Alleged Defeat By Smith Of Schryver Egyptian Alphabet Thesis

[William Schryver]

In the other thread concerning the relationship between the Book of Abraham and the Book of Breathings, Chris Smith claims to have, over the course of the past year or so, made “dozens” of devastating counter-arguments to the primary thesis of my 2010 FAIR Conference Address: that the Egyptian Alphabet documents are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. This is actually a very important argument in many ways, not the least because it places the production of the Book of Abraham in a very specific time frame, and reinforces the long-suspected idea that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham by revelation, rather than through some kind of academic process; certainly not via some incomprehensible system whereby he first prepared some kind of deciphering alphabet and then applied it to the Egyptian papyrus in his possession.

For those who happened to miss that presentation and would like to spend the fourteen minutes required to bring yourself up to speed on the arguments upon which I have based my thesis, I invite you to view this presentation, which is a hybrid PowerPoint/Video that demonstrates in detail some of the compelling textual evidence that supports the arguments I have made: Dependency of the EA/GAEL on BoA

Now, back to Smith’s alleged rebuttal of my thesis: I must confess I have been entirely unaware of him making even a single substantive counter-argument in all this time, despite his reassurances to the contrary. Whenever I have pressed people for an example of those counter-arguments, I have simply been reassured that Smith has “completely decimated” what I had to say, and encouraged to just leave it at that.

Well, I have decided to no longer “just leave it at that”.

The mark of any good argument is that the supporters of the person making it are able to at least paraphrase it in such a way as to convey its meaning to others, and thus its explanatory power is passed on.

As the first step in this thread, before I make an already prepared post that addresses each of Smith’s links below, I hereby challenge those who believe Smith has made substantive counter-arguments to my thesis to provide for us examples of those counter-arguments. Give us paraphrases of those arguments; explain the reasons he has given to reject my thesis. I really want to hear these arguments. I want it explained to the common man; to the membership of this message board, just how and why it is that Christopher Smith has defeated the thesis that I lay out in extremely simple terms in my presentation linked above.

For your source material, I invite you to use the things he has provided at the links below. He assures that these seven links are but a minor sampling of the dozens of more places where he has provided counter-logic to my thesis. It will certainly be easy then for his supporters to explain to others here what those arguments are; why and how Smith has explained that my thesis is not tenable.

So please take my invitation to follow these links and then return here to this thread and articulate for us the strong reasoning you find there. Open my eyes to the substantive counter-arguments Smith has made.

Here are the links he provided:

A brief interview with Chris Smith conducted immediately after my presentation at the 2010 FAIR conference:

The closest thing I have found to an attempt at a counter-argument. In fact, I identified one within this morass of language, and will reply to it later on this thread:

Two

A reply to the poster “Nomad”. I have yet to decipher the meaning of this one. I’m hoping someone else can do so:

Three

A reply to a post by Daniel McClellan. Folks, this one is a masterpiece of something. I defy someone to extract from this post something that constitutes a substantive counter-argument to my thesis.

Four

This is a reply to a post by Benjamin McGuire. Again, I defy someone to extract from this post something that constitutes a substantive counter-argument to my thesis.

Five

This is a reply to a post by Don Bradley. As far as I have been able to determine, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of the dependency of the EA/GAEL on the BoA.

Six

This is a classic Brent Metcalfe post wherein he makes an assertion in passing. Classic, I tells ya. I’m sure Brent will be lurking on this thread. I invite him to magically appear and defend his oblique assertion and then let’s see if it truly constitutes a substantive counter-argument to my thesis:

Metcalfe Post

There you go, folks.

Again, the mark of any good argument is that the supporters of the person making it are able to at least paraphrase it in such a way as to convey its meaning to others, and thus its explanatory power is passed on.

I hereby challenge those who believe Smith has made substantive counter-arguments to my thesis to provide for us examples of those counter-arguments. You’ve got his recommended source materials. Certainly some among you who believe strongly that Smith has rebutted my arguments can easily locate and render in your own words some of those arguments. Give us paraphrases of his devastating logic such that you can articulate for us the reasons he has given to reject my thesis. I really want to hear these arguments. I want it explained to the common man; to the membership of this message board, just how and why it is that Christopher Smith has defeated the thesis that I lay out in extremely simple terms in my presentation linked above.

Edited October 28, 2011 by William Schryver

[J Green]

Lest anyone accuse me of being a Will sycophant, a disclaimer first. I have disagreed with Will over the years on a few issues that I believe are important questions. How the BoM was translated and Joseph's connection to all texts (or lack of a connection) are among them. I have followed the BOA discussion for over a decade from the sidelines, interested in everything that has been presented but not convinced of any of the main theories out there. In short, the dependency direction issue is not important to any theory I have of the BOA or its truthfulness. I am also intrigued by the direction George and Chris are going in their latest research and look forward to any future presentation they may give on this issue.

That being said, I followed all the conversations listed here at the time they were given and I have reviewed most of the posts again recently with the unfolding of this discussion. I for one have become convinced by both Will's presentation and Maklelan's textual analysis that the translation of the BOA precedes the production of the EA/GAEL.

Cheers

[Benjamin McGuire]

I wanted to add some comments to the other thread, but I suspect this one will have to do.

One of the problems with this topic in my opinion has been an obsession with the characters that has tended to occlude other pertinent lines of investigation. Kevin points out, for example, that Abraham has close connection to Genesis (which it does). Kevin doesn't point out that the EA documents and the GAEL also have close connections to Genesis in ways that don't correspond to the Abraham text that we have. Of course, not everyone has completely ignored the English text in the EA documents or the GAEL, but its use has been problematic. Just like the characters though, the English text can also be discussed in terms of its environment and its potential sources - and it can be placed within a chronological context. Now from time to time, as I pointed out before, we see some comments on the English text - but generally, those comments create conflict with proposed chronologies rather than fitting into them. My view (which I have presented elsewhere here in some detail) is that the English text as presented in the GAEL and the EA documents comes after the purchase and arrival of the language materials that Oliver Cowdery brings on November 20, 1835. There are other implications of the English text that are often ignored. Expansions in EA-OC that do not occur in other EA texts argue that while they may have been worked on together (the EA documents), this was not merely a scribal function, but some kind of collaborative effort. This is further suggested when we see that OC uses probable sources when he expands on the Genesis material that forms the core for part of the EA documents. Since we have indications that a translation of the earliest parts of the Book of Abraham was in circulation as early as September of 1835, the translation of Abraham (at least the earliest bits) occurs before the English text is associated with the characters in the EA documents and the GAEL (which should probably not be dated any earlier than November 20, 1835). This doesn't mean that something came earlier (and is referred to in the recreated July journal entries), but it was not these documents.

Ben M.

[William Schryver]

I wanted to add some comments to the other thread, but I suspect this one will have to do.

One of the problems with this topic in my opinion has been an obsession with the characters that has tended to occlude other pertinent lines of investigation. Kevin points out, for example, that Abraham has close connection to Genesis (which it does). Kevin doesn't point out that the EA documents and the GAEL also have close connections to Genesis in ways that don't correspond to the Abraham text that we have. Of course, not everyone has completely ignored the English text in the EA documents or the GAEL, but its use has been problematic. Just like the characters though, the English text can also be discussed in terms of its environment and its potential sources - and it can be placed within a chronological context. Now from time to time, as I pointed out before, we see some comments on the English text - but generally, those comments create conflict with proposed chronologies rather than fitting into them. My view (which I have presented elsewhere here in some detail) is that the English text as presented in the GAEL and the EA documents comes after the purchase and arrival of the language materials that Oliver Cowdery brings on November 20, 1835. There are other implications of the English text that are often ignored. Expansions in EA-OC that do not occur in other EA texts argue that while they may have been worked on together (the EA documents), this was not merely a scribal function, but some kind of collaborative effort. This is further suggested when we see that OC uses probable sources when he expands on the Genesis material that forms the core for part of the EA documents. Since we have indications that a translation of the earliest parts of the Book of Abraham was in circulation as early as September of 1835, the translation of Abraham (at least the earliest bits) occurs before the English text is associated with the characters in the EA documents and the GAEL (which should probably not be dated any earlier than November 20, 1835). This doesn't mean that something came earlier (and is referred to in the recreated July journal entries), but it was not these documents.

Ben M.

Ben,

Thanks for your comment. I don't want to derail this thread to a secondary discussion just yet, but it should probably be noted that my "primary thesis" concerning the dependency of the EA/GAEL was presented in two parts:

Speaking of the earlier "Egyptian Alphabet" manuscripts, I wrote:

Part One:

The explanations contained in the Alphabet documents are dependent on a pre-existing text of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham. This dates the reception of the translation of these chapters to the period between July 4 and July 17, 1835, which is when the Alphabet project was commenced.

Then speaking of the bound "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language," I wrote:

Part Two:

The greatly expanded character explanations contained in the Grammar documents are manifestly dependent not only on the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham, but also on the remainder of the revealed Book of Abraham, as well as the explanations to Facsimile #2. This roughly dates the reception of the translation of these things to a period between late 1835 and early 1836.

I think you will readily see how comfortably my thesis therefore fits within your argument as articulated in your post above. The EA/GAEL was clearly produced in two distinct stages--perhaps more, but my various studies of the materials indicate it was commenced in mid-July after a good portion of Abraham chapters 1 - 3 had been received, and then finished later in 1835 and early 1836, after Abraham 4 - 5 had been received. There are distinct text-critical evidences to support this time line.

Edited October 28, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

I seem to recall that nackhadlow is one of the faithful LDS who has (if I'm not mistaken) expressed agreement with Chris Smith's alleged rebuttal(s) of my thesis regarding the dependency of the Egyptian Alphabet on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. If this is true, then consider this an official "call out" to the "nackster" to articulate on this thread the reasons for which he found Smith's arguments persuasive. I would think that would start with (as I suggest above) some kind of paraphrase of what he considers Smith's argument(s) to be.

Edited October 28, 2011 by William Schryver

[David T]

I seem to recall that nackhadlow is one of the faithful LDS who has (if I'm not mistaken) expressed agreement with Chris Smith's alleged rebuttal(s) of my thesis regarding the dependency of the Egyptian Alphabet on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. If this is true, then consider this an official "call out" to the "nackster" to articulate on this thread the reasons for which he found Smith's arguments persuasive. I would think that would start with (as I suggest above) some kind of paraphrase of what he considers Smith's argument(s) to be.

If I'm not mistaken, while I haven't made any statements concerning my thoughts on whether the Abraham text pre-existed the EA, I have noted here that I did disagree with the specific positing of the EA-as-encoding-cypher, as part of what was presented in the FAIR presentation (which is what you may have remembered).

When it comes to dependency, I'm waiting for both sides to publish more of their material. Sorry I can't be very helpful on this front. I'm watching and following with interest, but do wish the rhetoric-to-content ratio was significantly better, on both sides. That gets highly frustrating (and difficult) to wade through.

Edited October 28, 2011 by nackhadlow

[William Schryver]

If I'm not mistaken, while I haven't made any statements concerning my thoughts on whether the Abraham text pre-existed the EA, I have noted here that I did disagree with the specific positing of the EA-as-encoding-cypher, as part of what was presented in the FAIR presentation (which is what you may have remembered).

Oh, I see. I obviously mistook your comments on the one topic for your stance on the other.

You do understand, don't you, that my Primary Thesis, as expressed in my FAIR conference address, concerned the question of dependency? Have you actually watched the video of my FAIR conference address? I give a link above to a 14-minute-long extract of the dependency argument. Chris claims to have rebutted it in the links I posted in the OP. I am very serious when I say I would like to hear your impressions of the arguments as expressed in both places.

By the way, I really think what I had to say vis-a-vis a cipher has been widely misunderstood. My fault, that, I think. At any rate, my views about the whole cipher business are in flux; evolving from day to day, as it were. There are elements of the EA/GAEL that resemble a cipher. That is certain. What that means and how the EA/GAEL was used is a question I have yet to answer to my own satisfaction.

When it comes to dependency, I'm waiting for both sides to publish more of their material. Sorry I can't be very helpful on this front. I'm watching and following with interest, but do wish the rhetoric-to-content ratio was significantly better, on both sides. That gets highly frustrating (and difficult) to wade through.

Well, you have to remember, this is message-board land! It's guerrilla warfare all the time, by design. But it's all in fun. At least that's how I view it. Contrary to what you might think, I've got a grin on my face as I compose virtually every post I make on these boards. In many ways, I'm very different in person. Just ask Don Bradley. I think he was kind of surprised to converse with me in person after having done so on message boards. Oh, well ... that's the nature of the written word divorced from its accompanying facial expressions and intonations.

[Ariarates]

By the way, I really think what I had to say vis-a-vis a cipher has been widely misunderstood.

This made me think of the following line in the OP:

The mark of any good argument is that the supporters of the person making it are able to at least paraphrase it in such a way as to convey its meaning to others, and thus its explanatory power is passed on.

[David T]

Have you actually watched the video of my FAIR conference address?

Watched it live, was the first to promote it and praise it here as I was watching it, watched it more than once, and then linked it to others.

Edited October 28, 2011 by nackhadlow

[William Schryver]

This made me think of the following line in the OP:

The mark of any good argument is that the supporters of the person making it are able to at least paraphrase it in such a way as to convey its meaning to others, and thus its explanatory power is passed on.

I readily accept blame when it comes to the misunderstanding of the cipher part of my FAIR presentation. I hope to rectify that problem in the relatively near future.

On the other hand, I think my primary thesis was very well expressed, and has been quite easy to understand. Do you accept it or dispute it? If you dispute it, why? If you believe Chris Smith has made persuasive arguments against it, then please identify them for us, and explain why you find them persuasive.

Thanks.

[William Schryver]

This made me think of the following line in the OP:

The mark of any good argument is that the supporters of the person making it are able to at least paraphrase it in such a way as to convey its meaning to others, and thus its explanatory power is passed on.

I would like to note further that, immediately after I had presented my primary thesis, I added this statement:

"This thesis expresses what I would like to term the “essential elements of understanding” in respect to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers."

William Schryver, The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, page 7

I continue to affirm that this thesis constitutes the "essential element of understanding" when it comes to the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

[Ariarates]

On the other hand, I think my primary thesis was very well expressed, and has been quite easy to understand. Do you accept it or dispute it?

I have no opinion on the matter. If your research shows that the BoA has come about by revelation, why not take the direct route and pray about it? I know a lot of LDS like to dabble in things Egyptian but I'm not one of them.

I do like the fireworks, though, so keep up the guerilla warfare!

[Chris Smith]

I may at some point write up a comprehensive summary of my arguments against your thesis, since I think it would be useful to have. But it won't be soon, since my qualifying exams are a more pressing concern. And it won't be in a thread dedicated to my own assassination.

[William Schryver]

I may at some point write up a comprehensive summary of my arguments against your thesis, since I think it would be useful to have.

From what I've seen so far, you'll only need a post-it note. No bigger than a 2" x 2".

But it won't be soon, since my qualifying exams are a more pressing concern.

That's never stopped you before.

And it won't be in a thread dedicated to my own assassination.

Since when is a thread dedicated to having people articulate your arguments considered "assassination"?

Of course, you should be quite familiar with threads dedicated to character assassination. They're quite common over on your home board.

At any rate, if I were you I would be just a little concerned that not even one person has been able or willing to identify a single one of your arguments that allegedly rebut my thesis. Not even one! I mean, I thought those arguments were more or less ubiquitous, and presumably easy as can be for someone to explain to us.

Truth be told, I'm not too surprised that none of your supporters has yet attempted to cull from your links a substantive counter-argument to my thesis. It's like looking for a fish in Death Valley.

I'll wait a little longer, and then go ahead and make my post where I expose each and every one of your posted links as not even coming close to doing what you claim them to do. In other words, I'll be calling your bluff.

It's no wonder you'd rather cut yourself than engage in a formal debate with me on this topic. Talk about going to a gunfight with a knife ...

[Chris Smith]

Is a normal, human conversation really too much to ask? You know, the kind that's about ideas rather than point-scoring?

[William Schryver]

Is a normal, human conversation really too much to ask? You know, the kind that's about ideas rather than point-scoring?

Smith,

Your hypocrisy does not befit your well-crafted image. You have willingly and frequently engaged in character assassination against me, and have, in a quite unscholarly fashion, engaged in ad hominem based ridicule of my scholarly arguments for well over a year now, and you want to talk about "point scoring"? Really?

Look, I realize you think people on this board (and elsewhere) don't see what you do on your home board. But they do. And while your reputation among your apostate "posse" remains intact, it has, I'm afraid, been permanently tainted among others whom you have sought to charm and from whom you had hoped to garner respect.

As for the matter at hand--when asked to provide examples of your substantive counter-arguments, you did nothing of the sort, as I will demonstrate quite shortly. You bluffed. That much will be seen.

If you are willing to engage in a debate of the merits of our respective arguments in relation to the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the BoA, I am willing to do so in the "Focused Discussions" forum of this board, where scholarly civility is the order of the day. In any case, I plan to demonstrate that you simply have not presented any substantive counter-arguments to my thesis, notwithstanding your frequent boasts to have done so. I am not willing that the myth of your scholarly impregnability on this topic endure any further.

[Chris Smith]

Uh huh. Well, have fun with that.

[Xander]

As I predicted, the thread was shut down as soon as William got the chance have the last word and throw in a bunch of dismissive rhetoric and cheap shots. And you wonder why critics are reluctant to "debate" him on this forum?

There should be no mystery as to why Will prefers to post on this forum and nowhere else. He requires the privileges afforded him by the mods on this board, and cannot in any sense debate the issues on a level playing field.

Will, you just proved this to be true. You attack Chris for posting on what you call his "home board" but the fact is he originally started posting at this forum (from what I remember), and has continued to post more here than anywhere else on the web. It just seems to really bother you that he also posts where you have lost the courage to face your critics. He is currently having a very calm and friendly exchange with a faithful LDS apologist over there who has just called your latest contribution "pathetic." In fact, numerous LDS faithful who are more familiar with your antagonistic and repugnant attacks - as documented on that forum - aren't inclined to blindly support you as they do over here. And since you always seem to require a supporting cheering section during your "debates", it should be no surprise that you refuse to face your critics outside this forum.

The previous thread was shut down immediately after you declared that it has "run its course," -almost as if you had administrative rights granted to you - of course dealing with not a single thing I said that directly responded to your Op Ed.

You still have not dealt with the fact that your entire methodology is something you invented for your own purposes. "Substantial word counts" is not something you got from text critics. It is something you created from whole cloth. You don't get to declare it a legitimate method just because it works for you. Given this indisputable fact, why is it that you feel critics are required to refute something you have yet to establish using standard scholarly methodology? Thus far you have hyped up assertions supported by highly questionable methods. Assertions that have failed to impress a number of LDS experts on the subject, and yet you present them as if they are "conclusive" facts that have been accepted by those in the know.

Again, I'm still waiting for you to produce an endorsement by a single text critic, LDS or not. Sporting a small cluster of message forum sycophants isn't an impressive support group from a scholarly perspective, and your petulant taunts towards Chris are only driving him away. But you already knew that.

Now if you are really hell-bent on putting on a show for your fans here, then why not deal with what I've already thrown up in your face numerous times? I'm your huckleberry, Will. Just a few months ago I posted numerous threads proving beyond all doubt that you have misrepresented these documents to a substantial degree and at times, simply made things up that have no basis in reality. You've avoided these threads like the plague. So no, you're not in any position to start taunting Chris for cowardice or whatever it is you're getting at. Not when you are most guilty of avoiding from refuting arguments. Of course, you could easily prove me wrong by responding to what I have already brought to your attention.

I have to take the family to Six Flags today, so you go ahead and take the rest of the day to figure it out and decide whether you want to step up to the plate, own up to your mistakes and further understand why so many people think you have lost credibility and are unworthy of further attention on this subject. If you're game, then I'll repost the numerous problems I have pointed out with your "scholarship" on this subject. No personal attacks will be involved at all. Don't worry, I won't even post your past responses that will only embarrass you in front of your fans. I know that is one of the main reasons you refuse to discuss anything with me (Because I've always made sure this audience sees a glimpse of the William Schryver who posts his rancid attacks on the other forum).

[William Schryver]

As I predicted, the thread was shut down as soon as William got the chance have the last word and throw in a bunch of dismissive rhetoric and cheap shots. And you wonder why critics are reluctant to "debate" him on this forum?

There should be no mystery as to why Will prefers to post on this forum and nowhere else. He requires the privileges afforded him by the mods on this board, and cannot in any sense debate the issues on a level playing field.

I shut down that thread myself. I could open it again if I thought it was warranted to do so.

As for this thread, if you are willing to identify and defend one of Chris Smith's alleged "counter-arguments" from the links he provided, you are invited to do so. I look forward to it. If you cannot adhere to the parameters of the thread, you are hereby requested to stay out of it.

[William Schryver]

Uh huh. Well, have fun with that.

Since no one else seems willing and/or able to identify, explain, and defend one of your alleged substantive counter-arguments to my thesis, perhaps you would like to do so? I would really like for you to do that. I told you I identified one in all of the text behind the links you provided. Here it is:

My own hypothesis is that Joseph did have a prototype of the Book of Abraham in mind when he created the EAG.

If you would like to further expand on and then defend this argument on this thread, I would be more than willing to critique it. If you would rather identify a different argument (hope you have better luck than I did) and explain/defend it, be my guest.

I look forward to your choice ...

[William Schryver]

BTW, in response to Graham's insinuations to the contrary, I am aware of at least the following well-qualified individuals who, more or less, from what I have seen, concur with my thesis: Royal Skousen, Dan McClellan, Ben McGuire, and Joseph Green. That's a pretty formidable list right there, if you ask me.

Edited October 28, 2011 by William Schryver

[mfbukowski]

For what it's worth, the OP now has the right to close his own thread if he wants to- it's a new board policy.

I will now revert to my status as mole on the jungle floor while T Rex and the Raptors battle it out above me.

[William Schryver]

"Stumbling's" post seems to have disappeared before I could reply to it. S/he suggested that I demonstrated "cowardice" in my reply to Graham. Strange. I'm not sure how inviting Graham to identify, explain, and defend one of Smith's counter-arguments could be construed as "cowardice."

At any rate, if Stumbling is willing and able to identify, explain, and defend one of Smith's counter-arguments to my thesis, I heartily invite him/her to do so. That is the purpose of this thread. I sincerely encourage anyone so inclined to accept my invitation. If someone should do so in the next little while, I might not get to it until later tonight, inasmuch as I will be leaving shortly, but I will surely get to it as soon as possible.

I very much hope Chris will accept my invitation to explain and defend the single argument I was able to identify in all the text behind the links he provided. I would like to debate him on the argument he seems to be making, especially as it was the primary potential counter-argument I predicted (in a letter to Brian Hauglid) before I had even made my 2010 FAIR Conference presentation, and I had already prepared several counter-arguments to it.

So I look forward to Chris accepting my invitation. I really think the argument he hints at is the only possible argument to which critics can appeal in their efforts to defeat my thesis, and therefore I would very much appreciate an opportunity to address it at this point in time.

Edited October 28, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

/snip/ another multi-paragraph rant of non sequitur nonsense and ad hominem excess

Again, if you are willing to identify and defend one of Chris Smith's alleged "counter-arguments" from the links he provided, you are invited to do so. I look forward to it. If you cannot adhere to the parameters of the thread, you are hereby requested to stay out of it.

[Xander]

BTW, in response to Graham's insinuations to the contrary, I am aware of at least the following well-qualified individuals who, more or less, from what I have seen, concur with my thesis: Royal Skousen, Dan McClellan, Ben McGuire, and Joseph Green. That's a pretty formidable list right there, if you ask me.

You have never produced a citation from any of these people validating your preferred methodology. Not once. They may support your conclusions because as apologists, it is an attractive conclusion to entertain, but I've never seen them accept it for same reasons you have. And with all due respect to my friend Ben, he is a network administrator, not a trained textual critic. You've been touting Skousen as a supporter for years and yet he refuses to come out and endorse you. All we have is your say so, which doesn't really mean much given your history of misrepresentation.