My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[Chris Smith]

It would also help reduce the unbelievability of your thesis, but only ever so slightly.

How so?

[William Schryver]

CS:

That the chapter is post-Hebrew study seems quite obvious to me.

It doesn't to me. In fact, I am prepared to argue that ALL of chapter 3 was translated before July 17, 1835.

At any rate, we don't have an early text for chapter 3, but only the Willard Richards "printer's manuscript". So we don't have any way of knowing if the Hebrew words even appeared in the earliest document(s). Since all of the Hebrew words have an English equivalent associated with them in the text, it is entirely possible that they represent a later addition to the original "translation."

[dblagent007]

How so?

Will argued that they were trying to use part of the BoA to decipher hieratic Egyptian, but they had no clue which papyri or characters to use. If JS supplied some of the missing characters then I think it undercuts Will's argument that they didn't know which papyri was the source of the BoA. It just doesn't make sense that JS would supply missing characters to random papyri which he is uncertain about whether it was the source of the BoA and then turn around and try to reverse engineer the meaning of the original and supplied characters using the BoA text.

If the Egyptian characters are all real (which is not a given since, by Will's own admission, the person doing the work is a "lying apologetic hack with no credibility whatsoever"), then it makes Will's scenario just slightly less unbelievable (but still no where near believable).

[Benjamin McGuire]

Chris writes:

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.

How much of Seixas have you read? Any of it?

Let me provide you with a sample. I don't have time to include the accents. But here is a passage from page 16 of the second edition:

Miz-mor le-dau-vid hau-boo la-ho-vau be-na a-leem hauboo la-ho-vau kau-bod vau-gnoz hau-boo la-ho-vau ke-bod she-mo hish-ta-kha-voo la-ho-vau be-had-rat ko-desh kol ye-ho-vau gnal ham-ma-yim al hak-kau-bod hir-gneem ye-ho-vau gnal ma-yim rab-beem kol ye-ho-vau bak-ko-akh kol ye-ho-vau ba-hau-daur kol ye-ho-vau sho-bar a-rau-zeem va-ye-shab-bar

Now, which seems to you to be transliterated in the Seixas style?

Kokaubeam or hah-ko-kau-beam?

The real reason though is this - I have studied Seixas in some detail, and am familiar with his grammars and so on. And, I don't see the material in Chapter 3 as coming from Seixas. I suspect that it comes from around 1832 and not 1836. But, I haven't gotten far enough to lay out my case. I will eventually.

[wenglund]

Since this went unresponded to, I would like to repeat my question:

Would it be fair to conclude that the controversy over the BoA, which has allegedly compromised the testimony of not a few members, can essentially be boiled down to whether three or so verses were: 1) translated using the Egyptian alphabet/grammar that was translated by the gift and power of God, or 2) 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? Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Now, which seems to you to be transliterated in the Seixas style?

Kokaubeam or hah-ko-kau-beam?

I'm aware that Seixas used hyphens between syllables. But Smith did so only inconsistently. That's not exactly an unbridgeable gulf, especially given that Smith was dictating to scribes.

I suspect that it comes from around 1832 and not 1836. But, I haven't gotten far enough to lay out my case. I will eventually.

Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham was translated in 1832?? I think I'll stick with the Seixas theory.

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

Would it be fair to conclude that the controversy over the BoA, which has allegedly compromised the testimony of not a few members, can essentially be boiled down to whether three or so verses were: 1) translated using the Egyptian alphabet/grammar that was translated by the gift and power of God, or 2) 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? Right?

No. The controversy is over why the Book of Breathings, which by all accounts seems to have been the source of the Book of Abraham, is in fact not the Book of Abraham. The controversy is also over why the Facsimiles seem to be misrestored and misinterpreted. The use of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to translate five or so verses of the Book of Abraham and to provide the explanation of Facsimile 2 is a relatively minor detail of this debate, and in fact when I wrote my JWHA paper I wrote it not so much with an eye to contributing to this controversy as with an eye to laying the groundwork for the translation chronology paper I'm working on with Don Bradley.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Chris writes:

Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham was translated in 1832?? I think I'll stick with the Seixas theory.

What I am suggesting is that these words (in the first 3 chapters) precede the Book of Abraham in Joseph's awareness (as you point out with Olea). Kokaubeam isn't a standard Seixas transliteration (who would have transliterated it ko-kau-beem). I believe that there is insufficient evidence to claim that these words came from Seixas (since they aren't used in Seixas), and that there inclusion isn't therefore useful to provide a late date for the first three chapters.

And while you are so dismissive, I will take that to mean that you have no real knowledge of Seixas beyond what you have picked up from other articles.

[Chris Smith]

And while you are so dismissive, I will take that to mean that you have no real knowledge of Seixas beyond what you have picked up from other articles.

I haven't read Seixas's Grammar cover to cover, if that's what you mean. But I have studied portions of both editions and read Joseph's journal and the Church History for the period.

Chris writes:What I am suggesting is that these words (in the first 3 chapters) precede the Book of Abraham in Joseph's awareness (as you point out with Olea).

Is there direct evidence of this, or is this just a hypothesis or inference of some kind?

I would need to see some evidence of that Kokaubeam isn't a standard Seixas transliteration (who would have transliterated it ko-kau-beem).

Apart from the hyphenation, we're talking about a one-letter difference. (A one-letter difference, I might add, that is suggestive of its English meaning.) Meanwhile, the Facsimile 1 and 2 explanations, produced around the same time, contain several other Hebrew words transliterated the Seixas way-- although again without hyphenation, except in the case of hah-ko-kau-beam in the Facsimile 2 explanation. And chapters 4 and 5 show signs of Seixas's influence, at least according to Zucker. Joseph Smith was using Hebrew in his Nauvoo sermons, as well. Thus the presence of Hebrew words in chapter 3 fits perfectly the pattern of the other productions of this period.

I believe that there is insufficient evidence to claim that these words came from Seixas (since they aren't used in Seixas), and that there inclusion isn't therefore useful to provide a late date for the first three chapters.

As I mentioned before, the absence of the word from Seixas's Grammar doesn't particularly matter, for a few reasons. The first is that JS learned from Seixas how to do transliteration on his own, and thus wouldn't have needed to consult the grammar every time he wanted to transliterate a Hebrew word. The second is that of the few specific chapters we know Joseph translated under Seixas's direct supervision, one was the 22nd chapter of Genesis. The seventeenth verse in this chapter includes the word "stars". Thus JS had the chance to learn this from Seixas in person. The third is that the meaning of this word was readibly available from Gibbs' Lexicon (p. 97). Gibbs doesn't transliterate it, but JS could easily have done that himself following Seixas's principles.

I really don't think it's unreasonable for me to see this as an indication that chapter 3 was produced after Joseph's Hebrew study, especially given the eight or so other things I mentioned that point toward the same conclusion. Like I said, I'm surprised to see you resisting this so strongly. But I suppose I'm open to be persuaded. If you have evidence Joseph knew these words as early as 1832, I'd like to see it.

Peace,

-Chris

[wenglund]

No. The controversy is over why the Book of Breathings, which by all accounts seems to have been the source of the Book of Abraham, is in fact not the Book of Abraham. The controversy is also over why the Facsimiles seem to be misrestored and misinterpreted. The use of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to translate five or so verses of the Book of Abraham and to provide the explanation of Facsimile 2 is a relatively minor detail of this debate, and in fact when I wrote my JWHA paper I wrote it not so much with an eye to contributing to this controversy as with an eye to laying the groundwork for the translation chronology paper I'm working on with Don Bradley.

Thanks for informing me about this. I am wondering, though, how your JWHA paper may impact some of these other controversies.

As I understand things, you hypothesis that the Egyptian alphabet/grammar was used to translate the first three verses of the BoA. In your paper, do you identify the source document (Book of Breathings?) from whence those three verses were translated, and if so do you demonstrate how the alphabet/grammar was used to derive the first three verses from that source document?

In other words, does your hypothesis about the means of translation support or counter the hypothesis that the Book of Breathings is the source from whence at least the first three verses of the BoA were translated?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

In your paper, do you identify the source document (Book of Breathings?) from whence those three verses were translated, and if so do you demonstrate how the alphabet/grammar was used to derive the first three verses from that source document?

Yes, more or less.

In other words, does your hypothesis about the means of translation support or counter the hypothesis that the Book of Breathings is the source from whence at least the first three verses of the BoA were translated?

It supports it.

[William Schryver]

Yes, more or less.

It supports it.

I would say more less than more, since the characters from the "Book of Breathings" that appear in KEPA 2 and 3 (verses 1:4 - 2:6) don't appear in the grammar and alphabet (the "modus operandi" of the translation) and the characters from KEPA 1 (verses 1:1 - 1:3) don't appear in the "Book of Breathings."

.

.

.

Edit: So exactly how do you conclude that the so-called "Book of Breathings" is the "source" of the Book of Abraham?

[William Schryver]

The only indication we are ever given in the KEP of a correspondence between Egyptian characters and English text is in the very first verse, where W. W. Phelps does us the favor of actually matching up discrete portions of text with hieratic characters. In this photo extract, we can see that

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The only indication we are ever given in the KEP of a correspondence between Egyptian characters and English text is in the very first verse, where W. W. Phelps does us the favor of actually matching up discrete portions of text with hieratic characters. In this photo extract, we can see that

[wenglund]

Yes, more or less.

It supports it.

Could you briefly explain why and how?

In other words, in your paper do you point to the characters in the Book of Breathing that correspond with the characters in the Egyptian alphabet/grammar used to translate BoA 1:1-3?

If that can't be done (as Will seems to believe), then doesn't that logically suggest that the BoB was not the source document for BoA 1:1-3, thus mitigating against rather than supporting the hypothesis that the BoB was the source document for the BoA?

(I realize that I may be rephrasing some of the same questions and points as Will, but since I have little or no clue what the KEPA's are, I am asking this in way that I and other novices to this issue may better understand.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Will, as for the first couple characters not being on the papyrus, remember Andrew's "poking" hypothesis?

Klaus Baer said that the first couple characters in the KEPA 1 margin are indeed the characters with which the BoB would have begun, and thus there must have been a "flake" of the papyrus there when Smith had it that is not there now. I don't see any reason to doubt Baer's reasoning on this point.

any effort to associate elements of the text with characters ends right there!

This is the last we see of the superscripted numbers, but certainly the rest of the book matches discrete units of text up with certain characters and character groupings by placing them in the margin and placing a line break where a new character set begins to be translated. These line breaks occur even in the middle of sentences.

And despite the fact that the phrase

[cdowis]

[Chris Smith]

Charles,

Leaving the other problems with the mnemonic device theory aside, why would instructions for burying a Book of Breathings with a mummy have been used as a mnemonic device for the Book of Abraham?

-Chris

[cdowis]

Charles,

Leaving the other problems with the mnemonic device theory aside, why would instructions for burying a Book of Breathings with a mummy have been used as a mnemonic device for the Book of Abraham?

-Chris

I don't understand the question. If it had said, "Mary had a little lamb", etc, it would have served the purpose, if the words fit together as a whole. It survived precisely because it had religious significance. Perhaps Mibley's book could shed some light on your question.

In any case, it is unlikely that Abraham himself wrote the mnemonic. The original book was lost, and the mnemonic survived, precisely for its religious meaning.

++++++++++++++++++

Let me give you my personal experience with the Book of Abraham, for those future scholars I mentioned.

Over the years I have been heavily involved in apologetics, and the writing of the BOA weighed heavily on my mind. I gave it alot of prayful thought.

One day I got an insight into the problem:

1. The BOD was not the Book of Abraham.

2. The BOD was the Book of Abraham.

I realized thatI had to find some theory that resolved this paradox.

A few years later I was thinking about this, and I had a day vision. I saw someone in monk attire writing illumunati on an ancient manuscript, figures to begin each chapter on the manuscript. I was lead to understand this was the answer. Now, I had no idea what that meant, so I decided to call FARMS to see if anyone there could figure out a solution based on my dream.

Well, someone passed me over to John Tvedtnes, and I told him my vision. He seemed startled, and asked whether I had read any of his writings on the BOA, and I told him that I had not.

So he sent me both of his articles, on mnemonics, and the rest is..... well, here we are.

Perhaps this may be viewed as idle hallucinations, but it did answer the paradox, and it did fit my dream.... that explains my attachment to the theory.

Anyway, back to the real world, and the scholars.

[Mortal Man]

we never again see either of these Egyptian characters repeated in the left-hand column!

Actually Will, the , "Abraham" character " (Egyptian "w") is repeated in the left-hand column in the very next character.

The third character here is a composite of elements, including the "Kiahbrahoam" (depending on degree) lexeme.

Phelps probably just decided that it would be too messy to superscript each constituent of this composite character.

[William Schryver]

For one thing, you need to recall that these are composite characters. Thus "Chaldea" and "Abraham" could show up as components of other characters without the full character being repeated.

And do they? Do you know?

Secondly, you need to recall that connecting parts of speech are being supplied. Thus the character needn't be present for Abraham to be mentioned in the text.

Proper names are not hardly "connecting parts of speech," are they? In fact, your answer comes awfully close to being utterly non sequitur. But no matter. I'm not here to convince you, after all.

You don't really think what you wrote above makes any kind of significant dent in my thesis, do you?

Of course it does. But again, I'm not here to convince you.

Is this the vaunted [new] evidence you're going to be presenting in your paper? I certainly hope not.

Considering the fact that I'm essentially just repeating Nibley above, I would have to answer in the negative (I took the liberty to clarify your question with the insertion of "new," since that was, I believe, your meaning.)

I've already told you that I don't plan on using message boards anymore to present new arguments. But, having just re-read The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers in its new, updated format in the recently published An Approach to the Book of Abraham, I couldn't help but give the late Professor some props for having hit the mark about 90% of the time in that often-maligned paper. The overwhelming majority of his arguments are as valid today as they were 38 years ago. I highly recommend the article to everyone interested in this topic. Those items where Dr. Nibley erred are corrected via editor's footnotes (edited by Brian Hauglid) and therefore the paper is rendered "up-to-date" in virtually every respect. It provides an essential "starting point" for anyone attempting to understand, well ... the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

In fact, I think I'll close with part of Nibley's summary, which still stands up today as well as it did in 1971:

We should not let the element of the fantastic in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers prejudice us too much against them. The history of Egyptology is largely a story of the fantastic. Aside from the nature of the material, every Egyptologist must indulge in some pretty wild guessing from time to time if he hopes for any fruitful breakthroughs

[wenglund]

Will, as for the first couple characters not being on the papyrus, remember Andrew's "poking" hypothesis?

Klaus Baer said that the first couple characters in the KEPA 1 margin are indeed the characters with which the BoB would have begun, and thus there must have been a "flake" of the papyrus there when Smith had it that is not there now. I don't see any reason to doubt Baer's reasoning on this point.

If I read you correctly, this amounts to several layers of dependant, though unsupported, hypothesis:

1) The hypothesis regarding the BoB as the source document for the BoA (or at least the Abr. 1:1-3) is supported by

2) the hypothesis that there was a "flake", which no longer exists, allegedly containing the first three characters translated as BoA 1:1-3, which is supported by

3) Klaus Baer's hypothesis that the BoB would have begun with those characters.

Then, we have your hypothesis built on top of this, which suggest that the Egyptian alphabet/grammar was used as a key to translate the hypothesized characters from the BoB into the BoA. Which, in circular fashion, is then supposed to support the hypothesis regarding the BoB as the source document for the BoA.

Do I have this correct?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Those items where Dr. Nibley erred are corrected via editor's footnotes (edited by Brian Hauglid) and therefore the paper is rendered "up-to-date" in virtually every respect.

You're mistaken.

As much as admire Brian's effort to correct Hugh Nibley's numerous errors, there are several that he missed (most of which I document in my text-critical annotations of the BoAbr manuscript collection). That you don't know this is telling.

You are in for many, many surprises.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

If I read you correctly, this amounts to several layers of dependant, though unsupported, hypothesis:

1) The hypothesis regarding the BoB as the source document for the BoA (or at least the Abr. 1:1-3) is supported by

2) the hypothesis that there was a "flake", which no longer exists, allegedly containing the first three characters translated as BoA 1:1-3, which is supported by

3) Klaus Baer's hypothesis that the BoB would have begun with those characters.

Then, we have your hypothesis built on top of this, which suggest that the Egyptian alphabet/grammar was used as a key to translate the hypothesized characters from the BoB into the BoA. Which, in circular fashion, is then supposed to support the hypothesis regarding the BoB as the source document for the BoA.

Do I have this correct?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The fact that these three characters probably came from the lacuna doesn't militate against the apologetic argument at all.

The most important point I was trying to make is that these characters, which Phelps believed to represent "Chaldea" and "Abraham" are not repeated on the KEPA documents in the left-hand column, despite the fact that "Chaldea" and "Abraham" are repeated multiple times in the English text. I find it difficult to reconcile that fact with the thesis that the characters were understood to have meaning corresponding to the English text. I have yet to hear any critic address this eminently logical argument first put forth by Hugh Nibley in 1971.

(Incidentally, I think the KEPA documents are just another example [among others] of the fact that these men were experimenting with different approaches. They didn't have a clue which Egyptian characters corresponded to the English text they already had in hand.)

[William Schryver]

You're mistaken.

... That you don't know this is telling.

You are in for many, many surprises.

I just love surprises.

Do you?