My Take On The Kep

[Joseph Antley]

Let's ask this another way to see if it answers your question. Why would the uneducated Joseph Smith rely academically on an academic instrament created by someone far more educated in ancient languages?

Joseph was far from uneducated at this point (especially by 19th century standards), particularly in regards to languages and linguistics.

But regardless, the obvious answer is what Don has said: Joseph was giving a whack at the Kinderhook plates the good old fashioned way, not through any supernatural means.

But I don't see how that answers my question. The KEP are not an academic instrument created by someone far more educated in ancient languages, and I can't imagine Joseph considering them such unless he was the one who made the glosses.

Be aware, too, that from the faithful LDS perspective, Joseph's translations were divinely assisted. At the time, he lacked the capacity to translate on his own.

So he trusts glosses made by William Phelps and others, made from a text that Joseph -- not they -- translated?

[volgadon]

Where is there any indication that Joseph considered W.W. Phelps as far more educated in ancient languages than he himself was?

[Pahoran]

One of the problems when you have multiple concurrent threads on the same general topic, as we do now, is that they tend to all fuse into each other.

Joseph was far from uneducated at this point (especially by 19th century standards), particularly in regards to languages and linguistics.

But regardless, the obvious answer is what Don has said: Joseph was giving a whack at the Kinderhook plates the good old fashioned way, not through any supernatural means.

But I don't see how that answers my question. The KEP are not an academic instrument created by someone far more educated in ancient languages, and I can't imagine Joseph considering them such unless he was the one who made the glosses.

Again, why? You've never actually spelled out your reasoning behind this. I refer to reference works written by others all the time, including reference works I don't find particularly trustworthy (such as Wikipedia) because they give me a starting point. What's so extraordinary about Joseph starting with something that was available to him?

Remember that we are not talking about a serious attempt to translate anything here. It is not the case that Joseph accepted any challenge to prove his prophetic abilities by translating something, for example. Rather, he was shown those plates; thought they looked interesting; compared one of the symbols to the GAEL and found a match.

So he trusts glosses made by William Phelps and others, made from a text that Joseph -- not they -- translated?

Why not? Do you think Joseph was a naturally suspicious person?

Because I'll tell you this, free of charge: if Joseph had a weakness, it was his tendency to trust others too readily. He seemed to just assume that everyone else was as guileless as he was.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Joseph was far from uneducated at this point (especially by 19th century standards), particularly in regards to languages and linguistics.

Actualy, I believe his education in ancient languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) post-date most of the EA and GAEL.

But regardless, the obvious answer is what Don has said: Joseph was giving a whack at the Kinderhook plates the good old fashioned way, not through any supernatural means.

Right. However, there are two separate issues being address here: 1) was the KP "translation" academic or devine?, and 2) who was the predominate force in creating the EA/GAEL? I was speaking to the later, whereas you point speaks to the former.

But I don't see how that answers my question. The KEP are not an academic instrument created by someone far more educated in ancient languages..

I don't see how they could be anything but academic--both in terms of creation and purpose.

...and I can't imagine Joseph considering them such unless he was the one who made the glosses.

What reason do you have to believe they were something other that academic?

So he trusts glosses made by William Phelps and others, made from a text that Joseph -- not they -- translated?

Perhaps. We just don't know. I am not saying one way or the other. I am just suggesting that the issue isn't settled.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Joseph Antley]

Again, why? You've never actually spelled out your reasoning behind this. I refer to reference works written by others all the time, including reference works I don't find particularly trustworthy (such as Wikipedia) because they give me a starting point. What's so extraordinary about Joseph starting with something that was available to him?

It is extraordinary because the thing available to him were glosses of Egyptian characters that (unless I'm mistaken) you assert were made by Joseph's assistants. That doesn't just make this an untrustworthy source, that makes it a useless source. Where did Joseph suppose they got the interpretation of the characters from?

Remember that we are not talking about a serious attempt to translate anything here. It is not the case that Joseph accepted any challenge to prove his prophetic abilities by translating something, for example. Rather, he was shown those plates; thought they looked interesting; compared one of the symbols to the GAEL and found a match.

But why the GAEL if he knew it was just the guesswork of his assistants?

This makes much less sense if we assert that the glosses in the GAEL were the work of Phelps and others instead of Joseph's.

Because I'll tell you this, free of charge: if Joseph had a weakness, it was his tendency to trust others too readily. He seemed to just assume that everyone else was as guileless as he was.

It's not a matter of trust. Joseph was fascinated with ancient languages, particularly Egyptian and Hebrew. It's just common sense that if the GAEL was the work of his assistants that he would have wanted to know the source of their information. If they had none but their own guesswork, why would he have ever thought the GAEL to be useful?

Again, assuming Joseph to be the author of the character glosses resolves a lot of problems in this scenario, but asserting they he was not involved in the glosses -- for which, AFAIK, there is no evidence for -- will leave behind issues like this will always be difficult to reconcile.

[Joseph Antley]

Actualy, I believe his education in ancient languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) post-date most of the EA and GAEL.

But he consulted the KEP in 1843 when the Kinderhook Plates were brought to Nauvoo, which is the issue I'm attempting to make a point about. Joseph's use of the KEP in 1843, if Don is correct, means that Joseph considered (in 1843) the GAEL a good source for interpreting ancient characters.

What reason do you have to believe they were something other that academic?

I was not speaking of "academic" in terms of academic vs. inspired. I used the term "academic" to mean that it was a scholarly, knowledgeable source -- which, if it was the result of his assistants' guesswork, it could not have been and I cannot see Joseph considering it such.

[Pahoran]

It is extraordinary because the thing available to him were glosses of Egyptian characters that (unless I'm mistaken) you assert were made by Joseph's assistants. That doesn't just make this an untrustworthy source, that makes it a useless source. Where did Joseph suppose they got the interpretation of the characters from?

But why the GAEL if he knew it was just the guesswork of his assistants?

This makes much less sense if we assert that the glosses in the GAEL were the work of Phelps and others instead of Joseph's.

It's not a matter of trust. Joseph was fascinated with ancient languages, particularly Egyptian and Hebrew. It's just common sense that if the GAEL was the work of his assistants that he would have wanted to know the source of their information. If they had none but their own guesswork, why would he have ever thought the GAEL to be useful?

Again, assuming Joseph to be the author of the character glosses resolves a lot of problems in this scenario, but asserting they he was not involved in the glosses -- for which, AFAIK, there is no evidence for -- will leave behind issues like this will always be difficult to reconcile.

Joseph,

you've told me that you know of no evidence that Phelps, Parrish et al made the character glosses. What evidence is there that Joseph made them? It seems that nearly everyone who talks about the KEP's casually assumes that Joseph's fingerprints are on every stroke of every pen, but where is the evidence for that?

Also, you seem to suppose that we are looking at a binary solution set here; as in, it was either Joseph or the others. Why must it be either/or? In a collaborative project, why can't it be both/and?

Also, don't be too quick to swallow the assumption that Phelps, Parrish et al were nothing more than "Joseph's scribes" for that project. In the translation of The Book of Mormon, Joseph's biggest and most ambitious project of its type, he showed us that he knew what to do when he had multiple scribes at his disposal: he used one at a time, so that one could relieve another when he or she was tired or had other commitments. Why, for the Book of Abraham/KEP project, and only for that, would he have four guys sitting around taking dictation at the same time? What purpose would they serve?

The most likely explanation for the multiple BofA manuscripts with Egyptian characters in the margins (sometimes labelled "translation manuscripts," with typical anti-Mormon question-begging) is that they were all copied from an already written original. Why would they do that? That is a question that requires further research, not triumphalistic crowing. But the fact is that, as can be seen from the photographs already posted in this forum, the BofA manuscripts have the English text written out nicely in longhand with structure and punctuation; quite unlike the Book of Mormon manuscript, which is clearly written from dictation with scarcely a capital letter or a punctuation mark anywhere. For what purpose? I don't know, but possibly for some purpose related to the GAEL.

The whole question about what the KEP's are, and what was going on in Kirtland when they were being produced, is one that requires further investigation. I for one am far from convinced that the "Cipher" theory has been rubbished. (Apart from anything else, everyone who so loudly crows that it has been have been rubbishing it since the day it first emerged anyway.) I remain thoroughly unconvinced that they produced the GAEL and then Joseph used it to produce the Book of Abraham, as some seem to fondly imagine. The fact is that the GAEL wouldn't get him halfway through one chapter anyway. Rather, I suspect that we are moving rather inexorably (and over the increasingly panicked squeals of the shoats) towards the conclusion that the Book of Abraham, translated entirely by revelation, is logically and temporally prior to the KEP's.

If Joseph did consult the GAEL when he recognised a character from the Kinderhook Plates, what harm could it do regardless of who had come up with the particular glosses in question? Remember that we still don't have Joseph's original statement, only Clayton's reaction to what he heard Joseph say. We still don't know how positive or tentative Joseph was in his identification of that character.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

As a point of interest, the GAEL character with the sound "Kah tou mun," to which Joseph is alleged to have appealed in "translating" the single character in the KP, evolved over time.

From what I can tell, it first appears in a notebook in Phelps' handwriting, and then in another notebook in Cowdery's handwriting. Both are purposrt to translate the characters presumabely from the Amenhotep papyri that were once a part of the set of papyri held by Joseph. Chris Smith has provided images of the relevant sections of those notebooks HERE.

The character and sound next shows up in the EA's, where there appears to be some indecision as to the shape of the character--JS has several characters associated with the sound, whereas WWP and OP agree on a single character. The English explanation given to this character in the EA's, Part 1 of the 1st degree, was: "Tthe name of a royal family - The female line."

The character chosen by Phelps and Cowdery made its way into Phelp's GAEL, where it was given different English explanation for the different degrees:

1. "The name of a Royal family in the female line"

2. "a distinction of royal female lineage."

3. "descent from her by whom Egypt was discovered while it was under wate."

4. "A lineage, a daughter of Ham."

5. "a lineage with whom a record of the fathers was intrusted by tradition of Ham, and according to the tradition of their elders, by whom also the tradition of the art of embalming was kept."

To me, the evolution of the English explanation for this character as well as the indecision about the characters on Joseph's part, and the use in the GAEL of the character chosen by Phelps rather than Joseph, may be suggestive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

But he consulted the KEP in 1843 when the Kinderhook Plates were brought to Nauvoo, which is the issue

I see what you mean. The thing is, from an LDS perspective, Joseph clearly had the expertice when it came to revelatory translation of the papyri. I don't know that he was any more knowledgable in academic translations of Egyptian than when the EA/GAEL were completed. Prior to that time, Phelps had far more formal education in ancient languages.

Now, had Joseph undertaken a revelatory translation of the KP, then you may have a point. However, since he opted for the "old fashion" method, it makes sense that he might defer to someone with greater expertice, particularly in relation to a character he had earlier on been indecisive about (see above)..

Mind youi, I am not necessarily arguing here that Phelps played a predominate role in the production of the EA/GAEL. I am just looking at it as a viable option, as well as the collaborative angle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 9, 2011 by wenglund

[Joseph Antley]

Joseph,

you've told me that you know of no evidence that Phelps, Parrish et al made the character glosses. What evidence is there that Joseph made them? It seems that nearly everyone who talks about the KEP's casually assumes that Joseph's fingerprints are on every stroke of every pen, but where is the evidence for that?

I consider that, if Don is right, Joseph's consultation of the KEP in 1843 as a useful translation tool to be evidence that Joseph had an impact in the glosses. Also the fact that Joseph was the sustained Translator, the one who was fascinated with the Egyptian language, and the only one who had actually translated an Egyptian text seems to lean credence towards him being at least somewhat involved in the authoring of the glosses.

Also, you seem to suppose that we are looking at a binary solution set here; as in, it was either Joseph or the others. Why must it be either/or? In a collaborative project, why can't it be both/and?

I thought about it, but what exactly could have happened in this scenario? If they are working on it together, where did Joseph believe that his assistants were getting their information?

It's possible, but it seems hard for me to believe without someone constructing a reasonable scenario.

Also, don't be too quick to swallow the assumption that Phelps, Parrish et al were nothing more than "Joseph's scribes" for that project.

This seems to be one of your favorite talking points but I don't think I've suggested that at all. In fact I don't even think I've described them as "scribes" in our conversation. The problem is that's Joseph's "scribes" were brainless nitwits without original thoughts.

In the translation of The Book of Mormon, Joseph's biggest and most ambitious project of its type, he showed us that he knew what to do when he had multiple scribes at his disposal: he used one at a time, so that one could relieve another when he or she was tired or had other commitments. Why, for the Book of Abraham/KEP project, and only for that, would he have four guys sitting around taking dictation at the same time? What purpose would they serve?

I've never suggested that that occurred.

Why would they do that? That is a question that requires further research, not triumphalistic crowing.

Surely you're not talking about me, are you?

If Joseph did consult the GAEL when he recognised a character from the Kinderhook Plates, what harm could it do regardless of who had come up with the particular glosses in question?

No harm necessarily, but why would Joseph have ever thought that Phelps, Parrish, and his other assistants were capable of deciphering Egyptian characters? Where did he think they were getting the translations from?

Joseph wasn't a stupid man, and I can't imagine him consulting the guesswork of local Mormons who had absolutely no way of knowing what they were talking about in order to translate an ancient record brought to him.

The only reasonable solution to this conundrum that sits well with me is that Joseph was at least somewhat involved in the authoring of the Egyptian glosses in the KEP.

Remember that we still don't have Joseph's original statement, only Clayton's reaction to what he heard Joseph say. We still don't know how positive or tentative Joseph was in his identification of that character.

We have Pratt's letter as well, and they seem to line up fairly well. Both of them seemed to at least be fairly confident.

[wenglund]

If they were working on it together, where did Joseph believe that his assistants were getting their information?

By "information" are you referring to the GAEL characters and/or the sounds and/or the explanations and/or the grammatical rules?

It is Will Schryver's view (which I share) that the English explanations came from prior revelations, including portions of the Book of Abraham.

The provenance of the characters is uncertain and may be multi-faceted. According to Will, some of the characters appear to be derived from the Masonic Royal Cipher. From what I have been told, George Miller concurs and goes further to suggest that all the characters have Masonic origins. Chris Smith suggests that some of the character may come from an astronomical calendar or some such thing and some of the character may have come from the Amenhotep papyri. Others suggest that they may be bits and pieces of Egyptian characters taken from various papyri.

The real mystery is the provenance of the sounds, and I am unaware of any research in this area, though I have recently begun work on it myself, and I am told that George Miller is currently working on it as well, and he suggests that the sounds may also be related to Masonry.

Who knows where the grammatical rules came from?

The point being that we can't be certain of the provenance of any of the GAEL information whether we assume it was a product of Joseph or Phelps or a collaborative effort--that is, unless one assumes that the GAEL was a revelatory production, in which case you may have a point.

No harm necessarily, but why would Joseph have ever thought that Phelps, Parrish, and his other assistants were capable of deciphering Egyptian characters? Where did he think they were getting the translations from?

See above.

Joseph wasn't a stupid man, and I can't imagine him consulting the guesswork of local Mormons who had absolutely no way of knowing what they were talking about in order to translate an ancient record brought to him.

The only reasonable solution to this conundrum that sits well with me is that Joseph was at least somewhat involved in the authoring of the Egyptian glosses in the KEP.

I think there is room at this point to reasonably believe that the GAEL was a product of Joseph. I think there is also room to believe that it may have been a collaborative effort with Phelps possibly taking the lead. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

I think there is room at this point to reasonably believe that the GAEL was a product of Joseph. I think there is also room to believe that it may have been a collaborative effort with Phelps possibly taking the lead. To each their own.

But there is that pesky fact that the critics have been pounding for years, and it is a point that Joseph seems to be catching onto:

There is no reasonable evidence to suggest the KEP data, whether from the GAEL glosses or the Book of Abraham manuscripts, derived from the scribes. It is merely something that was asserted without evidence years ago by Hugh Nibley, and it seems some apologists want to present it as if it is just as likely to be true than if Joseph Smith were the one responsible for the translations. Nibley stated, with no evidence whatsoever, and contrary to the historical record, that the scribes were trying their own hand at revelation, because they were impatient, "determined to show [Joseph Smith] up," and had ultimately "turned against" Joseph Smith during this period.

Pahoran hates it when we use the word "scribe" to describe everyone involved in the project whose name doesn't begin with Joseph, but the fact is this is what they were hired to do; transcribe his dictations. So yes, "the scribes did it" theory sounds silly, and rightfully so. But Pahoran should spend less time complaining about the absurd nature of his argument and start producing valid reasons to believe it. So far the best attempt was made by William Schryver a couple years ago when he tried to use the Phelp's letter as evidence that he was the one behind the "pure language" rage. However, that was immediately shot down when it was shown that the information in this letter clearly derived from a previous "specimen" of the pure language provided by none other than Joseph Smith, many years earlier.

Aside from this, all we get is bald assertion. And of course, pahoran's bait and switch, insisting we should all prove that the scribes didn't have their own independent thoughts, otherwise they are just as likely to be the source of the data. This is a straw man, as our argument doesn't require this. They were independent thinkers who were paid to do a job, and that job entailed transcribing information dictated by their employer. What his argument requires is evidence that their thoughts were the driving force behind the project. The only scholar to look into this seriously, is Sam Brown, and he has concluded that at the very least, Joseph Smith supervised the entire thing. There is simply no basis for divorcing Joseph Smith from the project, but I suspect that won't stop some folks from downplaying his influence.

So if you want to keep asserting that the scribes were behind it, then you need to provide evidence. You can't just say it is a technical "possibility" (since scribes are human beings who can think independently) therefore we have to try to prove they weren't behind it. The default position in apologetics is fallacious, as it seeks out any theory that is technically "possible" and then says the critics have the burden of disproving it as a possibility. That isn't how inductive reasoning works.

This argument is as silly as calling stenographers "authors" or "masterminds" behind the numerous projects they are hired to transcribe. The fact that very little is in Smith's handwriting is hardly surprising since, as Dean Jesse once noted, Joseph Smith rarely put pen to paper.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

But there is that pesky fact that the critics have been pounding for years, and it is a point that Joseph seems to be catching onto:

There is no reasonable evidence to suggest the KEP data, whether from the GAEL glosses or the Book of Abraham manuscripts, derived from the scribes.

This, of course, is an expression of personal opinion, and not fact (even though it is stated matter-of-factly), and is based on what Xander personally accepts as evidence. However, there are those of us who reasonably disagree. To each their own.

...[delete lengthy, self-serving caricatures]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

If it isn't a fact then you should be able to disprove it.

Provide us with your list of evidences that would compel a reasonable person to conclude Joseph Smith's scribes were the ones behind all this gibberish.

And good luck.

So far all we've had is assertions that it is a technical "possibility," which with rhetoric and spin gets turned presented as "plausibility" and for some apologetic minds, this is all that's required to believe the burden of proof now rests with the critics.

I know the game all too well. Which is why I know you haven't a snowflake's chance in h*** to show that the scribes were the ones driving this project.

[Vance]

If it isn't a fact then you should be able to disprove it.

:rofl:

Really?

[Xander]

:rofl:

Really?

Yes, really.

Claim: There is no reasonable evidence to suggest the KEP data, whether from the GAEL glosses or the Book of Abraham manuscripts, derived from the scribes

Apologists like to allude to this repeated assertion as if it is supported by evidence. But in reality, there is no evidence that would lead to that conclusion..Otherwise, wade would have done so by now. The reasons originally offer up by Nibley have been subsequently shown to rest on faulty premises and baseless assumptions. Therefore the idea should be abandoned.

[wenglund]

Yes, really.

Claim: There is no reasonable evidence to suggest the KEP data, whether from the GAEL glosses or the Book of Abraham manuscripts, derived from the scribes

Apologists like to allude to this repeated assertion as if it is supported by evidence. But in reality, there is no evidence that would lead to that conclusion..Otherwise, wade would have done so by now. The reasons originally offer up by Nibley have been subsequently shown to rest on faulty premises and baseless assumptions. Therefore the idea should be abandoned.

We will be sure and take your blind dismissal under advisement. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

We will be sure and take your blind dismissal under advisement. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Laughing is a poor substitute for evidence.

We're still waiting, wade.

[wenglund]

Laughing is a poor substitute for evidence. We're still waiting, wade.

Laughter is warranted with unintentionally funny comments like this. The intentionally blind man is asking to SEE evidence...Oh, that a good one. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-