) may reference not just God's eternal nature, but also his presiding position within the priesthood, which had also been defined in earlier revelations as an order “without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity” (Moses 6:67; see also Alma 13:7; JST Genesis 14:28; and Doctrine and Covenants 84:17). Within this priesthood ontology, aleph (2.2), or Christ, would be next in authority, followed by the ontological class of beings who held authority under God the Father and Christ. These beings could exist in three ontological states: sanctified, resurrected beings (angels); postmortal or premortal beings that lacked a body (disembodied spirits); and mortals (the saints). The general category could then be further specified, with angels being first defined and then the differing priesthood states of those in mortality.These first eight characters are then followed by six more that again focus on priesthood, this time noting a priesthood lineage. The first character, baeth (2.9), is the designation given to humankind. The next character, baeth-ka (2.10), indicates “Adam or first man or first king.” The character baeth-ke (2.11) signifies “the next from Adam, one ordained under him”; baeth-ki (2.12), “the third patriarch/the third ordained king under Adam, third patriarch/the third ordained under Adam”; baeth-ko (2.13), “the fourth from Adam”; and the final character being baeth-ku (2.14), “the fifth high priest from Adam.” Following the characters identifying the priesthood lineage, seven characters are provided that describe localities, or “residences,” in which presumably one could find the beings described in the characters preceding. The first of these seven characters is beth (2.15) that is used to indicate “man's first residence, a fruit garden, a great valley, a place of happiness,” suggestive of the Garden of Eden.33 Following the same pattern as the priesthood ontology and priesthood lineage above, the locality characters are distinguished from one another phonetically by changing the vowel, thus, the next character after be