721 replies to this topic

[PacMan]

thews,

Whatever tenants of buffoonery you seem complicit in promulgating, please be advised that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.  Let me give to quick examples before I try and catch a wink (gotta love EST).

1) Your understanding surrounding the history of the Rosetta Stone is incorrect.  As such, you should stop gulping the erroneous rhetoric of those like Robert Ritner whom haven't the foggiest about what they're talking about.  Ignoring Young altogether (whom Franklin, Jefferson, etc. were aware of and first stated Champollion's theory of phonetic alphabetization), Champollion's work was well circulated not only in Europe, but had crossed the pond and was well-disseminated in the States long before Joseph got into 'translating' Egyptian.  [P.S. Translation was a very, loose term for Joseph.  The Book of Moses is an example: completely a revelation without text, but still a 'translation'].  Rittner's claim that "In 1835 in America, there was no one who could read ancient Egyptian.   All knowledge of the language had been lost for centuries,"  Is simply wrong.  Champollion's work had surfaced and began a broad distribution in the U.S. by the mid 1820's--published in some of the greatest journals and circulated in papers throughout the U.S. at that time.

What does this mean?  First, the germane issue is whether Joseph and friends knew of the nature of Egyptian...not how to translate it.  If Joseph, et. al knew about the nature of Egyptian characters (which I am compelled to believe that they did), the idea that the GAEL is illustrative of a on-going translation suggests nonsense and logical incoherence.  Why would they treat the text in a manner which was known to be inconsistent with the latest science of the day?  However, if the revelation came first--knowing it came from the papyri and believing it was limited to the text--the GAEL was a backdoor attempt to make it fit.  A failure of reverse engineering, but an attempt nonetheless.


2) Your understanding of Kinderhook is greatly simplistic.  CFR.  The singular journal account which you implicitly state as fact is overzealous, and doesn't conclude as you wish it would.  Moreover, the newspaper's announcement that Joseph would translate it does little to embarrass his seership without an announcement of subsequent findings.  Your conspiracy lacks bite.  And originality.

Cheers,
PacMan

P.S.  All: Ignore my spelling conflations and grammatical equivocations.  I'm simply to tired (and lazy) to go fix them all.

Edited by PacMan, 11 October 2009 - 09:33 PM.

[USU78]

Brent Metcalfe, on 11 October 2009 - 08:51 PM, said:

The "Mehitabel" that I was referring to was W. W.'s mother -- that is, young Mehitabel's grandmother, not her "great-grandmother" as you suggest.

I think Will's thinking of Mehitabel the Cat from Archie & Mehitabel.

Archie was a cockroach.

R

[noel00]

Great paper Chris - Thanks for sending me a copy to the land down under. I am doing a paper on
Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Its been very hard to stay within 2000 words. Maybe you could look at it
and give me your critical comments since your speciality is church history.

[PacMan]

USU78, on 11 October 2009 - 09:28 PM, said:

I think Will's thinking of Mehitabel the Cat from Archie & Mehitabel.

Archie was a cockroach.

R

But most importantly, Jeremiah was a bullfrog.

[Chris Smith]

noel00, on 11 October 2009 - 09:35 PM, said:

Great paper Chris - Thanks for sending me a copy to the land down under. I am doing a paper on Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Its been very hard to stay within 2000 words. Maybe you could look at it and give me your critical comments since your speciality is church history.

Hey noel,

I'd be happy to give it a look.  Don't expect too terribly much, though, since Bonhoeffer's not my specialty.  I've only read a couple of his works, and seen a couple documentaries.  Most likely I will simply praise your learning and intellect.  

Is this something you're hoping to publish?

Peace,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

PacMan,

Yes, news of Champollion's discovery had crossed the pond, as had some more specific information about his findings.  Charles Anthon, in fact, was one of those "in the know" on this rather arcane historical subject.  But I can't imagine why you are "compelled" to believe Joseph Smith was privy to this information.  In fact, I think it's kind of funny, given how much flak the critics take for presuming that Joseph was well-read.

In order to make your case, I'd want more specific evidence.  For example, 1) Name specific publications known to have been owned or read by Joseph Smith that discussed Champollion's findings, 2) Name specific scholars in 1835 who would have been able to accurately translate Chandler's papyrus, and/or 3) Provide a quote or statement from Joseph Smith that demonstrates he knew the true nature and workings of the Egyptian language.

Best,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

Brent Metcalfe, on 11 October 2009 - 09:20 PM, said:

*sigh*...


So you do know the intimate relationship between Joseph Smith's revelation and W. W. Phelps' letter to Sally... or do you?...

My best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
--Raymond E. Brown

I know what you think the relationship is between them.

[William Schryver]

Chris Smith, on 11 October 2009 - 09:53 PM, said:

PacMan,

Yes, news of Champollion's discovery had crossed the pond, as had some more specific information about his findings.  Charles Anthon, in fact, was one of those "in the know" on this rather arcane historical subject.  But I can't imagine why you are "compelled" to believe Joseph Smith was privy to this information.  In fact, I think it's kind of funny, given how much flak the critics take for presuming that Joseph was well-read.

In order to make your case, I'd want more specific evidence.  For example, 1) Name specific publications known to have been owned or read by Joseph Smith that discussed Champollion's findings, 2) Name specific scholars in 1835 who would have been able to accurately translate Chandler's papyrus, and/or 3) Provide a quote or statement from Joseph Smith that demonstrates he knew the true nature and workings of the Egyptian language.

Best,

-Chris

I, for one, don't believe (at least at this juncture) that Joseph Smith knew much, if anything, about the details (such as they were available at the time) of Champollion's decipherment of the Rosetta Stone.

As for W. W. Phelps ...

Edited by William Schryver, 11 October 2009 - 10:04 PM.

[Brent Metcalfe]

*sigh*...

... again...

William Schryver, on 11 October 2009 - 09:58 PM, said:

I know what you think the relationship is between them.

Yes, you've already trotted out your "clairvoyant gift." So, what do I "think the relationship is between them"? (And please, quote the sources and provide your own analysis.)

Cheers,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
--Raymond E. Brown

[gtaggart]

Brent Metcalfe, on 11 October 2009 - 08:51 PM, said:

Hi Will,

The "Mehitabel" that I was referring to was W. W.'s mother -- that is, young Mehitabel's grandmother, not her "great-grandmother" as you suggest.

And above all, it is abundantly clear that you are completely unaware of the fact that much of the content of W. W.'s missive to Sally on the "pure language" owes its inspiration to a revelation that Joseph issued ca. March 1832.

Hi Greg,

Since I evidently have nothing new to add to Will's knowledge, I'm sure that he'll be able to provide the source within the next few minutes.

All the best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)


------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
--Raymond E. Brown

Okay, I'll cut back on my tithing and get the source of the "unpublished revelation" from Will later. In any case, I take it you agree with Will's explanation of your wiggle words "owe their inspiration to" since you chose to not respond to that part of my query:

Quote

"owe their inspiration" = "very well could be" = "it is likely" = "most probably" = "very possible" = etc.

If you'd like more examples of this amazingly versatile literary device, I recommend a thorough reading of Dan Vogel's seminal work in this area: Joseph Smith - The Making of a Prophet.

Can't tell you how excited I am to watch the cage match between you and Brian Hauglid. Been waiting since the Prophet's 200th birthday.

[Anijen]

William Schryver, on 10 October 2009 - 08:59 PM, said:

You'd have to elaborate on what you mean by "practice" because I'm doubtful that I'm understanding your intent in using that particular word.

Well I was typing rather quickly. I need to be more specific. As I read and watch papers and video from Brian Hauglid I have to concur with his idea that perhaps the KEPE were unsuccessful attempts of some of the early brethren to figure out the translation and were used as study papers (I wrote practice pads) which Joseph had already completed The translation of the Book of Abraham or was very close to it.. Joseph had earlier gave blessings to Oliver, WW Phelps and Perrish to know mysteries, language, etc. These men has a strong desires to learn and receive of those blessings. Like Oliver earlier not able to translate the Book of Mormon these brethren tried in fact a serious attempt was made but like Oliver earlier was they were not able.

Edited by Anijen, 12 October 2009 - 01:03 AM.

[Anijen]

Chris Smith, on 07 October 2009 - 05:48 PM, said:

Hey Anijen,

Most of what Hauglid discusses does not bear on my essay.  However, in Pt. 4 he does argue that pg. 1 of translation ms 1 (which contains Abr. 1:1-3) is not a dictated text, because it has punctuation and it uses superscripted numbers to show which characters correspond to which English text.  This leads Hauglid to the conclusion that this portion of MS 1 was copied from some other document.  Well, to a certain degree I actually agree with Hauglid.  Much of the phrasing here was copied from the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.  The different mode of composition for these three verses accounts for the peculiarities of the manuscript.  These verses weren't dictated in the straightforward way that the Book of Mormon was.

- Chris

Chris I took a couple days to read your paper and take some notes. I am such a novice with the KEPE so please bear with me. On your paper that you emailed me was missing the bibliography I wanted to read some of the sources and wasn't able

I am still a bit confused on this fifth degree etc it does seem to be a weird grid system but that might be just my naivete showing up.

I am still unconvinced what you think is translation I feel it is dictation. In your paper you quote in nice colors but to tell the truth I had to read it a few times to figure out your point. Again that is more my lack of understanding than a knock on your writing skills. For example of you quoting Abraham 1:1-3;

Quote

  1 In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence;
  2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.
  3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

This as I have learned is a very common mistake that shows up in tons of works were the scribe will look on one section (I underline the fathers here) and then writes it down and then his eye goes back but focuses on a father later and results are missing portions of the work. I think this actually happens in one of the KEPE Mss but I couldn't say which.

I also have trouble going from one labeling system to another it confuses me easily I read words like GAEL, KEP, KEPE, Mss, Abraham Manuscripts and Egyptian manuscripts, BoA text or Alphabet, Counting and grammar, leaves, pages, were one writing was done before another but labeled later and then on back a continuation of even another. All this without any sources to pictures of the KEPE because of copyright. There is ink analysis, colors, overwriting, all from believe it or not photographs. As Hauglid might ask how does one do an analysis on ink from a photograph? Old photos at that.It is a mess to me and no wonder those who dive into at first have a doe in the headlights look. That is another reason for me to side with Hauglid over Metcalf and yourself he has studied original KEPE manuscripts under microscopes.

All I can say is I really wish Metcalf's book he has been promising will come out soon. I also cant wait to read Gees and Hauglid's new works that will be out soon. Take care thanks for your patience with my NOOBness

Anijen

Edited to say a lot of those things I have trouble with was not just in your paper but all my reading there doesn't seem to be a consensus on labeling...

Edited by Anijen, 12 October 2009 - 01:16 AM.

[Anijen]

Oh for all those who read my chicken scratch well I just want to say The BoA is an inspiration and true revelation. I am thankful for it. I am thankful for modern day prophets. I am thankful for scholars who spend so much time studying these things so guys like me can better understand. Just thought you might wanna know where I stand.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Anijen,

Yes, I understand the numbering systems can be confusing, especially since people are using several different systems.  I find people also confuse the Alphabet manuscripts with the Translation manuscripts.  Not only are these manuscripts variously numbered and mostly unavailable to the public, but there are also a whole lot of them, and they are incredibly complex.  You're right; some confusion on the part of newbies is perfectly understandable.  Hopefully Hauglid's publication will help clear up the confusion for you.

As for the footnotes, please note that the first time a reference is given I give the full citation, whereas if I use the same citation again it is abbreviated.  So if there's an abbreviated citation for a source you want to read, you have to go back in the footnotes and find the first time it appeared.

Peace,

-Chris

[thews]

PacMan, on 11 October 2009 - 09:28 PM, said:

thews,

Whatever tenants of buffoonery you seem complicit in promulgating, please be advised that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.  Let me give to quick examples before I try and catch a wink (gotta love EST).

1) Your understanding surrounding the history of the Rosetta Stone is incorrect.  As such, you should stop gulping the erroneous rhetoric of those like Robert Ritner whom haven't the foggiest about what they're talking about.  Ignoring Young altogether (whom Franklin, Jefferson, etc. were aware of and first stated Champollion's theory of phonetic alphabetization), Champollion's work was well circulated not only in Europe, but had crossed the pond and was well-disseminated in the States long before Joseph got into 'translating' Egyptian.  [P.S. Translation was a very, loose term for Joseph.  The Book of Moses is an example: completely a revelation without text, but still a 'translation'].  Rittner's claim that "In 1835 in America, there was no one who could read ancient Egyptian.   All knowledge of the language had been lost for centuries,"  Is simply wrong.  Champollion's work had surfaced and began a broad distribution in the U.S. by the mid 1820's--published in some of the greatest journals and circulated in papers throughout the U.S. at that time.

Oh I see... "translation" is now redefined to start to make your story fit? I don't think so... Joseph Smith claimed to know how to translate ancient languages. This is what brought the Greek psalter to him and eventually the mummies that were for sale. If you're trying to claim the Egyptian code was cracked and everyone knew about it in 1835... well it is possible I guess, but 1827 to 1835 wouldn't have produced many experts, especially in the US.  

http://en.wikipedia....i/Rosetta_Stone

Quote

In 1858, the Philomathean Society of the University of Pennsylvania published the first complete English translation of the Rosetta Stone as accomplished by three of its undergraduate members: Charles R Hale, S Huntington Jones, and Henry Morton.[4]

Quote

What does this mean?  First, the germane issue is whether Joseph and friends knew of the nature of Egyptian...not how to translate it.  If Joseph, et. al knew about the nature of Egyptian characters (which I am compelled to believe that they did), the idea that the GAEL is illustrative of a on-going translation suggests nonsense and logical incoherence.  Why would they treat the text in a manner which was known to be inconsistent with the latest science of the day?  However, if the revelation came first--knowing it came from the papyri and believing it was limited to the text--the GAEL was a backdoor attempt to make it fit.  A failure of reverse engineering, but an attempt nonetheless.

I'm not following you here. When you say, "Why would they treat the text in a manner which was known to be inconsistent with the latest science of the day?" are you implying they knew enough about translating Egyptian to prevent then from making such big mistakes? And then when you say, "However, if the revelation came first--knowing it came from the papyri and believing it was limited to the text--the GAEL was a backdoor attempt to make it fit," are you implying that Joseph Smith received his revelation from the papyrus, and then wrote the Book of Abraham, and then tried to write the EAG but failed?

Quote

2) Your understanding of Kinderhook is greatly simplistic.  CFR.  The singular journal account which you implicitly state as fact is overzealous, and doesn't conclude as you wish it would.  Moreover, the newspaper's announcement that Joseph would translate it does little to embarrass his seership without an announcement of subsequent findings.  Your conspiracy lacks bite.  And originality.

Cheers,
PacMan

P.S.  All: Ignore my spelling conflations and grammatical equivocations.  I'm simply to tired (and lazy) to go fix them all.

Regarding the Kinderhook plates, are you claiming that Joseph Smith knew they were fake and didn't attempt to translate them?

[thews]

Chris Smith, on 11 October 2009 - 06:52 PM, said:

Yes.

my bad... sorry.

[William Schryver]

USU78, on 11 October 2009 - 09:28 PM, said:

I think Will's thinking of Mehitabel the Cat from Archie & Mehitabel.

Archie was a cockroach.

R

Quote

The girl's name Mehitabel:

“Mehi-ta-bel” is of Hebrew origin, and its meaning is "God rejoices". Biblical name used by writer Don Marquis in his tales of the great friends "archy and mehitabel", a cockroach and a cat.

Almost makes me wish I had another baby girl to name.  I've got a Rachel, a Hannah, a Miriam ... I think "Mehitabel" is the logical "next in line."

[William Schryver]

Brent Metcalfe, on 11 October 2009 - 10:22 PM, said:

*sigh*...

... again...


Yes, you've already trotted out your "clairvoyant gift." So, what do I "think the relationship is between them"? (And please, quote the sources and provide your own analysis.)

Cheers,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
--Raymond E. Brown

"Provide [my] own analysis"?  Oh, I don't know.  [trembles with dread at the mere thought] I've never yet had an original thought on any of these questions, so I'm not sure I'm prepared at this juncture to deviate from that pattern.

In any case, one lesson I've learned along the way (although it was probably suggested to me by others, since--as I've made clear above--I have no original thoughts) is that message boards are no place for publishing a formal treatise on anything of real import.  To be sure, they serve a purpose from time to time, and I don't intend to entirely abandon this one for that very reason.

As for your beliefs concerning the relationship between the 1832 revelation and Phelps's May 1835 letter, I think I'm content to let you speak for yourself, despite the fact that I'm fairly confident your position is substantially consistent with the posture Chris assumes on the question in his paper that is the topic of this thread.  If your views differ substantially from his, you're certainly free to elaborate on those differences.  Or not.  As you choose, of course.

I'm persuaded that Smith's paper merits and will receive a formal response at some point in the relatively near future.  As I indicated above, I found the paper very valuable on many levels, although perhaps not for the reasons Chris intended.

Also, Chris queried you last night:

Quote

P.S. Brent, are you saying that the characters were part of the March 1832 Adamic revelation?

And you never responded.  Why not?

[William Schryver]

Metcalfe:

Quote

... it is abundantly clear that you are completely unaware of the fact that much of the content of W. W.'s missive to Sally on the "pure language" owes its inspiration to a revelation that Joseph issued ca. March 1832.

Yes.  Quite.

It has been a Will Schryver replicant reading about said relationship in Chris's paper for the past several days, and another one discussing it with others familiar with the question.  The real Will Schryver has been languishing in the squalor of his single-wide a few miles downwind from Ely, and only emerged from his quasi-perpetual daze in order for you to enlighten him on these matters on this message board.  Now, can I get back to my Twilight Zone reruns?  (They look real good on my new 9" black and white TV from the pawn shop.  Only $15!  And it came with the vice-grips for changing channels!)

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Thanks for pointing me to Chris' question (I inadvertently skipped over it). The answer is no, the manuscript revelation on "pure language" doesn't include the characters in Phelps' May 1835 letter. That wasn't my point. My point centers on the fact that the content of all but one of the six translations that Phelps recorded derives from Joseph Smith's then unpublished 1832 revelation. That evinces an intimate relationship between Phelps' report and Joseph Smith.

But there is much, much more...

In your considered opinion, Will, what would you say is the fundamental difference between the character set on the left and the character set on the right?





...

All the best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
--Raymond E. Brown