Will Schryver's Book of Abraham talk

[DonBradley]

I need to consult Don Bradley and Chris Smith before I give away anything they are working on.

Hey Trevor,

I think what you're referring to are ideas you and I developed a few years ago rather than something that's in my paper with Chris. Chris's take, particularly in his recent JWHA piece, goes in a different direction.

We can talk about what to share or not from these thoughts.

Don

[wenglund]

So, Wade, what conclusions, even tentative ones, might one draw from this material regarding the meaning and purpose of the KEP?

I am not knowledgeable in Kabbalah, but I do know a very little bit about language and magic. My basic understanding about gematria is that hidden meanings can be drawn from the text of the Torah based on the numerical values of the characters and finding their equivalents. Are you proposing that there were plans for engaging in a similar exercise using the EA?

I don't know that the KEP were, like the Kabbalistic gematria, alefbeit, or notaricon, intended as exegetical or hermeneutical devises for existing languages (Hebrew, Egyptian, English, etc.)--though, I just learned this afternoon that a fellow by the name of Joe Sampson believes they were--see Written by the Finger of God: A Testimony of Joseph Smith's Translations, and the reviews by Fredrick Huchel and John Gee.

My impression is that the KEP were initially intended as ciphers, in much the same way as the gematria and alefbeit and notaricon were used at times as ciphers, with the possibility that they may one day form the foundation for a new or "pure" language, and at that time (when the Alphabet and Grammar were fully developed) function exegetically in relation to that new language, just as Kabbalah has functioned exegetically for Hebrew.

It may be of interest to note that the notaricon explanation for the Hebrew sound "Alef" is, in part: "The beginning of process in nature and sequence of worldly events." Whereas, for he GAEL sound "Aleph", the explanation is "In the beginning with God, the son, or first born". For the Hebrew "Beit", the notaricon explanation is: "From the word 'house.' Home, habitat, habitation..."; whereas for the GAEL "Beth", it is: "The place appointed of God for the residence of Adam...". For the Hebrew "Ayin", the notaricon explanation is: "Physical vision--eye..."; whereas for the GAEL "Iota", it is: "The eye, or I see...".

As for the Egyptian Counting document functioning exactly like the gematria (as you described)...who knows? I suspect that it was more intended, like the Iota, as a "mark of distinction qualifying different degrees, increasing or lessening the power of the sentences according to ther signification" or as a way of "increas[ing] or lessen[ing] the signification of a character" (link). I believe Paul Osbourn suggested something along this line.

I am curious about Kerry's thoughts concerning this. He must find this avenue of exploration very interesting indeed!

Paging E=MC2....

I think he is too busy beating up on Matt Brown to pay this issue much mind at the moment. But he promised me at the FAIR Conference to look into Masonic ciphers. We'll just have to wait and see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hyrum Page]

Hey Trevor,

I think what you're referring to are ideas you and I developed a few years ago rather than something that's in my paper with Chris. Chris's take, particularly in his recent JWHA piece, goes in a different direction.

We can talk about what to share or not from these thoughts.

Sounds good.

[Hyrum Page]

It may be of interest to note that the notaricon explanation for the Hebrew sound "Alef" is, in part: "The beginning of process in nature and sequence of worldly events." Whereas, for he GAEL sound "Aleph", the explanation is "In the beginning with God, the son, or first born". For the Hebrew "Beit", the notaricon explanation is: "From the word 'house.' Home, habitat, habitation..."; whereas for the GAEL "Beth", it is: "The place appointed of God for the residence of Adam...". For the Hebrew "Ayin", the notaricon explanation is: "Physical vision--eye..."; whereas for the GAEL "Iota", it is: "The eye, or I see...".

That's really neat stuff, Wade. What do you think accounts for the similarity between the two systems?

As for the Egyptian Counting document functioning exactly like the gematria (as you described)...who knows? I suspect that it was more intended, like the Iota, as a "mark of distinction qualifying different degrees, increasing or lessening the power of the sentences according to ther signification" or as a way of "increas[ing] or lessen[ing] the signification of a character" (link). I believe Paul Osbourn suggested something along this line.

Huh. Well I would be interested to see how you might draw all of this together. One of the difficulties of coming to grips with this material is that so many different things seem to be going on at once. For example, I can easily see how some of the shorter explanations of characters would be useful in a cipher, but the larger ones, well, they seem less manageable as a cipher per se.

[rockslider]

I don't know that the KEP were, like the Kabbalistic gematria, alefbeit, or notaricon, intended as exegetical or hermeneutical devises for existing languages (Hebrew, Egyptian, English, etc.)--though, I just learned this afternoon that a fellow by the name of Joe Sampson believes they were--see Written by the Finger of God: A Testimony of Joseph Smith's Translations, and the reviews by Fredrick Huchel and John Gee.

I've got Joe Sampson's book on my shelve. I was interested to see what Gee had said about it (no big MI review surprises there). This book sent me on a long and somewhat fruitful study of Kabala years back.

I've always assumed that JS's Rabbi friend in Nauvoo, and the School of the Prophets interest in learning Hebrew were directly related to this concept. As I've mentioned on this site before, Sefer Yetzirah lays out the 2.5 billion year concept that I believe is also associate with the BoA. Heck they have a Jubilee concept that multiplies that by 49.

I believe the BoA curse also took its toll with brother Sampson.

[wenglund]

That's really neat stuff, Wade.

Ah...that is nice of you to say. There is more where that came from. In fact, at the bottom of this post I will attatch a write-up of portion of my research. When you get a chance to read it, let me know what you think.

What do you think accounts for the similarity between the two systems?

I am in the process of trying to figure that out. From a practical standpoint, I suspect it may have something to do with Phelps having borrowed this and that from his ecclectic background.

However, going way out on a limb, my gut is telling me that in addition to Phelps' background, over the course of revelatory translation, Joseph detected something within the Egyptian papyri along the lines of Kabbalistic ciphers--something he may also have detected while translating the Book of Mormon (call it "learning after the manner of the Jews"). And, this prompted Smith and Phelps, in concert with others, to inaugerate their own hermeneutical project.

Huh. Well I would be interested to see how you might draw all of this together. One of the difficulties of coming to grips with this material is that so many different things seem to be going on at once. For example, I can easily see how some of the shorter explanations of characters would be useful in a cipher, but the larger ones, well, they seem less manageable as a cipher per se.

In the attached paper I touch on this. Briefly, the Kabbalistic ciphers, like other ciphers or codes, vary in the length of their explanations. Some, like the gematria and the Alefbeit, are very brief (substituting a character for a alphabet letter or a character for a word or sentence), while others, like the notaricon, are rather elaborate (substituting a character for whole paragraphs and complex concepts).

The more elaborate the explanation per character, the greater the economy of the cipher (in some cases a whole page of plaintext can be encrypted with just a few characters on a postage stamp), and the greater the security of the cipher (cryptographs with elaborate explanations per character are virtually inpossible to crack using typical code-breaking techniques like frequency analysis).

Besides, the KEP, like Kabbalistic ciphers, have dual functions. They not only act as a cipher--and this for the purpose of preserving faith, protecting the sacred from the profane, and preventing over-burdening and misuse of sacred knowledge; but also as "pure language"--an exegetical methodology intended to unfold rich layers of meaning in both the spoken and written word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

KEP as a Cipher Part 1.pdf

[wenglund]

I've got Joe Sampson's book on my shelve. I was interested to see what Gee had said about it (no big MI review surprises there). This book sent me on a long and somewhat fruitful study of Kabala years back.

My research on ciphers in general, which has led me to examine Kabbalah and Kabbalah ciphers in particular, have been quite fruitful for me as well.

I've always assumed that JS's Rabbi friend in Nauvoo, and the School of the Prophets interest in learning Hebrew were directly related to this concept. As I've mentioned on this site before, Sefer Yetzirah lays out the 2.5 billion year concept that I believe is also associate with the BoA. Heck they have a Jubilee concept that multiplies that by 49.

That is interesting> However, I suspect that your insight may just be scratchng the surface. Who knows?

I view Kabbalah, FreeMasonry, gnosticism, alchemy, rosicrucianism, the Order of Nazorean Essenes (ONE), and the like, metaphorically as religious archeological sites where true artifacts from the Abrahamic and Adamic past may be carefully excavated using the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit, which may possibly provide incredible insights into and correlaries with ancient scriptures translated by revelation in modern times. Fun stuff!

I believe the BoA curse also took its toll with brother Sampson.

I am sorry to hear that. It has had the opposite affect on me. But, I suppose with most anything there is always a chance, or choice, of going either way. I do wish him well. And, while I don't agree with everything he wrote, I think he may be onto something with his general application of the Tree of Life to LDS scriptures.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

In the process of ironically and mistakenly claiming that Will doesn't understand ciphers, one of our beloved critics has asserted elsewhere that "if you want to encipher the number four, you don't use a symbol taht looks identical to '4'."

To negate this assertion, I created three enciphered messages using the 4 as a 4. I present them here for your amusement:

First, I used two steganographic cipher systems (one ancient and one modern) to create this message using a 4 as a 4 (look very carefully at the "4":

Second, I made things easier to decrypt by using two stenographic ciphers (one ancient and one modern) to create this same message using a 4 as a 4:

Finally, I made things even easier to decrypt by using a single substitution cipher, and by giving the name of the cipher (ROT13--you can even use the decription tool HERE) to create this same message using a 4 as a 4:

GUVAXO4HFCRNX

See if you can figure out the message before our esteemed critic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

While waiting for Will and Daniel to further textual-critically substantiate the thesis that the KEP were dependant upon the BoA, and thus could not have been, nor were they intended to be, a translation key for the BoA, I wish to discuss other evidence in support of this thesis.

Let's begin with the Egyptian Counting document (EC). From what I can tell, the EC was written prior to the GAEL and likely prior to the EAs. It was written by Phelps, and to my knowledge there isn't any evidence that Joseph was involved in the production of this document. Also, the characters and sound used in this document aren't Egyptian.

And, even though some of the critics believe, sans evidence, that Joseph may have thought the EC characters were Egyptian, it is quite certain that neither the characters, and certainly not the sounds, were taken from the papyri, and that Phelps knew this. This means that for at least the EC, it could not have been used to, and was evidently not intended to, nor was it ever used to, academically translate the BoA.

There must have been some other purpose in mind for the EC.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I was involved in a potentially productive KEP discussion on another board, but found it necessary to depart prematurely because one of the participants there began using extremely offensive language in relation to Joseph Smith. So, I have decided to carry on my end of the discussion here.

The issue under discussion is whether the KEP could have been "reverse engineered" and was intended to be used like a "Rosetta Stone", not in its most common idiomatic sense of this appellation--i.e. as a cipher (see HERE), but as a linguistic devise for learning Egyptian (a position I advanced prior to Will's presentation), and as a means for translating Egyptian material, if not also the Egyptian papyri in Joseph's possession.

My recent position is that it wasn't intended for that purpose, and I have presented a two-pronged argument in support thereof:

The first prong is in regards to the KEP characters--i.e. many are non-Egyptian, and likely known to have not been Egyptian, and more importantly were not from the papyri, and couldn't and thus evidently weren't intended to translate the papyri, and couldn't be used to translate Egyptian or to learn Egyptian.

The second prong imvolve the KEP sounds/names--many, if not all, are non-Egyptian and clearly not from the papyri, and likely known to have not been Egyptian, and thus couldn't and evidently weren't intended to translate the papyri, and couldn't be used to translate Egyptian or to learn Egyptian.

In his presentation, Will provided the third and perhpas most compelling prong in regards to the KEP explanations--some predate the arrival of the papyri, and thus are clearly not from the papyri, and thus couldn't and evidently weren't intended to translate nor were they intended as translations of the papyri, and couldn't be used to translate Egyptian or to learn Egyptian.

Here are relevant portions of the script from his presentation:

I confess that my original thesis was consistent with Professor Hugh Nibley