Alleged Defeat By Smith Of Schryver Egyptian Alphabet Thesis

[Zeta-Flux]

You see, the EA/GAEL contains virtually nothing in the way of words or phrases that are not directly related to the Book of Abraham. Virtually nothing goes “unused.” You don’t think his associates—very intelligent men, all of them—would have said to themselves, “Uh, something’s just a little fishy here. Joseph has just made this lexicon for translating Egyptian, and very conveniently, he just happened to include nothing but words and phrases he ended up using to create this story about Abraham!”

Forgive my inexpertise here. Although this is a quotation of William Schryver, and (I imagine) he is talking more about the meanings given to each of the characters, this raises a question I have for Wade. I know you have studied the sounds given to the characters in these documents. In your studies have you found any direct connections between those sounds and the text of the Book of Abraham? I imagine the answer is a yes, in that some of those sounds correspond to words in the Book of Abraham, but what other connections are there?

[Mortal Man]

Unless each of the supposed matches explicitly identify which specific extant documents, or specific parts of the extant documents, are being produce at a given time, and how exactly they are being produces, I don't see how your conclusions wouldn't be based on your presuppositions.

Once again Wade, fitting the extant manuscripts to the historical record neither constitutes nor requires any presuppositions.

Presupposing a missing manuscript, regardless of the journal entries and irrespective of the stemmatic trajectory of the extant manuscripts, constitutes a presupposition.

The only thing I presupposed is that you might answer my question regarding Imsety.

[Mortal Man]

You are attempting to establish assertions through repetition and the sheer volume of your shouting of them.

It's called "projection" Will, imputing your own modus operandi to others.

Your repetitive assertions lead to repetitive answers.

You could break the cycle by simply answering any of my various questions.

[Chris Smith]

Chris asserts that the only evidence I provided to establish the direction of dependency was the substantial word study I conducted. Of course, that is not correct, and the video link I have repeatedly provided in this thread is to an extract from the portion of my presentation that contains the most extensive and persuasive evidence of dependency that I provided.

I'd be interested to see a written summary of your other arguments to this effect.

The EA/GAEL, which dates to no later than early 1836, contains extensive specific references to portions of all five chapters of the Book of Abraham as published in 1842, as well as a few references to the story of Abraham that were not contained in the published chapters. The references contained in the EA/GAEL are, in many cases, word-for-word. Not only that, they are frequently, as in the case of Abr. 1:1-3 and Facsimile 2:1, precisely in the same order as in the published text.

In the images I posted in Link #4, you can see that the order of the components is the same in Abr. 1 and the GAEL, but not in the EA. Furthermore, there are no contextual indications in the EA that these particular entries have any relationship to Abr. 1 or the composite character in question, whereas in the GAEL the relationship is contextually very clear. As I've pointed out many times before, this is not what we'd expect if the order of manuscript production was Abr. 1 -> EA -> GAEL. Presumably the relationship should be clearest and the similarity greatest between immediately consecutive manuscripts in the trajectory. So if we agree that the GAEL came after the EA, then the trajectory should be EA -> GAEL -> Abr. 1.

Faced with this unavoidable requirement, and unable to provide persuasive evidence to this point, it appears he has chosen to vacate the discussion....

I hope you will also remember that, when pressed to provide evidence to support his arguments, Mr. Smith could not, and instead chose to leave the field with the unwarranted complaint on his lips that the debate was "too personal." Examine the previous pages of this brief discussion and see for yourselves whether or not his complaint has any merit.

Yes, because there's nothing even remotely personal about accusing me of fleeing like a coward when I've told you repeatedly that I'm on a deadline for school and don't have the time or energy for this right now.

[William Schryver]

Forgive my inexpertise here. Although this is a quotation of William Schryver, and (I imagine) he is talking more about the meanings given to each of the characters, this raises a question I have for Wade. I know you have studied the sounds given to the characters in these documents. In your studies have you found any direct connections between those sounds and the text of the Book of Abraham? I imagine the answer is a yes, in that some of those sounds correspond to words in the Book of Abraham, but what other connections are there?

I think I have examined the sounds quite carefully. There are some connections to Hebrew words, but only at the most rudimentary level. There are not, that I have noted, instances where those sounds correspond to words in the BoA, in the sense I assume you mean. In many cases the sounds have been produced using a completely arbitrary method.

[William Schryver]

/snip/ another exercise in assertion sans evidence

I welcome you to back your assertions with evidence at some point in time.

I will note that I and several others regard the Kinderhook plate connection as one of the more tenuous suggestions made in a long time. I assume Don plans on publishing a paper. There will then be critical reviews forthcoming. Maybe Ben will weigh in with his opinion of Don's thesis and the rickety evidence trying with its might to back it up.

[William Schryver]

I'd be interested to see a written summary of your other arguments to this effect.

The text to my presentation has been online for some time. You've quoted from it. The Substantial Word Study I referenced was a minor part of the case I made. The major thing demonstrated by the Substantial Word Study was that Abr. 1-3 appears to have been received first. My Analysis by Character was the study I cited that occupied the majority of the time I spent demonstrating the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the BoA. It is, by far, the most substantial analysis I have done. The detailed research document consists of over 100 pages.

In the images I posted in Link #4, you can see that the order of the components is the same in Abr. 1 and the GAEL, but not in the EA. Furthermore, there are no contextual indications in the EA that these particular entries have any relationship to Abr. 1 or the composite character in question, whereas in the GAEL the relationship is contextually very clear. As I've pointed out many times before, this is not what we'd expect if the order of manuscript production was Abr. 1 -> EA -> GAEL. Presumably the relationship should be clearest and the similarity greatest between immediately consecutive manuscripts in the trajectory. So if we agree that the GAEL came after the EA, then the trajectory should be EA -> GAEL -> Abr. 1.

This is a question begging at its best. The EA manuscripts clearly contain the text of Abr. 1:1-3. Virtually all of the components of the passage are present. Therefore, it's like I said above, the only possibility you can suggest (as, in fact, you already have) is that Joseph Smith had the Book of Abraham text memorized before he commenced the EA project. So, by your logic, the EA/GAEL project represents Joseph Smith merely conducting the production of a prop whereby he can pretend to be translating the papyrus. Good luck defending that thesis.

... I'm on a deadline for school and don't have the time or energy for this right now.

Then make that your excuse instead of the implied one that people are being "mean" to you.

Edited October 30, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Forgive my inexpertise here. Although this is a quotation of William Schryver, and (I imagine) he is talking more about the meanings given to each of the characters, this raises a question I have for Wade. I know you have studied the sounds given to the characters in these documents. In your studies have you found any direct connections between those sounds and the text of the Book of Abraham? I imagine the answer is a yes, in that some of those sounds correspond to words in the Book of Abraham, but what other connections are there?

Zeta,

Here is an example of how the sounds have been produced using a completely arbitrary method. The method consists of taking a base sound, and then using the English vowels, in the order you learn them in grammar school (a,e,i,o,u), to produce a series of sounds:

Albeth (represents the “base” sound of the group)

Alkabeth (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “a’)

Alkebeth (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “e’)

Alkibeth (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “i’)

Alkobeth (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “o’)

Alkubeth (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “u’)

Baeth (represents the “base” sound of the group)

Baethka (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “a’)

Baethkee (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “e’)

Baethki (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “i’)

Baethko (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “o’)

Baethku (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “u’)

Beth (the “base” sound of the group)

Bethka (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “a’)

Bethke (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “e’)

Bethki (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “i’)

Bethko (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “o’)

Bethku (a syllable is added to the base sound of the group, using “u’)

I thought you might find that interesting.

ETA: These sounds all appear in order in the EA documents, assigned to characters that are not Egyptian and that cannot be found on the papyri (although some of the characters are basic enough in terms of their shape that I'm sure "George Miller" will succeed in slicing and dicing some unsuspecting bona fide Egyptian character in order to manufacture them and then claim that they are Egyptian after all. This remains to be seen, since "George" refuses to produce his "evidence" at this time.

The first group above (not counting the "base" sound) is assigned to the characters that Phelps used in his letter to his wife in May 1835--although these are not the same sounds he used in the letter to his wife, just the same characters.

Edited October 30, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

I don't have the time to get all the way into this discussion, but I had two brief questions: Who was the first to specifically suggest that there was a preexisting narrative behind the text of Abraham (specifically Genesis), and where can that first suggestion be found?

I would also like to learn to whom we can give the earliest credit for this.

ETA: I am glad to see you following along. I look forward to the day when you decide to jump into this discussion even more. I very much appreciated your previous partial foray into it.

Edited October 30, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

Forgive my inexpertise here. Although this is a quotation of William Schryver, and (I imagine) he is talking more about the meanings given to each of the characters, this raises a question I have for Wade. I know you have studied the sounds given to the characters in these documents. In your studies have you found any direct connections between those sounds and the text of the Book of Abraham? I imagine the answer is a yes, in that some of those sounds correspond to words in the Book of Abraham, but what other connections are there?

I am not sure what kind of "connections" you have in mind . Could you be more specific?

However, I believe the existence of the sounds in the EA/GAEL stand as evidence against the proposition that those documents were produced with the intent to translate or develop the Book of Abraham. Sounds are only needed to speak the language or to translate orally. Sounds are entirely superfluous when translating from one written document to another written document (as was the case with the papyri and the Book of Abraham). So, to me, the existence of the sounds suggests some other purpose for the EA/GAEL--the creation of a new language perhaps?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zeta-Flux]

Will and Wade,

Thank you for your replies. These were some things I hadn't thought about.

To answer Wade's question about specifics: Admittedly, this is not a well thought out line of thought, and I don't have ready access to the documents (as I am an armchair apologist, at least regarding the Egyptian stuff), so please bear that in mind. So here goes. I like William's theory about the Egyptian papers being attempts at the formation of a code. (I'm also a mathematician after all.) But I was wondering if there might be some aspects of the documents which are a further revelation on some of the Abrahamic text. For example, there are certain words given to figures in the Facsimiles (like Kli-flos-is-es) which might be expanded in the GAEL or EA. I was wondering if these words ever correspond to the sounds given, or are they always part of "meanings" but never "sounds"?

Also, are there times when the pattern that Will mentioned is not clearly followed? If so, how often, and do either of you see a reason for this departure? Straightforward progressions, as the ones presented by Will, are indeed a facet of some ciphers. But if there is something they (meaning the creators of the ciphers) would really want to keep secret, they might depart from the usual pattern.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Zeta-Flux

[wenglund]

Will and Wade,

Thank you for your replies. These were some things I hadn't thought about.

To answer Wade's question about specifics: Admittedly, this is not a well thought out line of thought, and I don't have ready access to the documents (as I am an armchair apologist, at least regarding the Egyptian stuff), so please bear that in mind. So here goes. I like William's theory about the Egyptian papers being attempts at the formation of a code. (I'm also a mathematician after all.) But I was wondering if there might be some aspects of the documents which are a further revelation on some of the Abrahamic text. For example, there are certain words given to figures in the Facsimiles (like Kli-flos-is-es) which might be expanded in the GAEL or EA. I was wondering if these words ever correspond to the sounds given, or are they always part of "meanings" but never "sounds"?

Also, are there times when the pattern that Will mentioned is not clearly followed? If so, how often, and do either of you see a reason for this departure? Straightforward progressions, as the ones presented by Will, are indeed a facet of some ciphers. But if there is something they (meaning the creators of the ciphers) would really want to keep secret, they might depart from the usual pattern.

Since this runs tangential to the topic of this thread, and given that I have already cluttered up the thread enough with tangents (for which I have already apologized), and since I am interested in exploring this further with you, would you please open a new thread and post your queries there?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Zeta,

I will reply more later, but the a,e,i,o,u thing is only seen in the examples I provided (iirc).

[Chris Smith]

Zeta,

At least some of the sounds do correspond. There's a transcript here. It doesn't have the characters, but it does have the sounds, which you can compare to the BoA text. Particularly in the "second part", you'll recognize several sounds that show up in the Facsimile 2 explanation. There are also sounds that correspond to proper names, such as Ah broam for Abram, Ah brah-oam for Abraham, and Phah ho e oop for Pharaoh.

Peace,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

Hi Will, I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to when you talk about your "Analysis-by-character". I just glanced through your paper and didn't see any arguments for the direction of dependence other than that the verbal content of the EAG can be mostly accounted for by the BoA (in combination with other sources), but not vice versa. What am I missing?

Edited October 30, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Brade]

Is there a good overview of the various arguments at play with respect to the BofA? I've always stayed on the periphery of this issue because it seems so complicated and difficult to approach, but I'd like to be more involved in these discussion. I just need to get educated on what everyone's been talking about for so long.

[William Schryver]

Zeta,

At least some of the sounds do correspond. There's a transcript here. It doesn't have the characters, but it does have the sounds, which you can compare to the BoA text. Particularly in the "second part", you'll recognize several sounds that show up in the Facsimile 2 explanation.

Chris,

Since (at least as I understood it) Zeta's question is asking whether or not the sounds have a relationship to the English explanations, I don't think it is pertinent to note that some of the made-up sounds are then referenced in those explanations, as occurs in the Facsimile 2 explanation.

There are also sounds that correspond to proper names, such as Ah broam for Abram, Ah brah-oam for Abraham, and Phah ho e oop for Pharaoh.

I will accept that this is true, and if I'm not mistaken, these two examples you cite are the only instances. "Phah ho e oop" also has more meaning associated to it than just "Pharaoh."

From my Analysis by Character:

EA-WP(Phelps) Pha=ho=e=oop

Royal family, royal blood, or Pharaoh, or supreme power, or king

EA-JS(Smith) phahoeuh

Royal family, royal blood, or Pharaoh or supreme power or king

EA-OC(Cowdery) Pha-ho-e-oop

Royal family, royal blood, or Pharaoh, or supreme power ^power, or king^

GAEL(1°) Phah-ho-e-oop (21)

The lineage of the royal family

GAEL(2°) Phah ho e oop (17)

Royal blood or Pharaoh

GAEL(3°) Phah ho e oop (13)

an extension of power

GAEL(4°) Phah ho e oop (9)

extension of power by marriage or by ordination, or anointing

GAEL(5°) Phah ho e oop (3)

A king who has universal dominion, over all the earth

The numbers in parenthesis represent the page numbers in the GAEL where the characters appear.

Edited October 30, 2011 by William Schryver

[Chris Smith]

these two examples you cite are the only instances

There's also Kah tou mun (Katumin) and possibly Oan-ahe combined with Tou-es (to make Onitus), but I didn't mention those because they're related to the notebooks rather than the BoA text.

Since (at least as I understood it) Zeta's question is asking whether or not the sounds have a relationship to the English explanations, I don't think it is pertinent to note that some of the made-up sounds are then referenced in those explanations, as occurs in the Facsimile 2 explanation.

Huh?

Edited October 30, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

Hi Will, I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to when you talk about your "Analysis-by-character". I just glanced through your paper and didn't see any arguments for the direction of dependence other than that the verbal content of the EAG can be mostly accounted for by the BoA (in combination with other sources), but not vice versa. What am I missing?

In going back to my presentation, I can see the reason for your confusion on this point. Originally, in the place of the slide that reads Demonstrating the Dependency, the slide read Analysis by Character Study, and I had a short paragraph explaining the nature of that study (which, as I stated above, was the largest study referenced in my presentation). However, as time constraints began to press upon me, and I was forced to cut more and more in order to get it in under 50 minutes, I took out the paragraph introducing the Analysis by Character study, and simply went right into the results of that study, as given in the slides that follow the introductory slide, Demonstrating the Dependency.

Suffice it to say that the study upon which the bulk of my presentation was based is entitled Analysis by Character, and is a breakdown of each of the 69 characters to which explanations were given.

Here are some sample pages from the study: Analysis by Character Study - Sample Pages

[William Schryver]

There's also Kah tou mun (Katumin) and possibly Oan-ahe combined with Tou-es (to make Onitus), but I didn't mention those because they're related to the notebooks rather than the BoA text.

Are you sure you even understand what Zeta is asking? I don't think you do.

By the way, "Katumin" does not appear in any of the EA/GAEL explanations.

[Zeta-Flux]

Are you sure you even understand what Zeta is asking? I don't think you do.

By the way, "Katumin" does not appear in any of the EA/GAEL explanations.

To be fair, I'm not sure even I knew what I was asking, so it doesn't surprise me there has been a little confusion. At the time, I think I was asking about any connections between the Book of Abraham and the "sounds" in the Egyptian documents; and so I am interested in what Chris posted. Chris, please post further comments on this topic over on my new thread.

Thanks,

Zeta-Flux

[William Schryver]

I think this thread has more or less run its course, and other threads have taken up where this one had begun to veer off, so I'm going to go ahead and close it.

Thanks to everyone for your participation. I think this was a very interesting thread.