Alleged Defeat By Smith Of Schryver Egyptian Alphabet Thesis

[wenglund]

FYI: I recently took a personal oath not to respond to Kevin Graham's relatively credible-less and harmless bloviations, and pay him little mind until he radically adjusts his heat to light ratio and scales way back on the snearing dogma--charitably assuming that is even possible.

However, since no one else seems willing or in a position to reasonably take up Will's challenge, perhaps I can make an attempt to fairly present Chris' arguments, one at a time, starting with the first he posted:

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

From what I was able to garner from this brief video interview, Chris contends that he and Don Bradly have completed a paper that they have yet to publish, which to their minds provides strong evidence for the timing of the production different portions of the Book of Abraham. Their findings conflict, only in part, with what Will has asserted about the timing (see his post #4 on this thread).

Correct me if I am wrong, but as best I can tell, this doesn't conflict with, let alone come close to "destroying" Will's thesis (i.e. that the EA/GAEL are dependent upon a preexisting text). Rather, at best it merely proffers a differing view of the timing of the production of portions of what may be considered a preexisting text.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 28, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

You have never produced a citation from any of these people validating your preferred methodology.

I have no one single methodology. Joey Green has a post at the beginning of this thread expressing his agreement with my thesis. In the OP of this thread, Chris Smith himself cites posts from Dan McClellan and Ben McGuire that come from threads where they were defending my various aspects of my thesis. Anyone who would like to is free to call or email my good friend Royal Skousen and ask him his opinion of my primary thesis of the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham--otherwise you will have to wait to read future citations in an article that treats specifically upon this topic.

As for this particular 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]

/snip/ another non sequitur/ad hominem rant

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.

[William Schryver]

FYI: I recently took a personal oath not to respond to Kevin Graham's relatively credible-less and harmless bloviations, and pay him little mind until he radically adjusts his heat to light ratio and scales way back on the snearing dogma--charitably assuming that is even possible.

However, since no one else seems willing or in a position to reasonably take up Will's challenge, perhaps I can make an attempt to fairly present Chris' arguments, one at a time, starting with the first he posted:

From what I was able to garner from this brief video interview, Chris contends that he and Don Bradly have completed a paper that they have yet to publish, which to their minds provides strong evidence for the timing of the production different portions of the Book of Abraham. Their findings conflict, only in part, with what Will has asserted about the timing (see his post #4 on this thread).

Correct me if I am wrong, but as best I can tell, this doesn't conflict with, let alone come close to "destroying" Will's thesis (i.e. that the EA/GAEL are dependent upon a preexisting text). Rather, at best it merely proffers a differing view of the timing of the production of portions of what may be considered a preexisting text.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A very accurate observation, Wade.

I thought precisely the same thing when I viewed the video clip and considered the fact that Chris Smith had referenced it as an evidence of his alleged counter-arguments against my thesis. Strange, don't you think? Smells of ... could it be? A bluff?

[William Schryver]

Does anyone besides me find it very peculiar that Kevin Graham's ("Xander") only trick seems to be one ad hominem post after another? I wonder why he won't accept my invitation to identify and defend one of Chris Smith's alleged counter-arguments to my thesis?

Could it be he fears he may not be able to do so?

Very peculiar indeed ...

ETA: I was actually hoping Graham would take up the challenge ... after all, it seems no one else will, not even Chris himself.

Certainly there must be someone out there willing and able to identify, explain, and defend just one of Chris Smith's alleged counter-arguments to my thesis!

Edited October 28, 2011 by William Schryver

[Vance]

FYI: I recently took a personal oath not to respond to Kevin Graham's relatively credible-less and harmless bloviations, and pay him little mind until he radically adjusts his heat to light ratio and scales way back on the snearing dogma--charitably assuming that is even possible.

For what it is worth, I mostly don't waste my time reading his posts.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Vance

[Chris Smith]

Correct me if I am wrong, but as best I can tell, this doesn't conflict with, let alone come close to "destroying" Will's thesis (i.e. that the EA/GAEL are dependent upon a preexisting text). Rather, at best it merely proffers a differing view of the timing of the production of portions of what may be considered a preexisting text.

FWIW, I never said I had "destroyed" Will's thesis. He accused me, out of the blue, of never having made any substantive response to his paper. I replied with links to some places where I had done so. The whole premise of this thread is sheer histrionics on his part.

As for whether my comments in the video contradict Will's thesis, they most decidedly do. Will's "primary thesis" in his paper was that the EAG was "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." The evidence Don and I have collected-- some of which I described in detail in both the video and my JWHA paper-- strongly indicates that 2:19ff and the Facsimile 2 Explanation were translated no earlier than 1842. That makes it impossible that the EAG, produced in 1835, could be dependent on these texts. Thus, the (undeniable) dependency must go the opposite direction for at least these portions of the Abraham text.

I don't believe for a second that William has honestly failed to grasp the significance of this line of argument. His denial that it constitutes a bona fide counterargument is just his typical obfuscation.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

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

Brent's commentary:

Manfred (pseud.) unwittingly points to evidence that Abraham 1:1–3 in BoAbr ms. 2 (fldr. 1) post-dates the three synoptic Egyptian Alphabet manuscripts.

When Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and W. W. Phelps (mis)copied the Egyptian character that would eventually be interpreted as <<Ki-ah-bram, Ki-ah-bra-oam - Zub - sool - oan>> (EA ms. 1a) it was rendered virtually the same across all three documents. But when Phelps copied the character into the GAEL, he stylized the character differently than the three EA mss. It is that latter form of the character that appears in BoAbr ms. 2, p. 1.

Here's an image to illustrate the point:

Edited October 29, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

FWIW, I never said I had "destroyed" Will's thesis. He accused me, out of the blue, of never having made any substantive response to his paper. I replied with links to some places where I had done so. The whole premise of this thread is sheer histrionics on his part.

I'm somewhat tempted to reply to this paragraph in detail, but will resist that urge and simply note that I have been, for the better part of the past year, referring to the fact that no one has made any substantive counter-arguments to my thesis. It remains to be seen if what you have to say below can be judged as a "substantive counter-argument."

As for whether my comments in the video contradict Will's thesis, they most decidedly do. Will's "primary thesis" in his paper was that the EAG was "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." The evidence Don and I have collected-- some of which I described in detail in both the video and my JWHA paper-- strongly indicates that 2:19ff and the Facsimile 2 Explanation were translated no earlier than 1842. That makes it impossible that the EAG, produced in 1835, could be dependent on these texts. Thus, the (undeniable) dependency must go the opposite direction for at least these portions of the Abraham text.

It is insufficient to merely claim that you have evidence of such and such. You need to actually present that evidence, so that we may judge it on its merits. You have been claiming for a long, long time that you have evidence that Abr. 2:19ff (for the unknowing, this means everything from Abr. 2:19 forward) was not received until 1842. You have also been claiming for a long, long time that you have evidence that the Facsimile 2 Explanation was not received until 1842. You must, I'm afraid, now present the evidence you have of these two things, so that we may assess its strength. I have already presented substantial evidence to the contrary.

You will no longer be permitted to merely assert your case. Now you must actually make your case so that those following along can see it and compare it to the case I have made.

Edited to add a missing word and correct another.

Edited October 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Brent's commentary:

Here's an image to illustrate the point:

One item at a time. I will get to this after we deal with your first "counter-argument".

[wenglund]

FWIW, I never said I had "destroyed" Will's thesis. He accused me, out of the blue, of never having made any substantive response to his paper. I replied with links to some places where I had done so. The whole premise of this thread is sheer histrionics on his part.

I can't be sure, but I think the word "destroyed," or comparable terms, weren't necessarily attributed to you, but were being employed by various participants on another board.

As for whether my comments in the video contradict Will's thesis, they most decidedly do. Will's "primary thesis" in his paper was that the EAG was "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." The evidence Don and I have collected-- some of which I described in detail in both the video and my JWHA paper-- strongly indicates that 2:19ff and the Facsimile 2 Explanation were translated no earlier than 1842. That makes it impossible that the EAG, produced in 1835, could be dependent on these texts. Thus, the (undeniable) dependency must go the opposite direction for at least these portions of the Abraham text.

At best, if one accepts your yet to be published arguments and evidence over what Will has and may yet present in favor of his argument, it only conflicts with Abr. 2:19ff as a preexisting text. It doesn't conflict with Abr. 1:1 to Abr 2:18 as a preexisting text.

And, unless your evidence renders your argument definitive, it simply amounts to a reasonable difference of opinion. It doesn't "destroying" Will's argument as some may suppose.

I will have to take a look at some of the other arguments you listed to see if they fare any better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zeta-Flux]

wenglund and Chris Smith,

Thank you for reasonably discussing this issue. There are some of us who can see when people are politely trying to discuss the issue, and we appreciate you talking about the issues instead of the people.

[William Schryver]

wenglund and Chris Smith,

Thank you for reasonably discussing this issue. There are some of us who can see when people are politely trying to discuss the issue, and we appreciate you talking about the issues instead of the people.

There are also some of us who can see when someone has made arguments via assertion for over a year, and despite having failed to present evidence against an opponent who has presented an abundance of it, has repeatedly used disparaging comments towards both that opponent's conclusions and towards the person of that opponent himself (on many occasions)--albeit careful not to do so on this message board, but only on his home board among a mob of ex-Mormons who cheer on his every word.

Zeta, I have never had reason to censure you previously, but in this particular instance you should perhaps apprise yourself of ALL the facts of a matter before inserting yourself into something about which you are quite apparently not fully aware. If you are not in a position to obtain all those facts for yourself, then perhaps you should have said nothing at all.

Do you not also perceive that your post itself constitutes an ad hominem attack?

If you desire to participate in this thread, I would invite you to address the arguments, and avoid attacking the person as you just have.

Edited October 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

Here's an image to illustrate the point:

In the interest of accuracy, on the papyri and in the three EA's, there were actually two side-by-side characters represented (circled in red, the left side of the enclosed image is from one of the EA's and the right side is from the papyri, and this image is taken from a larger graphic posted by Kevin Graham some months back).

[for some reason the graphics I pasted into this post aren't showing up. Perhaps I need to post them on an image hosting site and then link to them here. That could take awhile.]

In each of the EA's, these side-by-side characters were listed in Part 3 of the first degree, and for several of the EA's the assigned sounds went through several evolutions:

In the EA JS the two characters were first given the sound (possibly in the handwriting of JS): "Ah broam Ah brahoam Ki Ahbra am." This sound was later crossed out and replaced with (possibly in the handwriting of OC): "Ki ah-bram Ki-ah-bra-oum-Zub-zool-oan."

In EA OC, the two characters were given the sound "Ah broam Ah-bra oam-zub-zool-oan." Later, the sound "ki" was inserted before the two "Ah"'s.

In EA WWP, the two characters were given the sound "Ki Ah broam Kiah brah-oam zub zool oan.

However, in the GAEL (WWP), only the first of the two side-by-side characters show up as a composite character, and this not in Part 3 of the 1st degree as with the EA's, but in Part 1 of the 5th degree. It was given the sound "Kiah broam-kiam brah oam-Zub Zool oan." (Note that this most closely resembles the unchanged sound in EA WWP)

Also worth noting, is that the two side-by-side characters in the EA's were presumably taken from one part of the extant papyri:

...while Chris and others have argued that it, by itself, was used in the Abr. Mss (WWP) as a "made-up" character to fill in missing parts of the papyri (see 3rd character from the right--this is a part of an image posted by Chris months ago):

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 29, 2011 by wenglund

[Calm]

Will, since CS is in the midst of studying, it seems to me if you want his full and best attention for your work, it would make the most sense to move this thread to focused discussions to wait upon a more thorough response. It would also seem appropriate that if CS is unable at this time to give a satisfactory to his view response to your arguments, that he also chose not to give any partial responses here or elsewhere to avoid just perpetuating the current state of the argument rather than adding additional information and clarity to it.

A date when you are both prepared to continue in depth your discussion could be agreed upon and pointed out to anyone making challenges or asking questions about the latest developments.

Just a suggestion though......

[Zeta-Flux]

There are also some of us who can see when someone has made arguments via assertion for over a year, and despite having failed to present evidence against an opponent who has presented an abundance of it, has repeatedly used disparaging comments towards both that opponent's conclusions and towards the person of that opponent himself (on many occasions)--albeit careful not to do so on this message board, but only on his home board among a mob of ex-Mormons who cheer on his every word.

Even if I grant all of this, it is completely irrelevant. From what I understand, this message board does not allow board wars. Further, if you have issues elsewhere, personally they are of little consequence to me. I am interested in honest discussion here, and I believe wegland and Chris Smith are trying to do so.

Zeta, I have never had reason to censure you previously, but in this particular instance you should perhaps apprise yourself of ALL the facts of a matter before inserting yourself into something about which you are quite apparently not fully aware. If you are not in a position to obtain all those facts for yourself, then perhaps you should have said nothing at all.

I am aware of how wegland and Chris Smith have behaved on this board. They have done so admirably. I commented on that fact. If you feel it that assessment is incorrect, point out to the moderators where their behavior on this board is untowards, instead of involving us in the issue.

Do you not also perceive that your post itself constitutes an ad hominem attack?

It is no such thing.

If you desire to participate in this thread, I would invite you address the arguments, and avoid attacking the person as you just have.

If you believe I have attacked anyone on this board, please inform the moderators of such behavior. However, if you will kindly re-read my post, I only complimented certain posters for their behavior. I never said, nor implied, the opposite towards any person.

I am excited about your thesis, so let's get back on topic. (And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.)

Edited October 29, 2011 by Zeta-Flux

[William Schryver]

Even if I grant all of this, it is completely irrelevant. From what I understand, this message board does not allow board wars. Further, if you have issues elsewhere, personally they are of little consequence to me. I am interested in honest discussion here, and I believe wegland and Chris Smith are trying to do so.

As am I. If you can cite any evidence to the contrary, please do.

I am aware of how wegland and Chris Smith have behaved on this board. They have done so admirably. I commented on that fact. If you feel it that assessment is incorrect, point out to the moderators where their behavior on this board is untowards, instead of involving us in the issue.

And if you feel someone's behavior is untowards, feel free to do the same, instead of trying to be some kind of back-handed board nanny.

It is no such thing.

Back-handed ad hominem is precisely what it is.

If you believe I have attacked anyone on this board, please inform the moderators of such behavior.

One board-nanny is enough for one thread, I think.

However, if you will kindly re-read my post, I only complimented certain posters for their behavior. I never said, nor implied, the opposite towards any person.

I think the meaning of your post was quite transparent. I'm sure, outside of the ex-Mormons and a handful of the more "progressive" LDS here, very few here share your assessment of the situation.

I am excited about your thesis, so let's get back on topic.

You are the one who made a conscious decision to take the discussion off the topic in the first place. I invite you, in any subsequent posts, to see if you can add substance to the thread instead of attempting to trumpet your judgment of what constitutes the moral high ground.

[Ares]

Really folks - don't try to moderate each other. The moderators are highly trained (cough, cough) and attempting to self-moderate will risk injury and embarassment.

[Ares]

Seriously... play nice.

[Calm]

Really folks - don't try to moderate each other. The moderators are highly trained (cough, cough) and attempting to self-moderate will risk injury and embarassment.

This should be put into the board guidelines or something.

[William Schryver]

Really folks - don't try to moderate each other. The moderators are highly trained (cough, cough) and attempting to self-moderate will risk injury and embarassment.

As long as I can still self-medicate ...

ETA: In fact, where's that dang Lunesta I was looking for? It's way past my bedtime.

Edited October 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[Calm]

ETA: In fact, where's that dang Lunesta I was looking for? It's way past my bedtime.

Ambien is tons better, don't get that penny sucking taste in my mouth and I can always tell when the letters on the page turn rainbow colours and start doing a line dance that it's time to stop reading and turn out the light.

[Ares]

This should be put into the board guidelines or something.

I will take it on advisement.

[William Schryver]

Will, since CS is in the midst of studying, it seems to me if you want his full and best attention for your work, it would make the most sense to move this thread to focused discussions to wait upon a more thorough response. It would also seem appropriate that if CS is unable at this time to give a satisfactory to his view response to your arguments, that he also chose not to give any partial responses here or elsewhere to avoid just perpetuating the current state of the argument rather than adding additional information and clarity to it.

A date when you are both prepared to continue in depth your discussion could be agreed upon and pointed out to anyone making challenges or asking questions about the latest developments.

Just a suggestion though......

Good idea. I will do just that, but not until these first two items that Chris raised for discussion have run their course.

Edited October 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

I am re-posting this hopefully with the images visible this time.

In the interest of accuracy, on the papyri and in the three EA's, there were actually two side-by-side characters represented (circled in red, the left side of the enclosed image is from one of the EA's and the right side is from the papyri, and this image is taken from a larger graphic posted by Kevin Graham some months back).

In each of the EA's, these side-by-side characters were listed in Part 3 of the first degree, and for several of the EA's the assigned sounds went through several evolutions:

In the EA JS the two characters were first given the sound (possibly in the handwriting of JS): "Ah broam Ah brahoam Ki Ahbra am." This sound was later crossed out and replaced with (possibly in the handwriting of OC): "Ki ah-bram Ki-ah-bra-oum-Zub-zool-oan."

In EA OC, the two characters were given the sound "Ah broam Ah-bra oam-zub-zool-oan." Later, the sound "ki" was inserted before the two "Ah"'s.

In EA WWP, the two characters were given the sound "Ki Ah broam Kiah brah-oam zub zool oan.

However, in the GAEL (WWP), only the first of the two side-by-side characters show up as a composite character, and this not in Part 3 of the 1st degree as with the EA's, but in Part 1 of the 5th degree. It was given the sound "Kiah broam-kiam brah oam-Zub Zool oan." (Note that this most closely resembles the unchanged sound in EA WWP)

Also worth noting, is that the two side-by-side characters in the EA's were presumably taken from one part of the extant papyri:

...while Chris and others have argued that first of the two character, by itself, was used in the Abr. Mss (WWP) as a "made-up" character to fill in missing parts of the papyri (see 3rd character from the right--this is a part of an image posted by Chris months ago):

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 29, 2011 by wenglund