My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

I just love surprises.

Then you will (no pun intended) absolutely relish my text-critical annotations.

And, yes, I do enjoy surprises, especially of the factual type. Thus far, all you've mustered are surprises of the fanciful type.

Best wishes,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

Then you will (no pun intended) absolutely relish my text-critical annotations.

And, yes, I do enjoy surprises, especially of the factual type. Thus far, all you've mustered are surprises of the fanciful type.

Perhaps you missed what I wrote above:

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.

To my knowledge, you've never addressed that argument.

Can we expect your forthcoming text-critical annotations to do so?

And will they also contradict my analysis of the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12?

What about the large dittograph (a visual copying error, for our readers) on page 4 of KEPA 2? That is a finding (among others) that contradicts the Ashment thesis about KEPA 2 and 3 being simulataneous transcriptions of an oral dictation. Will that be explained as well?

Believe me, if you can manage to do those things, I will be surprised.

[Chris Smith]

Charles,

Thanks for that explanation of where you're coming from. Very interesting story.

Wade,

Baer observed that the characters supplied in the translation manuscripts' margins where there are lacunae in the papyrus are not the correct characters, with two exceptions: the first two characters in translation manuscript # 1. The fact that these two characters are rendered correctly suggested to Baer that they were present on the papyrus at the time Joseph had it in his possession. I see nothing circular about his argument. Nor do I see any reason to doubt that he was correct.

Will,

The chart in Nibley's essay was a nice start, and some of his pictures were pretty good. He also managed to make a few perceptive observations. But his conclusions, for the most part, border on the ludicrous. I encourage you, by all means, to embarrass yourself in print by relying on them.

Peace,

-Chris

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Can we expect your forthcoming text-critical annotations to do so?

Yes, but not where you may expect.

And will they also contradict my analysis of the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12?

Yes.

What about the large dittograph (a visual copying error, for our readers) on page 4 of KEPA 2? That is a finding (among others) that contradicts the Ashment thesis about KEPA 2 and 3 being simulataneous transcriptions of an oral dictation. Will that be explained as well?

Yes, I discuss the repetition in my annotations. (The notion that it is a "visual copying error" is utterly absurd.)

Believe me, if you can manage to do those things, I will be surprised.

Yes, you will, Will.

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Anijen]

I really laugh when non experts criticize the real expert. Hugh Nibley was a real expert who could read "Arabic, Coptic, Dutch, Egyptian, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Latin, Old Norse, Russian and other languages at sight."

He was way ahead of his time, he wasn't perfect (no one but Jesus was)he had a few academic errors (a few)Those who place such a grand scale of error on his scholarship is so laughable

A technical editor in the computer industry and a guy with a masters in Christian History is lecturing about the magnitude of the huge reservoirs of scholarly error from Hugh Nibley is frankly a pathetic joke..

his conclusions, for the most part, border on the ludicrous

Nibley's numerous errors

Guys its hard to take you seriously when you spout this drivel. It cheapens your credibility and makes a mockery of real scholars.

Boo boo boo bad form

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Anijen,

If nothing else, thanks for making me smile after a very long day.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Anijen]

Hi Anijen,

If nothing else, thanks for making me smile after a very long day.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Lars Umlaut]

Hi Brent,

I don't get snarky too often and I will admit that you and Chris run circles around me in matters of the KEP. But I find it offensive kind of like fingernails on a chalkboard when I see you guys put a parade of his so many errors and mistakes. To me it is like Father Caccini criticizing Galileo

[Anijen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

As my daughter would say, 'whatever"

Logical fallacy or not. I freely admit Nibley made mistakes but can we give him a break he wrote about this like 40 years ago and it is still fresh. However it is not his authority that I appeal to but to the lack of any authority in the form of Egyptian expertise from his two favorite critics on this board.

xoxox

Anijen

[Chris Smith]

Well, Anijen, whatever my similarity to Father Caccini, never let it be said that I deny you the right to your opinion.

[Anijen]

Well, Anijen, whatever my similarity to Father Caccini, never let it be said that I deny you the right to your opinion.

LOL I appreciate that. I am open minded enough to and have changed my mind in the past but its not been by criticizing the scholars but from study of them.

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

Your reply concerning the characters is non sequitur. Show me where the w character is repeated anywhere where it corresponds to the word

[wenglund]

Wade,

Baer observed that the characters supplied in the translation manuscripts' margins where there are lacunae in the papyrus are not the correct characters, with two exceptions: the first two characters in translation manuscript # 1. The fact that these two characters are rendered correctly suggested to Baer that they were present on the papyrus at the time Joseph had it in his possession. I see nothing circular about his argument. Nor do I see any reason to doubt that he was correct.

Hi Chris and Will,

Please don't mistake my comments as suggesting that the layers of hypothesis are necessarily wrong. Truth be told, I found them to be quite reasonable, if not somewhat pursuasive in parts, though I may disagree with Chris' hypothesis. I was simply attempting to clarify and to point out the somewhat heavy reliance on guesswork--which is required at times when doing history and when dealing with dead languages like Egyptian (as Nibley intimated in the quote posted earlier in the thread).

Besides, I am somewhat less interested at this point in exploring the question of what may or may not have been included in the BoB or what may or may not have been the source document(s) for the BoA, and more interested in delving deeper into the production of the Egyptian alphabet/grammar.

I do appreciate your patience in working with me as a novice to the issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Besides, I am somewhat less interested at this point in exploring the question of what may or may not have been included in the BoB or what may or may not have been the source document(s) for the BoA, and more interested in delving deeper into the production of the Egyptian alphabet/grammar.

A worthy goal. They're a fascinating collection of documents that express some very interesting theological, cosmological, and historical views, some of which have interesting correspondences to actual Egyptian characters and the actual history of ancient Egypt. They well deserve to be taken seriously, despite the inclination of some to push them out the airlock.

[William Schryver]

A worthy goal. They're a fascinating collection of documents that express some very interesting theological, cosmological, and historical views, some of which have interesting correspondences to actual Egyptian characters and the actual history of ancient Egypt. They well deserve to be taken seriously, despite the inclination of some to push them out the airlock.

Recognizing the Kirtland Egyptian Papers for what they really are, and in the context of the true intention behind their production (rather than from the perspective of the agenda-laden presuppositions through which Mormon critics make them into something they aren't) is not at all tantamount to "push[ing] them out the airlock," or, in other words, casting them aside as a worthless artifact.

They aren't rendered any less "fascinating" when viewed as the evidence that these men, holding in their hands the previously received text of the initial "translation" of the Book of Abraham, and sincerely convinced that said text was an authentic "translation" of a part of the papyri they also possessed, were attempting to employ that text in order to decipher the papyri. Quite to the contrary, the KEP can then be appreciated much more, because they make total sense when viewed through the lens of the correct explanatory thesis:

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

I challenge anyone to present evidence from the KEP that is not consistent with this thesis.

I have been trying to do just that, and I have yet to identify a single element of the KEP that is not consistent with said thesis, as described above. In fact, the more I examine the text-critical evidence in an attempt to defeat my own thesis, the more persuaded I become of its explanatory power. Indeed, I am increasingly convinced that this thesis will become the definitive explanation of the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. In the meantime, I am quite content to permit my detractors to derisively dismiss me and my arguments as "utterly absurd." I do acknowledge that, in the end, the theories of one party or the other will come to be viewed in those terms. But, for now, the jury is still out ...

[Mortal Man]

Wade,

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-

and Will,

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

I recommend you both read The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers by Hugh Nibley. I can't help but give the late professor some props for having hit the mark so precisely on those often-maligned opening characters. For example, Nibley makes the following astute observation:

A three-quarter-inch margin is ruled off on the left and headed "caracter," and the first two characters to appear in it are the ubiquitous reed and "w"-loop, which happen to be the signs with which the intact De Horrack papyrus of the Book of Breathings (Louvre No. 3284) begins, and the signs with which in all probability the damaged Joseph Smith Papyrus No. XI also began.

I think Dr. Nibley's remark here stands up today as well as it did in 1971, wouldn't you agree? I have yet to hear any apologist address this eminently logical argument put forth by Hugh Nibley in 1971. Hugh Nibley was a real expert with huge reservoirs of scholarly knowledge, just ask Anijen.

[Mortal Man]

Mortal Man:

Your reply concerning the characters is non sequitur. Show me where the w character is repeated anywhere where it corresponds to the word

[William Schryver]

Wade,

and Will,

I recommend you both read The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers by Hugh Nibley. I can't help but give the late professor some props for having hit the mark so precisely on those often-maligned opening characters. For example, Nibley makes the following astute observation:

I think Dr. Nibley's remark here stands up today as well as it did in 1971, wouldn't you agree? I have yet to hear any apologist address this eminently logical argument put forth by Hugh Nibley in 1971. Hugh Nibley was a real expert with huge reservoirs of scholarly knowledge, just ask Anijen.

Are you under the impression that what you've written above constitutes a rejoinder to anything I've said? Because I certainly don't see it. Quite to the contrary, it only seems to demonstrate the fact that you are not really following along; that you're not really grasping the nature of the controversy, nor the import of the various arguments.

Incidentally, I think that perhaps you would benefit from reading Nibley's 1971 essay, but only if you do so from the recently published An Approach to the Book of Abraham, wherein Brian Hauglid has done an excellent editing job, rendering the paper "up-to-date" and correcting many of Nibley's errors by virtue of the most recent scholarship. As it stands now, it constitutes an excellent introduction to the topic. I do not recommend, at this point, the essay as it appears in the link you provided.

Finally, you appear to have missed the question I posed to you in my earlier reply:

Show me where the w character is repeated anywhere where it corresponds to the word

[Mortal Man]

Finally, you appear to have missed the question I posed to you in my earlier reply:

Show me where the w character is repeated anywhere where it corresponds to the word

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

Please see my reply which I posted prior to this astute observation of yours.

Warm Personal Regards,

MM

Andrew,

Since it has become apparent that we are either talking past each other, or (as I suspect) you are merely obfuscating in order to evade the import of my observations about the relationship of the hieratic characters in the left column (or rather, that lack thereof) with specific English words in the text of the BoA in the right-hand column, I'm going to try to make this a little easier for everyone involved:

In the first sentence of the manuscript currently known* as "KEPA 1," (Ashment's Ms2) W. W. Phelps distinctly associates the word "Chaldean" with a single, specific hieratic character that appears in the left-hand column adjacent to the line containing the word "Chaldean." The words "Chaldea," "Chaldean," or "Chaldeans" appear 9 more times in the document, but never again is this single, specific hieratic character to be seen in association with the word "Chaldea[n]".

In the first sentence of the manuscript currently known* as "KEPA 1," (Ashment's Ms2) W. W. Phelps distinctly associates the word "Abraham" with a single, specific hieratic character that appears in the left-hand column adjacent to the line containing the word "Abraham." The word "Abraham" appears 9 more times in the document, but never again is this single, specific hieratic character to be seen in association with the word "Abraham".

It is very difficult to reconcile this fact with the thesis that Joseph Smith et al. believed they were "translating" these characters to produce the corresponding English text. And I have yet to hear any critic address this argument that was first advanced by Hugh Nibley in 1971.

Indeed, what we see is entirely consistent with my thesis, for it indicates that these men were experimenting with different ideas in an attempt to find some logical connection between the characters on the papyri and the previously revealed English text of the first part of the Book of Abraham.

The problem was that they simply didn't have a clue as to which Egyptian characters corresponded to that English text. So they tried different things, drawing upon characters from different places on the papyri. I have identified at least three distinctly different approaches, each of which appear to focus on different sets of characters on the papyri. It just so happens that this particular experimental foray (the KEPA documents) was trying to match English text to the characters appearing on what we now call JSP IX, or the text containing the so-called Book of Breathings.

I hope that brief explanation aids our readers in comprehending the point I've been trying to make here.

.

.

.

(* Brian Hauglid has now formulated a new and much more accurate and logical naming convention for the KEPA manuscripts. I will probably start employing it in the very near future.)

[wenglund]

Wade, and Will,

I recommend you both read The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers by Hugh Nibley. I can't help but give the late professor some props for having hit the mark so precisely on those often-maligned opening characters. For example, Nibley makes the following astute observation:

That is an excellent suggestion (though I think Will's suggestion might even be better). The Nibley quote provides a great lead into my previously stated intent to delve deeper into the production of the Egyptian alphabet/grammar. I now have indication from whence the first three characters were derived. Hopefully, your suggested reading material will inform me from whence the other characters in the alphabet were derived.

Then, the real work begins in trying to figure out the production process for the grammar.

I am wondering, though, whether it may be advised to start by looking first into the production of the grammar, and then delve into the production of the alphabet. What do you suggest?

I think Dr. Nibley's remark here stands up today as well as it did in 1971, wouldn't you agree? I have yet to hear any apologist address this eminently logical argument put forth by Hugh Nibley in 1971. Hugh Nibley was a real expert with huge reservoirs of scholarly knowledge, just ask Anijen.

As previously indicated, my earlier comments ought not be misinterpreted as a disagreement with Baer's assertion (quoted earlier by Chris), which apparently comports with what Nibley suggest in the statement you quoted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

That is an excellent suggestion (though I think Will's suggestion might even be better). The Nibley quote provides a great lead into my previously stated intent to delve deeper into the production of the Egyptian alphabet/grammar. I now have indication from whence the first three characters were derived. Hopefully, your suggested reading material will inform me from whence the other characters in the alphabet were derived.

Then, the real work begins in trying to figure out the production process for the grammar.

I am wondering, though, whether it may be advised to start by looking first into the production of the grammar, and then delve into the production of the alphabet. What do you suggest?

Wade,

I'm glad to hear that you've become interested in this topic, since so many apologists seem to treat it like the plague. Dan Peterson, for example, is fond of declaring his "total lack of interest" in the papyri and the KEP.

Before delving into the production of the alphabet & grammar, I'd recommend reading Klaus Baer's article on the papyri. I think it's helpful to have an idea of what Joseph & Co. had to work with, compared to what we have today. Baer commands great respect from everyone on both sides of the debate and, IMHO, remarkably little has changed since he laid out the essential facts. Nibley, Ritner and Rhodes all rely heavily on Baer's original analysis; e.g., in Rhodes' book, he simply repeats Baer's length estimates for the missing columns.

In regards to the GAEL & translation manuscripts, I'm of the opinion that the polemics have gotten way ahead of the basic research and text-critical analysis. On the one side you've got the Tanner's publication of the pilfered microfilm and on the other side you have Nibley's essay. Marquardt has done some analysis, but the real scholarship, which has yet to appear, is currently being performed by Brent and Brian. Like everyone else, I am waiting for their books to come out before I form a concrete opinion about the methods of manuscript production. Will assures us that Brian's book is imminent, and I'm sure that if we all send truckloads of cash to Brent then his book will appear soon as well. Unless you have special access to the original documents, I don't see a way to surpass their efforts in a reasonable period of time. Therefore, probably the best thing to do, while we all wait for further enlightenment, is to sit around and engage in witty banter. Also, (and I'm sure that Will will again accuse me of being a shill and/or acolyte for this but oh well) I have to say that I am continually amazed at the depth and breadth of Chris Smith's knowledge of this subject. He gives straight answers to straight questions and I've learned a great deal from him in this area.

Best Regards,

MM

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wade,

I'm glad to hear that you've become interested in this topic, since so many apologists seem to treat it like the plague. Dan Peterson, for example, is fond of declaring his "total lack of interest" in the papyri and the KEP.

Best Regards,

MM

To a point I can see why he would be taht way. I don't understand most of it and it is rather time consumig to follow every little detail. My brain doesn't quite work that way. What I find useful is when William slows down a bit and tries to explain to the dumb man (me). Not that I am dumb but I am not very familiar with a lot of this stuff. Like I said it is time consumming to wade through it all and try ot make an argument when it gets this specific.

[Chris Smith]

I'm glad to hear that you've become interested in this topic, since so many apologists seem to treat it like the plague. Dan Peterson, for example, is fond of declaring his "total lack of interest" in the papyri and the KEP.

Nibley felt the same. In 1968 he had "never spent so much as five minutes with the Egyptian Grammar, and [did] not intend to unless he [was] forced to it." Of course, not having read the documents didn't stop him from offering the opinion that they could not have been intended as an inspired communication.

When a few years later he apparently was forced into dealing with them, he shocked everyone by arguing for exactly the same thesis he had proffered before reading them.

Also, (and I'm sure that Will will again accuse me of being a shill and/or acolyte for this but oh well) I have to say that I am continually amazed at the depth and breadth of Chris Smith's knowledge of this subject. He gives straight answers to straight questions and I've learned a great deal from him in this area.

Thanks, you shillish acolyte, you!

-Chris

[cdowis]

In the first sentence of the manuscript currently known* as "KEPA 1," (Ashment's Ms2) W. W. Phelps distinctly associates the word "Chaldean" with a single, specific hieratic character that appears in the left-hand column adjacent to the line containing the word "Chaldean." The words "Chaldea," "Chaldean," or "Chaldeans" appear 9 more times in the document, but never again is this single, specific hieratic character to be seen in association with the word "Chaldea[n]".

In the first sentence of the manuscript currently known* as "KEPA 1," (Ashment's Ms2) W. W. Phelps distinctly associates the word "Abraham" with a single, specific hieratic character that appears in the left-hand column adjacent to the line containing the word "Abraham." The word "Abraham" appears 9 more times in the document, but never again is this single, specific hieratic character to be seen in association with the word "Abraham".

It is very difficult to reconcile this fact with the thesis that Joseph Smith et al. believed they were "translating" these characters to produce the corresponding English text.

(emphasis mine)

Your "difficulty" is based on flawed assumptions ==>

"Joseph Smith, et al" did the translation, Joseph Smith and "et al" did not even know what egyptian text contained the Book of Abraham.

Yes, your assumptions do indeed give you great difficulties.

Phelps was not Joseph Smith. There is no "et al" translator.

Joseph Smith, the prophet, seer, and revelator, did know what he was doing, he knew which text contained the BOA text, he performed the translation, not "Joseph Smith, et al".

Phelps, et al was probably attempting (without much success) to reconstruct the translation, and that the KEP has nothing to do with the actual translation process. It was a learning exercise, with no direct ties to the BOA translation process itself.

Hope that helps.