Kep: Sequence Of Characters Challenged

[Xander]

As most of you probably already know, the "critics" have argued the Book of Breathings which followed Facsimile #1 is the source for the Book of Abraham. The strongest piece of evidence for this, aside from Abr 1:12, is in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, where the Book of Abraham manuscripts place Egyptian characters in sequence which mostly come from the papyrus in question. Other characters were divined by Joseph Smith as they fell into the lacuna:

William S. West said in 1837, "These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost; but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved"

So we know Joseph Smith restored what was lost in the deteriorated portions of the papyrus.

The graphics below illustrates the 27 characters used, as they appear in Manuscript 2 of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I will show the first four lines from the papyrus and how they line up in sequence in the Book of Abraham manuscripts:

In August 2010, William Schryver presented John Gee's research at the FAIR Conference arguing that the assumption that these characters were taken in sequence, is just an anti-Mormon "fantasy." Will then begins a Power Point presentation with the heading, "Reality vs. Fantasy."

But based on the data above the sequence seems perfectly obvious, right? So how did they manage to pull this off? Essentially, John Gee took advantage of the lacunae to argue that the characters numbered 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23 are actually symbols that had been copied from other areas on the papyrus. He then mixes these in with the whole to create these "zig- zags," to argue there was no intended sequence whatsoever. But if you look above, these are precisely the characters that fall into the lacuna. So according to Gee/Schryver the sequencing actually goes as follows:

In short, these were not copied from the characters claimed by Gee, as I will demonstrate momentarily. The most stunning part of the presentation was when he goes across from the first character and concedes a linear sequence up until character 11. He then pulls a typical straw man and says: "This is about as far as anyone (i.e. critics) feels the need to go. What is happening seems pretty clear. But it isn't. The next one is clear and pulled from two lines down."

Now at the moment he said, "the next one is clear and pulled from two lines down" (alluding to character 13) the Power Point slide was showing character #12 on line one, along with a blown up image of the character as it appears in both the papyrus and the manuscript. Of course the copy is a faithful replica of the original, which led people to think his argument was sound. As if to think, "Wow, this was taken from two lines down completely out of sequence." But in reality it wasn't. Will was rushing along through the presentation when few people had the necessary familiarity with these documents to notice he was totally misrepresenting them.

In reality, the character Will referred to was character #13 which he believes was copied from a character "two lines down," but when compared side by side, it is clearly a huge stretch to say they resemble anything at all. And a character that, ironically, looks exactly like the number 13! Here are the characters Gee/Schryver claim are copied from other areas of the papyrus. You tell me if any of these resemble one another.

It takes a leap of the imagination just to connect these two in a superficial way. But Gee/Schryver insist they are exact copies, despite all the evidence to the contrary. This is amazing, especially when you consider the fact that virtually all of the other copied characters represent clear unambiguous replicas of the character in question. So you have to seriously question Gee and Schryver's judgment since these aren't even close.

What's even more bizarre, is they want us to believe that #23 was a copied from both #19 and #20 while we know the scribes recognize 18 and 20 as separate characters. How does this even begin to make sense? They're just jumping all over the place in order to do their "zig-zags" and say, "see, the critics are fantasizing about a sequence."

Will would quickly zip through images of characters that were faithful replicas with others that clearly were not, without explicitly detailing where they presented themselves on the papyrus. When Chris Smith informed me of what they tried to argue, I was speechless. To me it looks as if Book of Abraham apologetics is running full speed in reverse.

What's worse, Gee/Schryver also seem to have problems properly identifying character #3, which reveals their lack of familiarity with not only the documents, but also the critical arguments. Look at the yellow highlighted portion from the GAEL below as it corresponds to the papyrus.

From Ashment's essay:

Suffice it to say, their attempt to establish a "fantasy" was successful. Unfortunately, the fantasy comes from the apologists and not the "anti-Mormons." This fantasy was created to argue that the Egyptian Characters were taken "at random" with no apparent sequence in mind. But this argument only works for those who are completely unfamiliar with these documents.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Here is another way of showing the characters lining up as they appear in the ten page manuscript 2.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Xander

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Fascinating stuff. I haven't paid too terribly much attention to the Book of Abraham controversies, but this all looks pretty straightforward. If this is an accurate representation of what Gee was arguing, then I agree, the logical sequence seems more fruitful than the zig-zag. What are the ramifications for the various critical and apologetic arguments if this turns out to be the case?

[Xander]

Fascinating stuff. I haven't paid too terribly much attention to the Book of Abraham controversies, but this all looks pretty straightforward. If this is an accurate representation of what Gee was arguing, then I agree, the logical sequence seems more fruitful than the zig-zag. What are the ramifications for the various critical and apologetic arguments if this turns out to be the case?

It just goes down as yet another example of BoA apologetics misrepresenting the source documents. From what I understand, Will Schryver subsequently abandoned the argument, though I suspect John Gee is still sticking to his guns.

Since the KEP point to the "wrong scroll" as the source for the Book of Abraham, they needed to come up with some way to discredit it. So refuting the sequence aspect of it was just one apologetic way to kill the critical argument. If Gee could demonstrate that the scribes had no sequence in mind, then naturally these could not have represented the translation manuscripts, which most certainly would have taken characters in sequence.

[Questing Beast]

Didn't Nibley, way back in the 70s, conclude that Joseph Smith's "translation" had to be inspired text that he "pulled out" of the actual text? And this conclusion was apologia of the first order, since there was then, and there is now, zero correlation between the text of the BoA and the fragments of papyri. The facsimiles just deepen the issue by asserting to mean doctrinal things that funerary texts are not about. In Joseph Smith's day Egyptology was in its infancy. Nowadays thousands of Egyptologists can point to the discrepancies. Nibley's explanation is the only possibility, if the BoA is going to be held as inspired scripture....

[cdowis]

Didn't Nibley, way back in the 70s, conclude that Joseph Smith's "translation" had to be inspired text that he "pulled out" of the actual text? And this conclusion was apologia of the first order, since there was then, and there is now, zero correlation between the text of the BoA and the fragments of papyri.

I assume you are unfamiliar with the work of Tvedtnes, which shows a correlation between the BOA and the EAG. It is called the mnemonic theory where each character represented a phrase or group of sentences. For example, "dove" could represent the story of the baptism of Christ.

These characters or workds are then grouped into a sentence, independent of the original text, and can take on a meaning itself. If I want to memorize the entire book of John, I memorize a paragraph made up of the mnemonic words, instead of the entire book itself.

(I remember reading an article where the Egyptians were fond of making up such stuff.)

Thus, the BOB was a "hand-me-down" of the original BOA, where the original meaning was lost and tne mnemonic text took on a sacred meaning. JS recognized the original text buried in the mnemonic text.

Tvedtnes went thru the EAG, showing the correlation with the BOA. This was published back in the 1970's and has been pretty ignored. Not refuted, but simply ignored.

I think that in the next decade or so, it will be the "last man standing" among apologetic theories. But this assumes that the EAG is the key to the translation, and apologists are not yet willing to accept that point. It is merely an embarrassment.

We shall see what we shall see.

Edited August 7, 2011 by cdowis

[robuchan]

I assume you are unfamiliar with the work of Tvedtnes, which shows a correlation between the BOA and the EAG. It is called the mnemonic theory where each character represented a phrase or group of sentences. For example, "dove" could represent the story of the baptism of Christ.

These characters or workds are then grouped into a sentence, independent of the original text, and can take on a meaning itself. If I want to memorize the entire book of John, I memorize a paragraph made up of the mnemonic words, instead of the entire book itself.

(I remember reading an article where the Egyptians were fond of making up such stuff.)

Thus, the BOB was a "hand-me-down" of the original BOA, where the original meaning was lost and tne mnemonic text took on a sacred meaning. JS recognized the original text buried in the mnemonic text.

Tvedtnes went thru the EAG, showing the correlation with the BOA. This was published back in the 1970's and has been pretty ignored. Not refuted, but simply ignored.

I think that in the next decade or so, it will be the "last man standing" among apologetic theories. But this assumes that the EAG is the key to the translation, and apologists are not yet willing to accept that point. It is merely an embarrassment.

We shall see what we shall see.

Does the Book of Abraham translation qualify as a non-revelatory, academic translation attempt, the same as the Kinderhook plates? I don't see the difference in the Book of Abraham method and the Kinderhooks method.

[Mortal Man]

Excellent OP Kevin, I was wondering when you were going to post your images over here.

Now at the moment he said, "the next one is clear and pulled from two lines down" (alluding to character 13) the Power Point slide was showing character #12 on line one, along with a blown up image of the character as it appears in both the papyrus and the manuscript. Of course the copy is a faithful replica of the original, which led people to think his argument was sound. As if to think, "Wow, this was taken from two lines down completely out of sequence." But in reality it wasn't. Will was rushing along through the presentation when few people had the necessary familiarity with these documents to notice he was totally misrepresenting them.

In reality, the character Will referred to was character #13 which he believes was copied from a character "two lines down," but when compared side by side, it is clearly a huge stretch to say they resemble anything at all. And a character that, ironically, looks exactly like the number 13! Here are the characters Gee/Schryver claim are copied from other areas of the papyrus. You tell me if any of these resemble one another.

As I mentioned on the other board, character 13 was present on the papyrus when Joseph Smith had it. Here is the relevant figure from our paper. The red boxes correspond to sections of the recto layer that tore off after the characters were copied into the margins of the BoA translation manuscripts.

The blue boxes correspond to Baer's and Ashment's identifications of these characters elsewhere on the papyrus. The red-box-reconstruction is supported by:

1) A geometrical analysis of the repeated major lacunae

2) Fragments of the characters remaining in the separated layers

3) Comparison of the text to Papyrus Louvre 3284

4) Matches with the KEP characters

Ed Ashment was kind enough to Egyptologically verify our reconstruction shown above. Line 2 begins with Wsir, which Williams (1 instance) and Parrish (2 instances) both correctly copied into their translation manuscripts.

Parrish______________Papyrus__________Williams

Gee's claims are truly bizarre.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Mortal Man

[cdowis]

Does the Book of Abraham translation qualify as a non-revelatory, academic translation attempt, the same as the Kinderhook plates? I don't see the difference in the Book of Abraham method and the Kinderhooks method.

I need for you to give me a link to the translation of the Kinderhook plates before I can comment. Just a page or two will suffice.

Edited August 8, 2011 by cdowis

[robuchan]

I need for you to give me a link to the translation of the Kinderhook plates before I can comment. Just a page or two will suffice.

http://fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_Plates

Bradley noted that one of the most prominent characters on the Kinderhook Plates (a symbol shaped like a boat), when broken down into its individual elements matched a symbol found on page 4 of the GAEL (the second page of characters) of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), often referred to as the "Egyptian Alphabet. The GAEL provides meanings for the individual symbols, and the meaning assigned to the particular symbol found on the plates supports the translation reported to have been provided by Joseph.

The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL.

[cdowis]

http://fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_Plates

Sorry, I do not see a translation. Perhaps you gave me the wrong link..... or you are full of baloney.

I am not a fool, so don't waste my time.

Edited August 8, 2011 by cdowis

[robuchan]

Sorry, I do not see a translation. Perhaps you gave me the wrong link..... or you are full of baloney.

I am not a fool, so don't waste my time.

Apparently there's enough detail there to derive it was a non-revelatory translation.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

It just goes down as yet another example of BoA apologetics misrepresenting the source documents. From what I understand, Will Schryver subsequently abandoned the argument, though I suspect John Gee is still sticking to his guns.

Since the KEP point to the "wrong scroll" as the source for the Book of Abraham, they needed to come up with some way to discredit it. So refuting the sequence aspect of it was just one apologetic way to kill the critical argument. If Gee could demonstrate that the scribes had no sequence in mind, then naturally these could not have represented the translation manuscripts, which most certainly would have taken characters in sequence.

Anti Mormons always seem to place their focus on "the process" instead "the content". And so they will never really understand the Word of God--which is mostly about "content" instead of "process"

Edited August 8, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[jo1952]

Anti Mormons always seem to place their focus on "the process" instead "the content". And so they will never really understand the Word of God--which is mostly about "content" instead of "process"

I agree! I would emphasize and make clear that I have found this to be generally true about their own accepted canon; i.e., they are more concerned about "process" than "content", and evidence BEFORE faith; thus missing the spiritual message. However, I have found that there ARE other believers whose interpretations appear to be dependent upon being guided by the Holy Ghost vs man. However, those believers seem to be rejected and are accused by orthodox Christianity (especially the openly anti-LDS groups) as being gnostic because they DO trust and follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost.....sigh.

Love,

jo

Edited August 8, 2011 by jo1952

[Xander]

Anti Mormons always seem to place their focus on "the process" instead "the content". And so they will never really understand the Word of God--which is mostly about "content" instead of "process"

Does this mean you have nothing substantive to add to this thread?

The fact is this "content" apologetic is a myth. The critics seem to be better familiar with it than most apologists. For example, Loran was completely oblivious to the fact that Abr 1:12 references the papyrus following Facsimile #1. You'd be surprised how many LDS members don't know this, and yet it is their scripture.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Xander

[jo1952]

Does this mean you have nothing substantive to add to this thread?

The fact is this "content" apologetic is a myth. The critics seem to be better familiar with it than most apologists. For example, Loran was completely oblivious to the fact that Abr 1:12 references the papyrus following Facsimile #1. You'd be surprised how many LDS members don't know this, and yet it is their scripture.

It appears to me that your comment supports what Fig Bearing Thistle just said. IOW, you have missed the "content" aka the "message" because you are so focused on the "process". When a person is sincerely and humbly seeking God, God is going to make sure that they receive the "message" through the witness of the Holy Ghost, regardless of who, what, when, where, or why the source of their seeking comes from. Therefore, no matter what anyone comes up with in their trying to discern the source of Joseph Smith's translation is irrelevant to the fact that what he wrote down was as a result of what God inspired him to write. At that point, it does not matter to the person who has received a witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Abraham was received by Joseph Smith through personal revelation, that other people think Joseph's source documentation is flawed in any way. He did not receive his revelation from documentation; he received it from God.

It is the same even with ALL scripture. When a person has sought the power and guidance of the Holy Ghost while studying scripture - and this most definitely includes the Bible - it is the Holy Ghost who opens up our minds to understanding what is being taught; not the words which are written on the pages of canon.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 8, 2011 by jo1952

[Xander]

It appears to me that your comment supports what Fig Bearing Thistle just said. IOW, you have missed the "content" aka the "message" because you are so focused on the "process".

It appears you do not know what you're talking about and have to responded directly to topic of this thread. You haven't even begun to demonstrate that I have "missed the content" of the BoA. This thread is a direct response to a failed apologetic argument by your most prominent authority. Don't tell me it doesn't matter, you tell him it doesn't matter since he is the one who feels the need to come up with these nonsensical and baseless arguments.

When a person is sincerely and humbly seeking God, God is going to make sure that they receive the "message" through the witness of the Holy Ghost, regardless of who, what, when, where, or why the source of their seeking comes from.

Give me a break. You clearly have nothing to add to this thread when all you're left with is the standard preaching.

Therefore, no matter what anyone comes up with in their trying to discern the source of Joseph Smith's translation is irrelevant to the fact that what he wrote down was as a result of what God inspired him to write.

So in other word, no matter what the evidence, you're going to believe what you want anyway. Am i supposed to care? This thread was designed for people who actually care about reasoning and evidence. You're only interested in dismissing all evidence and reasoning because it gets in the way of your testimony. I'm not interested in evidence-ree spirit talk.

[jo1952]

It appears you do not know what you're talking about and have to responded directly to topic of this thread. You haven't even begun to demonstrate that I have "missed the content" of the BoA. This thread is a direct response to a failed apologetic argument by your most prominent authority. Don't tell me it doesn't matter, you tell him it doesn't matter since he is the one who feels the need to come up with these nonsensical and baseless arguments.

Give me a break. You clearly have nothing to add to this thread when all you're left with is the standard preaching.

So in other word, no matter what the evidence, you're going to believe what you want anyway. Am i supposed to care? This thread was designed for people who actually care about reasoning and evidence. You're only interested in dismissing all evidence and reasoning because it gets in the way of your testimony. I'm not interested in evidence-ree spirit talk.

I have offered the very best evidence of all. God's evidence is greater than man's. If you understood this, then you wouldn't be so stuck on trying to force man's evidence which YOU have accepted onto those who prefer God's evidence.

I will repeat that the physical evidence you are trying to argue about was NOT the source of the Book of Abraham. Therefore, your argument is placed on vapor.

Regards,

jo

[Loran Blood]

Does this mean you have nothing substantive to add to this thread?

The fact is this "content" apologetic is a myth. The critics seem to be better familiar with it than most apologists. For example, Loran was completely oblivious to the fact that Abr 1:12 references the papyrus following Facsimile #1. You'd be surprised how many LDS members don't know this, and yet it is their scripture.

I have never been "oblivious" to this "fact." I've read the BofA a number of times, and have taken note of it many times. I am, however, unconvinced by sprawling leaps of inference that jump from the hypocephalus being referenced by the text of the BofA to the hypocephalus therefore being the source for the text of the BofA.

You and the other historic critics of the BofA have, for decades now, come up short of actual evidence demonstrating this to be the case.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

duplicate post.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Xander]

I see you're back to your favorite hobby of argument via assertion. The evidence is overwhelming, and the Church recognized this before the apologists took over. So saying it is strictly an anti-Mormon belief based on no evidence is laughable. Your own scripture says it, despite your denials. The KEP dictates that the Sensen text is the source for the Book of Abraham and you haven't even begun to mount an response beyond asserting "no it isn't."

This thread was never intended to be a bear your testimony thread. It was intended to deal with failed arguments and an analysis of available evidence. Neither of you have dealt with the refutation I provided, proving John Gee totally misrepresented these documents.

[Loran Blood]

Does this mean you have nothing substantive to add to this thread?

The fact is this "content" apologetic is a myth. The critics seem to be better familiar with it than most apologists. For example, Loran was completely oblivious to the fact that Abr 1:12 references the papyrus following Facsimile #1. You'd be surprised how many LDS members don't know this, and yet it is their scripture.

I have never been "oblivious" to this "fact." I 've read the BofA a number of times and taken note of said reference a number of times. What I take exception to is the massive leap of inference that takes the "reference" of the Sensen text in the BofA and turns the Sensen into the "source" of the BofA, a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence as such.

No critic has yet made a convincing argument that the reference to the facsimile in the BofA is not simply a function of the hypocephalus being a part of a body of reference texts used by the original compiler to create the Book of Abraham, and which was passed down, with other textual materials, as a bundle of related, religiously relevant artifacts.

If, however, one has already decided that the Book of Abraham cannot be a divinely inspired ancient text (because one just doesn't like the ideas it contains, and their implications), then, of course, any naturalistic/sociological explanation is preferable.

[Loran Blood]

It appears you do not know what you're talking about

Here we go...

Don't tell me it doesn't matter, you tell him it doesn't matter since he is the one who feels the need to come up with these nonsensical and baseless arguments.

True to form.

Give me a break. You clearly have nothing to add to this thread when all you're left with is the standard preaching.

A scholar and a gentleman...

So in other word, no matter what the evidence, you're going to believe what you want anyway. Am i supposed to care? This thread was designed for people who actually care about reasoning and evidence. You're only interested in dismissing all evidence and reasoning because it gets in the way of your testimony. I'm not interested in evidence-free spirit talk.

Thin skin and personal agendas just don't combine well with the complexities of issues such as the one under discussion.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Minos
Anyone who comes in a thread to fight is leaving.

[Loran Blood]

I see you're back to your favorite hobby of argument via assertion. The evidence is overwhelming,

Argument by assertion.

and the Church recognized this before the apologists took over. So saying it is strictly an anti-Mormon belief based on no evidence is laughable. Your own scripture says it, despite your denials.

The author of the Book of Abraham references the facsimile in his text. This does not, by any possible logical extension make the Sensen the sole source of the Book of Abraham.

The KEP dictates that the Sensen text is the source for the Book of Abraham and you haven't even begun to mount an response beyond asserting "no it isn't."

This argument has been essentially dead, embalmed, and buried as viable for several decades, so all you have here is, yet again, more...argument by assertion.

This thread was never intended to be a bear your testimony thread.

However, when testimonies do happen to get born here, your response is anger, agitation, and hostility.

Why does the bearing of testimony threaten you so?

[Xander]

Just to reiterate the point, John Gee's argument is dead in the water for reasons outlined in this thread. So far no one has offered anything that would challenge the evidence as I have provided. If anyone wants to argue to the contrary, beyond assertions and platitudes, then I'm all ears. Obviously this will exclude some of the hecklers who are only trying to divert attention from a valid criticism.