Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[SlackTime]

Hi Dan. I've been interested in this topic for less than a week, but I saw Will's presentation and realized it's primarily a text-critical question, which happens to be my specialization. I'm not aware of anything published, posted, or presented on the KEP by formally trained textual critics, so I thought I'd get involved. Here's a short preview of what I've come up with over the last couple days that I posted at MDB. Chris Smith responded to some of my points and I in turn responded to his concerns. Anyone who is interested can find my post on the thread "How Schryver and his dittoheads get the truth," and can look at that thread for my responses to Chris and a few refinements of my analysis. This is research that I've quite literally just begun, but the data I've analyzed so far unanimously points to the chronological priority of the narrative of Abr.

I think this is a hallmark of a good work, when it becomes a springboard for others in further research.

- SlackTime

[wenglund]

There is no such thing as

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

Fair enough. We are convinced that "directionality" can be definitively demonstrated.

If you are, why didn

[why me]

Will,

If you are, why didn

[Benjamin McGuire]

The Book of Mormon? Joseph's imagination? I'm afraid I fail to see the relevance of the question.

Ahhhh, but you see, I can find what I feel is a probable source for Oliver's inclusion of this element (and the seemingly later use by the other texts). And it doesn't come from the Book of Mormon (which doesn't include such a notion) and it certainly doesn't make it into the Book of Abraham which follows quite closely the language of Genesis 2.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

In any case, it would help your theory if you could find anyone using the Grammar as you believe it was intended. Instead, we have an example from 1843 where Joseph Smith and W W Phelps use it like a grammar:

[Chris Smith]

Ahhhh, but you see, I can find what I feel is a probable source for Oliver's inclusion of this element (and the seemingly later use by the other texts). And it doesn't come from the Book of Mormon (which doesn't include such a notion) and it certainly doesn't make it into the Book of Abraham which follows quite closely the language of Genesis 2.

Ok. The Book of Mormon does include some of that language, but it wouldn't terribly surprise me if there were some other source. But again, I'm not grasping the significance of this for the question of direction of dependence between the EAG and the BoA.

[Dan Vogel]

Maklelan,

MS #3, character 14, is

[wenglund]

While the textual analysts are scholastically testing Will's dependancy theory, let's follow up on Bro. Vogel's earlier post and see if the historical record may lend itself to confirming rather than denying Will's dependency theory.

The first we hear of an Egytpian alphabet and grammar is the journal entry dated July 19th, 1835: "The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.17, p.238)

As best we can tell, then, work began on the alphabet and grammar (AG) about the middle of July.

So, when did the work on the AG end such that it could supposedly be used as a key to translate the BoA?

Well, we know that construction of the AG was still in progress the first of October of 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." (Joseph Smith's Journal)

In November of that year Warren Parrish was called to be Joseph's scribe, and was told the following in the blessing: "Behold, it shall come to pass in his day, that he shall see great things show forth themselves unto my people; he shall see much of my ancient records, and shall know of hidden things, and shall be endowed with a knowledge of hidden languages; and if he desire and shall seek it at my hands..." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.23, p.311)

Given that Parrish's handwritting is found on the Grammar and so-called Abraham manuscripts, as well as various HoC enteries, it is safe to assume that construction of the AG was still in progress as late as December of 1835. And, from all appearances today, it is clear that the AG is yet to be completed.

The question, then, is: Are there any indications that translation of at least portions of the BoA began prior to the AG being completed, or even better yet, that such translations occured before the AG even began--translations that evidently didn't rely on the AG, but may have provided the text (the "hidden things") upon which the AG may have been dependant?

As it turns out, there is:

1) We have this certification from Chandler, the owner of the papyri, dated July 6th of 1835: "This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. MICHAEL H. CHANDLER, Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.235)

So, we learn from a non-LDS that Joseph was able to "decipher" the Egyptian hieroglyphics presumably with out the aid of a translation key (which had yet to be constructed).

2) We have this from Joseph regarding the 5th to the 9th of July: "I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236)

So, here is Joseph, translating Egytian characters prior to the supposed translation key even being created. And, while he isn't using a translation key, we are given indication as to how he was able to translate--i.e. by revelation from the Lord.

3) A more detailed account is given here: "After some conversation with the Prophet Joseph, Mr. Chandler presented to him the ancient characters, asking him if he could translate them. The Prophet took them and repaired to his room and inquired of the Lord concerning them. The Lord told him they were sacred records, containing the inspired writings of Abraham when he was in Egypt, and also those of Joseph, while he was in Egypt; and they had been deposited, with these mummies, which had been exhumed. And he also enquired of the Lord concerning some few characters which Mr. Chandler, gave him by way of a test, to see if he could translate them. The Prophet Joseph translated these characters and returned them, with the translation to Mr. Chandler; and who, in comparing it with the translation of the same few characters by learned men, that he had before obtained, found the two to agree." (REMARKS OF CHURCH LEADERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 26 VOLS. LIVERPOOL, 1855-1886)

5) Further attestation is found in the historical record of John Whitmer (the designated historian for the Church at the time): "About the first of July, 1835, there came a man having four Egyptian Mummies, exhibiting them for curiosities, which was a wonder indeed, having also some words connected with them which were found deposited with the mummies, but there being no one skilled in the Egyptian language therefore could not translate the record. After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the Saints." (Book of John Whitmer 1832-1846)

5) In a letter sent by Phelps to his wife on about the 19th, he mentioned this: "The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham. God has so ordered it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church and the sacred writing I had just locked up in Brother Joseph's house when your letter came, so I had two consolations of good things in one day. These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints. . . ." (Phelps Letters)

6) Finally, we have this somewhat confused account from the Cleveland Whig, printed on Aug. 5th, 1835: "We are credibly informed that the Mormons have purchased of Mr. Chandler, three of the mummies, which he recently exhibited in this village; and that the prophet Joe has ascertained, by examining the papyrus through his spectacles, that they are the bodies of Joseph (the son of Abraham,) and King Abimeleck, and his daughter."

Evidently, the historical record can be read as strongly suggesting that at least a portion of the translation of the papyri occured prior to a supposed translation key being constructed, and that the translation was made possible by the gift and power of God. It is reasonable to induce as well that the translation consisted of at least portions of the record of Abraham as well as Joseph.

In short, at least of portion of the BoA had likely been translated by divine power prior to the creation of the AG, and may well have been used in the creation of the AG. There is historical evidence that the AG may have been dependant upon portions of the BoA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maklelan]

Maklelan,

MS #3, character 14, is

[maklelan]

Now, the assertion of critics is that the juxtaposition of these terms and concepts in the narrative are the result of the use of the GAEL and EA as translation tools. Chris Smith argued in a recent publication that the "choppiness and redundancy" of Abr 1:1-3, as well as their anomalous style within the narrative is the "best evidence for considering the GAEL a modus operandi for translation of part of the Book of Abraham." He states, "It bears repeating that these three verses are choppy and redundant, and flow much more poorly than the remainder of the Book of Abraham. Our conclusion must be that they are so because they were derived fro ma number of lengthy, nonnarrative Alphabet and Grammar entries that have been spliced together with relatively little connecting material." He also states that verse 3 "reads as though it has been cobbled together from a series of dictionary entries." This is a rather myopic conclusion, though, since that choppiness and redundancy is so characteristic of the Book of Mormon and the D&C. Smith often repeated himself in the interest of expounding or clarifying, almost as if cobbling together dictionary entries. Here's Abraham 1:1-3 followed by other texts that share compositional affinities:

In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence; And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

2 Ne 28:31: Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men.

Alma 37:38: And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director

[maklelan]

Now, my personal hypothesis, after less than a week of research, mind you, is that the Alphabet and Grammar constitute distillations of the terms and concepts found in the narrative down to their lexical or syntactic bases, and then expansions of those lexemes, based either on fanciful speculation (like you pointed out with embalming), the narrative (like I pointed out with character 18), or other pre-existing texts (see following). If my hypothesis is correct, then we would expect to find these distillations and expansions with the concepts and terminology borrowed from the D&C and the Bible. That's just what we find. (Keep in mind, I've not even analyzed half the characters.) In the GAEL, character 6 has "well taught," "taught more perfectly," and "being taught most perfectly and upright," which is a quotation of D&C 105:10: "taught more perfectly" with an accompanying distillation and expansion. The fifth degree of character 17 has "or that law by which they may be sanctified and see the face of God," which attempts to define the concept found in D&C 88:68: "Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will." Character 25 has the following explanations: "In the beginning with God, the Son, or firstborn." This is a distillation of D&C 93:21: "I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn." What's the most interesting part of these distillations and expansion? Not a one of them appears in the putatively subsequent narrative. Another claim of the critics is that incorporating sections of D&C and the Bible are perfectly natural, and that it shows Smith was just employing his own worldview in the composition of the alphabet, rather than drawing upon previously composed texts, with Abr among them. This seems like a perfectly natural conclusion, but the problem is that not a single one of the direct allusions to D&C or the Bible turns up in the subsequent narrative of the Book of Abraham. The critics have yet to address this. Why, if the Alphabet and Grammar are an experiment that gathered concepts and vernacular together to turn into a narrative, do none of the allusions to D&C and the Bible end up in the final narrative? They would have had to have been consciously omitted, but the critics have yet to even address the question, much less provide an explanation. The most parsimonious explanation is that the narrative preceded the Alphabet and Grammar which drew inspiration primarily from the narrative, but secondarily from the Bible and D&C.

Note that this reads like a fake grammar,

Please provided examples of other fake grammars which align with the form of the EA and GAEL.

not a cipher, and that the concept

[Chris Smith]

Mak,

We're not just talking about choppiness and redundancy. That was a crude way of putting it in my JWHA paper, and I have since refined what I said. The anomalous aspects of Abr. 1:1-3 are the use of serial semicolons, the use of serial appositives, and the amplification of "great righteousness" to "greater righteousness," which makes sense in the context of the Grammar but not the BoA. Your Mosiah 15 example comes close to the same level of serial appositive use, so kudos for finding that. But we still haven't seen a comparable example of serial semicolons from Phelps's corpus. As for the "greater" amplification, you provide an example from 1 Nephi: "Wherefore, I, Nephi, did make a record upon the other plates, which gives an account, or which gives a greater account of the wars and contentions and destructions of my people." But this is not the same. Here Nephi is correcting himself, because he realizes that his own small plates do contain an account of those things, but the other plates contain a "greater account." The construction makes sense contextually. Contrast this with the Book of Abraham, where the amplification does not make sense. We are told that Abraham wants to possess great knowledge and greater knowledge. Huh? Great, and greater than great? In the context of the finished narrative, it is a bizarre construction at best. But it is not bizarre in the context of the Grammar, which tends to amplify meanings as we ascend through the degrees.

Anyway, Mak, you really need to get a copy of the Grammar that has the characters in it, so you can see what we are seeing. Iota in the first degree of the EA has no relationship to the first three verses of the BoA. At best, it has a relationship to 1:23-28, where the lacuna has been filled with characters constructed largely of graphemes from the first degree, including several iota-dots. So even if one believes the first degree is a cipher or reverse-engineering of the BoA (specifically 1:23-28), one would have to consider it a sheer coincidence that the BoA's first verse refers to "me" and "seeing" in close proximity and also is associated with a character than can be dissected to include iota.

In other words, these documents are more complex than can really be encapsulated by a database approach, and to a great extent the characters are the key to everything. So you really need to see images of them, even if only the bad microfilm ones.

Peace,

-Chris

P.S. It just occurred to me, Mak, that the "sound" assigned to the dot-character is iota (a very natural name for this particular character, I think you'll agree). Assuming that this sound was pronounced with a long i, it might naturally suggest both the visual "eye" and the personal "I" of its twofold meaning.

[William Schryver]

mak,

Hearty congratulations on your evisceration-in-progress of the Smith/Vogel arguments. I have very deliberately chosen not to debate these text-critical issues via message board, but I will say that I am 100% convinced that there is no other portion of the entire text of the Book of Abraham upon which the A&G is more definitively dependent than Abr. 1:1-3--as you are already seeing for yourself.

I am very pleased to see your budding involvement in these questions, and I believe the day will soon arrive (assuming you continue to pursue this area of studies) when you may very well have come to be viewed as the preeminent authority on all text-critical questions associated with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. What a great example of preparation meeting opportunity in such a way as to produce true excellence!

I look forward to your continuing analysis (and to your prospective visit to Cedar City). I have so much to show you!

-WS

[William Schryver]

While the textual analysts are scholastically testing Will's dependancy theory, let's follow up on Bro. Vogel's earlier post and see if the historical record may lend itself to confirming rather than denying Will's theory.

The first we hear of an Egytpian alphabet and grammar is the journal entry dated July 19th, 1835: "The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.17, p.238)

As best we can tell, then, work began on the alphabet and grammar (AG) about the middle of July.

So, when did the work on the AG end such that it could supposedly be used as a key to translate the BoA?

Well, we know that construction of the AG was still in progress the first of October of 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." (Joseph Smith's Journal)

In November of that year Warren Parrish was called to be Joseph's scribe, and was told the following in the blessing: "Behold, it shall come to pass in his day, that he shall see great things show forth themselves unto my people; he shall see much of my ancient records, and shall know of hidden things, and shall be endowed with a knowledge of hidden languages; and if he desire and shall seek it at my hands..." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.23, p.311)

Given that Parrish's handwritting is found on the Grammar and so-called Abraham manuscripts, as well as various HoC enteries, it is safe to assume that construction of the AG was still in progress as late as December of 1835. And, from all appearances today, it is clear that the AG is yet to be completed.

The question, then, is: Are there any indications that translation of the BoA began prior to the AG being completed, or even better yet, that there were translations of the BoA that occured before the AG even began--translations that evidently didn't rely on the AG, but may have provided the text (the "hidden things") upon which the AG may be dependant?

As it turns out, there is:

1) We have this certification from Chandler, the owner of the papyri, dated July 6th of 1835: "This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. MICHAEL H. CHANDLER, Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.235)

So, we learn from a non-LDS that Joseph was able to "decipher" the Egyptian hieroglyphics presumably with out the aid of a translation key (which had yet to be constructed).

2) We have this from Joseph regarding the 5th to the 9th of July: "I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its place as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236)

So, here is Joseph, translating Egytian characters prior to the supposed translation key even being created. And, while he isn't using a translation key, we are given indication as to how he was able to translate--i.e. by revelation from the Lord.

3) A more detailed account is given here: "After some conversation with the Prophet Joseph, Mr. Chandler presented to him the ancient characters, asking him if he could translate them. The Prophet took them and repaired to his room and inquired of the Lord concerning them. The Lord told him they were sacred records, containing the inspired writings of Abraham when he was in Egypt, and also those of Joseph, while he was in Egypt; and they had been deposited, with these mummies, which had been exhumed. And he also enquired of the Lord concerning some few characters which Mr. Chandler, gave him by way of a test, to see if he could translate them. The Prophet Joseph translated these characters and returned them, with the translation to Mr. Chandler; and who, in comparing it with the translation of the same few characters by learned men, that he had before obtained, found the two to agree." (REMARKS OF CHURCH LEADERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 26 VOLS. LIVERPOOL, 1855-1886)

5) Further attestation is found in the historical record of John Whitmer (the designated historian for the Church at the time): "About the first of July, 1835, there came a man having four Egyptian Mummies, exhibiting them for curiosities, which was a wonder indeed, having also some words connected with them which were found deposited with the mummies, but there being no one skilled in the Egyptian language therefore could not translate the record. After this exhibition Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt who was sold by his brethren, which when all translated will be a pleasing history and of great value to the Saints." (Book of John Whitmer 1832-1846)

5) In a letter sent by Phelps to his wife on about the 19th, he mentioned this: "The last of June, four Egyptian mummies were brought here; there were two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings with them. As no one could translate these writings, they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were and said they, the "rolls of papyrus," contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh's court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham. God has so ordered it that these mummies and writings have been brought in the Church and the sacred writing I had just locked up in Brother Joseph's house when your letter came, so I had two consolations of good things in one day. These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints. . . ." (Phelps Letters)

6) Finally, we have this somewhat confused account from the Cleveland Whig, printed on Aug. 5th, 1835: "We are credibly informed that the Mormons have purchased of Mr. Chandler, three of the mummies, which he recently exhibited in this village; and that the prophet Joe has ascertained, by examining the papyrus through his spectacles, that they are the bodies of Joseph (the son of Abraham,) and King Abimeleck, and his daughter."

Evidently, the historical record can be read as strongly suggesting that at least a portion of the translation of the papyri occured prior to a supposed translation key being constructed, and that the translation actually occured by the gift and power of God. It is reasonable to induce as well that the translation consisted of at least portions of the record of Abraham as well as Joseph.

In short, at least of portion of the BoA had likely been translated by divine power prior to the creation of the AG, and may well have been used in the creation of the AG. There is historical evidence that the AG may have been dependant upon portions of the BoA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Great analysis, Wade! You make several excellent observations. I look forward to your future contributions along these lines.

Keep it coming!

[maklelan]

Mak,

We're not just talking about choppiness and redundancy. That was a crude way of putting it in my JWHA paper, and I have since refined what I said. The anomalous aspects of Abr. 1:1-3 are the use of serial semicolons, the use of serial appositives, and the amplification of "great righteousness" to "greater righteousness," which makes sense in the context of the Grammar but not the BoA.

Forgive the brevity of my response, but I'm on my phone right now. I wanted to comment on "greater than great." The concept appears in Gen 48:19 (notice the patriarchal concept of becoming great) and Ezek 8:6, and is hardly anomalous to biblical narrative. I'll have to look later at semicolon use, but the verse can hardly be called anomalous.

P.S. It just occurred to me, Mak, that the "sound" assigned to the dot-character is iota (a very natural name for this particular character, I think you'll agree). Assuming that this sound was pronounced with a long i, it might naturally suggest both the visual "eye" and the personal "I" of its twofold meaning.

It would not be pronounced correctly with a long /i/, but that could be how they pronounced it. Irrespective, I'm suspicious that the individual and composite characters don't appear in the papyri. They certainly don't look Egyptian to me, and the composite character seems secondary to the idea it is supposed to represent. This would further support the conclusion the characters are based on the narrative.

[wenglund]

I am pleased to see Chris is looking closely at the sounds. I believe that is an area that deserves much indepth exploration, and it is nice to know that Chris is applying his keen mind in that direction.

Anyway, in my research on ciphers, I came across a special type of cipher called a pasigraphy. Unlike most ciphers, which tend to have a one-to-one relationship between a character (number, letter, etc.) and a letter of the alphabet, pasigraphy "is a writing system where each written symbol represents a concept rather than a word or sound or series of sounds in a spoken language." It is much like codebooks that contain code words that are "translated" to mean entire sentences (see Codebooks.

What is interesting about pasigraphy is that it has been used by various people attempting to create an international language--not the least of which is sign language. In a metaphoric way, it may be said that pasigraphy is being used to overcome the confounding of the languages that occured at the time of the tower of babble, by providing a "pure language" that can be understood by one and all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

As best we can tell, then, work began on the alphabet and grammar (AG) about the middle of July.

So, when did the work on the AG end such that it could supposedly be used as a key to translate the BoA?

That

[Chris Smith]

Mak,

The two verses you cited aren't really analogous, either. One of the is contrasting the "great" of the present time with the "greater" of a future time. The other is contrasting the "great" of one individual with the "greater" of another individual. In Abraham, we have a single individual who desires to achieve both "great" and "greater" knowledge at a future time. I hope you can see why that's a more puzzling construction. It verges on being a self-referential contrast: Abraham's future knowledge is greater than his great future knowledge.

Anyway, I suppose you may be able to find precedents for each of these three curious stylistic features elsewhere in the canon. But my guess is that verses using them to this extent are few and far between. The fact that they all appear together in these first three verses of the Book of Abraham, which has such closely parallel lexical material in the GAEL, seems evidentially significant to me.

Peace,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

Anyway, in my research on ciphers, I came across a special type of cipher called a pasigraphy. Unlike most ciphers, which tend to have a one-to-one relationship between a character (number, letter, etc.) and a letter of the alphabet, pasigraphy "is a writing system where each written symbol represents a concept rather than a word or sound or series of sounds in a spoken language." It is much like codebooks that contain code words that are "translated" to mean entire sentences (see Codebooks.

What is interesting about pasigraphy is that it has been used by various people attempting to create an international language--not the least of which is sign language. In a metaphoric way, it may be said that pasigraphy is being used to overcome the confounding of the languages that occured at the time of the tower of babble, by providing a "pure language" that can be understood by one and all.

This is a good point. I did some research a few years ago on nineteenth century concepts of "natural language"-- as opposed to constructed or regulated language such as we find in modern societies. Nineteenth century philosophers of language tended to assume its pictographic character of natural language. This is to say, the earliest and "purest" written words were those that looked like the thing they were describing. They were also assumed to sound like the thing being described, as well. (Think onomotopoeia.) I think that something like these ideas played into Joseph's and his associates' understanding of "pure language".

Of course, I think the idea that they saw themselves as constructing a pure language rather than restoring an ancient one is very problematic. But when it comes to the question of what they were actually doing, I think there's a lot of room for agreement about how the project functioned and with what ideas and preconceptions they were approaching it.

Peace,

-Chris

[Pahoran]

Mak,

The two verses you cited aren't really analogous, either. One of the is contrasting the "great" of the present time with the "greater" of a future time. The other is contrasting the "great" of one individual with the "greater" of another individual. In Abraham, we have a single individual who desires to achieve both "great" and "greater" knowledge at a future time. I hope you can see why that's a more puzzling construction. It verges on being a self-referential contrast: Abraham's future knowledge is greater than his great future knowledge.

That's not actually correct.

Abr 1:2: And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

It looks to me like he's describing a progression from a specific point in the past up to the present.

Anyway, I suppose you may be able to find precedents for each of these three curious stylistic features elsewhere in the canon. But my guess is that verses using them to this extent are few and far between. The fact that they all appear together in these first three verses of the Book of Abraham, which has such closely parallel lexical material in the GAEL, seems evidentially significant to me.

Peace,

-Chris

Indeed. It seems that the GAEL was intended to "encode" these passages.

Certain it is that the Abraham passage tells a single coherent story, while the GAEL uses English passages excerpted therefrom.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Wade, That

[maklelan]

Mak,

The two verses you cited aren't really analogous, either. One of the is contrasting the "great" of the present time with the "greater" of a future time. The other is contrasting the "great" of one individual with the "greater" of another individual. In Abraham, we have a single individual who desires to achieve both "great" and "greater" knowledge at a future time.

Your original concern was with "great righteousness" and "greater righteousness." Having looked back at the verse (I was on my phone and didn't take the time earlier), there is no "great righteousness," but I see what you're saying about "greater knowledge." It is an odd construction, but whatever its genesis, it seems to be the result of a simple loss of attention during composition. Even if it were the result of cobbling together the explanations from the different characters, it should have been caught. The proximate cause is negligence, not the mode of composition. Someone focused on amplifying rhetoric can easily get caught up in escalating adjectives. This is clearly the case with "greater follower of righteousness," since "greater follower of righteousness" is not included in GAEL character 66, only "follower of righteousness."

The translation theory, in addition, requires that an extremely great deal of attention had to have been paid to splicing everything together coherently. Character 66 demands an even greater degree of attention than previous characters. Look at the explanation of the second transliteration in the second degree of character 66: "coming down from the beginning to some place or fixed period." Interestingly, this is another spin on what we find in EA character 18 (although both spins wind up verbatim in the text): "came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time." Character 18 refers to two of the same words, but exchanges one for another without changing the order at all: "came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time." The translation theory requires we conclude Smith went through 65 characters in the GAEL, and on the 66th decided to incorporate some of character 18, expanding on it as well. Then, after finishing the GAEL, he started at the beginning of the narrative, got to verse 3, inserted, verbatim, all but one word of EA character 18 (which only represents an alternative of the proceeding word) into a developing narrative, splicing in, at the same time, select portions of character 66 (adding "greater" to one portion), forgot to make sure the narrative made sense in one phrase, then proceeded to splice together the fifth degree of character 18 with the first degree of character 2, inserting that. At the same time, one of two other possibilities must hold: (1) Smith must have done this entirely in his head, and completely independent of the Alphabet and Grammar, or (2) Smith must have entirely rejected the characters and their explanations from the EA and GAEL, but used the manuscripts in composing his narrative anyway. The reason one of these two must hold is that the "translation manuscripts" only show two characters related to all of verse 3, and they're entirely unrelated to those attesting in the Alphabet and Grammar to the different phrases contained in Abr 1:3 (as far as I can tell from the transcriptions you provided on MDB). I would be interested to see if another explanation can be provided.

It seems to me the argument for the narrative's priority to characters 18 and 2 is secure enough to give preference to the conclusion that the flub with character 66 was not the result of a failure to pay attention while splicing together explanations, but of a failure to pay attention while originally composing the narrative prior to the EA and GAEL.

I hope you can see why that's a more puzzling construction. It verges on being a self-referential contrast: Abraham's future knowledge is greater than his great future knowledge.

Anyway, I suppose you may be able to find precedents for each of these three curious stylistic features elsewhere in the canon. But my guess is that verses using them to this extent are few and far between. The fact that they all appear together in these first three verses of the Book of Abraham, which has such closely parallel lexical material in the GAEL, seems evidentially significant to me.

Peace,

-Chris

It is puzzling, but not to the degree that it cannot easily have occurred during original composition.

I keep saying I need top put my head down and finish my research before responding to these concerns, but I keep failing to do that. I'm going to try harder, but I am happy to hear concerns and questions. I'll start replying by email.

[wenglund]

This is a good point. I did some research a few years ago on nineteenth century concepts of "natural language"-- as opposed to constructed or regulated language such as we find in modern societies. Nineteenth century philosophers of language tended to assume its pictographic character of natural language. This is to say, the earliest and "purest" written words were those that looked like the thing they were describing. They were also assumed to sound like the thing being described, as well. (Think onomotopoeia.) I think that something like these ideas played into Joseph's and his associates' understanding of "pure language".

That, for the most part, is what I am finding as well. However, the exceptions are fascinating given some of their similarities to the KEP. For example, a Mr. Beck published a book on "The Universal Character" in 1657, which was described as: "One of several early efforts to develop a universal language, Beck's system is designed to be either written or spoken. It is based upon the use of Arabic numerals to express the radical works in any language, the key being a numerical glossary of the language being used. Letters of the alphabet are employed to express grammatical modification of any given word, while compound works are formed by the use of 200 connective characters." See HERE.

Here is a copy of a pasigraphy created by J. Holloway of Bath, England, c. 1835:

Also, in my research of Kabbala ciphers, I discovered that adherents of Kabbala have long believed that the individual letters of the Hebrew Alphabet (Alef-Beit) are the "building blocks of creation", and besides having names/sounds and being assigned a numerical value, they each entail quite elaborate meanings, with the different parts of each letter's shape having its own meaning (sound familiar?). See Here.

Of course, I think the idea that they saw themselves as constructing a pure language rather than restoring an ancient one is very problematic.

Perhaps. From my query of LDS Collectors Library this afternoon, the most common reference to "pure language" was from Phelps, and he spoke mostly in relation to Zephaniah's prophesy for the latter days ("For then will I turn to the people a pure language that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent." Zeph. iii: 9.). And, while this passage indicates the source from whence the "pure language" would come, it doesn't explicitly or implicitly mention a restoration of the "pure language", nor does it specify how the "pure language" may be brought about, thus leaving ample room for the possibility of a construction by the those authorized of the Lord (at least perhpas in the minds of people like Joseph and Phelps and Cowdery).

But when it comes to the question of what they were actually doing, I think there's a lot of room for agreement about how the project functioned and with what ideas and preconceptions they were approaching it. Peace, -Chris

Agreed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Mak, I'm confused by your argument, mostly because I have no reference point to understand your numbering system for the various characters. I read it twice and I still have no idea what you're talking about.