Egyptian Alphabet And Grammar - Any Way To Distance Joseph Smith From It?

[TruthSeeker2013]

As many of you know, the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was written by Joseph Smith's scribes. Along the left hand side of its pages it contains Egyptian characters in the order they appear in the Small Sensen portion of the papyri. To the right of each character is a paragraph of the Book of Abraham text. Many see this as evidence that Joseph dictated a character by character translation of the Small Sensen portion of the papyri and the result is our present day Book of Abraham. As far as I am aware, no Egyptologist has found the Book of Abraham to be an accurate direct translation of the Egyptian characters on the Small Sensen portion of the papyri.

As a result, some have tried to distance the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar from Joseph Smith, suggesting that it was his scribes that wrote the characters in without Joseph's direction, or that the Egyptian characters were added in the margins at a later date, etc.

Is anyone aware of any evidence that EITHER distances Joseph Smith from the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar OR ties him to it?

[Robert F. Smith]

As many of you know, the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was written by Joseph Smith's scribes. Along the left hand side of its pages it contains Egyptian characters in the order they appear in the Small Sensen portion of the papyri. To the right of each character is a paragraph of the Book of Abraham text. Many see this as evidence that Joseph dictated a character by character translation of the Small Sensen portion of the papyri and the result is our present day Book of Abraham. As far as I am aware, no Egyptologist has found the Book of Abraham to be an accurate direct translation of the Egyptian characters on the Small Sensen portion of the papyri.

The only reason anyone would think that the Hor Sensen Papyrus could be the source of the Book of Abraham would be because the English text of the BofA refers back to the altar illustration at the beginning of the record (Abr 1:12). The problem there is that the illustration is Egyptian, whereas the altar is described as Chaldean (1:13), suggesting that the original illustration used 2 millennia earlier might have been quite different, and that the Jewish transmission of these writings inside Egypt used other illustrations to accomplish the same purpose, while including the Book of Abraham proper elsewhere on the Hor Sensen Papyrus. \

In considering these matters, most people are unaware there has been a large Jewish community in Egypt for around 2500 years, and that from the time of Lehi until about 140 A.D., there had been Jewish temples built and used in Egypt, and that many Jewish writings (including the Bible) had been transmitted within Egypt by Jewish scribes -- including major translations, such as the LXX.

As a result, some have tried to distance the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar from Joseph Smith, suggesting that it was his scribes that wrote the characters in without Joseph's direction, or that the Egyptian characters were added in the margins at a later date, etc.

Some attempt to tie Joseph to the Grammar & Alphabet materials, and some attempt to distance him from them, rather than asking more serious and relevant questions.

Is anyone aware of any evidence that EITHER distances Joseph Smith from the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar OR ties him to it?

There has been a good deal of discussion of this question here on this board in the past, with no final resolution, due simply to lack of conclusive evidence either way.

A reasonable summary might be that W. W. Phelps is known to have begun work on ciphers already before the papyri and mummies arrived in Kirtland, that the Grammar & Alphabet materials may have been a continuation of that effort. Or, those materials may have been an effort to create a translation key for future work on Egyptian materials (as actually used later in the failed Kinderhook Plate translation effort), apparently as a purely secular means of translation. It is obvious that these materials were incomplete, perhaps using a pre-existing complete Book of Abraham manuscript (although none has been found).

[TruthSeeker2013]

A reasonable summary might be that W. W. Phelps is known to have begun work on ciphers already before the papyri and mummies arrived in Kirtland, that the Grammar & Alphabet materials may have been a continuation of that effort. Or, those materials may have been an effort to create a translation key for future work on Egyptian materials (as actually used later in the failed Kinderhook Plate translation effort), apparently as a purely secular means of translation. It is obvious that these materials were incomplete, perhaps using a pre-existing complete Book of Abraham manuscript (although none has been found).

Thanks, I'll try to track this down.

[noel00]

Chris Smith did an interesting paper on the matter

http://www.academia.edu/2357346/The_Dependence_of_Abraham_1_1-3_on_the_Egyptian_Alphabet_and_Grammar

[Hamilton Porter]

Are there rules against manipulative thread titles?

[TruthSeeker2013]

Are there rules against manipulative thread titles?

How is it manipulative?

[TruthSeeker2013]

Chris Smith did an interesting paper on the matter

http://www.academia....bet_and_Grammar

Thanks!

[omni]

As many of you know, the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was written by Joseph Smith's scribes. Along the left hand side of its pages it contains Egyptian characters in the order they appear in the Small Sensen portion of the papyri. To the right of each character is a paragraph of the Book of Abraham text. Many see this as evidence that Joseph dictated a character by character translation of the Small Sensen portion of the papyri and the result is our present day Book of Abraham. As far as I am aware, no Egyptologist has found the Book of Abraham to be an accurate direct translation of the Egyptian characters on the Small Sensen portion of the papyri.

As a result, some have tried to distance the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar from Joseph Smith, suggesting that it was his scribes that wrote the characters in without Joseph's direction, or that the Egyptian characters were added in the margins at a later date, etc.

Is anyone aware of any evidence that EITHER distances Joseph Smith from the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar OR ties him to it?

It was quite common during that time for groups of men with no linguistic training to not only translate, but create alphabets for ancient languages they had never scene before. This is exactly what JS's scribes were doing. In the future I'd recommend not imposing your modern Western sensibilities on them.

[tagriffy]

Is anyone aware of any evidence that EITHER distances Joseph Smith from the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar OR ties him to it?

I am aware of arguments both ways. The Smith article referenced above provides references that should allow you to see both sides of the argument. I think the real question is, "What does it matter?"

[TruthSeeker2013]

I am aware of arguments both ways. The Smith article referenced above provides references that should allow you to see both sides of the argument. I think the real question is, "What does it matter?"

I think it matters. If Joseph did dictate it then it's clear proof that he was attempting a direct translation and failed. This suggests (but is not definitive by any means) that Joseph perhaps didn't have the ability to translate and the BOA is either a product of man alone or revelation from God while Joseph thought he was translating it.

I think it doesn't matter only to people who have already concluded that the BOA is true or that the BOA is false.

[tagriffy]

I think it matters. If Joseph did dictate it then it's clear proof that he was attempting a direct translation and failed. This suggests (but is not definitive by any means) that Joseph perhaps didn't have the ability to translate and the BOA is either a product of man alone or revelation from God while Joseph thought he was translating it.

I think it doesn't matter only to people who have already concluded that the BOA is true or that the BOA is false.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea the BOA is a revelation from God while Joseph thought he was translating it. Indeed, whatever Joseph's connection to the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, the Book of Abraham is revelation.

True or false in what sense? Like the Book of Mormon, the only relevant question is whether God speaks to you through it.

[cdowis]

I think it matters. If Joseph did dictate it then it's clear proof that he was attempting a direct translation and failed.

(emphasis mine)

As I have said in other posts, it all depends on your assumptions. You are assuming a strict, literal translation.

Tvedtnes has suggested that it is possible that he actually succeeded, given another assumption of the translation process. The manuscript was written as a mneumonic device, and he has shown how the EAG fits that model.

This theory has yet to be disproved, just ignored.

Edited June 7, 2013 by cdowis

[Closet Doubter]

It was quite common during that time for groups of men with no linguistic training to not only translate, but create alphabets for ancient languages they had never scene before. This is exactly what JS's scribes were doing. In the future I'd recommend not imposing your modern Western sensibilities on them.

Other than in Kirtland and Nauvoo, do you have examples of others with no linguistic training attempting to translate and create alphabets? "Quite Common" implies there are a lot of people doing this.

[Closet Doubter]

I'm perfectly fine with the idea the BOA is a revelation from God while Joseph thought he was translating it. Indeed, whatever Joseph's connection to the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, the Book of Abraham is revelation.

I for one am not fine with this change that appears to be taking place regarding the Churches teaching on the origin of the Book of Abraham. From the earliest I can remember I was taught that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from egyptian papyrus. I was taught that the Book of Moses was a revelation given to Joseph, the same revelation that was given to Moses, but the Book of Abraham was a literal translation from the Papyri. Now the church is back tracking saying that maybe Joseph didn't really know he was being given a revelation and he thought he was actually translating but he wasn't.

If we are really led by Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, maybe it's time for them to do their job and let us know what it really is. The arc is falling, the people charged with keeping the arc steady are watching it fall without doing what is reqired to stabilize it, and they are leaving it to people like the arc steadiers on this board and other venues to try and figure it out.

[Deborah]

I find Will Schryver's presentation interesting on this topic: http://www.fairlds.o...n-papers-part-i

He's got a lot of disagreement but it made sense to me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I find Will Schryver's presentation interesting on this topic: http://www.fairlds.o...n-papers-part-i

He's got a lot of disagreement but it made sense to me.

I concour.

[stemelbow]

I for one am not fine with this change that appears to be taking place regarding the Churches teaching on the origin of the Book of Abraham. From the earliest I can remember I was taught that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from egyptian papyrus. I was taught that the Book of Moses was a revelation given to Joseph, the same revelation that was given to Moses, but the Book of Abraham was a literal translation from the Papyri. Now the church is back tracking saying that maybe Joseph didn't really know he was being given a revelation and he thought he was actually translating but he wasn't.

If we are really led by Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, maybe it's time for them to do their job and let us know what it really is. The arc is falling, the people charged with keeping the arc steady are watching it fall without doing what is reqired to stabilize it, and they are leaving it to people like the arc steadiers on this board and other venues to try and figure it out.

I think it's clear its really all about bias. if you expect it to be done a certain way and we find it wasn't, then there is a problem for you. But if you are open to the idea that God can do things in ways we simply don't understand or know, and open to the idea of personal reveltion, it may not be any such problem.

Its all about personal bias at this point, it seems.

[tagriffy]

(emphasis mine)

As I have said in other posts, it all depends on your assumptions. You are assuming a strict, literal translation.

Tvedtnes has suggested that it is possible that he actually succeeded, given another assumption of the translation process. The manuscript was written as a mneumonic device, and he has shown how the EAG fits that model.

This theory has yet to be disproved, just ignored.

It is not as ignored as you might think. I don't use the term "mneumonic" because it denotes something that is an aid to memory (think of flash cards used to memorize a multiplication table). I basically agree with Tvedtnes, but I would say the papyri and/or the EAG served as a springboard for revelation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

but I would say the papyri and/or the EAG served as a springboard for revelation.

I am not sure there is evidence to support this. If there is I would ask you to present this. I think there is quite a bit of evidence that WW Phelps started this project and was the one in charge of it. Edited June 7, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[omni]

Other than in Kirtland and Nauvoo, do you have examples of others with no linguistic training attempting to translate and create alphabets? "Quite Common" implies there are a lot of people doing this.

It was actually my failed attempt at humor. A common apologetic response for the EAG was that it was JS's scribes' who made the failed attempt, not JS. So why didn't JS destroy or at least denounce the EAG knowing the scribes had no translation ability and that a failed translation would only give him a bad name?

[tagriffy]

I for one am not fine with this change that appears to be taking place regarding the Churches teaching on the origin of the Book of Abraham. From the earliest I can remember I was taught that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from egyptian papyrus. I was taught that the Book of Moses was a revelation given to Joseph, the same revelation that was given to Moses, but the Book of Abraham was a literal translation from the Papyri. Now the church is back tracking saying that maybe Joseph didn't really know he was being given a revelation and he thought he was actually translating but he wasn't.

If we are really led by Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, maybe it's time for them to do their job and let us know what it really is. The arc is falling, the people charged with keeping the arc steady are watching it fall without doing what is reqired to stabilize it, and they are leaving it to people like the arc steadiers on this board and other venues to try and figure it out.

We've gotten new information that confirms the BoA isn't a literal translation of the papyri. On any given topic, new knowledge can force us to rethink what we thought we once knew. Look at what quantum mechanics has done to physics. Sure the Church might have better prepared the Saints to accept the possibility the BoA is not a literal translation (Egyptologists aren't anything about the papyri that they weren't already saying about the facsimiles). But we have what we have, and like any other human being, we can only try to make sense of it.

This may be a radical idea if you are used to seeing revelation in propositional terms, but we should consider the idea that not even prophets don't fully understand what they are receiving. To use the terms of a famous bumper sticker, revelation happens. The prophet can only report what happened and his/her best understanding of what it means. Sometimes what they think is happening is not what is actually happening. All that means is that prophets, seers, and revelators are just as human as the rest of us.

[Closet Doubter]

I think it's clear its really all about bias. if you expect it to be done a certain way and we find it wasn't, then there is a problem for you. But if you are open to the idea that God can do things in ways we simply don't understand or know, and open to the idea of personal reveltion, it may not be any such problem.

Its all about personal bias at this point, it seems.

I don't expect it to be done any way at all. I expect that when I am taught how it was done that I will be taught truthfully. I can't believe a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator" can translate from papyrus and not realize he isn't really translating and that the scribes that are helping him also think he is translating when he really isn't. The bigger problem is that if what we were taught about this is not truthful, how many other things that we have been taught are also not truthful. What can I believe and what can't I believe.

[tagriffy]

I am not sure there is evidence to support this. If there is I would ask you to present this. I think there is quite a bit of evidence that WW Phelps started this project and was the one in charge of it.

I think the Christopher Smith paper referenced above presents enough evidence to conclude Smith was involved in trying to translate the papyri.

[tagriffy]

I don't expect it to be done any way at all. I expect that when I am taught how it was done that I will be taught truthfully. I can't believe a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator" can translate from papyrus and not realize he isn't really translating and that the scribes that are helping him also think he is translating when he really isn't. The bigger problem is that if what we were taught about this is not truthful, how many other things that we have been taught are also not truthful. What can I believe and what can't I believe.

You weigh the evidence the and then you decide what you can and can't believe.

[USU78]

I don't expect it to be done any way at all. I expect that when I am taught how it was done that I will be taught truthfully. I can't believe a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator" can translate from papyrus and not realize he isn't really translating and that the scribes that are helping him also think he is translating when he really isn't. The bigger problem is that if what we were taught about this is not truthful, how many other things that we have been taught are also not truthful. What can I believe and what can't I believe.

Is it or is it not the truth to say the both the BoA and the BoM were translated "by the gift and power of G-d"?

We don't know and probably will never know the details.

Just what is it you want?