My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[Chris Smith]

In trying to show that he has contributed to the discussion, Will says, "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." Am I the only one who wonders how halfway-correctly repeating my view back to me represents a contribution to the discussion?

[dblagent007]

You know Will, I used to read Kevin Graham's opinion of you and think that it just couldn't be true. Looking back on it, I'm starting to think Kevin was being kind!

[dblagent007]

Am I the only one who wonders how halfway-correctly repeating my view back to me represents a contribution to the discussion?

But Chris, just wait. At some future, undefined period of time, he will put his contributions in print and they will completely destroy your argument. Maybe you haven't noticed, but he freely admits that he doesn't contribute his arguments on Internet forums (what he does contribute is, well let's not go there). He might not contribute now, but if you will just wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, he might, maybe, put something in print that completely and utterly refutes the veritable mountain of evidence that conflicts with his theory.

[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.

thews,

Call yourself whatever you want, but you're not being critical but stubborn. Moreover, what you previously quoted did not "define," but stated an instance of translation. Lastly, you are alone on a limb in your untenable theory. Chris, for one instance, has stated himself that Joseph interpreted most of the text through the normal method--translation. Here, look:

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

You can argue that the revelation was wrong, but that is a wholly different subject than what Joseph meant by "translation." So while I will "seek the truth" to find it, stop condemning it when it stares you in the face. As to the part about God guiding him, your antecedent and consequent do not match, but necessitate an erroneous (and possibly hypocritical) assumption. Your application of formal logic isn't even amateurish, but juvenile.

And again, your defamation of the BoA as bringing polygamy and racism to Mormonism is pretentious, foolish nonsense. I've already asked for CFR which you failed to provide. Another unsupported and libelous step and you, my friend, will enjoy being banned pursuant to board rules.

Now go away. You deplete the intelligence of the board with your vain, illogical, and wholly disingenuous ramblings.

PacMan

[thews]

thews,

Call yourself whatever you want, but you're not being critical but stubborn. Moreover, what you previously quoted did not "define," but stated an instance of translation. Lastly, you are alone on a limb in your untenable theory. Chris, for one instance, has stated himself that Joseph interpreted most of the text through the normal method--translation. Here, look:

Quoting another person that agrees with you is hardly an argument that substantiates your claims, but like it or not the "translation" of the papyrus into anything but what it is would seem absurd. For your argument to make sense, one could "translate" this paragraph into another language and have it mean anything they wanted it to. The "translation" is either correct or incorrect, and Joseph Smith was incorrect, and IMO not guided by God in doing so.

You can argue that the revelation was wrong, but that is a wholly different subject than what Joseph meant by "translation." So while I will "seek the truth" to find it, stop condemning it when it stares you in the face. As to the part about God guiding him, your antecedent and consequent do not match, but necessitate an erroneous (and possibly hypocritical) assumption. Your application of formal logic isn't even amateurish, but juvenile.

Once again, a childish game of name calling to somehow give you power. It doesn't mean anything, but clearly shows you have nothing of substance to come back with. The "revelation" was not "inspired" per Joseph Smith's words (as I have previously quoted), but "translated" from the papyrus to the Book of Abraham. To necessitate your erroneous assumption, you need to refine the facts to change them into something that could possibly make sense to you. The facts still stand that the EAG and papyrus match, they are nothing special, have nothing to do with Abraham, and were translated incorrectly.

And again, your defamation of the BoA as bringing polygamy and racism to Mormonism is pretentious, foolish nonsense. I've already asked for CFR which you failed to provide. Another unsupported and libelous step and you, my friend, will enjoy being banned pursuant to board rules.

What does this mean? Is this your ploy to get me banned for stating an opinion? Is that the objective of this board? Is that your only out... to call name and try and stop opposing opinion? Because you asked:

http://mormonthink.com/boaweb.htm

Doctrine supported by the Book of Abraham.

One thing that makes establishing the validity of the Book of Abraham so important is the doctrine that the Book of Abraham supports. The Book of Abraham supports the concept of polygamy as Abraham took another wife as directed by the Lord. Perhaps what's even more significant is that God actually instructs Abraham to lie about it. God tells Abraham that he must lie to the Egyptians and tell them that his wife is really his sister so they wouldn't take her from him (Abraham 2:22-25). This is the only scriptural reference that we know of where God instructs someone to lie. This is important because Joseph lied to his congregations and to the public about his involvement in polygamy. If God would instruct Abraham to lie about his wives then it seems plausible that God could tell Joseph to lie about his wives as well.

It is also interesting to note that the story of Abraham in the Bible does not mention that the Lord told him to lie but gives the impression that it was Abraham's idea.

The Book of Abraham also introduced the first and only scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Blacks, the Church's official position until 1978. It described Pharaoh and the Egyptians as descendents of Ham and Canaan (the progenitors of the Negro race), and under the curse of Canaan and disqualified from the priesthood (Abraham 1:21-22, 26-27).

The plurality of gods is also a doctrine that is supported by the Book of Abraham. When the book of Genesis had been corrected by the Prophet the first time in 1830, the text he produced retained the Bible's (and Moses') emphasis that there is only one God. Joseph's 1842 translation of portions of the Book of Abraham, however, distinctly taught the plurality of gods -- a concept of deity Joseph had started teaching a few years earlier, but one which many Saints neither understood nor appreciated.

Now go away. You deplete the intelligence of the board with your vain, illogical, and wholly disingenuous ramblings.

PacMan

And once again all you have are insults... care to respond to the data posted?

[William Schryver]

You know Will, I used to read Kevin Graham's opinion of you and think that it just couldn't be true. Looking back on it, I'm starting to think Kevin was being kind!

Do you mean his opinion that I am a shameless liar?

Or that I am a babbling fool who doesn't have a clue about anything I'm saying?

Or that I am a complete idiot who is being employed as an ignorant tool by people "behind the scenes"?

Or that I am one of the best friends of Mormon critics and I am probably single-handedly responsible for driving countless people out of the church?

[William Schryver]

In trying to show that he has contributed to the discussion, Will says, "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." Am I the only one who wonders how halfway-correctly repeating my view back to me represents a contribution to the discussion?

That's because I knew that the casual reader had not even come close to realizing the import of what you have said.

I wanted to emphasize it so they could not miss it.

And I am still waiting for you to explain to me and them alike how it is that something employed to produce THREE VERSES of the Book of Abraham (about 3% of the whole) can be said to have been the "modus operandi" of its production.

All you've done is return to the thread over and over again to refresh the smokescreen you've been billowing since I first asked the question.

Still waiting ..........

[dblagent007]

Do you mean his opinion that I am a shameless liar?

Or that I am a babbling fool who doesn't have a clue about anything I'm saying?

Or that I am a complete idiot who is being employed as an ignorant tool by people "behind the scenes"?

Or that I am one of the best friends of Mormon critics and I am probably single-handedly responsible for driving countless people out of the church?

No comment.

[dblagent007]

Still waiting ..........

Oh man, the irony here is just too rich.

[Chris Smith]

And I am still waiting for you to explain to me and them alike how it is that something employed to produce THREE VERSES of the Book of Abraham (about 3% of the whole) can be said to have been the "modus operandi" of its production.

How can the modus operandi for part of the Book of Abraham be said to have been "the modus operandi for part of the Book of Abraham" (JWHA, p. 39)? That's a good question; I'll have to think about that one.

All you've done is return to the thread over and over again to refresh the smokescreen you've been billowing since I first asked the question.

So I'm attempting to mask my own thesis behind a "smokescreen"? How does that make sense?

[William Schryver]

How can the modus operandi for part of the Book of Abraham be said to have been "the modus operandi for part of the Book of Abraham"? (Cf. Smith, "Dependence of Abraham," p. 39, underline added.) That's a good question, I'll have to think about that one.

So I'm attempting to mask my own thesis behind a "smokescreen"? How does that make sense?

What makes sense is that asserting that the grammar and alphabet portion of the KEP was the modus operandi for the production of a mere three verses of the Book of Abraham is tantamount to an admission that (aside from the three verses, obviously) you haven't any theory to account for the production of the overwhelming majority (97%) of the book. It is tantamount to admitting that, should it be demonstrated (as I am convinced it can be) that the grammar and alphabet is not the modus operandi for the production of Abr. 1:1-3, then you have no reason or means by which to associate the grammar and alphabet with the production of the Book of Abraham. This is, of course, the position I take on the issue: that the grammar and alphabet do not inform the production of the text of the BoA, but rather quite the opposite. The text of at least the first three chapters of the BoA existed prior to the production of any of the grammar and alphabet documents. I am convinced that this thesis can be demonstrated in such a manner as to persuade all but the most rigid adherents to the old Ashment thesis of production.

Now, by your own admission, the grammar and alphabet only informs the production of three verses (3%) of the entire published text of the BoA. Therefore, the task of proving that the EA/GAEL documents did not inform the production of any of the text is not that formidable. I must simply demonstrate that the arguments you make in your published paper do not withstand scrutiny. I am convinced that can be accomplished. But I intend to go much further, as you shall see. I intend to render untenable the overwhelming majority of both the historical interpretations and the text critical arguments that have been advanced by you and your colleagues.

I will demonstrate that:

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

So I invite you and your supporters here to fill the cup of your mockery and ridicule to overflowing. All the better, from my perspective.

In the meantime, however, I adjure you to cease characterizing my opposition to your arguments as consisting of "uncivilized" ad hominem attacks, notwithstanding the fact that I trust I will continue to be routinely subjected to such attacks as part of your standard tactical modus operandi (speaking of my detractors generally, and not of you specifically; you, as a general rule [although certainly not always] have resisted the tempting urge to disparage me personally, unlike many of your supporters and friends).

I do want to, again, commend you for the paper you have had published in the John Whitmer Historical Society Journal. Your paper has been the catalyst for great things, and I will always look to you and it as having served an essential, albeit unintentional, role in what will eventually come to be seen as the definitive revealing, once and for all, of the true meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Have a nice day ... I now have a very important analytical paper to complete, and so will largely refrain from participation on this message board in the coming days and weeks.

[PacMan]

thews,

I am confident that my articulation of both my position and the proof is beyond reproach. Moreover, you are a waste of time. Considering everyone else (including the critics) on this board agrees with me that Joseph considered even strict revelation as 'translation,' I am satisfied to leave judgment to the readers and look for more substantive debate. Whether you think you have a point, no one else cares.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Will,

In layman terms, are you basically saying that if the (here I go again confusing the acronyms) GAEL was modus operandi for the KEPA, then the vast majority of the book would have remained untranslated because the extant GAEL is insufficient in either length or content to render a translation for the rest (gross majority) of the book?

PacMan

[Chaos]

I'm going to close this thread if it doesn't get nicer in here. Don't get personal and support what you are saying if you are asked to.

[Chris Smith]

you haven't any theory to account for the production of the overwhelming majority (97%) of the book.

My theory for the overwhelming majority of the book is that it was produced in the usual way, by dictation. In fact, my argument for the dependence of Abraham 1:1-3 on the GAEL relies on precisely this fact: thus the stylistic difference between 1:1-3 and the rest of the BoA text.

This is, of course, the position I take on the issue: that the grammar and alphabet do not inform the production of the text of the BoA, but rather quite the opposite. The text of at least the first three chapters of the BoA existed prior to the production of any of the grammar and alphabet documents. I am convinced that this thesis can be demonstrated in such a manner as to persuade all but the most rigid adherents to the old Ashment thesis of production.

If you can accomplish such a feat, it will be a major contribution and a significant step forward for the field. Since such a conclusion would militate against everything I know about these papers, I don't expect much. But I do look forward to reading your theory. Good luck.

-Chris

[wenglund]

Tell me that these are not tears of joy.

Tell me what relevance this has to what you and I have been arguing?

I ask because it appears that you are conflating the two Josephs. In your quote above, it is Joseph of Egypt who is weeping for joy, whereas in Phelps' letter, it is Joseph Smith and Phelps who are weeping for joy. In Gen. 42, Joseph of Egypt is weeping for joy in finally seeing his brothers after many years, whereas in Phelps' letter Joseph Smith and Phelps are weeping for joy in finally hearing from Phelps' wife for the first time in a long timetime, just as they weeped in finally reading the history of Joseph of Egypt presumably for the first time as told in the Egyptian record--at least that is how I interpret it.

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?

In informal discourse, I think it can happen either way, though most likely with "something they're familiar with". As I intimated in my previous post, though, I believe it was the latter. Joseph Smith was the author/speaker and W.W. Phelps was the audience. Phelps knew exactly what Joseph Smith was referring to--as evinced by what he explained later in his letter to his wife as well other historical documents that have been cited throughout this thread.

This is how I reasonably view what was said (and apparently Chris does too). However, the statement in Phelps' letter about reading the history of Joseph is sufficiently vague so as to allow for you to also reasonably conclude that it is in reference to Genesis chapters 37 to 50. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Would it be fair to conclude that the controversy over the BoA, which has allegedly compromised the testimony of not a few members, can be essentially boiled down to whether three or so verses were translated using the Egyptian alphabet/grammar that was translated by the gift and power of God, or translated directly using the gift and power of God as was the bulk of the BoA? In other words, the controversy is over whether 3% of the verses in the BoA were indirectly or directly translated by the gift and power of God, with the rest being directly translated by the gift and power of God?

If so, I find this quite perplexing since either way it was translated by the gift and power of God.

I ask because, as mentioned previously, I have come very late to the discussion of this issue, and so far this seems to be all that is in dispute. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benjamin McGuire]

Chris Smith writes:

Sorry, working off memory here. If the words are not found in Seixas then they follow his system of transliteration. Seixas, as you know, taught Hebrew personally in Kirtland. In addition to words from Seixas' grammar, many of Joseph's changes to the creation narrative in Abraham 4-5 follow Seixas' suggested translations, as documented by Michael Walton and Louis Zucker. Smith also owned Moses Stuart's grammar and Augustus Hahn's Biblia Hebraica, so these are additional possible sources, but I'm inclined to think Seixas was his primary source for Hebrew knowledge.

I am not sure I agree with you. While gnolaum certainly follows a sephardic transliteration, kokaubeam does not. And Olea isn't even presumably a Hebrew word. But we find Olea and gnolaum along with etymological notes in Latin manuals concurrent to and predating the Book of Mormon translation. I actually disagree with Zucker on a few points. Among other things, he didn't have both early editions of Seixas grammar at his disposal. The issue is that Seixas cannot be used to account for these words from his grammars. These words do not come in any of the passages which are used in Seixas to teach Hebrew Grammar. At best we could make the argument that they appear to be Hebrew, or Hebrew related, but then, this itself is an interesting issue. Hah-ko-kau-beam is transliterated in the style of Seixas, but, this may well come later (as we see in the later chapters).

On Olea, Zucker made this comment:

Olea, a name for the moon, may be an invented variant for a Hebrew word for "moon," yau-ra-akh, the same as the vowels of Adonai were transposed into the word Jehovah.

However, in an early source we read:

Our Leixocgrapher imagines, that Olea, the Olive, and its parallel terms, belong to the hebrew ?? HL, signifying, To Shine. Perhaps Olea, &c. is attached to the Element ^L, for the same reason, as denoting The - Tree, ILLA Arbor. Whether the Hebrew word 'To Shine' is derived from a similar idea, must be the subject of enquiry in another place.

(Etymologicon Universale; or Universal Etymological Dictionary by Walter Whiter, published in 1822, p. 491)

This also brings to mind that letter from Joseph to Phelps - the "Olive Leaf" in December of 1832.

Based on what I have read, I am not convinced that these words postdate Seixas. Although the some of the related language - particularly when we see transliterations in the style of Seixas - comes later.

Ben M.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Have a nice day ... I now have a very important analytical paper to complete, and so will largely refrain from participation on this message board in the coming days and weeks.

I have nejoyed your posts on this topic. I think you have a point. I am confident that the material that you are working on will be nice to see. I have not yet read it, of course, but from the bits I see here and the main premise is one that I agree with.

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

I think this much is obvious. Time will tell though.

[William Schryver]

I don't understand why this is hard. This comes for another thread on the Internet.

Now Ms1a uses 18 Egyptian characters, and below I provided photos with the characters taken from the 6 pages of the manuscript, in the order they appear:

Simple question Will. Were the people attempting to decipher the meaning of one or both the real and invented characters?

FYI:

I've decided I will share with you the fact that there are no "made up" characters.

They've all now been found on the papyri, with the exception of a couple (undoubtedly from lacunae).

Some are bad copies of the hieratic originals, but they're all authentic characters.

[dblagent007]

FYI:

I've decided I will share with you the fact that there are no "made up" characters.

They've all now been found on the papyri, with the exception of a couple (undoubtedly from lacunae).

Some are bad copies of the hieratic originals, but they're all authentic characters.

What authentic Egyptian characters do they correspond to and where can they be found on the papyri?

[William Schryver]

What authentic Egyptian characters do they correspond to and where can they be found on the papyri?

There is a forthcoming paper that deals with this question. I'm not going to the trouble right now of editing photos to demonstrate it. Right off hand I can tell you that #10 in the photo you posted is on line 3 and #11 is on line 5.

But this is not my area of study. I just happen to be aware of the findings.

[dblagent007]

There is a forthcoming paper that deals with this question. I'm not going to the trouble right now of editing photos to demonstrate it. Right off hand I can tell you that #10 in the photo you posted is on line 3 and #11 is on line 5.

But this is not my area of study. I just happen to be aware of the findings.

If that is true, it would be consistent with the modus operandi for handling lacunae in facsimile 2. It would also help reduce the unbelievability of your thesis, but only ever so slightly.

Just curious, who is the author(s) of the paper?

[William Schryver]

If that is true, it would be consistent with the modus operandi for handling lacunae in facsimile 2. It would also help reduce the unbelievability of your thesis, but only ever so slightly.

Just curious, who is the author(s) of the paper?

Just some lying apologetic hack with no credibility whatsoever.

[Chris Smith]

Ben,

I agree that Olea does not postdate Seixas. I always found that to be a real stretch on Zucker's part, and as it turned out, I later discovered that Olea appears in the May, 1835 "specimen". That is, it predates the Hebrew study.

I don't understand why you say that hah-ko-kau-beam is in the style of Seixas but kokaubeam is not. In any case, it doesn't necessarily need to appear in Seixas's grammar to be a product of his instruction or a product of JS's Hebrew study. Since there are several Hebrew words in ch. 3, including gnolaum, I'm actually quite surprised that you'd dispute this point. That the chapter is post-Hebrew study seems quite obvious to me.

Peace,

-Chris