Alleged Defeat By Smith Of Schryver Egyptian Alphabet Thesis

[wenglund]

Someone on the other thread had asked if there was evidence either for or against the EA's being simultaneously dictated. Below is evidence that at least portions of the EA 's weren't simultaneously dictated, but perhaps were produced at different times:

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."

While it appears that for this specific entry, EA WWP may have been dependent upon EA OC, and EA OC may have been dependent upon EA JS, or perhaps this entry in EA WWP may have postdate certain amended entries in GAEL Part 1 degrees 1 and 2, whereas EA JS and EA OC may have been corrected thereafter as well, according to my research, and from what I have gathered from Will, the preponderance of evidence suggest to me that EA JS and EA OC were typically dependent upon EA WWP. It also makes sense and appears that the GAEL (WWP) was, for the most part, dependent upon EA WWP rather than EA JS or EA OC.

The point in mentioning this besides answering the query in the other thread, is this may factor in to answering the question of whether there was a preexisting text or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ares]

Personal comments removed. Next offense brings suspension.

[LDSToronto]

Ares, I might suggest, respectfully, that this entire thread was started to bait people into a personal argument. Allow me to rephrase my last remark, as it was not meant to be personal:

Perhaps the reason that no one has taken it upon themselves to offer, as Will puts it, a substantial refutation of his thesis, is because this topic is of interest to only a very small minority. I'd also, respectfully suggest, that the labeling of refutations as 'unsubstantial' is a matter of personal opinion and should be treated as the polemical statement that it is.

H.

[wenglund]

Ares, I might suggest, respectfully, that this entire thread was started to bait people into a personal argument. Allow me to rephrase my last remark, as it was not meant to be personal:

Perhaps the reason that no one has taken it upon themselves to offer, as Will puts it, a substantial refutation of his thesis, is because this topic is of interest to only a very small minority. I'd also, respectfully suggest, that the labeling of refutations as 'unsubstantial' is a matter of personal opinion and should be treated as the polemical statement that it is.

H.

That is one way to look at it.

This thread may also be viewed as a reasonable attempt to call certain people's hand and move the discussion beyond the year-long informal assertions and posturing, and this towards a formal explication of the arguments on both sides.

Granted, this issue may only interest a few individuals here, but I am not sure the fewness in numbers warrants it being summarily dismissed. My understanding of the operation of the board is that if someone is interested in discussing a topic, they can post it, and if other people are interested, they can participate in the thread, and those who aren't interested, can chose not to involve themselves. It is not as though the validity of the thread is up to popular vote.

Anyway, I suppose it is also possible that people who may have been interested enough to informally assert and posture throughout the year and even recently on the matter, may not be interested, or currently in a position, to now formalize their arguments and back up their assertions. And, that is their choice, and people are free to draw whatever conclusions from this that they see fit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

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-

I hate to show my total stupidity (but do so regularly anyway...)

but I was hoping this thread might summarize the salient points of the controversy, and honestly I found this post incomprehensible due to the abbreviations etc.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about here, I must confess. Is there a place I can get up to speed on this without devoting hours and hours to just figuring out what the issues are?

The bottom line is that I am trying to figure out if these issues have any ramifications whatsoever for a "catalyst" theory or not. If there are no ramifications for a catalyst theory, which is what I presently believe, I have felt no need to get bogged into the details of a theory which ultimately will be irrelevant to my beliefs anyway.

[Benjamin McGuire]

One of the problems that I have with your work, Chris, is that it doesn't really work. Take you essay: "The Dependence of Abraham 1:1–3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" - it has some serious problems. The fundamental problem with your work is the assumption that the July of 1835, several documents were either created or at least worked on:

The papyri and mummies were purchased for the prophet in early July, and that same month he initiated one of the most fascinating projects of his career. An entry in the church history reports,

[July, 1835.] The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancient.

The documents produced in the course of this project are known collectively as the “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar”. They include a large bound notebook in Phelps’s handwriting known as the GAEL, and three short “Egyptian Alphabet” manuscripts in the handwriting of W. W. Phelps (EA WWP), Joseph Smith (EA JS), and Oliver Cowdery (EA JS and EA OC.

As you note in the footnotes (and something on which there is reasonable consensus), this entry in the History of the Church was written by Willard Richards in September of 1843. It was not written with the help of Joseph Smith, but with the help of William Phelps. The problem is the assumption that these documents are in fact what is being referred to in that entry written in 1843, referring to things that occurred in July of 1835.

First, it seems likely that since Richards (with Phelps) was writing after the fact that any eventual label to the process would have been used in the description of the earlier events. That is, whatever they were working on in 1835, if it became identified later as a process of producing an alphabet and grammar (some time before 1843) then it would be used to refer back to those events in that way. That is to say, if the GAEL and various EA documents were produced in 1836 (or even afterwards), the labels given to the work then would be pushed back onto whatever was being descried as occuring in July of 1835.

The second issue is that EA-OC contains material which appears to be traceable to a copy of the Gibbs 1832 Hebrew Lexicon, which was purchased in 1835, but which would not arrive until November 20, 1835. This would preclude EA-OC from being produced (or at least a significant portion of it) before November 20, 1835. This means that the 1843 description given by Phelps and Richard cannot refer to EA-OC. Further, if we follow your suggestion that all of these manuscripts were written at the same time as dictation (and more on that in just a minute), then none of the EA documents can be dated prior to November 20, 1835. And of course, since you conclude that the GAEL comes after the EA documents, then it also cannot be produced prior to November 20, 1835 (and in this case, its not just a part of it, it must be all of it - if we agree with your other opinions there). So, in this case, the July 1835 events described in 1843 cannot refer to either the GAEL or any of the EA documents.

This would of course fit with Mortal Man's suggestion that the terms for the Egyptians used in these texts came from O.C.'s reading of Josephus, that Mortal Man suggested had been acquired (or at least read) during that November trip to New York in 1835. (I doubt Mortal Man would have made such a statement had he understood the implications for the chronology he was championing at the time).

On top of this, as Chris's paper notes a September 1835 patriarchal blessing recorded by O.C. with strong similarities to Abraham 1:2. His conclusion is that:

The italicized portion of this passage bears a strong affinity to Abraham 1:2. In light of the above analysis, this affinity cannot be the result of a mutual dependence on the Alphabet and Grammar.

So he uses this as evidence for his proposal that at least the first three verses of Abraham Chapter 1 had been produced already by September 1835 - about two months before we can establish any kind of work on the documents referred to as the GAEL and the various EA texts.

Finally, there are a couple of unique expansions in EA-OC that cannot be attributed to dictation. When these expansions can be linked to related entries in the Gibbs 1832 Lexicon, it really suggests that while dictation is probably occurring in part, these theories (Chris Smith, Brent Metcalfe, Andrew Cook) do not adequately explain why we have multiple copies being dictated at the same time. If additional creative work is being done on the EA documents, then this isn't simply recording and making back up copies of the revelation. Further, the interaction with the Gibb's lexicon occurs where the EA documents are dealing with material from Genesis (as Kevin Graham has consistently reminded us). O.C. is using the Gibb's lexicon to look at the Hebrew words of that Genesis account, and it is the Lexicon which is providing some of the interesting expansions on whatever is being dictated. This isn't a random sort of expansion, but one that seems to be carefully considered and researched by O.C.

Given this, I think that in this case, the parts of Chris Smith's work that rest on the assumption that the GAEL and the EA documents were being worked on in July of 1835 is wrong. His assumption is based on a reading of an 1843 text (not something produced in 1835). Whether or not there was an earlier version of some kind of alphabet or grammar, the first three verses of Abraham (and perhaps more) in my opinion predate all of the texts that Chris Smith believes came first. And this makes me very leery of Chris's claims.

Finally, just a thought for Zeta-Flux. If you aren't going to contribute in some meaningful fashion, stay out of the discussion. You are just adding noise.

Ben McGuire

[Benjamin McGuire]

For mfbukowski:

EA = Egyptian Alphabet - these are the three different copies of what is largely the same material. EA-OC is the Egyptian Alphabet written in Oliver Cowdery's hand, EA-WWP is the one written by William Phelps, and EA-JS is the one started by Joseph Smith and eventually finished by Oliver Cowdery. The GAEL is the larger book (grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian language).

[mfbukowski]

So as I see it, in my ignorance of the details, is that on one hand a catalyst theory is supportable because the Alphabet and Grammar came after at least an outline of the Boa was produced, but on the other hand, if that is the case- what is the need for the Alphabet and Grammar if the "translation" had already happened?

Is that a totally dumb question?

[mfbukowski]

For mfbukowski:

EA = Egyptian Alphabet - these are the three different copies of what is largely the same material. EA-OC is the Egyptian Alphabet written in Oliver Cowdery's hand, EA-WWP is the one written by William Phelps, and EA-JS is the one started by Joseph Smith and eventually finished by Oliver Cowdery. The GAEL is the larger book (grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian language).

Thanks!

[Zeta-Flux]

Finally, just a thought for Zeta-Flux. If you aren't going to contribute in some meaningful fashion, stay out of the discussion. You are just adding noise.

Ben McGuire

Thank you for your advice.

[William Schryver]

I hate to show my total stupidity (but do so regularly anyway...)

but I was hoping this thread might summarize the salient points of the controversy, and honestly I found this post incomprehensible due to the abbreviations etc.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about here, I must confess. Is there a place I can get up to speed on this without devoting hours and hours to just figuring out what the issues are?

The bottom line is that I am trying to figure out if these issues have any ramifications whatsoever for a "catalyst" theory or not. If there are no ramifications for a catalyst theory, which is what I presently believe, I have felt no need to get bogged into the details of a theory which ultimately will be irrelevant to my beliefs anyway.

mfb:

Here is the real secret behind the characters Wade was talking about in his post: Hieratic Groucho

[William Schryver]

The second issue is that EA-OC contains material which appears to be traceable to a copy of the Gibbs 1832 Hebrew Lexicon, which was purchased in 1835, but which would not arrive until November 20, 1835. This would preclude EA-OC from being produced (or at least a significant portion of it) before November 20, 1835.

Ben,

EA-OC poses several interesting questions that I have yet to answer. I think the majority of it was in fact commenced in July along with EA-WP and EA-JS, but there is material in EA-OC that is not found in the other two, and this variant material is almost exclusively associated with the characters at the end of the list of those given explanations. Here's some examples of where Cowdery goes off on his own, in respect to the other two:

Character #38* - Beth:

EA-WP: Man’s first residence; a fruitful garden; a great valley

EA-JS: Man’s first residence; fruitful garden; a great valley

a place of happiness

EA-OC: Man’s first residence in a fruitful garden; a great valley or plain filled with fruit, trees and flowers

good to the taste, pleasing to the eye, and sweet and precious to the smell

place of happiness for man

Then when we get to some of the later characters, Cowdery's EA document supplies explanations that are not present on the other two:

Character #60 - Jah oh eh:

EA-WP: No text

EA-JS: No text

EA-OC: Earth, etc.

Character #61 - Flo-ees:

EA-WP: No text

EA-JS: No text

EA-OC: (Moon)

Character #62 - Flosisis:

EA-WP: No text

EA-JS: No text

EA-OC: (Sun)

Character #64 - Veh Kli flos-isis:

EA-WP: No text

EA-JS: No text

EA-OC: (Moon)

I don't know what to make of this ... yet. But it certainly indicates that there was some degree of independence being exercised in the production of the Egyptian Alphabet documents. In no case have I seen ANY evidence of dictation. There is coordination in many respects, but even that breaks down as the project progresses.

* = I have numbered the characters sequentially, based on the Phelps EA document, and based on those given "sounds" in the EA documents. All characters to which "sounds" were assigned in the EA documents are eventually given "explanations" in either the EA or the GAEL documents.

Edited to moderate one phrase ...

Edited October 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Ben,

Smith and Metcalfe apparently want to argue for a production of Abr. 1:1-3 that comes AFTER the EA documents were produced. I took about an hour this morning to go through my research materials to examine the evidence that Abr. 1:1-3 pre-dates the EA documents. After I present that evidence, I don't think there is any reasonable person who would argue that it does not demonstrate conclusively that Abr. 1:1-3 predates the EA documents. The textual evidence is simply overwhelming. As I indicated in my FAIR presentation, there are portions of chapter 2 that are only sparsely referenced in the EA documents (but later, in the GAEL, parts of the first half of chapter 2 are substantially attested). Some of chapter 2 is never attested in either the EA or the GAEL. But there is substantial attestation in the EA documents for material that appears near the end of chapter 3, which is why I have argued that it is almost certain that all of chapters 1 - 3 was received prior to the commencement of the EA documents on July 17, 1835. Is there attestation of everything contained in chapters 1 - 3? No, there isn't. But there is attestation of portions of all three chapters--enough to indicate, I believe, that all three chapters were received at a very early date; prior to the commencement of any of the EA manuscripts.

Edited to clarify one statement about chapter 2.

Edited October 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[Chris Smith]

The problem is the assumption that these documents are in fact what is being referred to in that entry written in 1843, referring to things that occurred in July of 1835.

First, it seems likely that since Richards (with Phelps) was writing after the fact that any eventual label to the process would have been used in the description of the earlier events. That is, whatever they were working on in 1835, if it became identified later as a process of producing an alphabet and grammar (some time before 1843) then it would be used to refer back to those events in that way. That is to say, if the GAEL and various EA documents were produced in 1836 (or even afterwards), the labels given to the work then would be pushed back onto whatever was being descried as occuring in July of 1835.

So to be clear, you're suggesting there may be yet another lost prototype manuscript on which the extant alphabet and grammar documents are based? The HC entry refers to an alphabet to the Book of Abraham and a grammar of the Egyptian language. The documents were titled "Egyptian Alphabet" and "Grammar and A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language." Of course he was referring to these documents. What reason is there to conclude otherwise?

You're also entirely ignoring Joseph's October 1, 1835 journal entry which says, "This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with bro. O. Cowdery and W.W. Phelps. The System of astronomy was unfolded." This was written at the time, not years later. And it evidently refers to the second part of the GAEL (which has "Egyptian Alphabet" written on the spine), since no system of astronomy yet appears in the EA. Thus it represents an endpoint in the process of creating these documents.

The second issue is that EA-OC contains material which appears to be traceable to a copy of the Gibbs 1832 Hebrew Lexicon, which was purchased in 1835, but which would not arrive until November 20, 1835. This would preclude EA-OC from being produced (or at least a significant portion of it) before November 20, 1835.

I can't evaluate this until you explain what material you're talking about. However, I can tell you that there are secondary additions in Warren Parrish's handwriting in several of the EAG documents that must have been added after Parrish came on as scribe (early November, IIRC). In fact, the change of handwriting is a fairly good indication that the bulk of writing on these documents was done before Parrish came on. (I've not run across any examples of Phelps scribing for the prophet in Kirtland after Parrish arrived.)

This would of course fit with Mortal Man's suggestion that the terms for the Egyptians used in these texts came from O.C.'s reading of Josephus, that Mortal Man suggested had been acquired (or at least read) during that November trip to New York in 1835. (I doubt Mortal Man would have made such a statement had he understood the implications for the chronology he was championing at the time).

It was I who proposed that the EAG's term for Egyptians comes from Josephus, in my JWHA paper. Hyrum Smith owned a copy published in 1830, and there's no way of knowing when it was purchased.

Finally, there are a couple of unique expansions in EA-OC that cannot be attributed to dictation. ... Further, the interaction with the Gibb's lexicon occurs where the EA documents are dealing with material from Genesis (as Kevin Graham has consistently reminded us). O.C. is using the Gibb's lexicon to look at the Hebrew words of that Genesis account, and it is the Lexicon which is providing some of the interesting expansions on whatever is being dictated. This isn't a random sort of expansion, but one that seems to be carefully considered and researched by O.C.

I assume you're referring to the entries for Beth and Beth Ka? But Cowdery's longer versions actually are attributable to dictation. Smith and Phelps have abbreviated their entries because they didn't fit, whereas Cowdery had more room because he was writing in small script across a two-page spread. I see nothing to indicate that Cowdery has made secondary additions to his manuscript here.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

William,

The earth, sun, moon bits appear to me to be secondary additions added by Cowdery to his manuscript on October 1 when he worked with Smith and Phelps on the "system of astronomy" for GAEL Part 2.

Peace,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

Smith and Metcalfe apparently want to argue for a production of Abr. 1:1-3 that comes AFTER the EA documents were produced. I took about an hour this morning to go through my research materials to examine the evidence that Abr. 1:1-3 pre-dates the EA documents. After I present that evidence, I don't think there is any reasonable person who would argue that it does not demonstrate conclusively that Abr. 1:1-3 predates the EA documents. The textual evidence is simply overwhelming.

I look forward to reading it.

[wenglund]

Ben,

EA-OC poses several interesting questions that I have yet to answer. I think the majority of it was in fact commenced in July along with EA-WP and EA-JS, but there is material in EA-OC that is not found in the other two, and this variant material is almost exclusively associated with the characters at the end of the list of those given explanations. Here's some examples of where Cowdery goes off on his own, in respect to the other two:

Dont forget the treatment, presumably by Cowdery, on the last page of EA JS, regarding the character with the sound "Ah-broam". This is the only place in the EA's where this character/sound show up (at least in an isolated form, as a grapheme/phoneme, though it is indirectly alluded to as a part of the "Ki Ah bram..." character), and it is the only character/sound in the EA's that is given English explanation for all five degrees.

I don't know what to make of this ... yet. But it certainly indicates that there was a large degree of independence being exercised in the production of the Egyptian Alphabet documents. In no case have I seen ANY evidence of dictation. There is coordination in many respects, but even that breaks down as the project progresses.

I agree. At the very least, though, in terms of practicality, it militates against the EA/GAEL as the modus operandi for the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

But there is attestation of portions of all three chapters--enough to indicate, I believe, that all three chapters were received at a very early date; prior to the commencement of any of the EA manuscripts.

This maybe obvious to all, so again, pardon my ignorance, but what was the supposed purpose of the EA manuscripts then?

[William Schryver]

So to be clear, you're suggesting there may be yet another lost prototype manuscript on which the extant alphabet and grammar documents are based? The HC entry refers to an alphabet to the Book of Abraham and a grammar of the Egyptian language. The documents were titled "Egyptian Alphabet" and "Grammar and A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language." Of course he was referring to these documents. What reason is there to conclude otherwise?

There are all kinds of reasons to question the solid conclusions you reach. Sure, in 1843, the words "Alphabet" and "Grammar" could easily be used to make reference to documents that had been existence for eight years, but the fact that those words are used in 1843 to describe activities that took place in 1835 is hardly conclusive evidence that both the EA and the GAEL were in production on July 17, 1835. Is this what you mean to suggest?

Furthermore, as I noted in my 2010 presentation, the phrase reads:

“The remainder of the month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham ..."

The preposition "to" used in this context suggests the Book of Abraham as a fait accompli. You want to make this project into something that is a preface to the production of the Book of Abraham. The entry speaks of something already done. "To the Book of Abraham" acknowledges the existence of the thing for which they are "translating an alphabet." The substantial textual evidence in the EA/GAEL strongly supports this interpretation. (See here: Dependency of the Alphabet and Grammar on a Pre-existing Text of the Book of Abraham

I assume you're referring to the entries for Beth and Beth Ka? But Cowdery's longer versions actually are attributable to dictation.

How so? This is a completely unsupportable assertion. In other portions of the EA documents, Cowdery also produces variants to the Phelps and Smith documents. Your assertion has no basis.

Smith and Phelps have abbreviated their entries because they didn't fit, whereas Cowdery had more room because he was writing in small script across a two-page spread.

Total assertion without evidence. Joseph Smith's EA document is identical to Cowdery's in terms of space available for the character Beth. He leaves empty space to the right of the explanation he provides. And the explanation he does provide is very casual in terms of the space he uses between words. He's not trying to squeeze anything in.

I see nothing to indicate that Cowdery has made secondary additions to his manuscript here.

I'm not suggesting they were "secondary," but rather that they were made at a different point in time than the Phelps and Smith entries for "Beth." The fact is that Cowdery has provided significantly more information for this character than the other two did. As I stated earlier, Cowdery also varies from the other two several other times. He's doing his own thing at times. This works against your assertion that these documents are dictated. I have seen no evidence to support a dictation model. You've done nothing but assert it, absent the presentation of any evidence to support the assertion.

Edited October 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

This maybe obvious to all, so again, pardon my ignorance, but what was the supposed purpose of the EA manuscripts then?

mfb,

That is your challenge to ascertain. I've gone back and forth between a handful of explanations. Here are a couple considerations for your contemplation of the question:

- The bulk of the EA documents contain "explanations" for characters that, with few exceptions, are not Egyptian and are not found on the papyri.

- There is so much of the text of the Book of Abraham in the "explanations" contained in the EA documents as to strongly suggest the conclusion (as I do) that the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham were received prior to the commencement of the Egyptian Alphabet project, and that the EA documents are, in fact, based on that pre-existing text.

So, what were they doing? What was their goal? I confess, at this juncture, I remain unsure of anything except that I am confident I can establish the fact that much, if not all, of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham had been received before the EA project started.

[William Schryver]

William,

The earth, sun, moon bits appear to me to be secondary additions added by Cowdery to his manuscript on October 1 when he worked with Smith and Phelps on the "system of astronomy" for GAEL Part 2.

Peace,

-Chris

I'm glad you at least included the qualifier "appear to me" because this is, again, a largely unjustified assertion. Could it be true? Perhaps. But aside from your strong desire to have this represent Cowdery serving as Joseph Smith's scribe on October 1, 1835, there is really no evidence to support the conclusion. Again, Cowdery varies from the other two on other occasions. That he does so here does not necessarily mean what you want it to mean.

[William Schryver]

I look forward to reading it.

I'll present it on this message board as soon as you present evidence to support the assertion my evidence is intended to rebut. The whole character business to which Metcalfe alludes is hardly compelling or sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that Abr. 1:1-3 was not translated until after the EA project was commenced. You have (apparently) made that argument. So support it, then I will present the evidence I believe will contradict your argument/evidence. Up until now, all you've done is make an assertion about this. Let's see the evidence for your assertion.

ETA: Actually, I have already, for the most part, presented the bulk of my evidence to contradict your argument: See here: Dependency of EA/GAEL on Pre-existing BoA

Abr. 1:1-3 is, I believe, the first example I give. Most of the textual references for Abr. 1:1-3 can be found in EA-JS. Others are spread throughout the EA documents.

Edited October 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

I'll be leaving shortly, but I already feel as though this is no way to conduct this discussion. We've got ten or so people going in different directions, asking different questions, and fragmenting the discussion such that no one trying to follow along will be able to do so without their head spinning right off.

I propose that we move this (as suggested by Calmoriah) to the Focused Discussions forum, and then focus on one question at a time. I have already strongly disputed the fact that any of the seven links Chris provided serve to contradict my dependency thesis. I want to see each of those seven items examined, one by one. In the process of doing so, I believe my thesis will also be strongly established as the only valid conclusion to be reached from the evidence.

ETA: At the very least, we've got to focus on one thing at a time, and not permit the thing to spin out of control like it is already threatening to do.

Edited October 29, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

mfb:

Here is the real secret behind the characters Wade was talking about in his post: Hieratic Groucho

LOL!! It helps to have a sense of humor when discussing these things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

mfb,

That is your challenge to ascertain. I've gone back and forth between a handful of explanations. Here are a couple considerations for your contemplation of the question:

- The bulk of the EA documents contain "explanations" for characters that, with few exceptions, are not Egyptian and are not found on the papyri.

- There is so much of the text of the Book of Abraham in the "explanations" contained in the EA documents as to strongly suggest the conclusion (as I do) that the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham were received prior to the commencement of the Egyptian Alphabet project, and that the EA documents are, in fact, based on that pre-existing text.

So, what were they doing? What was their goal? I confess, at this juncture, I remain unsure of anything except that I am confident I can establish the fact that much, if not all, of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham had been received before the EA project started.

Ok Will thanks for the answer.