My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[Chris Smith]

Christ Smith writes:Could you elaborate on this please?

JS didn't start his Hebrew study under Seixas till after the last journal entry about BoA translation in 1835. He didn't pick translation up again until 1842. So when in chapter 3 we find the words gnolaum, kokob, and kokaubeam-- following the Seixas transliterations-- this is an indication that this chapter was produced in '42 instead of '35.

Peace,

-Chris

[Benjamin McGuire]

JS didn't start his Hebrew study under Seixas till after the last journal entry about BoA translation in 1835. He didn't pick translation up again until 1842. So when in chapter 3 we find the words gnolaum, kokob, and kokaubeam-- following the Seixas transliterations-- this is an indication that this chapter was produced in '42 instead of '35.

Peace,

-Chris

But Chris, these words are not found transliterated in Seixas (I know, I am sitting with both of his first two editions in front of me). But, I can find words like Olea and Gnolaum in other early 19th century lexical texts and etymologies. And this makes me wonder why you are so certain that they come from Seixas ...

[wenglund]

The Katumin material identifies the mummies as a pharaoh and his daughter. This is more than enough to account for the high price of the collection, especially since in the Alphabet Joseph Smith placed Katumin in the biblical context of creation and the discovery of Egypt after the flood.

I just came across Cowdery's letter to Frye, which was published in the Messenger and Advocate, December of 1835. It containes this interesting statement regarding what was deemed of value:

"Though the Mummies themselves are a curiosity, and an astonishment, well calculated to arouse the mind to a reflection of past ages, when men strove, as at this day, to immortalize their names, though in another manner, yet I do not consider them of much value compared with those records which were deposited with them." (Messenger and Advocate (Dec 1835) Oliver Cowdery p.23--emphasis mine)

I trust that Cowdery's sentiments were shared by Joseph and other saints, just as I suspected.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I trust that Cowdery's sentiments were shared by Joseph and other saints, just as I suspected.

In support of this, here is an extract from the introduction preceeding Cowdery's letter (the author of the introduction is uncertain, but likely John Whitmer, the editor, or W.W. Phelps, the publisher and chief writer):

"It has been said, that the purchasers of these antiquities pretend they have the body of Abraham, Abimelech, the king of the Philistines, Joseph, who was sold into Egypt, &c. &c. for the purpose of attracting the attention of the multitude, and gulling the unwary which is utterly false.

"For the purpose of correcting these and other erroneous statements, concerning both the mummies and also the records, we give an extract of a letter written by a friend in this place, who possesses correct knowledge concerning this matter, to a gentleman who resides at a distance.

"Who these ancient inhabitants of Egypt are, we do not pretend to say, neither does it matter to us. We have no idea or expectation, that either of them are Abraham, Abimelech, or Joseph....But the records are the most important, concerning which, we refer our readers to the extract for information." (Messenger and Advocate (Dec 1835) John Whitmer ed p.233)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Chris,

I read with great interest your reply to my question from yesterday. Of course, said answer is consistent with what you have argued in your paper as published in the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.

I have a few additional questions concerning some of your response, but at present would only like to clarify what it is you are saying about the relationship of the Egyptian grammar and alphabet portions of the KEP and the English

[thews]

So, in broad terms, to translate means to move from one state of being to another.

Now with all of that said, feel free to go back to your ranting and raving. Your approach is very affective!!!!

Sarcasm/off

See Joseph Smith quotes above where he clearly says he's translating the scrolls into the Book of Abraham. Your play on words to imply there was a different intent would have to include a reference to the quoted material I posted, but since all you have is a makeshift argument to try and change what Joseph Smith meant when he used "translate," we'll get sarcasm in retort without referencing anything, which is pretty much par for the course for someone who has no real foundation.

The bottom line: Mormon doctrine comes from the pagan book of the dead... you're all good with that?

[Vance]

See Joseph Smith quotes above where he clearly says he's translating the scrolls into the Book of Abraham. Your play on words to imply there was a different intent would have to include a reference to the quoted material I posted, but since all you have is a makeshift argument to try and change what Joseph Smith meant when he used "translate," we'll get sarcasm in retort without referencing anything, which is pretty much par for the course for someone who has no real foundation.

The bottom line: Mormon doctrine comes from the pagan book of the dead... you're all good with that?

It is obvious that the Book of the Dead accurately translated to English HAS NO RELATION to the Book of Abraham. Your rantings and ravings notwithstanding.

And here is a clue for you. Very little, if any (right off the top of my head I can't think of any) Mormon doctrine comes uniquely from the Book of Abraham.

Feel free to return to your ranting and raving.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is obvious that the Book of the Dead accurately translated to English HAS NO RELATION to the Book of Abraham. Your rantings and ravings notwithstanding.

And here is a clue for you. Very little, if any (right off the top of my head I can't think of any) Mormon doctrine comes uniquely from the Book of Abraham.

Feel free to return to your ranting and raving.

I believe it to be a red herring to think that JS mistakenly translated the BoB into the BoA. Some critics think this is the case but so far it hasn't been shown to hold much water.

[William Schryver]

Vance:

Very little, if any (right off the top of my head I can't think of any) Mormon doctrine comes uniquely from the Book of Abraham.

I've studiously avoided entering your discussion, but I feel I must take exception to this statement. (While at the same time commending you for dealing quite well with "thews" who, as I noted above, is at least one full color and couple Skip cards shy of a full Phase10 deck. )

In my judgment, some of the most significant and uniquely LDS doctrine comes from the Book of Abraham. In fact, I think an argument could be made that, without the unique doctrines that derive from the Book of Abraham, Mormonism simply would not be very distinguishable from the rest of Christianity.

Examples (right off the top of my head):

• 
  
• Pre-mortal existence
  
• Plurality of gods
  
• Pre-ordination
  
• Unique understanding of the nature of the creation (the "organization" of matter vs. creatio ex nihilo)
  

I'm sure there is more, but that should suffice to make my point.

[Vance]

I believe it to be a red herring to think that JS mistakenly translated the BoB into the BoA. Some critics think this is the case but so far it hasn't been shown to hold much water.

Most of the anti-Mormon arguments I have heard over the years regarding the BoA are like this.

1) The BoD is the source of BoA. (the Strawman)

2) The BoD is not the source of BoA because,

a) it isn't long enough.

the translation doesn't match.

c) blah blah blah (Strawman destroyed)

3) Therefore JS is a false prophet. (3 not being related to either 1 or 2)

[Vance]

Examples (right off the top of my head):

• 
  
• Pre-mortal existence
  
• Plurality of gods
  
• Pre-ordination
  
• Unique understanding of the nature of the creation (the "organization" of matter vs. creatio ex nihilo)
  

I'm sure there is more, but that should suffice to make my point.

I must defer to the wiser one here.

Although I would say that those things are found in other scriptures if you know what you are seeing.

[William Schryver]

I believe it to be a red herring to think that JS mistakenly translated the BoB into the BoA. Some critics think this is the case but so far it hasn't been shown to hold much water.

That is precisely correct.

In fact, he may have never known exactly where on the papyri the text of the Book of Abraham began and ended. The KEP show that those who produced them were focusing first in one area and then the other. Again, as I will say over and over and over until it finally starts to gain traction once again among the Saints:

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers are the evidence that those who produced them were attempting to decipher hieratic Egyptian using the previously revealed English text of the Book of Abraham.

That they never succeeded is not a negative reflection on the inspired nature of the Book of Abraham nor the Prophet Joseph Smith.

It just means that the Prophet and his buddies didn't succeed in everything they set out to do. As far as I'm concerned, there's no shame in that.

[William Schryver]

I must defer to the wiser one here.

Although I would say that those things are found in other scriptures if you know what you are seeing.

I consent that you may have a case to make that these things are to be found in other scriptures. But the BoA presents them in such clear and unmistakable language that they are hard to miss or dismiss.

I love the Book of Abraham. I think it is an absolutely amazing 11 pages of literary and scriptural majesty.

[Vance]

I consent that you may have a case to make that these things are to be found in other scriptures. But the BoA presents them in such clear and unmistakable language that they are hard to miss or dismiss.

I love the Book of Abraham. I think it is an absolutely amazing 11 pages of literary and scriptural majesty.

I spend way too much time in the Bible so I can refute the drivel of the ignorant anti-Mormon masses. See what happens when you step outside your area of competence.

Edited to add

But hey, translate means EXACTLY what thews says it means and no more, no less!!!! And that is the way JS meant it as well!!!!!!!!

[William Schryver]

Chris,

I read with great interest your reply to my question from yesterday. Of course, said answer is consistent with what you have argued in your paper as published in the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.

I have a few additional questions concerning some of your response, but at present would only like to clarify what it is you are saying about the relationship of the Egyptian grammar and alphabet portions of the KEP and the English

[Mortal Man]

The bottom line: Mormon doctrine comes from the pagan book of the dead... you're all good with that?

A great deal of Christian doctrine is rooted in the same Egyptian mythology that gave rise to Book of the Dead.

[William Schryver]

I spend way too much time in the Bible so I can refute the drivel of the ignorant anti-Mormon masses. See what happens when you step outside your area of competence.

Edited to add

But hey, translate means EXACTLY what thews says it means and no more, no less!!!! And that is the way JS meant it as well!!!!!!!!

Your 1828 dictionary citation was excellent, by the way. I love old dictionaries. 21st century Americans are, by and large, utterly ignorant of their own language. Modern English has developed into one of the most sophisticated, comprehensive, and powerful languages in the history of mankind. But to appreciate it, one must have some sense of the etymology of words; words like "translate," whose primary (and original) meaning is "to transfer," or "to move from one place to another."

In the case of Joseph Smith, "translate" means to move scripture from the category of "lost" to "found", or from the unseen world where God and angels dwell, through the Urim & Thummim, to the world in which we live.

[wenglund]

...none of the Kirtland Papers, including the text of the Book of Abraham, tell us that a record of Joseph of Egypt was among these papyri. For that information we must rely almost entirely on the reports of Joseph's scribes, who heard him verbally interpret the documents.

Speaking of the record of Joseph of Egypt, I found it of interest that Oliver Cowdery, in his letter to Frye (Dec. 1835), spoke extensively of the record of Joseph, but made little or no mention of the BoA. Here is what he wrote:

"The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas of notions of the Deity. The representation of the god head -- three, yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writers views of that exalted personage. The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance;...Enoch's Pillar, as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll....Enoch wrote a history or an account of the same, and put into two pillars one of brick and the other of stone; and that the same were in being at his (Josephus;) day. The inner end of the same roll, (Joseph's record,) presents a representation of the judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the sceptres of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which satan is represented as reigning. Michael the archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit. But upon this last scene, I am able only to give you a shadow, to the real picture. I am certain it cannot be viewed without filling the mind with awe, unless the mind is far estranged from God" (Messenger and Advocate (Dec 1835) Oliver Cowdery p.23)

This rather lengthy description of but a "shadow" of the "real picture", raises a number of questions in my mind, not the least of which is:

1) Who translated the record of Joseph? (Oliver seems to be providing his own interpretation here, though he could be parroting what Joseph had translated)

2) When was it translated?

3) How much of the roll was translated? (Cowdery gives descriptions of at least the beginning and middle of the Joseph papyrus)

4) Was the translation written down (it seems a bit too extensive to recall from memory, except perhaps for those with photographic memories, which suggests to me that at least the "real picture" may have been written down)?

5) By what means was it translated?

I would be pleased to learn if any of the existing scholarship addresses these or other questions related to the record of Joseph of Egypt.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is precisely correct.

In fact, he may have never known exactly where on the papyri the text of the Book of Abraham began and ended. The KEP show that those who produced them were focusing first in one area and then the other. Again, as I will say over and over and over until it finally starts to gain traction once again among the Saints:

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers are the evidence that those who produced them were attempting to decipher hieratic Egyptian using the previously revealed English text of the Book of Abraham.

That they never succeeded is not a negative reflection on the inspired nature of the Book of Abraham nor the Prophet Joseph Smith.

It just means that the Prophet and his buddies didn't succeed in everything they set out to do. As far as I'm concerned, there's no shame in that.

Woot. I feel so good that not only did I get this correct but "precisely correct". Thanks Will.

It has been an interesting thread thus far.

[William Schryver]

A great deal of Christian doctrine is rooted in the same Egyptian mythology that gave rise to Book of the Dead.

Another classic example of a common problem among the faithless.

Perhaps Egyptian temple motifs (as, in fact, is taught by the Book of Abraham) are rooted in even more ancient accounts of the creation, the plan of salvation, a Savior, the resurrection, etc., etc., etc.

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father ...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Another classic example of a common problem among the faithless.

Perhaps Egyptian temple motifs (as, in fact, is taught by the Book of Abraham) are rooted in even more ancient accounts of the creation, the plan of salvation, a Savior, the resurrection, etc., etc., etc.

That is a great point. I hand't considered this point when reading MM's comments.

[thews]

It is obvious that the Book of the Dead accurately translated to English HAS NO RELATION to the Book of Abraham. Your rantings and ravings notwithstanding.

And here is a clue for you. Very little, if any (right off the top of my head I can't think of any) Mormon doctrine comes uniquely from the Book of Abraham.

Feel free to return to your ranting and raving.

Ranting and raving huh? I'm just pointing out the facts :shrug:. If the Book of Abrahamn is canon, then it is Mormon doctrine... please correct me if I'm wrong.

[thews]

I believe it to be a red herring to think that JS mistakenly translated the BoB into the BoA. Some critics think this is the case but so far it hasn't been shown to hold much water.

Have you read any of what's been posted so far? How can you make this claim? Please support it with some data so that I might see how you come to the red herring conclusion?

[thews]

A great deal of Christian doctrine is rooted in the same Egyptian mythology that gave rise to Book of the Dead.

Is this how you rationalize it? Egyptian mythology as history is far different than someone in the 1800's claiming a pagan papyrus from ancient Egypt contained the story of Abraham... and mistakenly translated it I might add. This is not the same thing in any way shape or form, but if you need it to be true the I guess it makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense following logic.

[Mortal Man]

I would like to add something to my earlier post cited above, and I think I'd like to address this those, such as Mortal Man, dblagent007, and other critics who have been following along:

What is your reaction to the fact that Smith et al. are characterizing the grammar and alphabet portion of the KEP as the modus operandi for only the first three verses (~3%) of the Book of Abraham?

If you're asking my opinion of Chris' paper, I think he makes a very strong case and, except for a very minor quibble, I'm inclined to agree with his thesis.

If your operative word is "only", then I don't think your line of attack will lead anywhere, since I see no reason to go further than the evidence takes us.

If you're trying to make a big play on "modus operandi", perhaps intending to paint Chris as saying that Abr. 1:1-3 could not have been produced without the GAEL, then once again, I don't think your line of attack will lead anywhere.

I've enjoyed reading Wade's comments. They show true effort against a hurricane-force headwind from a determined apologist. But ultimately they are straining at gnats while swallowing some very large camels.

I think the serious apologists here should state where they believe the BoA was located. I know that Will believes it was after the BoB on the Hor scroll but what does everyone else think?

Also, for you "Scribes Did It" theorists, please explain how they all came to believe that the BoA began with the instructions column.