Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[Chris Smith]

This is a revealing comment coming from our would-be historian

[wenglund]

Wade,

Backward is the direction historians work. We look at events in history and try to find their causes. Historical persons were able to live out these events in forward motion, but we historians do not have that luxury. It would be impossible, unless we could recreate all the conditions the led to the outcomes. And even if we somehow had the technological capability to do that, we'd first have to know what those conditions were-- which, again, requires working backward. Peace, -Chris

Hi Chris,

So, history is reverse engineered?

I can understand that history is about looking backwards, but I am not so sure that it is necessarily worked backwards in all cases, let alone most cases. But, in terms of the KEP, if you decide to work backwards, I can't see how you might consider that reasonable. It is just that I wonder if it would be a bit premature to posit a "causal" theory prior to having worked backwards?

Besides, I am thinking that if you started with the EA or the Counting documents, it may save you some time in terms of testing your "modus operandi" theory. I started with the EA (actually, I started with the translation of the Egyptian characters around the first of July, and later back-tracked to the Phelp's letters and then even back further to construct forward a timeline of all the JS translations and scribes so as to better understand the context into which the papyri arrived in 1835), and perhaps that is why I came to see things differently. Who knows?

I look with interest and an openness to learning from whatever you and Kevin and others produce. You have established some fascinating correlations thus far.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade,

The reason they have now chosen to greatly limit the idea of the Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for the translation of the BoA (except for verses 1:1 - 1:3) is because of the inconvenient fact that the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar.

Of course, this creates several intractable problems for them, but they appear to be blissfully unaware of them ...

Some critics may now be limiting the modus operandi to what you suggest (or a few verses more), but from what I can tell, that is a fairly recent development. Before then, some of the more prominant BoA critics were arguing a much broader modus operandi. Vogel is claiming that none of the critics have viewed them that way at all. Clearly, he is incorrect, though he may be speaking for himself and Brent at this time. Who knows?

But I think you are right about the intractable problems. This is why I like my claw hammer and screw analogy. One may posit that a claw hammer, in a limited way, is a screwdriver because one of the claw ends may fit fairly well in a standard screw slot, and when the hammer is held in a certain way, it can tighten and untighted screws. However, when one look at the hammer coherantly, as a whole, it becomes evident that it is not intended as a screwdiver, but as a hammer to pound and losen nails.

And, from what I can tell, the same, in principle, holds true for the KEP. In a limited way, and given a certain angle of view, it may appear to be a modus operandi for select verses of the BoA, but when considered as a whole, I am not sure that such a view makes sense--which may explain why Vogel and others may not buy the KEP as a modus operandi thesis at all, and why others may steer clear of it in relation to most of the BoA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maklelan]

Maklelan,

You are apparently disagreeing with the following conclusion I made:

I gather you are still trying to argue that the Alphabets

[maklelan]

lol, Dan. I told Mak almost exactly the same thing about his "appointing" argument over on the other board.

And I told him the same in my previous remarks. I also explained how I viewed the issue in light of it. He doesn't appear to have read the comments he's replying to.

[Chris Smith]

Character 18 is absolutely unquestionably dependent upon the narrative of Abr.

Your argument here must be going completely over my head. Why can't Joseph have used this phrase in the EAG and then incorporated it into the BoA? Sorry to make you repeat yourself, but I'm really not getting it.

I've not come across a single piece of evidence that such is the case, but I am not unaware of the repeated misapplication of text-critical methodologies that have been executed by your camp in trying to muster such evidence.

Come on now, Mak. I can respect that you're not persuaded by my evidence, but that doesn't mean I am repeatedly misapplying text-critical methodologies.

[maklelan]

Your argument here must be going completely over my head. Why can't Joseph have used this phrase in the EAG and then incorporated it into the BoA? Sorry to make you repeat yourself, but I'm really not getting it.

I'm sorry about that. I keep feeling compelled to reply to these posts and have to shoot from the hip with my explanations. It will make better sense when I've had to time formulate my argument more fully.

Come on now, Mak. I can respect that you're not persuaded by my evidence, but that doesn't mean I am repeatedly misapplying text-critical methodologies.

I'm not speaking about you, Chris. Of all the people I've read on this issue I think you're being the most judicious with your methodologies and evidence. I do have some concerns, but not in regards to my previous comments.

[wenglund]

What I meant was that nobody believes the GAEL was used as a translation key. My side of the debate doesn't believe anything was translated. And if JS intended it to be understood that such were the case, the GAEL would be tied closer to the translation. It was for display purposes only, while JS gathered his thoughts on the subject. In my reconstruction he spent about five months on the Alphabets and GAEL, and about a week or two on the translation.

I spent part of last evening trying to imagine how this might have worked. I tried to figure out the rationale of Joseph supposedly taking about five months to construct an alleged and elaborate prop, particularly when during 1835 the alphabets and grammar were kept very private (the one occasion in November when the alphabet was shown to a Mr. Homes being the only exception)? I am at a loss in seeing what Bro. Vogel imagines was the supposed function of the elaborate prop, and who it was intended as a prop for?

Better yet, I tried to figure out how the alleged prop would supposedly be used? Does Vogel imagine that Joseph would, after months of labor, bring in that lone visitor and point to the Egyptian characters on the papyri, and then point to the non-Egyptian characters on the Counting document and the alphabet and say, see how they don't match up, but here is what I suggest that the non-Egyptian characters mean?

And, if Joseph supposedly needed time to collect his thoughts, wouldn't it make more sense for him to do just that rather than distracting himself for 5 months constructing an elaborate private prop to be used one time in 1835? If it only took Joseph a week or so to compose the BoA (allegedly in November of 1835), couldn't he have saved himself at least 4 months by simply collecting his thoughts and not working on the alleged elaborate prop?

Finally, since Vogel mentions Parrish's significant involvement in producing the Abraham manuscripts, and also his modest involvement in constructing the so-called prop, if this were all "made up" by Joseph, as Vogel suggests, then why wouldn't Parrish have spilled those alleged beans after he and Joseph, a little more than a year later, had a serious falling out, which not only lead to Parrish and others attempting to overthrow the Church, but Parrish leaving the Church for good?

Things just don't seem to add up at all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Wade,

I would never use the word "prop" to describe the GAEL, but like Dan I don't think it was exclusively designed as a translation key. To a certain extent, it was an end in itself. This was the same period when Joseph was restoring the pure language and learning English and Hebrew. He was deeply interested in ancient languages, especially those associated with Adamic. The fact that he was an inspired seer certainly didn't stop him from translating Bible passages from the original Hebrew via a mechanical process. So I don't think anyone should assume that he couldn't have done he same with the EAG and the BoA.

The EAG is also a much more theological document than has hitherto been recognized. It contains a number of original theological insights, including information about the astronomy and the priesthood that is not found in the BoA or elsewhere. The EAG project thus was not exclusively a vehicle either for translating the BoA or learning an ancient language-- it was also an opportunity to receive new doctrine and obtain new insight.

The role of the scribes is also significant. JS had promised Phelps that he would have a knowledge of languages, and this was a way to fulfill that promise. And Oliver had wanted to be involved in translation, so this was an opportunity for him to participate with his mind as well as his pen.

Finally, let's not forget that our job as historians is to determine what actually happened in the past, not what should have happened or what makes sense to us. There is much in Mormon history that doesn't make sense to me, but that I am persuaded actually happened. Part of what draws me to Joseph Smith is the constant endeavor to put myself in his shoes and understand why he did such strange (to my eyes) things.

Peace,

-Chris

[SkepticTheist]

What I meant was that nobody believes the GAEL was used as a translation key. My side of the debate doesn't believe anything was translated. And if JS intended it to be understood that such were the case, the GAEL would be tied closer to the translation. It was for display purposes only, while JS gathered his thoughts on the subject. In my reconstruction he spent about five months on the Alphabets and GAEL, and about a week or two on the translation.

It seems Chris Smith differs with your conclusion.

From the "faithful side" I conclude that Joseph Smith made inspired Abrahamic translations of characters from the Sensen papyrus in the GAEL, just as he did with Facsimile #2, whether or not it served as a translation key for the book of Abraham itself. It doesn't matter one way or the other. And Will's conclusions ignore what the Grammar has to say about its own "mechanics," as well as concluding incorrectly that the unidentified characters in the grammar are not lexemes dissected from Egyptian characters precisely as Chris Smith and Richley Crapo has pointed out, whether or not all of the characters in question originate from the Sensen Papyrus in some fashion. Will ever increasingly seems to be talking in an over-confident fashion, disturbingly so. And he may indeed have wooed and captured imaginations of the rest of the apologetic world desperate for a good explanation. The only reason, you, Brother Schryver have overturned anything is because you actually do have a portion of the truth, and I say that emphasis on the fact that it is ONLY a portion, which the apologists have been desperate for, and the previous apologetic attempts were pure evasion tactics to get around the fact that the critics are honest in seeing what they see before their eyes, things that the apologists were unwilling to admit, and which they continue to explain away in many cases.

Ed Goble

[William Schryver]

CS:

The EAG is also a much more theological document than has hitherto been recognized. It contains a number of original theological insights, including information about the astronomy and the priesthood that is not found in the BoA or elsewhere. The EAG project thus was not exclusively a vehicle either for translating the BoA or learning an ancient language-- it was also an opportunity to receive new doctrine and obtain new insight.

I would characterize this statement as 100% speculative bunk, with virtually no text-critical evidence to support it, and yet I very much look forward to your continuing to advance what is essentially an bald assertion with an agenda. I'm convinced that you don't appreciate the complications it creates for you.

Both the priesthood references (dependent on D&C 107 and 84, for the most part) and the astronomy references (dependent on chapter 3, the explanations to Facsimile 2, and whatever original document(s) [now lost] resulted from the "unfolding" activity mentioned in early October) are dependent on previously received revelatory material. The text critical evidence will not support the conclusion that this material originated new in the GAEL, nor that Joseph Smith himself had much, if anything to do with the production of the GAEL (unlike the EA project, in which he took part, at least during the initial stages).

Doctrinal (theological) innovations were occurring at this time period, but the GAEL was not the vehicle for the reception of those doctrines. Rather, it simply mirrors those things that had been received at a different time, and under a completely different set of revelatory parameters.

I will elaborate on all of these arguments in my upcoming articles.

Edit: clarified one point.

[William Schryver]

SkepticTheist:

... I conclude that Joseph Smith made inspired Abrahamic translations of characters from the Sensen papyrus in the GAEL ...

None of the characters from the Document of Fellowship Written by Isis (the "Sensen" text) appear in the GAEL.

Very few of the characters in the GAEL that originate on the scroll of Hor are ever given explanations at all.

Most of the 69 characters to which explanations were given are not Egyptian and do not appear on the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith possessed.

[Chris Smith]

I will elaborate on all of these arguments in my upcoming articles.

I very much look forward to your continuing to advance what is essentially an bald assertion with an agenda.

[Chris Smith]

It seems Chris Smith differs with your conclusion.

I think what Dan was trying to say was that no one on the critical side believes the GAEL was a key for an Egyptologically correct BoA translation. This is a significant point because Wade's (and others') arguments have sometimes failed to sufficiently distinguish between his own assumption that the BoA is an Egyptologically correct translation and the critics' assumption that it is not. The GAEL most certainly does not make sense from the former point of view but from the latter it is more comprehensible.

That said, Dan's comment could have been better worded. I was puzzled by it as well, until he explained what he meant.

[SkepticTheist]

CS:

I would characterize this statement as 100% speculative bunk, with virtually no text-critical evidence to support it, and yet I very much look forward to your continuing to advance what is essentially an bald assertion with an agenda. I'm convinced that you don't appreciate the complications it creates for you.

So assertions you make have no agenda? I have no idea why you are pushing an agenda that the EAG must be dependent on the Book of Abraham, but if it wasn't an agenda item of yours, you wouldn't care which way the dependence goes. There is no good evidence for this at all, and I don't understand why people who are trying to defend the Church must continue on with this. What is my agenda? My agenda is to demonstrate to apologists that one can actually follow where the evidence leads and still build faith, something that I don't see them doing!

Ed Goble

[Hyrum Page]

So assertions you make have no agenda? I have no idea why you are pushing an agenda that the EAG must be dependent on the Book of Abraham, but if it wasn't an agenda item of yours, you wouldn't care which way the dependence goes. There is no good evidence for this at all, and I don't understand why people who are trying to defend the Church must continue on with this. What is my agenda? My agenda is to demonstrate to apologists that one can actually follow where the evidence leads and still build faith, something that I don't see them doing!

Ed Goble

Although my saying this will probably send your stock into a tailspin around here, I say kudos to you, sir!

[SkepticTheist]

SkepticTheist:

None of the characters from the Document of Fellowship Written by Isis (the "Sensen" text) appear in the GAEL.

Very few of the characters in the GAEL that originate on the scroll of Hor are ever given explanations at all.

Most of the 69 characters to which explanations were given are not Egyptian and do not appear on the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith possessed.

That statement is simply incorrect. Most of the characters shown are dissected lexemes, because they were treating the hieratic characters as component characters, or didn't you read about that in the grammar's description of its "mechanics"? As I said, your explanation falls short on this fact.

Ed Goble

[SkepticTheist]

Although my saying this will probably send your stock into a tailspin around here, I say kudos to you, sir!

Its nice to actually have a compliment from someone, so I thank you. I don't get very many compliments, so its a rare occurrence. I don't know who you are or where you stand on the issues or if you are a critic or faithful Mormon, but I thank you nevertheless.

Ed Goble

[Hyrum Page]

Its nice to actually have a compliment from someone, so I thank you. I don't get very many compliments, so its a rare occurrence. I don't know who you are or where you stand on the issues or if you are a critic or faithful Mormon, but I thank you nevertheless.

Ed Goble

To be perfectly honest with you, most people consider me a critic, and I have been intensely critical of the LDS Church and sometimes still am over some issues. As far as being a faithful Mormon, I don't think one would consider me to be such a person, no. I am a friend of Don Bradley and Chris Smith, and I wish the best to all defenders of the LDS Church who pursue the best arguments supported by the strongest evidence. I do think Will has identified some interesting things, and I look forward to learning more about them, but I am critical of other aspects of his work and more so of his mode of presenting things on the discussion boards.

On the "other" board, Mormon Discussions, sometimes referred to here as Shady Acres, the Trailer Park, etc., I post under the name Trevor. You will find that I have been much sharper toward Will there as of late because of the way things have developed after his presentation.

[William Schryver]

I very much look forward to your continuing to advance what is essentially an bald assertion with an agenda.

I'm cool with the mutual recognition of what is and what is not, at present, merely an assertion.

[William Schryver]

That statement is simply incorrect. Most of the characters shown are dissected lexemes, because they were treating the hieratic characters as component characters, or didn't you read about that in the grammar's description of its "mechanics"? As I said, your explanation falls short on this fact.

Ed Goble

You're certainly welcome to make an argument along these lines, but I don't believe it has any merit. Feel free to demonstrate it, if you can.

There are none of the so-called Book of Breathings characters in the Alphabet & Grammar documents, so far as I have ever seen. The EA/GAEL characters that come from the papyri, come from places other than the "Sensen" text.

[Dan Vogel]

Mak,

I

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

And yet character #13 (toan, tah e toe or tou=es) gives, as part of its explanation in the fifth degree:

[maklelan]

Mak,

I

[Chris Smith]

This was only mt argument for Iota. The "it happens again" statement in my paragraph on Zub-Zool is in reference to the likelihood that the words and their order, which were putatively arrived at arbitrarily, would be intentionally maintained in their incorporation into a developing narrative

Hi mak,

This feature of the text arises from the rules of the Grammar itself. Page 16 says of the dissected "Chaldea" character, "This order should be preserved according to the signification of degree." However unlikely it may seem that they should have come up with such a rule, it appears that they did.

Peace,

-Chris