My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[William Schryver]

(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.

Charles,

I'm afraid you have misrepresented my beliefs. I don't believe anyone assisted Joseph Smith in "translating" the Book of Abraham. I never have. Nor have I ever said that. All I've ever said is that he translated the BoA without the aid of the papyri purchased from Michael Chandler, just as he "translated" the Book of Mormon without the aid of the plates he received from Moroni, just as he "translated" the Book of Moses without the aid of any ancient text whatsoever, just as he "translated" D&C 7 without the parchment John wrote it on.

I am convinced that the evidence is quite clear on the point that Joseph Smith could not translate either ancient "reformed Egyptian" or ancient conventional Egyptian. But he had an extraordinary gift as a medium by which ancient texts were transmitted, by supernatural means, into modern English vernacular.

I do believe "Joseph Smith et al." tried, after he had already received the text of the Book of Abraham, to figure out how to actually translate Egyptian. But they failed abysmally. No shame in that, of course. Almost 200 years after Thomas Young first cracked open the door of understanding ancient Egyptian, scholars are still discovering that there is much they do not understand about that most unique of all languages.

I hope that helps.

[cdowis]

Charles,

I'm afraid you have misrepresented my beliefs. I don't believe anyone assisted Joseph Smith in "translating" the Book of Abraham. I never have. Nor have I ever said that.

Someone has logged in with your name. This faker posted "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."

May I suggest that you report this to the moderators because this "fake post" clearly misrepresents what you actually think.

Sorry, that this person fooled me.

All I've ever said is that he translated the BoA without the aid of the papyri purchased from Michael Chandler, just as he "translated" the Book of Mormon without the aid of the plates he received from Moroni, just as he "translated" the Book of Moses without the aid of any ancient text whatsoever, just as he "translated" D&C 7 without the parchment John wrote it on.

Interesting theory, except that the KEP clearly shows the source of the Book of Abraham. What puzzles me is why JS did not know what text contained the BOA (according to you), yet he was involved in the reconstruction of that interpretation (no quote marks) using the BOD text.

Your assumptions are flawed, and your logic totally collapses under scrutiny.

I am convinced that the evidence is quite clear on the point that Joseph Smith could not translate either ancient "reformed Egyptian" or ancient conventional Egyptian. But he had an extraordinary gift as a medium by which ancient texts were transmitted, by supernatural means, into modern English vernacular.

I do believe "Joseph Smith et al." tried,

Please make up your mind. Is it "et al", or did JS himself do the translation (no quote marks)?

I guess I'm too stupid to keep up with your contortions and backtracking.

after he had already received the text of the Book of Abraham, to figure out how to actually translate Egyptian. But they failed abysmally. No shame in that, of course. Almost 200 years after Thomas Young first cracked open the door of understanding ancient Egyptian, scholars are still discovering that there is much they do not understand about that most unique of all languages.

I hope that helps.

It certainly confirms my previous observations, if that is what you mean.

[William Schryver]

Charles,

You are indeed a very disagreeable fellow; one insistent, for whatever reason, on misrepresenting my statements, and even expressing, repeatedly, considerable disdain towards me. That, of course, is your prerogative. You are certainly welcome to your opinions.

But I shall no longer interact with you in terms of these issues. I will no longer attempt explain the nature of the current studies of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, nor attempt to persuade you to appreciate their value and correctness.

You may languish in your preconceptions and obstinate intransigence to your heart's delight.

I wish you well, and I remain gratified that you apparently share with me a conviction of the inspired nature and origins of the Book of Abraham, even though we will quite obviously never see eye to eye when it comes to the details of its origins.

Will Schryver

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

Just to clarify, are you saying that BA^1a (folder 2), BA^1b (folder 3), and BA² (folder 1) are attempts by Joseph Smith's scribes (and perhaps Smith himself) to reverse engineer a previously translated BoAbr that comprised at least chapters 1-3 to match the hieratic on the papyrus?

If so, please confirm.

If not, what are these manuscripts?

And do Brian Hauglid and John Gee concur with your assessment of these documents?

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

BM:

Just to clarify, are you saying that BA1a (folder 2), BA1b (folder 3), and BA2 (folder 1) are attempts by Joseph Smith's scribes (and perhaps Smith himself) to reverse engineer a previously translated BoAbr that comprised at least chapters 1-3 to match the hieratic on the papyrus?

Your attempt to restate my position is not, in certain substantial respects, consistent with the fairly concise thesis I have repeatedly cited above:

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 will leave it to you to discern what those

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

No need to be coy.

BA^1a (folder 2), BA^1b (folder 3), and BA² (folder 1) clearly and consistently align certain characters with the English text in the same way as the Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.

So, again, are BA^1a (folder 2), BA^1b (folder 3), and BA² (folder 1) attempts by Joseph Smith's scribes (and perhaps Smith himself) to reverse engineer a previously translated BoAbr that comprised at least chapters 1-3 to match the hieratic on the papyrus?

If so, please confirm.

If not, what are these manuscripts?

I look forward to your lucid reply.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[William Schryver]

BM:

No need to be coy.

Coming from you this is rich irony. In any case, coyness is not one of the deadly sins in my religion.

BA1a (folder 2), BA1b (folder 3), and BA2 (folder 1) clearly and consistently align certain characters with the English text in the same way as the Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts and the bound Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.

And

[wenglund]

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....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.

While waiting, I see at least some value in bringing myself up to speed on the subject and preparing at least some exploritory questions in preparation for the "real scholarship"--though I certainly wouldn't fault apologists or critics alike who may wisely prefer to sit on the sidelines of this issue until after the "real scholarship" is completed.

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

As a novice on the subject, I am greatly impressed by the depth of knowledge and analytical skills on both sides (including, if not particularly, Will Schryver). And, from what I have read of the Nibley paper you suggested, I am pleasingly impressed by the seeming shift in position of the critics, as a group, to more of a oneness of mind with Nibley regarding Abr. 1:4 - 2:5 not being translated from the Egyptian alphabet/grammar.

Who knows, perhaps once the "real scholarship" has been completed, there may end up being all the more oneness of mind with Nibley (and Will?) on the modus operandi of all of the BoA, particularly 1:1-3. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

Who knows, perhaps once the "real scholarship" has been completed, there may end up being all the more oneness of mind with Nibley (and Will?) on the modus operandi of all of the BoA, particularly 1:1-3.

I wouldn't hold my breath on this.

[wenglund]

I wouldn't hold my breath on this.

Oh ye of little faith!

Just so that everyone knows, I haven't lost interest in this topic. It's just that I am doing some historical research surrounding the BoA production so as to put the subject in context. I hope to have it completed by the end of the day. And, I will share any new information I come up with at that time. I believe the historical context will shed some much needed light on the why's and wherefore's, and make it somewhat easier to decide between the various theories regarding the BoA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

During my historical research, I didn't find anything startling or necessrily new.

However, to me, the data appears to reinforce a point that Will and I made earlier in the thread. To see how, let's accept, for the moment, Chris' hypothesis, and then generally list the sequence of events, and see if you can find the inexplicable oddity in the translation of various LDS scripture by Joseph Smith:

• Dec 1827 - Feb 1828: Some of the characters on the golden plates were copied and translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• Apr - Jun 1828: More characters translated from plates by gift and power of God (116 pages).
  
• Apr 1829: John 21:22 translated by gift and power of God (see D&C 7).
  
• Apr - Jun 1829: characters translated from plates by gift and power of God.
  
• Jun 1830 - Feb 1831: Book of Moses translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• Jun 1830 - Feb 1831: Portions of the Old Testament translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• Mar 1831 - Jul 1833: Portions of the New Testament translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• July 3 - 6, 1835: Some characters from Egyptian papyri were translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• End of July, 1835: Abr 1:1-3 was translated using an Egyptian alphabet/grammar.
  
• Aug 1835 to March 1842: the remainder of the Book of Abraham was translated by the gift and power of God.

What wrong with this picture?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

During my historical research, I didn't find anything startling or necessrily new.

However, to me, the data appears to reinforce a point that Will and I made earlier in the thread. To see how, let's accept, for the moment, Chris' hypothesis, and then generally list the sequence of events, and see if you can find the inexplicable oddity in the translation of various LDS scripture by Joseph Smith:

• Dec 1827 - Feb 1828: Some of the characters on the golden plates were copied and translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• Apr - Jun 1828: More characters translated from plates by gift and power of God (116 pages).
  
• Apr 1829: John 21:22 translated by gift and power of God (see D&C 7).
  
• Apr - Jun 1829: characters translated from plates by gift and power of God.
  
• Jun 1830 - Feb 1831: Book of Moses translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• Jun 1830 - Feb 1831: Portions of the Old Testament translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• Mar 1831 - Jul 1833: Portions of the New Testament translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• July 3 - 6, 1835: Some characters from Egyptian papyri were translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• End of July, 1835: Abr 1:1-3 was translated using an Egyptian alphabet/grammar.
  
• Aug 1835 to March 1842: the remainder of the Book of Abraham was translated by the gift and power of God.

What wrong with this picture?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[dblagent007]

During my historical research, I didn't find anything startling or necessrily new.

However, to me, the data appears to reinforce a point that Will and I made earlier in the thread. To see how, let's accept, for the moment, Chris' hypothesis, and then generally list the sequence of events, and see if you can find the inexplicable oddity in the translation of various LDS scripture by Joseph Smith:

• Dec 1827 - Feb 1828: Some of the characters on the golden plates were copied and translated by the gift and power of God.
  
• Apr - Jun 1828: More characters translated from plates by gift and power of God (116 pages).
  
• Apr 1829: John 21:22 translated by gift and power of God (see D&C 7) (No claimed source text).
  
• Apr - Jun 1829: characters translated from plates by gift and power of God.
  
• Jun 1830 - Feb 1831: Book of Moses translated by the gift and power of God (No claimed source text).
  
• Jun 1830 - Feb 1831: Portions of the Old Testament translated by the gift and power of God (No claimed source text).
  
• Mar 1831 - Jul 1833: Portions of the New Testament translated by the gift and power of God (No claimed source text).
  
• July 3 - 6, 1835: Some characters from Egyptian papyri were translated by the gift and power of God (No claimed source text).
  
• End of July, 1835: Abr 1:1-3 was translated using an Egyptian alphabet/grammar.
  
• Aug 1835 to March 1842: the remainder of the Book of Abraham was translated by the gift and power of God.

What wrong with this picture?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think it is all that hard to explain. Most of those translations you listed did not come from a source text that JS claimed to possess (or if he did, there was no corroboration of its existence). The two exceptions are the BOM and the BoA.

The initial translation method for the BOM shares some remarkable similarities to the initial translation method for the BoA. The first attempts to translate the BOM are described by Bushman in RSR at pgs 63-64, which is quoted as follows:

Joseph Knight Sr., who from his home in nearby Colesville aided Joseph while the translation went on, said that Joseph and "his wife Drew of[f] the Caricters exactly like the ancient and sent Martin Harris to see if he Could git them Translated." Lucy Smith gave the same reason. She said Joseph was instructed "to take off a facsimile of the characters composing the alphabet which were called reformed egyptian Alphabetically and send them to all the learned men that he could find and ask them for the translation of the same." Lucy implied that once Joseph had a translation of all the basic characters, he could carry on by himself - thus the need to copy a great number of characters. Harris went to the "professed linguists," Lucy said, to give them "an opportunity to display their talents in giving a translation of the characters." Joseph himself did not say why Harris went to the linguists, except that he was commanded to go.

This indicates that Joseph first attempted to create an alphabet much like he did with the BoA, only he tried to do it using conventional scholars instead of revelation. JS's attempt to create an alphabet and grammar is hardly out of place at all. In fact, it seems to fit his modus operandi quite nicely!

[Anijen]

I don't think it is all that hard to explain. Most of those translations you listed did not come from a source text that JS claimed to possess (or if he did, there was no corroboration of its existence). The two exceptions are the BOM and the BoA.

The initial translation method for the BOM shares some remarkable similarities to the initial translation method for the BoA. The first attempts to translate the BOM are described by Bushman in RSR at pgs 63-64, which is quoted as follows:

This indicates that Joseph first attempted to create an alphabet much like he did with the BoA, only he tried to do it using conventional scholars instead of revelation. JS's attempt to create an alphabet and grammar is hardly out of place at all. In fact, it seems to fit his modus operandi quite nicely!

Yes we know about the famous Anthon transcript. But thanks

[William Schryver]

I don't think it is all that hard to explain. Most of those translations you listed did not come from a source text that JS claimed to possess (or if he did, there was no corroboration of its existence). The two exceptions are the BOM and the BoA.

The initial translation method for the BOM shares some remarkable similarities to the initial translation method for the BoA. The first attempts to translate the BOM are described by Bushman in RSR at pgs 63-64, which is quoted as follows:

This indicates that Joseph first attempted to create an alphabet much like he did with the BoA, only he tried to do it using conventional scholars instead of revelation. JS's attempt to create an alphabet and grammar is hardly out of place at all. In fact, it seems to fit his modus operandi quite nicely!

First of all, I find it interesting that, in this particular case, a critic is willing to acknowledge the reality of actual ancient plates as the source text for the Book of Mormon. How ironic!

Secondly, Bushman is citing Lucy Mack Smith, writing long after the death of Joseph Smith, concerning the modus operandi of the production of the Book of Mormon. Here again, it is ironic that the critics are willing to grant Lucy credibility on this score, but will denigrate her account when it comes to other issues where they don't like what she says. In any case, even if her account of the Anthon transcript were correct (and there is considerable doubt and conflicting testimony concerning it) it doesn't change the fact that Joseph Smith did not utilize any type of "Egyptian grammar" in his production of the Book of Mormon, as is unquestionably attested by all the witnesses to the translation itself.

[wenglund]

I don't think it is all that hard to explain. Most of those translations you listed did not come from a source text that JS claimed to possess (or if he did, there was no corroboration of its existence). The two exceptions are the BOM and the BoA.

The initial translation method for the BOM shares some remarkable similarities to the initial translation method for the BoA. The first attempts to translate the BOM are described by Bushman in RSR at pgs 63-64, which is quoted as follows:

This indicates that Joseph first attempted to create an alphabet much like he did with the BoA, only he tried to do it using conventional scholars instead of revelation. JS's attempt to create an alphabet and grammar is hardly out of place at all. In fact, it seems to fit his modus operandi quite nicely!

With all due respect, I think you are confusing "translation method" with "characters that were translated". While it may be true that with both the BoM and the BoA, the initial "characters that were translated" might have been an alphabet and grammar, Chris and I are in agreement that the "translation method" used in relation to those initial characters, was the gift and power of God. Furthermore, according to the historical record, the "translation method" for the remaining characters of the BoM was also the gift and power of God, and not via the use of the alphabet/grammar as a key. Chris and I also agree that the bulk of the BoA was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by way of the alphabet/grammar.

Where we disagree is, Chris believes that for Abr. 1:1-3 alone, unlike with all the other scriptural translations (BoM, D&C 7, Moses, portions of the Old Testament, portions of the New Testament, initial character on the Egyptian Papyri, the bulk of the BoA) the alphabet and grammar is hypothesised as the "translation method". This is the one inexplicable exception.

Will and I, along with the historical record, consistently contend that all of the scriptural translations, including Abr. 1:1-3, were translated by the gift and power of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[dblagent007]

First of all, I find it interesting that, in this particular case, a critic is willing to acknowledge the reality of actual ancient plates as the source text for the Book of Mormon. How ironic!

Are you trying to pigeon hole me into your conception of all "critics" just because I disagree with your ridiculous BoA apologetics?

Secondly, Bushman is citing Lucy Mack Smith, writing long after the death of Joseph Smith, concerning the modus operandi of the production of the Book of Mormon. Here again, it is ironic that the critics are willing to grant Lucy credibility on this score, but will denigrate her account when it comes to other issues where they don't like what she says. In any case, even if her account of the Anthon transcript were correct (and there is considerable doubt and conflicting testimony concerning it) it doesn't change the fact that Joseph Smith did not utilize any type of "Egyptian grammar" in his production of the Book of Mormon, as is unquestionably attested by all the witnesses to the translation itself.

First, I said there were similarities, not that both situations were identical, capeche?

Second, perhaps you could explain where I have discounted her account on issues that I don't like what she says.

[wenglund]

Let's assume again, for the sake of argument, that the initial characters copied from both the BoM and the BoA, and translated by the gift and power of God, comprised portions of their respective alphabets/grammars. I think it of interest to note that in each case the characters were utilized in getting secular confirmation (with Professor Anthon and/or various Doctors and Chandler), not only of the antiquity of the charaters, but also the validity of their translation.

This suggests to me that the primary intent in deriving an alphabet/grammar by means of the gift and power of God, was to cull secular evidence in support of the verity of what would later become the divine translation of the respective scriptures, and not as a "translation method" themselves.

I also believe that the alphabets/grammars (at least KEP) were constructed for the purpose of educating the Elders of the Church in the Egyptian language, in much the same manner (through use of an alphabet/grammar)the Elders used in learning Hebrew about the same time.

To me, viewing the KEP in this light, and considering Abr. 1:1-3 as having been translated by the gift and power of God--like with all the other translated scriptures (see the list above), makes the most sense, and best fits all the data. It accounts for the existence of the extant alphabets/grammars, while also comporting with the historical witnesses to the BoA as having been translated by the gift and power of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

.

[Chris Smith]

This is the one inexplicable exception.

Dblagent already mentioned the plan to use an alphabet to translate the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith also used his Hebrew grammar to translate a variety of biblical texts shortly after he used his Abrahamic grammar to translate parts of the papyri. Why did he do this if he could simply translate these texts by the power of God? Another interesting precedent will eventually be published by a friend.

Joseph also experimented with different translation methods on other occasions. He used the spectacles for a while, then switched to the stone, then switched to direct inspiration. He used a source text sometimes and didn't use one other times. He told Oliver Cowdery he could translate with a divining rod. He sang one revelation in angelic tongues and then interpreted the tongues. The bottom line is that Joseph didn't lock himself into doing things just one way. I think he enjoyed mixing things up once in a while.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

.

What happened to your other dates for the translation of the BoA?

Just currious?

[William Schryver]

dblagent007:

Are you trying to pigeon hole me into your conception of all "critics" just because I disagree with your ridiculous BoA apologetics?

I would be very interested in your personal articulation (as opposed to parroting others) of my "ridiculous BoA apologetics." In what specific ways would you say my BoA apologetics qualify as "ridiculous"? I look forward to your well-considered reply.

.

.

.

BTW, dblagent007=Trevor, correct? I just wanted to confirm the assumption under which I have been operating. It's always nice to put a real name on the arguments in this particular debate, after all, almost everyone else who sallies forth, sword in hand, on this battlefield has demonstrated the courage to do so without a mask: myself, Chris Smith, Brent Metcalfe, Brian Hauglid, Dan Vogel (at times), Andrew Cook (Mortal Man) goes by a moniker, but his IRL identity is widely known, Ben McGuire, etc.

[William Schryver]

What happened to your other dates for the translation of the BoA?

Just currious?

I'm not so sure he wanted to talk about the May 1842 date he listed.

[William Schryver]

Dblagent already mentioned the plan to use an alphabet to translate the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith also used his Hebrew grammar to translate a variety of biblical texts shortly after he used his Abrahamic grammar to translate parts of the papyri. Why did he do this if he could simply translate these texts by the power of God? Another interesting precedent will eventually be published by a friend.

Joseph also experimented with different translation methods on other occasions. He used the spectacles for a while, then switched to the stone, then switched to direct inspiration. He used a source text sometimes and didn't use one other times. He told Oliver Cowdery he could translate with a divining rod. He sang one revelation in angelic tongues and then interpreted the tongues. The bottom line is that Joseph didn't lock himself into doing things just one way. I think he enjoyed mixing things up once in a while.

Sometimes I'm convinced you don't always think these things through all the way; that you don't stand back and take a macro view of the arguments you're making.

In any case, I'm quite excited to see you and Don attempt to defend this thesis.

[Chris Smith]

What happened to your other dates for the translation of the BoA?

Just currious?

Just don't have time right now to open more topics of discussion than we're already discussing. I've got a mid-term on Wednesday, and 300 pages to read by Thursday.