My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[Chris Smith]

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.

The macro view is the whole reason I'm making the little arguments in the first place. My JWHA paper was designed entirely as a precursor to the translation timeline paper, which hopefully will be a precursor to a book or paper that takes a meta-meaning view of the BoA.

[Chris Smith]

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

That would be Facsimile 3.

[Mortal Man]

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.

From the Board Guidelines:

-Do not post any personal information about another poster without that poster's permission. This includes (but is not limited to) posting full names, addresses, photos, employment information, etc.

[ttribe]

From the Board Guidelines:

-Do not post any personal information about another poster without that poster's permission. This includes (but is not limited to) posting full names, addresses, photos, employment information, etc.

I'm not sure that applies when the person in question may be posting on another Mormon-critical board using the alternative name as identified. BTW, I believe Will may be wrong in who he has identified as whom.

[wenglund]

Dblagent already mentioned the plan to use an alphabet to translate the Book of Mormon.

I understand this may be the conclusion you and Dblagent agent may have jumped to based on Bushman's belief that Lucy implied "that once Joseph had a translation of all the basic characters, he could carry on by himself." However, whether that was the "plan" or not (I don't believe so), there is no indication in the historical data, at least that I am aware of, indicating that this was the "translation method" that was actually used; and there is a wealth of data suggesting otherwise.

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.

First of all, you seem to be stating as fact the very issue in dispute--i.e. whether or not Joseph used the Abrahamic grammar to translate parts of the papyri.

Second, while Joseph did use the Hebrew grammar to translate a variety of biblical text, he did so along with many other Elders of the Church, and with the intent of learning the Hebrew language, and not for the purposes of deriving new scripture or a new canonized redition of old scripture (like with Moses, or Jn 21:22, or the JST of the Old and New Testaments). In fact, for all intents and purposes, according to the historical record, Joseph's inspired translation of the Bible was completed some two years prior to Chandler visiting Joseph in Kirtland and the commencement of the Hebrew classes the following November:

"I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833 and sealed it up no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion." (History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch.23, p.324)

"We this day [July 2, 1833] finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father..." (History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch.26, p.368)

"It was the intention of the Prophet to have this revised version of the scriptures which he had made with such laborious care published in Zion, at the printing establishment of the Church in that place (New Testament and Book of Mormon to be published together; see p. 341) but before the work could even be commenced, the persecution arose which made the undertaking impracticable And such was the unsettled state of the Church throughout the remaining years of the Prophet's life that he found no opportunity to publish the revised scriptures, and to this day there is no authoritative publication of his translation of the Old and New Testaments given to the world except in such excerpts as appear in the Pearl of Great Price, on this subject the late President George Q. Cannon, in his Life of Joseph Smith, remarks in a footnote (p. 112)--"We have heard President Brigham Young state that the Prophet before his death had spoken to him about going through the translation of the Scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fulness at the time of which we write [2nd Feb., 1833]." (History of the Church, Vol.1, p.324, Footnotes)

Why did he do this if he could simply translate these texts by the power of God?

I believe I answered this in my previous post.

Another interesting precedent will eventually be published by a friend.

Would that be Don Bradley? If so, I look forward to it.

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.

Yes, on some levels, things were somewhat diverse. However, the one consistent thread for all of the scriptural translations was that they came by way of the gift and power of God.

Granted, in terms of the Kinderhook plates, Joseph's knowledge of the Egyptian and Hebrew alphabet/grammar may have played a factor in the presumed translation mentioned by Clayton, but we aren't talking there about anything close to being scriptural.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The macro view is the whole reason I'm making the little arguments in the first place. My JWHA paper was designed entirely as a precursor to the translation timeline paper, which hopefully will be a precursor to a book or paper that takes a meta-meaning view of the BoA.

Speaking of which, during the course of my research over the weekend, I compiled a translation timeline myself (from Dec. 1827 to May 1843), covering each of the scriptural translations I listed earlier, using abstracts drawn from the History of the Church, the Messenger and Advocate, Phelps Letters, and the Book of John Whitmer.

I would post it here, but it is 14 pages long (12 pnt., single spaced, Word document). If interested, I can either copy portions of the timeline here over a number of posts, or I can attach the Word file to a post (if that is possible), or you can email me and I will send you the file.

No sense everyone else reinventing the wheel. Besides, some of you may have material I don't have, and vice versa, and I wouldn't mind collaborating on an exhaustive timeline.

To me, the more historical data that is compiled, the better for Will's (and my) position. ;good:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Droopy]

There will be no such textual evidence, because this is almost certainly not the original. The original would not have been mailed off in a letter, for one thing.

Its seemingly trivial, yet perhaps pivotal inferences (or is this a conclusion intended to settle a matter?) such as these that make scholarly exploration of this kind interesting, no?

The debate over the BofA is rather crowded with such connective tissue.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

That makes my head explode just thinking about your situation. Chris, as a friend I suggest you not get on this baord until you are done with that mid-term.

[Chris Smith]

Yes, on some levels, things were somewhat diverse. However, the one consistent thread for all of the scriptural translations was that they came by way of the gift and power of God.

I think Joseph would have said the power of God was involved in the production of Abr. 1:1-3, as well. Not only did the Grammar come by the power of God, but so probably did the connecting parts of speech. As to your statement that "all of the scriptural translations...came by way of the gift and power of God," I'd like to raise the interesting question of whether they all came exclusively this way, or whether in some cases Joseph worked certain things out in his mind and then used revelation to fill the gaps. For example, did he use the KJV and its italics to translate 2 Nephi? Did he use Hebrew to translate parts of Abraham 4 and 5? These, I think, are good examples of the kind of thing he was doing in Abraham 1:1-3.

I would post it here, but it is 14 pages long (12 pnt., single spaced, Word document). If interested, I can either copy portions of the timeline here over a number of posts, or I can attach the Word file to a post (if that is possible), or you can email me and I will send you the file.

I'd be interested in reading it. You could just attach it to your post, if you're comfortable doing so. I'm particularly interested to see where you situate the Facsimile 2 explanation, considering that it duplicates significant portions of the Grammar's text.

Peace,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

That makes my head explode just thinking about your situation. Chris, as a friend I suggest you not get on this baord until you are done with that mid-term.

The more pressing danger is that I'll work on a paper that I spent most of the weekend writing. I have sort of a one-track mind, so once I get started on something it's hard for me to switch to some other major project until the first thing is done. And if I do stop in the middle of something, it's hard to pick it back up again.

[Mortal Man]

I would post it here, but it is 14 pages long (12 pnt., single spaced, Word document). If interested, I can either copy portions of the timeline here over a number of posts, or I can attach the Word file to a post (if that is possible), or you can email me and I will send you the file.

I'd like a copy if you can't get it posted somehow.

[PacMan]

Chris,

I think Joseph would have said the power of God was involved in the production of Abr. 1:1-3, as well.

Are you suggesting that Joseph really believed that he figured it all out by himself with out divine intervention? That's a bit far fetched...

PacMan

[Chris Smith]

Are you suggesting that Joseph really believed that he figured it all out by himself with out divine intervention?

Not sure how you got that from the line you quoted.

[wenglund]

I think Joseph would have said the power of God was involved in the production of Abr. 1:1-3, as well. Not only did the Grammar come by the power of God, but so probably did the connecting parts of speech.

In an indirect sense, you are correct. But, when speaking about all of the scriptural translations, I had in mind the "gift and power of God" as being consistent in the direct sense. Your hypothesis would still be considered the inexplicable oddity because of its indirectness.

As to your statement that "all of the scriptural translations...came by way of the gift and power of God," I'd like to raise the interesting question of whether they all came exclusively this way, or whether in some cases Joseph worked certain things out in his mind and then used revelation to fill the gaps. For example, did he use the KJV and its italics to translate 2 Nephi? Did he use Hebrew to translate parts of Abraham 4 and 5? These, I think, are good examples of the kind of thing he was doing in Abraham 1:1-3.

I am not informed enough about those specific examples to say for certain, other than to question the need or the prudence, on those rare occasions, for Joseph to employ the kinds of exceptional (indirectly via the gift and power of God?) translation methods you conjecture.

I'd be interested in reading it. You could just attach it to your post, if you're comfortable doing so. I'm particularly interested to see where you situate the Facsimile 2 explanation, considering that it duplicates significant portions of the Grammar's text. Peace, -Chris

I will attempt to attach it to this post. As you may see from reading through the attachment, I don't really do any "situating" or analysis. I simply report, in chronological order, the historical data that I have thus far come across.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Translation timeline.doc

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Wade,

I encourage you to spend more time with the original/primary sources (those from which the History of the Church was compiled).

For example, the following quote of yours appends the wrong date and doesn't reflect the precision of Joseph Smith's journal...

September 30, 1835: " This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps, and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.21, p.286)

Now from Smith's journal...

October 1, 1835. This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with brsr. O. Cowdery and W.W.Phelps: The System of astronomy was unfolded.

Also, W. W.'s May 1835 letter to Sally says nothing about "an alphabet/grammar" as you suggest.

Hi Will,

I haven't misunderstood your view that Smith's Egyptian alphabet and grammar project attempts to reverse engineer a no-longer-extant manuscript of the BoAbr. What I fail to grasp is your distinction between the various manuscripts that comprise character columns adjacent to English text. Clearer?

Cheers,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[Mortal Man]

Thanks for the timeline Wade.

My impression is that the alphabet and grammar was the top priority until Oct. or Nov.

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I encourage you to spend more time with the original/primary sources (those from which the History of the Church was compiled).

That is a wise suggestion. When I get the time and the resources, I will do just that (hopefully the original/primary sources have been digitized and are digitally searchable). I am pleased to see, though, that the imprecission of that one HoC extract wasn't all that significant, but I understand that there may be other instances in the HoC where imprecission may be more the case.

As for the May, 1835 entry on my list, I was going off the photo of Phelps' letter posted to this thread (see post #95). Are you saying that it didn't contain an alphabet/grammar?

By the way, I value your imput. It has been some time since we conversed much online, and even longer since we conversed in person, and I miss that. While I may not always agree with your position, I do appreciate many of your insights.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Thanks for the timeline Wade.

My pleasure.

My impression is that the alphabet and grammar was the top priority until Oct. or Nov.

It appears to have been a priority during the latter part, respectively, of July and September of 1835.

However, during the interim, Phelps explained that "Nothing has been doing in the translation of the Egyptian Record for a long time, and probably will not for some time to come." (Phelps letters--August, 1835)

I believe this break in the translation is likely due, in part, to Cowdery and Phelps being ardently engaged in compiling and publishing the Doctrine & Covenants.

As for why it may have been a priority at that time, I believe I explained this in posts #468 and #480.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Am I correct in assuming that while Chris may be open to a supernaturalistic explanation for the BoA, there are those who proffer a naturalistic explanation?

If so, is there any in the latter camp participating on this thread?

I ask, because I am wondering what naturalistic arguments this latter group presents for how Joseph supposedly came up with the Egyptian alphabet/grammar to begin with, and whether they believe the alphabet/grammar was used in the production of most, if not all, of the BoA, rather than just Abr. 1:1-3, if that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[PacMan]

Not sure how you got that from the line you quoted.

It's called deduction. Quite simple really. But if inaccurate, please explain what you meant. What do YOU deduce from the fact that it wasn't mentioned? I'm curious.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Wade:

Good idea on the chronology. You should put it up on google docs or Adobe Air or something for online collaboration. It'd be interesting to see if anyone has anything to add.

Also some unsolicited suggestions (because I think the compilation is actually quite helpful): Put references in footnotes; column by date, quote, author, and location of writing. Landscape format should make it fit. And be sure to insert butterflies and use pastels.

PacMan

[Chris Smith]

It's called deduction. Quite simple really. But if inaccurate, please explain what you meant. What do YOU deduce from the fact that it wasn't mentioned? I'm curious.

Huh? The fact that what wasn't mentioned?

What I said was that Joseph believed the power of God was involved in interpreting Abraham 1:1-3. You then somehow interpreted this to mean that I think Joseph believed the power of God was not involved in interpreting Abraham 1:1-3. Which is the opposite of what I said.

The ones who think Joseph thought he figured something out without divine intervention are the apologists. And I agree with you: Joseph or his scribes creating the GAEL through mere speculative scholarly efforts is extremely farfetched. Somehow the name Zub-zool-oan was "reverse engineered" from the Book of Abraham?? How does that make sense?

-Chris

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The ones who think Joseph thought he figured something out without divine intervention are the apologists. And I agree with you: Joseph or his scribes creating the GAEL through mere speculative scholarly efforts is extremely farfetched. Somehow the name Zub-zool-oan was "reverse engineered" from the Book of Abraham?? How does that make sense?

-Chris

What is the GAEL?

[dblagent007]

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.

That's easy. Your BoA apologetics are ridiculous because you pretty much deny/ignore the mountain of evidence that contradicts your thesis, while still tilting at windmills over one emendation or another. You have certainly articulated your overarching theory over and over in this thread, yet you have not provided any convincing evidence that it is even barely plausible, not to mention probable.

Another reason your BoA apologetics are ridiculous stems from your, eh, difficulty telling the truth. You have already demonstrated this nicely in this very thread. I have reproduced the relevant exchange below.

The problem is one of credibility for the entire BOA apologetic intelligentsia. So many BOA apologetic theories have been birthed and died over the last forty years, that it is hard to take it seriously when you tell everyone to "wait, wait, this time we really do have an answer to Ashment."

As for "BoA apologetic theories" that have been birthed and died, perhaps you could elaborate on which ones you feel are dead. Other than the stillborn (in my judgment) "mnemonic device" theory, I'm not aware of any apologetic arguments that could be declared "dead." Quite to the contrary, the one I intend to defend and substantiate is one Nibley suggested from the very beginning. So I think you are mostly suffering from the effects of 40 years of propaganda, rather than the effects of a series of failed apologetic theories.

How about the "two-inks" theory or the "over-run" argument. . . .

There are, in fact, at least two different inks used in places on the KEPA manuscripts.

There are, in fact, cases where there are to be found significant instances of over-writing which militate against the critics' arguments.

Your responses to my examples of Gee's "two-inks" theory and "over-run" argument are deceptive because Gee's arguments never were that there were "in fact, at least two different inks used in places on the KEPA manuscripts" or that there were "in fact, cases where there are to be found significant instances of over-writing which militate against the critics' arguments." This comes across like you are trying to give doubters hope that I was wrong when you darn well that these two theories are dead. It is deceptive plain and simple.

I could point out a bunch of other examples on the other board where Kevin Graham caught you lying, but I can't post links to that board.

What does this show - that your BoA apologetics are ridiculous.

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.

I'm not Trevor.

[dblagent007]

What is the GAEL?

Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.