Please Criticize "by His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" By Charles Larson

[krose]

Let's see...

You know what? I'm going to do what I should have done the second you responded. I will concede.

You are right. I agree that all these people are anti-Mormons. That's the best and most appropriate description for them.

I will also agree that the title of this book is dishonest. I look forward to your comments on the major themes of the book, if you desire to make such a contribution.

You are an extremely polite and gracious person, with nothing but kind words for all you meet. A true gentleman. I ask your forgiveness for insulting you without provocation.

[jwhitlock]

That's interesting. Your personal situation when encountering such things obviously makes a lot of difference.

After reading Ferguson's story and the Larson book, followed by Gee's review and as much of Nibley's BoA-related material as I could take, I concluded that it was a pretty clear win for the BoA critics. Of course I had no emotional attachments to it at the time, no faith to threaten or buttress. I had already decided that religions and deities were probably human creations a few years before I learned about any of the "problems" with Mormonism. The "anti" materials that I read later, such as the Tanners' works and BHOH, just served as further confirmation of that decision. And the arguments of hidden meanings, missing scrolls, and "how could JS have known..." are interesting, but not convincing when weighing the sides.

I haven't had much time today to either read BHOH over again or to respond.

However, we all have our personal perspectives on what we will accept as strongest evidence - based on our presuppositions and foundational beliefs.

For one who has already made the decision that Joseph Smith was a fraud, BHOH will serve as strong evidence - because it is well written and supports their belief system.

However, to those who carry a different perspective of Joseph Smith, that he was a prophet, who also have come to realize that he was also an imperfect man, BHOH is considered deceptive.

Joseph was a complex person. The first thing that I noticed (which I believe Gee noted also) was that Larson emphasized only one possible explanation for what was happening in Kirtland - without noting that other explanations were possible, especially when presented with a time frame of events, such as Joseph's acquisition of the scrolls, that does not mesh properly with Larson's historical setting.

Larson tries to set the stage that Joseph came up with the BofA because things were falling apart in Kirtland and he had to rally the troops. This is weak, at best. It is not supported by the sequence of events that occurred, nor is it supported by the actual historical reality. One can read of that period of time as described by Bushman, for instance, to get a better idea of what was really going on.

Hence, Larson's foundational claim of why the BofA was translated by Joseph - as a claimed response to the need to "shore up the faithful" - is very weak from a historical perspective. Not only that, but the reasoning of additional revelation needed, when other revelation was already being received, does not follow.

Larson proceeds with the rest of the book from a weak foundational position. I feel that BHOH is deceptive in that it cherry picks a weak historical theory, to the exclusion of consideration of any other causes of what was going on at Kirtland, and then builds from there. I think that Larson understood that there were other things happening at Kirtland that were more likely explanations of what was going on. I also think that the only reason Larson picked such a historical theory (Joseph translating the BofA only to shore up a sinking Church) was because it was the only possibility that could support the rest of his theory. If you have to base your premise on such a weak position, it calls into question the rest of the house of cards that you are building.

Gee is more direct in indicating that Larson's position on this theory is so weak as to be almost a non-existent possibility. I concur.

This is why I think BHOH is deceptive. Larson cherry picks and manipulates events that only support his presuppositions - and the events that he chooses are so weak as reasons for the coming forth of the BofA as to question his honesty in writing in a clear and unbiased manner, as the forward infers.

I am not particularly qualified to argue concerning Egyptian meanings. I can, however, look at Larson's methodology and judge whether he is indeed presenting an honest and balanced portrayal of events. In that respect, he falls very short.

I'll continue posting as time and my reading schedule permits.

[krose]

I haven't had much time today to either read BHOH over again or to respond.

However, we all have our personal perspectives on what we will accept as strongest evidence - based on our presuppositions and foundational beliefs.

For one who has already made the decision that Joseph Smith was a fraud, BHOH will serve as strong evidence - because it is well written and supports their belief system.

However, to those who carry a different perspective of Joseph Smith, that he was a prophet, who also have come to realize that he was also an imperfect man, BHOH is considered deceptive.

Joseph was a complex person. The first thing that I noticed (which I believe Gee noted also) was that Larson emphasized only one possible explanation for what was happening in Kirtland - without noting that other explanations were possible, especially when presented with a time frame of events, such as Joseph's acquisition of the scrolls, that does not mesh properly with Larson's historical setting.

Larson tries to set the stage that Joseph came up with the BofA because things were falling apart in Kirtland and he had to rally the troops. This is weak, at best. It is not supported by the sequence of events that occurred, nor is it supported by the actual historical reality. One can read of that period of time as described by Bushman, for instance, to get a better idea of what was really going on.

Hence, Larson's foundational claim of why the BofA was translated by Joseph - as a claimed response to the need to "shore up the faithful" - is very weak from a historical perspective. Not only that, but the reasoning of additional revelation needed, when other revelation was already being received, does not follow.

Larson proceeds with the rest of the book from a weak foundational position. I feel that BHOH is deceptive in that it cherry picks a weak historical theory, to the exclusion of consideration of any other causes of what was going on at Kirtland, and then builds from there. I think that Larson understood that there were other things happening at Kirtland that were more likely explanations of what was going on. I also think that the only reason Larson picked such a historical theory (Joseph translating the BofA only to shore up a sinking Church) was because it was the only possibility that could support the rest of his theory. If you have to base your premise on such a weak position, it calls into question the rest of the house of cards that you are building.

Gee is more direct in indicating that Larson's position on this theory is so weak as to be almost a non-existent possibility. I concur.

This is why I think BHOH is deceptive. Larson cherry picks and manipulates events that only support his presuppositions - and the events that he chooses are so weak as reasons for the coming forth of the BofA as to question his honesty in writing in a clear and unbiased manner, as the forward infers.

I am not particularly qualified to argue concerning Egyptian meanings. I can, however, look at Larson's methodology and judge whether he is indeed presenting an honest and balanced portrayal of events. In that respect, he falls very short.

I'll continue posting as time and my reading schedule permits.

Some good points. However, I didn't think the historical background was essential foundation for the real "smoking gun" part of the story, so even if that part is not 100% accurate, that doesn't damage the main thrust (unless you take the position that being wrong about one thing taints the whole).

I thought Larson did a good job of showing that the papyri currently in the church's possession are highly likely to be the very documents that were "translated." And I understand there is a consensus that those documents do not contain the text of the Book of Abraham.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I thought Larson did a good job of showing that the papyri currently in the church's possession are highly likely to be the very documents that were "translated." And I understand there is a consensus that those documents do not contain the text of the Book of Abraham.

For me this seems to be the whole arguement. Eye witness accounts tell us that there was a whole lot more papyri than what the church currently has. So if any thing it is silly to try to base an argument on things that are so not cut and dry as Larson whould have us believe.

[Olavarria]

the couch in questian

AIDIO ORICH THAMBITO, Abraham who at... PLANOIEGCHIBIOTH bind them and the whole soul for her, NN [whom NN bore]... the female body of her, NN [whom NN bore], I conjure by the... [and] to inflame her, NN whom [NN bore] [Write these] words together with this picture [the lion couch vignette] on a new papyrus.

Lieden I 384 shows us:

1)At least 1 ancient egyptian priest from the greco roman period knew about the biblical Abraham*

2) At least 1 ancient egyptian priest from the greco roman period connected the biblical Abraham with a lion couch, an Anubis and a mummy.

3) Joseph Smith Jr. was the the first modern to connect Abraham with a lion couch, an Anubis and a mummy.

Resistance is futile

OK, I confess, Im lazy.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/167911.ctl

*The same guy who made Leiden 384 made leiden 384

Leiden papyrus 383

" ....O god hohos, cause to be sealed, be satisfied, be satisfied, Jehovah. I never appear appear without causing awe, soul of souls., Jehovah Ariaha, Ariaha, act for her, while they turn the face of the rebel, four sided one, Ianian; we act while I initiate the four-sided one. Send me the god in whose hand is the command so that he may tell me the answer to everything about which I inquire here today. Come in this multitude, O fury of Re! O creator who caused creation to come into being, Abraham, the pupil of the wedjat-eye, four fold creator, the great creator, who caused creation to be created, great verdant creation."

The lion couch scene happens to be placed near hieroglyphic text that mentions the name Abraham, but the association between the scene and the text is not at all clear, except that both appear to be used as magic talismans in the same spell (which is not surprising given the "Abra-" prefix in Abraham's name and the Greco-Roman era syncretism of Judeo-Christian and Egyptian mythemes).

Lets not forget that the Greco-Roman era is precisly the era to which our surviving papyri belong.

John Gee's Ensign article on the subject.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbr...am_egyptian.htm

Ed Ashment's response

http://www.irr.org/mit/ashment1.html

John Gee's response

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=cmV2aWV3

[Chris Smith]

For me this seems to be the whole arguement. Eye witness accounts tell us that there was a whole lot more papyri than what the church currently has. So if any thing it is silly to try to base an argument on things that are so not cut and dry as Larson whould have us believe.

I never really even noticed the claim about Kirtland being "stagnant" until FARMS pointed it out. I think this claim is at best incidental to the subject of the book. The existence of other now-lost papyri is irrelevant, as Larson has partly demonstrated in his book, because pretty much all the evidence points to PJS XI (a fragment now in the possession of the Church) as the source for the BoA. See here for a crash course: http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/BOA/BOA_5.html

-Chris

[maupayman]

I never really even noticed the claim about Kirtland being "stagnant" until FARMS pointed it out. I think this claim is at best incidental to the subject of the book. The existence of other now-lost papyri is irrelevant, as Larson has partly demonstrated in his book, because pretty much all the evidence points to PJS XI (a fragment now in the possession of the Church) as the source for the BoA. See here for a crash course: http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/BOA/BOA_5.html

-Chris

Not to mention Oliver Cowdery's clear description of JSP 4&5 in the Messenger and Advocate 2 (Dec.1835): 234,236

[LifeOnaPlate]

I never really even noticed the claim about Kirtland being "stagnant" until FARMS pointed it out. I think this claim is at best incidental to the subject of the book.

Motive?

[Chris Smith]

Motive?

How could he pass up the opportunity to translate authenticated ancient records, especially when they had pictures of Eve and the serpent all over them (or so he thought)? The BoA gave JS an opportunity to express in inspired format a host of new doctrines, like for example his evolving notions of patriarchal priesthood. It also provided an opportunity to engage close associates in inspired translation work, which inevitably had the effect of creating euphoria and cementing loyalties. And it gave him an opportunity to prove the superiority of revelation over worldly wisdom, since the best linguists in the country (including possibly his old friend Charles Anthon) had failed to translate these documents. Why does one need more motive than that?

[cdowis]

The existence of other now-lost papyri is irrelevant, as Larson has partly demonstrated in his book, because pretty much all the evidence points to PJS XI (a fragment now in the possession of the Church) as the source for the BoA. See here for a crash course: http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/BOA/BOA_5.html

-Chris

>An "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar", in which Joseph Smith attempted to "crack" the Egyptian language

This is a crucial assumption in this crash course, as you call it.

Can you comment? Where are the references for that assumption? The EAG is a crucial part of his logic, but it seems he simply breezes over this crucial assumption. I must commend him for not using the "clearly" word.

Perhaps you can help him out.

[LifeOnaPlate]

How could he pass up the opportunity to translate authenticated ancient records, especially when they had pictures of Eve and the serpent all over them (or so he thought)? The BoA gave JS an opportunity to express in inspired format a host of new doctrines, like for example his evolving notions of patriarchal priesthood. It also provided an opportunity to engage close associates in inspired translation work, which inevitably had the effect of creating euphoria and cementing loyalties. And it gave him an opportunity to prove the superiority of revelation over worldly wisdom, since the best linguists in the country (including possibly his old friend Charles Anthon) had failed to translate these documents. Why does one need more motive than that?

It's odd, it almost sounds as though you believe "evolving doctrines" are somehow inherently false.

[Chris Smith]

>An "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar", in which Joseph Smith attempted to "crack" the Egyptian language

This is a crucial assumption in this crash course, as you call it.

Can you comment? Where are the references for that assumption? The EAG is a crucial part of his logic, but it seems he simply breezes over this crucial assumption. I must commend him for not using the "clearly" word.

Perhaps you can help him out.

Actually, the argument presented in the link I gave is the prima facie case for a dependency of the translation manuscripts upon PJS XI. The prima facie case proceeds roughly as follows:

---------

1) The characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts are matched up with discrete units of English text. These aren't just paragraphs, because sometimes the discrete units end in mid-sentence. They are clearly intentionally lined up that way. The first couple characters even have superscripts in the text to show us which part they correspond to.

2) The characters in the margins also match in order the characters on JSP XI.

3) Where there is a gap in JSP XI, the characters in the translation mss appear to be invented. This is consistent with the statement made by William S. West in 1836:

"These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved." William S. West, A Few Interesting Facts, Respecting the Rise Progress and Pretensions of the Mormons (Warren, OH: self-published, 1837).

---------

The quote you gave about the Alphabet and Grammar is completely incidental to Mathie's argument. In fact, Mathie mentions the Alphabet only once on the entire page:

"The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers consist in part of the following: An 'Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar', in which Joseph Smith attempted to 'crack' the Egyptian language, and three 'Translation Manuscripts', in which each page had an Egyptian symbol in the left-hand margin with the supposedly corresponding English text in the right."

He then proceeds to discuss not the Alphabet, but rather the translation manuscripts. So it would appear that what you call a "crucial assumption" might be better termed a "passing reference".

Your instinct, however, is basically correct. When assumptions and faith commitments lead apologists to reject the prima facie case in favor of some other explanation like, for example, Gee's proposal that these characters in the translation manuscripts serve a purely decorative function, the Alphabet and Grammar manuscripts are quite useful for blowing such silliness out of the water. We might expand the three-point case made above as follows:

4) The Alphabet and Grammar explains how to break down characters in order to determine their meanings, and then how to supply parts of speech in between to produce lengthy English translations of a single character. The discrete English meanings assigned to characters in the Alphabet and Grammar correspond to their discrete English meanings in the translation manuscripts.

5) The explanations of Facsimile 3 refer to the labels over the characters' heads but mistranslate them. This suggests that even if viewed with a faith-bias, a conventional, Egyptologically-correct translation simply isn't an option when explaining what JS was doing with these papers.

NOTE: For point 4, see here, here, and here. For point 5, see here.)

Best,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

It's odd, it almost sounds as though you believe "evolving doctrines" are somehow inherently false.

I believe nothing of the kind.

[maklelan]

the couch in questian

That lion will always look like Hobbes to me. Why is he grinning?

[cksalmon]

I've read complaints about the underhanded nature of the book's distribution, and peripheral complaints about Larson's alleged weak foundation, but I haven't really seen any LDS deal with the meat of the book.

What's wrong specifically with Larson's presentation of the case against Joseph Smith's having correctly translated the ancient Egyptian documents in question?

Kudos to Her Amun for linking to Ed Ashment's response. That's classy. I think Ashment makes a good case for his view that the lion couch scene is not particularly-relevant to BoA translational claims. But, that's just me.

CKS

[Pahoran]

Actually, the argument presented in the link I gave is the prima facie case for a dependency of the translation manuscripts upon PJS XI. The prima facie case proceeds roughly as follows:

---------

1) The characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts are matched up with discrete units of English text. These aren't just paragraphs, because sometimes the discrete units end in mid-sentence. They are clearly intentionally lined up that way. The first couple characters even have superscripts in the text to show us which part they correspond to.

2) The characters in the margins also match in order the characters on JSP XI.

3) Where there is a gap in JSP XI, the characters in the translation mss appear to be invented. This is consistent with the statement made by William S. West in 1836:

"These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved." William S. West, A Few Interesting Facts, Respecting the Rise Progress and Pretensions of the Mormons (Warren, OH: self-published, 1837).

Ah. Sneers as evidence. Got it.

And now for the bits which the anti-Mormons ignore:

1. The English text is written out in full, in longhand. There is no crowding of words or jamming into the next paragraph.
   
2. The hieratic characters in the margins are spaced out to match the English text, not the other way around. In some cases they overrun the margins into the space set aside for the English text. This shows that the English was written first and the hieratic characters added afterwards.
   
3. Each of the so-called "Book of Abraham Manuscripts" is actually the same English text, apart from the fact that each one is of a different length. This shows that, rather than a "translation in progress," each is actually a copy of an existing English translation. How complete was it? At least as long as the longest version shown in the KEP, if not longer.
   

While we are citing the testimony of apostates, let us not forget Warren Parrish, who unlike Mr. West was an actual participant in the Alphabet and Grammar project and one of its leading figures. He wrote:

"I have set [sic] by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Heiroglyphicks [sic] as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven."

Parrish, who was no friend of the prophet at the time, and thus had no reason to invent "convenient apologist excuses" thought that Joseph translated the BofA "by direct inspiration of heaven," and not by the speculative trial-and-error process evident in the EAG.

The quote you gave about the Alphabet and Grammar is completely incidental to Mathie's argument. In fact, Mathie mentions the Alphabet only once on the entire page:

"The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers consist in part of the following: An 'Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar', in which Joseph Smith attempted to 'crack' the Egyptian language, and three 'Translation Manuscripts', in which each page had an Egyptian symbol in the left-hand margin with the supposedly corresponding English text in the right."

He then proceeds to discuss not the Alphabet, but rather the translation manuscripts. So it would appear that what you call a "crucial assumption" might be better termed a "passing reference".

You're right. The real critical assumption is that the KEP's were "translation manuscripts," when in fact they were nothing of the sort, the real translation being already in existence (and probably complete.)

Your instinct, however, is basically correct. When assumptions and faith commitments lead apologists to reject the prima facie case in favor of some other explanation like, for example, Gee's proposal that these characters in the translation manuscripts serve a purely decorative function, the Alphabet and Grammar manuscripts are quite useful for blowing such silliness out of the water.

I absolutely agree with you. That "purely decorative function" is indeed a piece of silliness. But is it Gee's? What he actually says on the subject is this:

If the hieratic were added first, the text would have to adjust to fit the available space. Therefore the English was written first and the hieratic added later. Who added the hieratic and when was it added? There is no indication who placed the text there, much less that Joseph Smith is responsible for the hieratic characters. These are just a few of the many problems confronting the student of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, yet Larson and his fellow critics simply gloss over all the problems with their simplistic theories. What exactly the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are, no one at present has enough information to determine.

This is taken from Gee's review of Larson, which nowhere asserts the "purely decorative function" you describe above. Are you referring to something else that he wrote, or are you merely ripping up a straw man?

We might expand the three-point case made above as follows:

4) The Alphabet and Grammar explains how to break down characters in order to determine their meanings, and then how to supply parts of speech in between to produce lengthy English translations of a single character. The discrete English meanings assigned to characters in the Alphabet and Grammar correspond to their discrete English meanings in the translation manuscripts.

That's nice, or something, but how exactly does the EAG relate to the BofA? Do you know? Do you even have a coherent "case" that explains all the available data? Given that the EAG was clearly the end-point of the entire project, the goal the scribes were trying to reach in their work with the so-called "translation manuscripts," and given that the BofA text was already available to them and being used as a reference, it is simply not the case that the EAG was the tool that built the BofA; the most likely explanation is that the opposite is the case.

5) The explanations of Facsimile 3 refer to the labels over the characters' heads but mistranslate them. This suggests that even if viewed with a faith-bias, a conventional, Egyptologically-correct translation simply isn't an option when explaining what JS was doing with these papers.

And this should be a problem for us--why, exactly?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

Hi Pahoran,

And now for the bits which the anti-Mormons ignore:

1. The English text is written out in full, in longhand. There is no crowding of words or jamming into the next paragraph.
   Even if this were always the case, I fail to see why it is relevant. Critics do no suggest that all the characters were written in the margins prior to the writing of the English text. Rather, a character is written, then the corresponding English text is written, then the next character, etc.

   The hieratic characters in the margins are spaced out to match the English text, not the other way around. In some cases they overrun the margins into the space set aside for the English text. This shows that the English was written first and the hieratic characters added afterwards.

   There is a case where the hieratic characters overrun the margin. But how you get from here to "the English was written first" is not at all clear to me. Even Will Schryver has admitted on this forum that several aspects of the documents point to the method of composition I described above. He suggested that maybe some of the characters were written before the English text, whereas others might have been written after. But I have yet to see any evidence that requires any of the margin characters to have been written after the English text.

   Each of the so-called "Book of Abraham Manuscripts" is actually the same English text, apart from the fact that each one is of a different length. This shows that, rather than a "translation in progress," each is actually a copy of an existing English translation. How complete was it? At least as long as the longest version shown in the KEP, if not longer.

   The critics hold that MSS 2 and 3 were transcribed simultaneously by dictation. Manuscripts 1 and 4 were copies. So no, their being the same English text doesn't require that they all be copies. As for John Gee's severely mistaken theory that JS translated the whole BoA plus three times as much (now lost) by July 1835, Don Bradley and I completely demolish it in a forthcoming paper. For the purposes of this thread, I think the following link should suffice: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208098980

   While we are citing the testimony of apostates, let us not forget Warren Parrish, who unlike Mr. West was an actual participant in the Alphabet and Grammar project and one of its leading figures. He wrote:
   "I have set [sic] by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Heiroglyphicks [sic] as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven."
   Parrish, who was no friend of the prophet at the time, and thus had no reason to invent "convenient apologist excuses" thought that Joseph translated the BofA "by direct inspiration of heaven," and not by the speculative trial-and-error process evident in the EAG.

   Parrish scribed for a small part of the GAEL, which does appear to have been received-- at least allegedly-- by "direct inspiration from heaven". And while it seems quite clear that the GAEL played a role in the dictation of the BoA text itself, its role can only have been piecemeal. One could not produce the BoA text from the GAEL without the help of some other guide, like revelation.

   You're right. The real critical assumption is that the KEP's were "translation manuscripts," when in fact they were nothing of the sort, the real translation being already in existence (and probably complete.)I absolutely agree with you. That "purely decorative function" is indeed a piece of silliness. But is it Gee's? What he actually says on the subject is this:
   This is taken from Gee's review of Larson, which nowhere asserts the "purely decorative function" you describe above. Are you referring to something else that he wrote, or are you merely ripping up a straw man?

   The quote in question is from the Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, on p. 22. He says that the margin characters may have been intended "to decorate the beginnings of paragraphs."

   That's nice, or something, but how exactly does the EAG relate to the BofA? Do you know? Do you even have a coherent "case" that explains all the available data? Given that the EAG was clearly the end-point of the entire project, the goal the scribes were trying to reach in their work with the so-called "translation manuscripts," and given that the BofA text was already available to them and being used as a reference, it is simply not the case that the EAG was the tool that built the BofA; the most likely explanation is that the opposite is the case.

   The extant historical data places the GAEL's production in the very early stages of the project. I haven't examined every single aspect of the GAEL-- that would be a book-length study-- but I do believe that the BoA was produced at least partly from it. The GAEL, in turn, is based on the "Egyptian Alphabet" manuscripts that were probably begun on the very day that the papyri came into JS's hands: July 5, 1835. For this and more, which would be difficult to detail here (especially without letting my proverbial cats out of the bag), I refer you to our upcoming paper. Don Bradley will be making final revisions by Dec 15, after which we'll consult Brent on some transcription issues, and then submit to Dialogue.

   And this should be a problem for us--why, exactly?Regards,
   Pahoran
   

   It is a problem for anyone who wants to maintain, as per the missing roll theory, that JS produced an Egyptologically-correct translation. Of course, for those catalyst theorists for whom issues of translation and historicity simply don't matter (i.e. David Bokovoy), it's no problem. Then again, such people must also disregard JS's own statements about how he understood the work he was engaged in. And it's not entirely clear what value a non-historical BoA produced by a catalyst process really has for modern believers, anyway.
   Best,
   -Chris

[cdowis]

Actually, the argument presented in the link I gave is the prima facie case for a dependency of the translation manuscripts upon PJS XI. The prima facie case proceeds roughly as follows:

etc

Thanks for the response.

FWIW, I consider the EAG essential in understanding the translation process, as I have mentioned several times before. I was hoping that you could show that the EAG cannot be dismissed as irrelevant in this discussion.