The Book Of Abraham/Book Of Breathings Controversy

[William Schryver]

Will,

are they considered Egyptian characters or did Phelps make them up?

They are not Egyptian characters. I don't know who made them up. It would seem that Phelps made them up, since they first appear in a letter to his wife, but there is no way to know for sure what their origin is. At least until further evidence presents itself. Perhaps "George Miller" has such evidence. If so, I look forward to it.

[William Schryver]

very possibly so, wade. i didn't mean to represent it as referring exclusively to the papyri. he was/they were definitely attending hebrew classes concurrently with the work on the translation of the scrolls. i meant it as an example of his overall enthusiasm for the learning of ancient languages, and indeed this entry occurs amidst others that refer directly to the work of translation. the crux of my previous post is to make sure that i am correctly summarizing what i have gleaned from all of will's posts on this thread, and would like to see it confirmed and/or amended.

Have you watched both parts of my 2010 FAIR Conference presentation? The hypotheses I present in Part 2 are evolving, but I firmly stand by the Primary Thesis as presented in Part 1.

Here is a link: The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

The text of the presentation is available here: The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers - Text

[floatingboy]

i haven't had a chance yet, but want to. for the purposes of this thread, can you at least confirm/amend my summary of what you're trying to get across in the thread? i just want to make sure i've got it right.

thanks.

[wenglund]

The characters from parts 1-2a mostly are not-- in my opinion they're invented, though George interprets them as dissections of papyrus characters-- but (as I think George and I both agree) Joseph nevertheless used them to reconstruct the characters missing from the papyrus's lacunae. In other words, regardless of whether these characters were derived from the papyrus, Joseph attributed them to the papyrus in its undamaged form.

Fascinating!

Do you have mapped out where each of the first 39 or so characters (more than half the characters given English explanations in the EA) are supposedly from which missing pieces of the papyri?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

They are not Egyptian characters. I don't know who made them up. It would seem that Phelps made them up, since they first appear in a letter to his wife, but there is no way to know for sure what their origin is. At least until further evidence presents itself. Perhaps "George Miller" has such evidence. If so, I look forward to it.

Thanks

[floatingboy]

just to bump my summary of will's ideas:

essentially no one knew where the BofA text was on the scroll, including JS. he received it by inspiration, independent of the scroll. it may have been on there, but that is irrelevant, since neither JS nor any of his scribes could possibly read it.

and what i extrapolate based on other available information, such as JS journal entries:

all of the numerous mentions of a translation process that they were arduously engaged in were simply attempts by very linguistically curious men to decipher this dead system of writing, to satisfy their own curiosity or even to possibly translate further ancient documents (or for whatever reasons).

[William Schryver]

Fascinating!

Do you have mapped out where each of the first 39 or so characters (more than half the characters given English explanations in the EA) are supposedly from which missing pieces of the papyri?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fascinating, indeed!

But, hey, if we're talking about characters that, supposedly, Joseph Smith attributed to lacunae in the papyrus ... well, ain't one missing spot as good as the next? What good would a map to nowhere do you?

[wenglund]

They are not Egyptian characters.

In the EA's, they were also assigned non-Egyptian sounds--sounds and explanations that were somewhat different than they were assigned in the "Speciman" Phelps sent to his wife months before the papyri arrived in Kirtland.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Do you have mapped out which of the first 39 or so characters (more than half the characters given English explanations in the EA) are supposedly from which missing pieces of the papyri?

Not in a presentable digital format. Someday when my quals are done and I have some time...

Edited October 27, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Mike Reed]

Will,

I am not here to "play." I am here to remind you that you aren't entitled to other people's work. You will get it soon enough. As George informed you, you will need to wait until MHA. If you don't go (and take up his kind offer to eat dinner with you)... you might have to wait for its publication.

Patience is a virtue.

In the mean time... why don't you focus your efforts on finding a publisher for your work? Or have you found one already?

The last page of posts look very civil until this. You will be suspended if you change the tone of the thread. It looks like everyone is clear that Mr. Miller is prevented from responding at this time.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Minos

[Chris Smith]

Fascinating, indeed!

But, hey, if we're talking about characters that, supposedly, Joseph Smith attributed to lacunae in the papyrus ... well, ain't one missing spot as good as the next? What good would a map to nowhere do you?

Since we have the Abraham manuscripts and can compare them to the papyrus, we can tell which characters Joseph attributed to the lacuna.

[stemelbow]

Since we have the Abraham manuscripts and can compare them to the papyrus, we can tell which characters Joseph attributed to the lacuna.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

[wenglund]

Since we have the Abraham manuscripts and can compare them to the papyrus, we can tell which characters Joseph attributed to the lacuna.

Are you suggesting that the 39 or so characters in Parts 1-2b are pieces of certain characters found on some of the Abraham manuscripts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

just to bump my summary of will's ideas:

essentially no one knew where the BofA text was on the scroll, including JS. he received it by inspiration, independent of the scroll. it may have been on there, but that is irrelevant, since neither JS nor any of his scribes could possibly read it.

and what i extrapolate based on other available information, such as JS journal entries:

all of the numerous mentions of a translation process that they were arduously engaged in were simply attempts by very linguistically curious men to decipher this dead system of writing, to satisfy their own curiosity or even to possibly translate further ancient documents (or for whatever reasons).

I believe I can account for BoA translation occurring at every instance it is referenced in the historical record. We're talking about a handful of instances in 1835, and then a couple in 1842. I don't think anything in the historical is inconsistent with the thesis I have proposed. In fact, I think the historical record finally makes sense when viewed through the lens I provide.

Again, I recommend that you at least view Part 1 of my 2010 FAIR Conference presentation. It gives a better summary of my Primary Thesis than anything I could do on this message board. Much time went into the preparation of it. The Church Historian placed a lot of confidence in a long-haired autodidact from Cedar City. The language is (I believe) economical; the thoughts (I believe) concise; the evidence (I believe) compelling.

I have yet to encounter a single substantive counter-argument to it. Although there is a widely circulated myth that it has been thoroughly "destroyed," I remain blissfully unaware of how it was done and by whom. If you know how and who and where, please enlighten me so that I can stop advocating for a lost position.

[floatingboy]

alright, i'll check it out as soon as i can.

[William Schryver]

alright, i'll check it out as soon as i can.

I look forward to your impressions afterwards.

[Chris Smith]

Are you suggesting that the 39 or so characters in Parts 1-2b are pieces of certain characters found on some of the Abraham manuscripts?

Some of them, yes, though I'd state it the opposite way: certain characters in the Abraham manuscripts have been constructed (in order to "restore" characters missing from a lacuna in pJS XI) by combining some of those invented characters in the EA.

I'll try to work up some graphics demonstrating this tomorrow. Right now I should sign off for the day and get some work done.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

By the way, some may be interested in this response I wrote to stemelbow on the other board:

Is Will correct when he says there are 4 characters of the 69 that have explanations that can be found on the papyri?

I count about eleven that are taken directly from the papyri, plus a few more that are dissected "parts" of those. Other characters from the papyri are assigned "sounds" but never interpreted.

For reference, here's a summary of the character derivations in the EA documents:

First Part – A series of characters which seem to be invented. Some of the characters are treated as composites and broken down into component parts.

Second Part – Begins with a series of invented characters, with their “sounds” arranged in something like English alphabetical order, with interpretations given. Several of these characters and interpretations appear to be copied or adapted from the “specimen of some of the ‘Pure Language’”. Then follow the characters from Register 3 of PJS I, with “sounds” given but only the first three interpreted. (About four more are later given interpretations in the GAEL.) A few characters from the papyrus are dissected into component parts, and a few more invented characters are interspersed that seem like constructions or transformations from these dissected parts.

Third Part – Characters from Register 2 of PJS I, with only a couple “sounds” given. (These two are later interpreted in the GAEL.)

Fourth Part – Characters from Register 1 of PJS I, with no sounds or interpretations.

Fifth Part – Characters from Register 4 of PJS I, with no sounds or interpretations, followed by two characters from the beginning of Column 1 of the Hor Book of Breathings (PJS XI), interpreted with sounds given.

If so, what do you make of the other 65 characters with explanations?

Joseph seemingly starts the EA project intending to create a lexicon of sub-characters derived from inspiration alone, then changes his plan and begins pulling characters from pJS I. However, the important thing is that he made no clear distinction between these two methods. They blend into each other, and he makes use of both types of entries in translating the BoA.

It appears Will thinks George's claim that he will demonstrate the other characters to be from the papyri will result in George making some pretty tenuous connections.

If George is right, then he's come up with a very elegant solution. I tend to think he isn't, but that may be just because I'm too attached to my own interpretation of the evidence. George's interpretation is certainly plausible, but I don't know that it's a slam dunk. (Note that I haven't seen it for a while, so he may have improved on it since then.)

Edited October 27, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

Some of them, yes, though I'd state it the opposite way: certain characters in the Abraham manuscripts have been constructed (to "restore" characters missing from a lacuna in pJS XI) by combining some of those invented characters in the EA.

I'll try to work up some graphics demonstrating this tomorrow. Right now I should sign off for the day and get some work done.

I'm a little surprised to see you back in this thread after the stunt you pulled. But I guess those kinds of things have never bothered you. You've always figured no one was watching when you do those kinds of things.

Anyway ... I can't help but notice that you have been asserting for ... well, over a year now, that my thesis concerning the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham is "wrong," but I have yet to actually see anything in the way of a counter-argument from you demonstrating why it is wrong. When do you suppose we can look forward to that counter-argument? I, for one, would like to consider it, and perhaps rebut it, if at all possible. So let me know when you finally decide to articulate what I'm sure must be a devastating body of logic, lest I fall into the undoubtedly false assumption that you're just bluffing for the consumption of your apostate friends.

[William Schryver]

By the way, some may be interested in this response I wrote to stemelbow on the other board:

I count about eleven that are taken directly from the papyri, plus a few more that are dissected "parts" of those. Other characters from the papyri are assigned "sounds" but never interpreted.

For reference, here's a summary of the character derivations in the EA documents:

First Part – A series of characters which seem to be invented. Some of the characters are treated as composites and broken down into component parts.

Second Part – Begins with a series of invented characters, with their “sounds” arranged in something like English alphabetical order, with interpretations given. Several of these characters and interpretations appear to be copied or adapted from the “specimen of some of the ‘Pure Language’”. Then follow the characters from Register 3 of PJS I, with “sounds” given but only the first three interpreted. (About four more are later given interpretations in the GAEL.) A few characters from the papyrus are dissected into component parts, and a few more invented characters are interspersed that seem like constructions or transformations from these dissected parts.

Third Part – Characters from Register 2 of PJS I, with only a couple “sounds” given. (These two are later interpreted in the GAEL.)

Fourth Part – Characters from Register 1 of PJS I, with no sounds or interpretations.

Fifth Part – Characters from Register 4 of PJS I, with no sounds or interpretations, followed by two characters from the beginning of Column 1 of the Hor Book of Breathings (PJS XI), interpreted with sounds given.

Joseph seemingly starts the EA project intending to create a lexicon of sub-characters derived from inspiration alone, then changes his plan and begins pulling characters from pJS I. However, the important thing is that he made no clear distinction between these two methods. They blend into each other, and he makes use of both types of entries in translating the BoA.

If George is right, then he's come up with a very elegant solution. I tend to think he isn't, but that may be just because I'm too attached to my own interpretation of the evidence. George's interpretation is certainly plausible, but I don't know that it's a slam dunk. (Note that I haven't seen it for a while, so he may have improved on it since then.)

I never said there were only 4 characters of 69 that were explained, as you should well know. There are, as I have stated repeatedly on this thread alone, 69 characters that were explained in the EA/GAEL. But I note how willing you are to repeat misinformation. Nothing new there.

As for the rest of your post, I have to leave for the moment to take a daughter to swimming practice, but I'll check it out when I return later.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

.

Edited October 27, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

Fascinating, indeed!

But, hey, if we're talking about characters that, supposedly, Joseph Smith attributed to lacunae in the papyrus ... well, ain't one missing spot as good as the next? What good would a map to nowhere do you?

LOL. The reason I asked for a mapping isn't just to see if the critics are capable of assigning pieces of characters to larger made-up character to supposedly fill in missing areas of the papyri--that would be rather simple as you suggest. Rather, it is to see how well their mapping of the characters matches up in an intelligible way to the over-all context when one factors in the sounds and explanations associated with those characters. I would like to see how well their supposedly made-up missing pieces of the puzzle supposedly fit together with the alleged existing pieces for supposedly enabling Joseph to translate or develop the Book of Abraham or other Egyptian documents.

If Chris and the other critics are able to pull this off, I will be somewhat impressed--not that it would necessarily mean that the BoA was dependent upon the EA/GAEL rather than the other way around.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Some of them, yes, though I'd state it the opposite way: certain characters in the Abraham manuscripts have been constructed (in order to "restore" characters missing from a lacuna in pJS XI) by combining some of those invented characters in the EA.

I'll try to work up some graphics demonstrating this tomorrow. Right now I should sign off for the day and get some work done.

Great. I hope that your graphic will include the five characters most in question here (i.e. those characters that were a part of Phelp's "specimen" and his EA).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

I'm a little surprised to see you back in this thread after the stunt you pulled.

I can never quite tell if you're just trolling or if you actually believe the stuff you say. EIther way, I give you a 10 for rhetoric but more like a 2 for substantive dialogue. It certainly doesn't make me want to continue the discussion when you move the goalposts and then act like it was a "stunt" that I aimed for the original goal.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

I can never quite tell if you're just trolling or if you actually believe the stuff you say. EIther way, I give you a 10 for rhetoric but more like a 2 for substantive dialogue. It certainly doesn't make me want to continue the discussion when you move the goalposts and then act like it was a "stunt" that I aimed for the original goal.

As I suspected.

I can never quite tell if you're just trolling or if you actually believe the stuff you say. Either way, I give you a 6 for rhetoric but more like a 1 for substantive dialogue.

In any event, I can't help but notice that you have been asserting for ... well, over a year now, that my thesis concerning the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham is "wrong," but I have yet to actually see anything in the way of a counter-argument from you demonstrating why it is wrong. When do you suppose we can look forward to that counter-argument? I, for one, would like to consider it, and perhaps rebut it, if at all possible. So let me know when you finally decide to articulate what I'm sure must be a devastating body of logic, lest I fall into the undoubtedly false assumption that you're just bluffing for the consumption of your apostate friends.