My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[cdowis]

This question has probably already been answered, but I still wonder:

Why did the scribes, those who had a close relationship with the prophet, juxtapose the BOD with the translation of the BOA? Did they pick the egyptian text at random without checking it out with JS, or did JS deceive them in giving them the wrong text.

Sorry, this just does not make sense to me.

[cdowis]

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,"

Please tell us how the word "translate" is used in the JS Translation of the Bible (DC 45:60, for example). There is no evidence that he had special text outside the KJV text for his translation.

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

It's not too long, but you might find what Nibley had to say on the subject.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/hugh.htm

Specifically:

And while its picture of the here-after differs fundamentally from that of present day Christianity and Judaism, it is strikingly like that of the ancient Jewish and Christian sectaries as newly-discovered documents are revealing them: "The next world is represented after the pattern of this one," wrote de Horrack, "the life of the spirit is so to speak just another step in human existence, the activities of the elect being analogous to those of men on earth. It is not an existence dedicated to eternal contemplation, a passive state of bliss, but an active and work-filled life, yet one, to make use of M. Chabas's expression, endowed with infinitely vaster scope than this one."16 Many recent studies confirm this judgment, showing not only that much authentic Egyptian matter was carried over into Judaism and Christianity, but that such Egyptian stuff instead of being the spoiled and rancid product of a late and degenerate age, represented the best and oldest the Egyptians had to offer. [L. Kakosy, "Probleme der

[thews]

Please tell us how the word "translate" is used in the JS Translation of the Bible (DC 45:60, for example). There is no evidence that he had special text outside the KJV text for his translation.

I've posted the same thing and linked the source enough times to show Joseph Smith used the word "translate" just as it should have been used. The bottom line, is what he translated was wrong. In theory, if Joseph Smith correctly translated the golden plates, one would have to assume the words were from one language into another. What we know, since we have the actual papyrus Joseph Smith used, is that the translation of the papyrus is wrong. How anyone justifies this is up to them, but I hardly see how a continued attempt at redefining the word "translate" into "inspired" changes the fact that the actual translation was wrong... the sword, head of a jackal, etc.

[cdowis]

I've posted the same thing and linked the source enough times to show Joseph Smith used the word "translate" just as it should have been used. The bottom line, is what he translated was wrong. In theory, if Joseph Smith correctly translated the golden plates, one would have to assume the words were from one language into another.

OK, I have no problem with that. I am no fan of the catalyst theory.

What we know, since we have the actual papyrus Joseph Smith used, is that the translation of the papyrus is wrong.

You are mistaken. But so is William, Gee, et al.

Anyway, you might want to look at http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/mnemonic.htm

His second article is more detailed, but unfortunately is not available.

How anyone justifies this is up to them, but I hardly see how a continued attempt at redefining the word "translate" into "inspired" changes the fact that the actual translation was wrong... the sword, head of a jackal, etc.

OK, but I assume you would agree that *decyphering* a document in another language is still a translation -- e.g. Leonardo DiVinci, Newton, etc.

Like so many before you, you have not addressed the mneumonic theory which assumes that the BOD is the source text of the BOA. The translation was not using the conventional method but it is still a translation.

To show that the translation was "wrong", as you assert, you first need to refute Tvedtnes.

[thews]

cdowins,

I wish I could see what you are attempting to say. When you say, "OK, but I assume you would agree that *decyphering* a document in another language is still a translation -- e.g. Leonardo DiVinci, Newton, etc."

What does this mean? The papyrus has nothing to do with Abraham... nothing. Translating it renders what the document says, and it's what a papyrus should say, which is nothing to do with Abraham as Joseph Smith claimed.

When you say, "Like so many before you, you have not addressed the mneumonic theory which assumes that the BOD is the source text of the BOA. The translation was not using the conventional method but it is still a translation."

The BOD is the source text for the BOA... that's exactly what Joseph Smith said. He painted in the head of a man instead of a jackal, and a sword istead of a bird... both wrong. Joseph Smith invented this translation and it's wrong... what he claimed the document said/was is wrong. How one believes there is some inspiration going on is attempting, IMO, to find a way to absolve Joseph Smith of his errors; he was wrong, and all the papyrus "contained" were common pagan funerary documents intended to aid the mummy they were inserted inside in the afterlife. Instead of using a 1968 source, I highly recommend you view this:

http://mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm

Egyptologist's Interpretation of Facsimile 1

Statements made by Richard A. Parker, Wilbour Professor of Egyptology and Chairman of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University in the Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 3, no. 2, Summer 1968, p. 86. :

"This is a well-known scene from the Osiris mysteries, with Anubis, the jackal-headed god, on the left ministering to the dead Osiris on the bier. The penciled restoration is incorrect. Anubis should be jackal-headed. The left arm of Osiris is in reality lying at his side under him. The apparent upper hand is part of the wing of a second bird which is hovering over the erect phallus of Osiris (now broken away). The second bird is Isis and she is magically impregnated by the dead Osiris and then later gives birth to Horus who avenges his father and takes over his inheritance. The complete bird represents Nephthys, sister to Osiris and Isis. Beneath the bier are the four canopic jars with heads representive of the four sons of Horus, human-headed Imseti, baboon-headed Hapy, jackal-headed Duamutef and falcon-headed Kebehsenuf. The hieroglyphs refer to burial, etc. ...."

Statements made by Klaus Baer, Associate Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute in the Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 118-119 :

"The vignette on P. JS I is unusual, but parallels exist on the walls of the Ptolemaic temple of Egypt, the closest being the scenes in the Osiris chapels on the roof of the Temple of Dendera. The vignette shows the resurrection of Osiris (who is also the deceased owner of the papyrus) and the conception of Horus. Osiris (2) is represented as a man on a lion-couch (4) attended by Anubis (3), the jackal-headed god who embalmed the dead and thereby assured their resurrection and existence in the hereafter. Below the couch are the canopic jars for the embalmed internal organs. The lids are the four sons of Horus, from the left to right Imset (, Hapi (7), Qebeh-senuwef (6), and Duwa-mutef (5), who protect the liver, lungs, intestines, and stomach, respectively. At the head of the couch is a small offering stand (10) with a jug and some flowers on it and two larger vases on the ground beside it. The ba of Osiris (1) is hovering above his head.

The versions of Osiris myth differ in telling how Seth disposed of Osiris after murdering him, but he was commonly believed to have cut Osiris into small pieces, which he scattered into the Nile, leaving Isis the task of fishing out and assembling the parts of her brother and husband so that he could be resurrected and beget Horus. In this she was helped by Horus in the shape of a crocodile, who is represented in the water (the zigzags) below the vignette (9). Below that is a decorative pattern derived from the niched facade of a protohistoric Egyptian palace.

[PacMan]

thews,

I think his point is that at times there's Greek to support Joseph's translation of the Bible. At times there's German, or other text. But at times there is no extant text but the KJ. So, how can you look at a translation, and re-translate it without ever looking at the original? What you have undoubtedly proven is that Joseph, at times, used the term 'translate' correctly. But if he "translated" parts of the Bible, the BoM, etc. w/out any original (or even secondary) source but through revelation (as stated in the quote I lifted from Wade above), it undoubtedly proves that his concept of translation was broader than we'd consider appropriate in using the term today. That is my point. The point is proven. You are either wrong, or have simply conflated/misunderstood my argument. I suggest you concede the obvious, state what you remain to see a question, and save yourself and your reputation from being viewed as stubbornly denying the uncontroversial fact of the issue at hand.

PacMan

[wenglund]

I have explicitly affirmed that JS provided verbal translations of the Book of Joseph in July. Another evidence of this is a comment in a letter of W. W. Phelps that month about how brother Joseph commented that it was as easy to shed tears while reading Sally Phelps's letters as while reading the record of Joseph of Egypt. (EDIT: Ah, I see you later found this.) Cowdery, of course, provided extensive information about this-- focusing almost entirely on the interpretation of the Book of the Dead vignettes-- in his letter to William Frye. And in a blessing for Oliver, Joseph made reference to an event in Joseph of Egypt's life that is otherwise unknown. It is possible that there was at some point a written translation of the Book of Joseph, but we have no evidence of that.

Anyway, I don't understand why you think this rebuts some argument of mine, but obviously you've misunderstood me.

This seems to be the source of the confusion. I never stated that "direct revelation" was exclusive of "reading" the records (or interpreting the pictures). I'm just arguing that we don't need to have had a Book of Abraham written down in early July for the prophet to have known these were Joseph and Abraham's records. To the contrary, if the case of the Book of Joseph is any indication, it seems that most or all of the information received about the patriarchal authorship of the papyri at this time was not written until later.

Hi Chris,

I know your busy, and so I appreciate you getting back with me on this.

Here's the rub (or the beauty--depending upon one's current position), though, whether the tranlation in question was written down or not, it was still an early July translation that pre-dates the bulk of the Egyptian alphabet/grammar being constructed, which strongly suggests that the translation of portions of the record of Joseph, and by implication portions of the record of Abraham, came by way of the gift and power of God (revelation/inspiration), rather than by way of an alphabet/grammar key.

And, as previously intimated, since the translation of portions of Abraham and Joseph came by way of the gift and power of God, it would make little sense to construct an alphabet/grammar key to then translate, or retranslate, and write down the that and the remainder of the records when it can more effectively and directly be done by the gift and power of God--that is, unless the objective is to learn the Egyptian language rather that to translate the sacred record.

As for whether the revelatory translation was written down at the time or not (early July), I made the case earlier, using Cowdery's lengthy description of but a "shadow" of what he could have said about the record of Joseph (and by implication portions of the BoA), to suggest that it was, at least at some point, written down.

Now, as evidence that it may likely have been written early in July, we have the HoC notation indicating that from the 19th of July through the end of the month, Joseph was working on translating the alphabet and grammer, as opposed to translating the BoA or BoJ.

Then, around the end of August and the first of September, Phelps wrote in a letter to his wife: "Nothing has been doing in the translation of the Egyptian Record for a long time, and probably will not for some time to come." (Phelps letters)

No more mention is made in Phelps' letters (which date to Feb. or March of 1836) about the Egyptian record, and the next we here of them is from Cowdrey, in his letter to Frye, as Published by Phelps in the December 1835 issue of he Messenger and Advocate.

This suggests to me that whatever was written of the revelatory translation of the record of Joseph and Abraham in 1835, was written in early July of that year.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Let's look at your quotes in their original context.

The opening theme here is tears of joy at receiving Sally's letter. The "history of Joseph in Egypt" in the first paragraph more likely refers to the Biblical account. Sally was probably cognizant of Joseph's fondness for that story as a result of a sermon or private conversation. Note that it's "history" of Joseph, not "roll", "scroll", "record", "writings" or "papyrus" of Joseph. More importantly, he hasn't even told her about the mummies yet. That comes much later after he talks about the children, a leaky roof, a falling cupboard, temptations of Satan, Peter Whitmer and preaching Elders. Only after all that does he mention the mummies and rolls of papyrus. After he tells her about their arrival, he finally informs her that one "contained the sacred record kept of Joseph". Sally could not have interpreted the opening paragraph the same way you have, since she didn't find out about the papyrus until the last paragraph.

I had considered that as a possibility as well.

However, the reason that I ended up believing more strongly that it was in reference to the Egyptian record rather than some presumed fondness Joseph Smith my have felt at the time for a select account in the Bible that he may or may not have been reading or thinking about at the time, is the following:

1) Phelps was quoting a statement that Joseph had made to him personally, rather than to Phelps' wife. And, clearly, Phelps knew about the Egyptian record. So, in the context in which the statement was made, it could very well and sensably apply to the Egyptian record.

2) The tears that Joseph Smith was speaking of, were obviously tears of joy, rather than sorrow, which joy was felt in finally receiving word from those he cared about. Since Joseph Smith had long been reading the Bible, then the account of Joseph of Egypt in the Bible doesn't really apply. Whereas, having just read the history of Joseph in the Egyptian record, makes perfect sense, particularly given Smith's comments earlier that month: "I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236)

3) It is quite possible that Phelps' didn't think through whether his wife would know what he was talking about or not at the start of his letter. If you read through his letters, it becomes quite evident that Phelps' writing can be somewhat scattered and eclectic, which seems reasonable wth informal communications like letters to spouses.

There are other points that could be made, but I think this should suffice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

Thews,

Thanks for the suggestion, and may I suggest that you read the articles on this web page.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/papyri.htm

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml

[cdowis]

He painted in the head of a man instead of a jackal

"Nibley has pointed out that at least three other Ptolemaic lion-couch scenes similar to Facs. 1 were drawn in which the embalming priest was without the jackal-mask. In one case the mask was deliberately erased."

See the entire article.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml#mask

This is just one example that this was no ordinary, run-of-the-mill document. There are other unique features in this particular BOD, which have been demonstrated elsewhere.

If you bother to read the many other articles to which I refered, you will see that JS was not "wrong" but hit the nail on the head.

[Chris Smith]

the translation of portions of the record of Joseph, and by implication portions of the record of Abraham, came by way of the gift and power of God (revelation/inspiration), rather than by way of an alphabet/grammar key.

I agree. The Book of Joseph vignettes and the majority of the BoA were interpreted in the normal, direct-revelation manner.

it would make little sense to construct an alphabet/grammar key ... when it can more effectively and directly be done by the gift and power of God--that is, unless the objective is to learn the Egyptian language rather that to translate the sacred record.

Learning Egyptian was the objective, to a large degree. As I argued earlier, the EAG was not just a translation key. It was also the translation of the initial portion of the papyrus, it was a theologically sophisticated document in its own right, and it fulfilled Joseph and his scribes' ambition to learn and translate ancient languages. I have never argued that they used this key to translate 1:1-3 because they had to do it that way. Rather, I think they wanted to do it that way-- at least until it got to be too much work (which didn't take long).

As for whether the revelatory translation was written down at the time or not (early July), I made the case earlier, using Cowdery's lengthy description of but a "shadow" of what he could have said about the record of Joseph (and by implication portions of the BoA), to suggest that it was, at least at some point, written down.

Nothing in Cowdery's description suggests that. To the contrary, he simply describes and explains the pictures.

This suggests to me that whatever was written of the revelatory translation of the record of Joseph and Abraham in 1835, was written in early July of that year.

There is a reference to translation in October and numerous others in November. Since only up to 2:18 was done in Kirtland, one good reason not to accept the theory that a large portion of the BoA was translated in July is that that leaves nothing to be translated in November.

And now it's back to the books. Peace,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

it was in reference to the Egyptian record rather than some presumed fondness Joseph Smith my have felt at the time for a select account in the Bible

If it was the Bible account he was referring to, then he undoubtedly was reading it in connection with the papyrus. But I tend to agree that this probably refers to the papyrus.

[wenglund]

Hi Chris,

I don't wish to take you from your books, since that is more important now, nd this can wait. But, when you get a moment...

I agree. The Book of Joseph vignettes and the majority of the BoA were interpreted in the normal, direct-revelation manner.

Learning Egyptian was the objective, to a large degree. As I argued earlier, the EAG was not just a translation key. It was also the translation of the initial portion of the papyrus, it was a theologically sophisticated document in its own right, and it fulfilled Joseph and his scribes' ambition to learn and translate ancient languages. I have never argued that they used this key to translate 1:1-3 because they had to do it that way. Rather, I think they wanted to do it that way-- at least until it got to be too much work (which didn't take long).

If, as you agree, the larger intent was to learn the Egyptian language, doesn't it make moe sense to, as is often the case (like with the Rosetta stone), take writings with known meanings and extrapolate from that to derive an alphabet/grammar, rather than the other way around?

Nothing in Cowdery's description suggests that. To the contrary, he simply describes and explains the pictures.

I think the length of the description, and given that it only describes a "shadow" of what was known, plus the distance of time from when it was tranlated, can reasonably be viewed as suggesting that it was written, and not simply recalled from memory. But, there is nothing in Cowdery's comments that force this conclusion, thus leaving room for you to reasonably conclude otherwise. To each their own.

There is a reference to translation in October and numerous others in November.

Does the reference give indication as to what specifically was being tranlated at those times (was it the alphabet/grammar, retranslaton of the portions of the BoJ and BoJ that had been translated earlier in July, or new portions of the BoJ and/or the BoA that had yet to be translated?

By the way, could you provide a citation for the reference so I might look it up myself--that is, when you get the time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If it was the Bible account he was referring to, then he undoubtedly was reading it in connection with the papyrus. But I tend to agree that this probably refers to the papyrus.

That's an intriguing possibility to consider. Might the Bible, as well as Josephus (who Cowdery mentioned in the Frye letter) have also been used, in Rosetta stone fashion, to learn the Egyptian language (vet the alphabet/grammar)? Who knows. But I think it a worthwhile hypothesis to consider further.

Thanks -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

If, as you agree, the larger intent was to learn the Egyptian language, doesn't it make moe sense to, as is often the case (like with the Rosetta stone), take writings with known meanings and extrapolate from that to derive an alphabet/grammar, rather than the other way around?

Why would that make more sense? People use lexica to translate ancient narratives all the time.

given that it only describes a "shadow" of what was known

"I am able only to give you a shadow, to the real picture." He wasn't referring to the translation here.

The diary entries you asked for:

October 7 - This afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records.

November 19, 1835: "Went in company with Doc[tor Frederick] Williams and my scribe [Warren Parrish?] to see how the workmen prospered in finishing the House [Kirtland Temple]. The masons on the inside had commenced put[t]ing on the finishing coat of plastureing [sic]

[thews]

thews,

I think his point is that at times there's Greek to support Joseph's translation of the Bible. At times there's German, or other text. But at times there is no extant text but the KJ. So, how can you look at a translation, and re-translate it without ever looking at the original? What you have undoubtedly proven is that Joseph, at times, used the term 'translate' correctly. But if he "translated" parts of the Bible, the BoM, etc. w/out any original (or even secondary) source but through revelation (as stated in the quote I lifted from Wade above), it undoubtedly proves that his concept of translation was broader than we'd consider appropriate in using the term today. That is my point. The point is proven. You are either wrong, or have simply conflated/misunderstood my argument. I suggest you concede the obvious, state what you remain to see a question, and save yourself and your reputation from being viewed as stubbornly denying the uncontroversial fact of the issue at hand.

PacMan

Saying the same thing 50 times doesn't make it true. For the record I don't believe Joseph Smith ever translated anything (I am a critic), but in this case he specifically uses the words as I have previously quoted defining he translates the papyrus into the book of Abraham. You simply cannot acknowledge his translation was wrong, the papyrus which he identified as having something to do with Abraham have nothing at all to do with Abraham, and the papyrus he translated is nothing more than a common funerary text fromt he Book of Breathings. Ignore these facts if you need to pound the square peg into the round hole, but they will remain facts. If you seek the truth you'll find it, and if you dont' need truth, you'll attempt to find a backdoor that doesn't exist; Joseph Smith was wrong in his translation of Egyptian... if God were in fact guiding him, then he wouldn't have been wrong.

PS - What the BOA doctrine brought to Mormonism was polygamy and racism... something to think about.

[Mortal Man]

The tears that Joseph Smith was speaking of, were obviously tears of joy, rather than sorrow, which joy was felt in finally receiving word from those he cared about. Since Joseph Smith had long been reading the Bible, then the account of Joseph of Egypt in the Bible doesn't really apply.

Genesis 42:

23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

24 And he turned himself about from them, and wept;

Tell me that these are not tears of joy.

When you're trying to make a point via analogy, do you reference something your audience has never heard of or something they're familiar with?

[William Schryver]

cdowis:

Did they pick the egyptian text at random

[Chris Smith]

Will, the bottom line, really, is that I don't have the time or energy to carry on a one-sided conversation, especially when you seem unable or unwilling to treat me in a civilized manner.

[William Schryver]

Will, the bottom line, really, is that I don't have the time or energy to carry on a one-sided conversation, especially when you seem unable or unwilling to treat me in a civilized manner.

"A civilized manner"?

I'm issuing a serious CFR.

Please present examples of where I have treated you in an "uncivilized" manner. Two or three instances should suffice to demonstrate to those following along just how "uncivilized" I have been.

I challenge you to do so.

If you attempt to evade this challenge, it will be tantamount to acknowledging the fact that you are doing nothing but blowing smoke in an attempt to garner undeserved sympathy. Are you so insecure in your arguments that you must resort to this pitiful rhetorical device in order to vacate the discussion?

[wenglund]

Why would that make more sense? People use lexica to translate ancient narratives all the time.

True, and that makes sense if they already have a lexica. However, what I was speaking to was learning the language and translating from ground zero. It makes more sense to me, particularly if translation is the primary objective, to use the gift and power of God to directly translate, rather than adding the additional step of using the power of God to translate an alphabet/grammar that would then be used to translate the chaacters.

If learning is the secondary objective, or even if it was the primary objective with translation being secondary, I think the same reasoning holds true--though the best option is to have both a translation and the alphabet/grammar to better assure that what one is learning and translating of the language, is correct.

But, this is a matter on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

"I am able only to give you a shadow, to the real picture." He wasn't referring to the translation here.

I believe this, too, is a matter on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

The diary entries you asked for:

October 7 - This afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records.

November 19, 1835: "Went in company with Doc[tor Frederick] Williams and my scribe [Warren Parrish?] to see how the workmen prospered in finishing the House [Kirtland Temple]. The masons on the inside had commenced put[t]ing on the finishing coat of plastureing [sic]

[Chris Smith]

If you attempt to evade this challenge, it will be tantamount to acknowledging the fact that you are doing nothing but blowing smoke in an attempt to garner undeserved sympathy.

This is an excellent example. So is the last post you directed to me.

Are you so insecure in your arguments that you must resort to this pitiful rhetorical device in order to vacate the discussion?

A "discussion" has two sides. Besides accusing me of bias and whining and being a Metcalfe pariah, we haven't actually seen much from your side of this conversation. Aside, that is, from an old Nibley talking point and promises of things to come.

[Chris Smith]

Hi Wade,

True, and that makes sense if they already have a lexica.

My argument is that they did already have a lexicon, because they began by translating the Egyptian Alphabet that appeared at the beginning of the papyrus.

If learning is the secondary objective, or even if it was the primary objective with translation being secondary, I think the same reasoning holds true--though the best option is to have both a translation and the alphabet/grammar to better assure that what one is learning and translating of the language, is correct.

I don't think one or the other objective necessarily has to have been primary. Both were of deep interest to JS and his scribes, and there is actually considerable overlap between the two.

Thanks for pleasant discourse,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

This is an excellent example. So is the last post you directed to me.

Precisely as I expected.

The bottom line is that you have nothing in the way of evidence of my being "uncivilized."

You just don't like being the target of criticism.

That's too bad. You'll find it's quite a rough world out there, junior.

A "discussion" has two sides. Besides accusing me of bias and whining and being a Metcalfe pariah, we haven't actually seen much from your side of this conversation. Aside, that is, from an old Nibley talking point and promises of things to come.

As I have already observed several times on this thread, I have offered much, much more to date than merely "an old Nibley talking point". Aside from my considerable opus of work in the Pundit's forum of this message board, one might look recently to my having highlighted the fact that your "modus operandi" for the production of the BoA consists of the alleged method for translating but THREE VERSES.

THREE VERSES!

A smokescreen is an effective tactic on many battlefields. I don't believe it will serve you well on this one.

As for Nibley's "talking point," I have not only affirmed its original correctness, but I have expanded upon it; refined it; focused it. We shall yet see that the late Professor Nibley was right much more often than he was wrong.

That my full articulation and defense of the refined theory remains among those "things to come" is, for now, true. I trust that most believers have the patience to wait a while longer. As for the critics, well ... they've been awaiting Metcalfe's work for 25 years. Having to wait a few more months for my work shouldn't seem like much of a challenge in comparison.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

snip

I