Alleged Defeat By Smith Of Schryver Egyptian Alphabet Thesis

[Mortal Man]

I'll use Hauglid's sigla in referring to the manuscripts.

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.

Willard Richards' Ab5 ends at Abraham 2:18, which is exactly where Warren Parrish's Ab4 ends, which is exactly where the 1 March 1842 publication in the Times and Seasons ends. Why would all three of these texts terminate at 2:18 if the first three chapters already existed?

Joseph Smith hired Warren Parrish as a scribe on Oct. 29, 1835,

"Br Parish commenced writing for me, at fifteen dollars p[e]r month. I paid him $16.00 in advance out of the committees store." -- Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, 1:76.

On 15 Feb. 1838, Parrish wrote to the editor of the Painesville Republican,

"I have set by his [Joseph's] side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven."

Parrish's Ab3 and Ab4 cover 1:4-2:2 and 1:4-2:18, respectively. Parrish was not the principal scribe for any of the EA documents. (In Nibley's words, he only wrote “five short appendages to certain sections”. -- "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers") If Abraham 1-3 already existed by this time then what exactly was Joseph dictating to Parrish?

On Nov. 14, 1835 Joseph gave Warren Parrish the following blessing,

"He shall see much of my ancient records, and shall know of hiden things, and shall be endowed with a knowledge of hiden languages, and if he desires and shall seek it at my hand, he shall be privileged with writing much of my word, as a scribe unto me for the benefit of my people." -- Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, 1:76.

Five days later, Joseph records,

"Thursday 19th went in company with Doct. [Frederick G.] Williams & my scribe [Warren Parrish] to see how the work men prospered in finishing the house...

I returned home and spent the day in translating the Egyptian records." -- Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, 1:107.

Williams' Ab2 and Parrish's Ab3, which both begin at 1:4, were almost certainly both commenced on the day Joseph records spending the day with these men and translating the papyri.

The historical evidence strongly indicates that:

Nothing beyond 1:3 existed prior to Nov. 19 1835.

Nothing beyond 2:18 existed prior to March 1842.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Mortal Man

[wenglund]

The historical evidence strongly indicates that:

Nothing beyond 1:3 existed prior to Nov. 19 1835.

Nothing beyond 2:18 existed prior to March 1842.

Aren't these conclusions based on the presupposition that the Abr. Mss. are the original translation manscripts, rather than them being dependent, to some degree, upon a non-extant preexisting texts. In other words, don't these conclusions beg the very question of this thread?

Aren't you also forgetting about the Book of Joseph that was also alleged to be included on the papyri, which Oliver Cowdery talked about at great length in his letter publish in the Messenger and Advocate (Dec 1835), thereby imply at least some translation of that book from the ancient record?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 30, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

The historical evidence strongly indicates that:

Nothing beyond 1:3 existed prior to Nov. 19 1835.

Nothing beyond 2:18 existed prior to March 1842.

These are bold assertions.

None of them are supported by the "evidence" you list above them. They derive from your strained interpretations of historical references that do not speak to what was translated and when. I think that should be apparent to everyone who takes the time to consider the references you have listed.

Argument via assertion seems to be the modus operandi of those who support the conclusions you would like to force upon us.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that because Parrish was a scribe, and because the historical references indicated he scribed on given dates, that he must have scribed the original translation of elements of chapters 1 - 3. You seem to be forgetting that there were at least two other chapters (I emphasize "at least" because chapter 5 ends in medias res.) There were also translations effected of the explanations for three facsimiles. The GAEL contains distinct references to chapters 1 - 5 and Facsimile 2. How do you explain that away?

At any rate, I am going to refuse to respond to anything more on this thread that does not relate to the purpose for which it was commenced: to assess whether or not the links Chris Smith provided contain evidence that contradicts the substantial evidence I presented in my 2010 presentation, an extract of which I believe I have now linked at least twice in this thread. Chris has yet to present any evidence to support the assertions he made in the video link he provided, and which he claimed contained evidence that contradicts the evidence I have already presented.

Edited October 30, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Aren't these conclusions based on the presupposition that the Abr. Mss. are the original translation manscripts, rather than them being dependent, to some degree, upon a non-extant preexisting texts. In other words, don't these conclusions beg the very question of this thread?

Aren't you also forgetting about the Book of Joseph that was also alleged to be included on the papyri, which Oliver Cowdery talked about at great length in his letter publish in the Messenger and Advocate (Dec 1835), thereby imply at least some translation of that book from the ancient record?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Indeed.

[Chris Smith]

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.

It's significant for three reasons. First, it establishes a precedent for the EAG materials being used in translation rather than the other way around. If they were used that way for the Facsimile 2 explanation, then they could have been used that way for Abr. chapter 1. Second, it leaves us without any pre-existing text from which GAEL part 2 could have been naturalistically derived, implying that it was a revealed text after all. If Part 2 was a revealed text, there's no reason to suppose a different method for Part 1. Third, it totally undermines the sole argument William made in his paper for his proposed direction of dependency, which is that the BoA text includes (and thus potentially accounts for) nearly all of the Alphabet and Grammar's "substantial words". If chapter 3 and the Facsimile 2 explanation didn't exist until 1842, then these portions of the text can't be adduced to account for the vocabulary of a document produced in 1835.

In short, an 1842 date for these portions of the BoA wouldn't disprove the proposed dependence of parts of the EAG on Abr. 1 and 2, but it would render it significantly less probable. (Probability, at the end of the day, is about all a historian is competent to discuss. Rarely, if ever, does anything in this discipline rise to the level of absolute proof.)

[Chris Smith]

If I comment further on this issue, it will be later and in a more formal and comperehensive form. To do my chronological arguments justice requires a broader view of the evidence than a piecemeal discussion like this one allows. And I won't be posting any more formal responses in this thread, which I refuse to patronize further due to its personal nature.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Mortal Man]

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.

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

Gibbs' lexicon is hardly necessary to explain "Beth" as a toponym; (scroll down to George Miller's post). There are a gazillion Beth-places in the OT (Beth-el, Beth-nimrah, Beth-shemesh, Beth-anath...)

(I doubt Mortal Man would have made such a statement had he understood the implications for the chronology he was championing at the time).

I said that someone, probably OC, found out that Pharaoh Amenhotep worshipped Sobek. I stand by my chronology.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mortal Man]

Aren't these conclusions based on the presupposition that the Abr. Mss. are the original translation manscripts,

No, my conclusions are based on matching the extant documents to the historical record.

rather than them being dependent, to some degree, upon a non-extant preexisting texts.

There is not one shred of evidence for a preexisting BoA text, other than Genesis and what existed in Joseph's mind from reading Josephus etc.

In other words, don't these conclusions beg the very question of this thread?

No, presupposing a nonexistent BoA manuscript would be begging the question of this thread.

Aren't you also forgetting about the Book of Joseph that was also alleged to be included on the papyri, which Oliver Cowdery talked about at great length in his letter publish in the Messenger and Advocate (Dec 1835), thereby imply at least some translation of that book from the ancient record?

I don't believe that is the subject of this thread.

[William Schryver]

It's significant for three reasons. First, it establishes a precedent for the EAG materials being used in translation rather than the other way around. If they were used that way for the Facsimile 2 explanation, then they could have been used that way for Abr. chapter 1. Second, it leaves us without any pre-existing text from which GAEL part 2 could have been naturalistically derived, implying that it was a revealed text after all. If Part 2 was a revealed text, there's no reason to suppose a different method for Part 1. Third, it totally undermines the sole argument William made in his paper for his proposed direction of dependency, which is that the BoA text includes (and thus potentially accounts for) nearly all of the Alphabet and Grammar's "substantial words". If chapter 3 and the Facsimile 2 explanation didn't exist until 1842, then these portions of the text can't be adduced to account for the vocabulary of a document produced in 1835.

In short, an 1842 date for these portions of the BoA wouldn't disprove the proposed dependence of parts of the EAG on Abr. 1 and 2, but it would render it significantly less probable. (Probability, at the end of the day, is about all a historian is competent to discuss. Rarely, if ever, does anything in this discipline rise to the level of absolute proof.)

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. Chris asserts that Facsimile 2 was not translated until 1842. It is rather incomprehensible to me that he can adhere to this position, given the evidence provided in my presentation. Again, I invite readers to view the extract of my presentation to which I have linked repeatedly in this thread. Let the stream download completely and then advance to about the 12:20 mark and watch to the end. Then tell me that Facsimile 2 was not translated until 1842. Remember that the GAEL, from which the virtually word-for-word references to Facsimile 2:1 are taken, was produced in late 1835 - early 1836.

I cannot summarize any better than I did in my 2010 presentation:

The Alphabet and Grammar is dependent on a story that has already been written. We are able to discern within the Alphabet and Grammar the complex contextual elements of the Book of Abraham only because we already know the story. And the complex, interrelated aspects of the references we find simply could not have been achieved unless the whole story had already been produced.

In short, there is too little of the story of the Book of Abraham in the Alphabet and Grammar for it to have been used to produce the story, yet too much of the story for it not to be dependent on the rest of the story.

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.

It is perfectly clear that whoever produced the EA/GAEL had available to them the entire text of the Book of Abraham. There is simply no other reasonable explanation for the extensive and detailed references that are found within the EA/GAEL.

Dependency of the EA/GAEL on BoA

[William Schryver]

... I won't be posting any more formal responses in this thread, which I refuse to patronize further due to its personal nature.

Of course, there has been nothing in this thread that would warrant this statement. The only explanation for Chris making this statement at this point in time is because he has finally been pressured to provide real evidence to support the numerous assertions he has been making for the past few years. 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 that those who have been following this rather brief debate will keep in mind what has happened over the course of the past 24 hours as this discussion has developed. I hope you will carefully consider the arguments and evidence that have been presented. I hope many of you will take the 23 minutes required to view Part 1 of my 2010 presentation (linked again below) that treats upon the very important question of whether or not the EA/GAEL documents are indeed dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The evidence I present is powerfully persuasive of the arguments I have been making all along.

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.

The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[Mortal Man]

These are bold assertions.

None of them are supported by the "evidence" you list above them. They derive from your strained interpretations of historical references that do not speak to what was translated and when. I think that should be apparent to everyone who takes the time to consider the references you have listed.

Besides there being not one shred of evidence for Ab0, there are numerous reasons why Ab0 cannot have existed. The T&S text is more similar to the GAEL than it is to the earlier EA documents, indicating a direction of dependence EA-->GAEL-->T&S. If the direction were Ab0-->EA-->GAEL, then we would expect the T&S publication to be more similar to the earlier EA manuscripts. Brent's and Chris' notes of the serial semicolons and extensive appositives are just a couple of the many specific indicators of direction.

An easy visual example of the problems with the Ab0 hypothesis is the change from Pharaoh to Ko[r]ash in the earliest translation manuscripts. BTW Will, you still haven't answered my question. And Wade disagrees with you regarding what Joseph would have called Imsety in Ab0.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Mortal Man

[William Schryver]

/snip/ post of reckless assertions and classic instances of non sequitur

It is apparent that Mortal Man has appeared with the sole purpose of distracting the attention of the audience from the stunning abandonment of the field just executed by Chris Smith.

How unfortunate.

Edited October 30, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

It's significant for three reasons. First, it establishes a precedent for the EAG materials being used in translation rather than the other way around. If they were used that way for the Facsimile 2 explanation, then they could have been used that way for Abr. chapter 1.

Even if you can reasonably establish that the explanation for Facsimile 2 were "translated" using the EA/GAEL (something I highly doubt), it doesn't necessarily follow that Abr. 1 was "translated" in like manner. Rather, it could have been translated in the same manner as Abr. 2:19ff. In fact, I would think that the preponderance of the evidence would suggest as much.

Second, it leaves us without any pre-existing text from which GAEL part 2 could have been naturalistically derived, implying that it was a revealed text after all. If Part 2 was a revealed text, there's no reason to suppose a different method for Part 1.

Even if there were no preexisting BoA text for Part 2 of the GAEL, that doesn't necessarily imply that it couldn't have been naturalistically derived from various other supernaturalistic or naturalistic sources or even in some ways made up. To suggest otherwise is to commit the fallacy of bifurcation.

Besides, as previously intimated, it makes little sense to expend supernaturalistic resources developing an elaborate alphabet and grammar that may then be used to "translate" scriptures, when those supernaturalistic resources may be far more effectively employed in "translating" the scriptures directly to begin with, just as was the case with all the scriptures that Joseph had supernaturalistically translated before then (the Book of Mormon, The Book of Moses, and the JST of the Bible, etc.)

Third, it totally undermines the sole argument William made in his paper for his proposed direction of dependency, which is that the BoA text includes (and thus potentially accounts for) nearly all of the Alphabet and Grammar's "substantial words". If chapter 3 and the Facsimile 2 explanation didn't exist until 1842, then these portions of the text can't be adduced to account for the vocabulary of a document produced in 1835.

Again, you are over-stating your case. At best, if one completely agrees with your findings (I am not optimistic about that), it may raise questions about the predictive accuracy of just the substantial word study as currently configured. It doesn't counter the prospect of a preexisting text, let alone as evinced by other methodologies.

In short, an 1842 date for these portions of the BoA wouldn't disprove the proposed dependence of parts of the EAG on Abr. 1 and 2, but it would render it significantly less probable. (Probability, at the end of the day, is about all a historian is competent to discuss. Rarely, if ever, does anything in this discipline rise to the level of absolute proof.)

I guess we will just have to wait and see. However, even if, at best, your research reasonably diminishes the probability of the proposition that there was a preexisting text (again, I am not optimistic--certainly not for Abr.1:1 to Abr. 2:18), reason would suggest that its resulting probability be measured against the probability of competing propositions to see which bears sway. On its worst day, I would happily pit the probabilities of Will's proposition against the proposition that the Book of Abraham was "translated" or derived in part or whole from the EA/GAEL. But, that may just be me. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

Chris asserts that the only evidence I provided to establish the direction of dependency was the substantial word study I conducted.

Nothing in your presentation establishes direction of dependency.

tell me that Facsimile 2 was not translated until 1842.

It was not translated for the Times and Seasons until 1842. Your presentation demonstrates that Joseph referred to the GAEL in preparing the T&S issue that was printed on March 19. I would say that the EA/GAEL constitutes the initial translation of Facsimile 2.

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

The Book of Abraham contains extensive specific references to the EA/GAEL.

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.

No one is disputing this. Hauglid gives a nice chart in his Appendix 2.

It is perfectly clear that whoever produced the EA/GAEL had available to them the entire text of the Book of Abraham.

It is perfectly clear that neither you nor Gee nor Hauglid have presented a single piece of actual evidence for this assertion. It is driven by nothing more than apologetic necessity, which is really quite bizarre since few of your fans seem to grasp the need for Ab0.

There is simply no other reasonable explanation for the extensive and detailed references that are found within the EA/GAEL.

The parsimonious approach, William, is to examine the extant documents before positing imaginary ones. There is nothing in the EA/GAEL that requires Ab0. There is nothing in the historical record that requires Ab0. There is nothing about "Shinehah" (other than Gee's hopelessly circular logic) to suggest Ab0. There is nothing about Gee's/Hauglid's misreading of Anson Call's reminiscence to indicate an Ab0. There is only your posturing to support Ab0.

[Mortal Man]

It is apparent that Mortal Man has appeared with the sole purpose of distracting the attention of the audience from the stunning abandonment of the field just executed by Chris Smith.

How unfortunate.

It is apparent that your elicitation techniques are embarrassingly obvious. You have a history of taunting Chris and Brent for the purpose of gathering information, which you then present without attribution. You sense that Chris and Brent have made some important points in the OP links but you need help in understanding them, so you dial up your rhetoric in hopes of drawing them out. I suggest that if you asked Chris nicely about specific points, rather than bashing him, he would respond cordially, as he always does, insofar as he has time (considering his quals). Unlike me, Chris is actually a decent person. He's also earning a Ph.D. in this field; whereas, you and I are just here for the popcorn.

[wenglund]

Gibbs' lexicon is hardly necessary to explain "Beth" as a toponym; (scroll down to George Miller's post). There are a gazillion Beth-places in the OT (Beth-el, Beth-nimrah, Beth-shemesh, Beth-anath...)

And, because there are some cities in the Bible that contain the Beth prefix, any 30-year-old with little formal education, let alone linguistic training, would unavoidably know that in Hebrew it means "place of residence," just as they would also figure that "Jer" in Jerusalem, Jerash, and Jericho, and the "As" in Ashdod, Ashkelon, Asshur, and Assyria, and the "La" in Laban, Lachish, Laish, and Laodicea, also means place of residence. LOL!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Mortal Man:

Nothing in your presentation establishes direction of dependency.

The extensive presence in the EA/GAEL of virtually word-for-word references to portions of every chapter of the published Book of Abraham can only be explained in two ways:

1 – The author(s) of the EA/GAEL had the entire story of the Book of Abraham essentially memorized before the project was commenced.

-OR-

2 – A text of the entire Book of Abraham was available to whoever produced the EA/GAEL.

Why is this so? Because even though not every word of the Book of Abraham is contained in the EA/GAEL and even though not every passage of the Book of Abraham is contained in the EA/GAEL, virtually the entire story; the entire context of the Book of Abraham would be required for one to have included the references that are contained in the EA/GAEL.

Therefore the only two possible explanations for what we see in the EA/GAEL are those I list above.

Let us assume then, for a moment, that option #1 were true, my question then is: what would be the purpose of preparing the EA/GAEL at all? I mean, if Joseph Smith already knew what the Book of Abraham was going to contain, then what would be the point of creating an EA/GAEL in order to pretend to translate it? Is he simply trying to fool his associates into believing he can decipher the contents of the papyrus? What’s the point of that? First of all, he’s already done that trick with the Book of Mormon. Besides, I don’t think for a minute that his associates would have believed it. No, I’m convinced the very contents of the EA/GAEL prove it wasn’t created as a prop for Joseph Smith to pretend to translate the papyrus. In fact, it couldn’t possibly have been used as a tool to translate anything, as I explain in my 2010 presentation.

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!”

Think it through, people. The very notion that Joseph Smith had the whole story memorized and then created the EA/GAEL as a prop to fool his closest associates into believing he was using it to “translate” the papyrus is completely nonsensical. Option #1 is not only illogical and ridiculous on the face of it, but it is also simply not consistent with the evidence.

Option #2 is the only logical possibility, and answers to all of the textual and historical evidence available.

[Mortal Man]

I'll invite you once again, Wade, to answer my question. It goes straight to the heart of William's central thesis.

[wenglund]

No, my conclusions are based on matching the extant documents to the historical record.

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. But, since this is somewhat off-topic for this thread, perhaps you can open another thread to discuss the specifics of your counter-argument.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

I'll invite you once again, Wade, to answer my question. It goes straight to the heart of William's central thesis.

Absurd.

As I said above, you're here for one purpose: to attempt to distract the reading audience from the embarrassing abandonment of the field by your colleague, Mr. Smith. You are attempting to establish assertions through repetition and the sheer volume of your shouting of them.

I refer readers again to my post #92 above. I am confident I have never explained the issue as succinctly as I did in that post.

[William Schryver]

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. But, since this is somewhat off-topic for this thread, perhaps you can open another thread to discuss the specifics of your counter-argument.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Take my advice and stop getting sucked into his efforts at distraction. It is a tactical maneuver that is completely reliant upon the cooperation of others.

This thread has gone very badly for him and Chris, and has permitted the fundamental issues to be explained with greater clarity than ever before.

I'm going to bed now. I don't expect to make any more posts to this thread, and will probably close it early tomorrow, it having served its purpose quite satisfactorily. At some point in the very near future, I will open a thread in the Focused Discussions forum to continue to address each of Chris Smith's seven links where he claimed he had defeated my thesis. Regardless of whether he chooses to reply or not, I will demonstrate how none of his links do what he claimed for them.

[wenglund]

I'll invite you once again, Wade, to answer my question. It goes straight to the heart of William's central thesis.

I already did answer, to the best of my ability, on the thread you linked to (see post #33).

As for whether your question goes straight to the heart of William's thesis, your question, from my point of view, was based on a couple of false preconception that I corrected in post #45.

You then went on to rephrase your question in post #50.

However, your rephrased question contained what to me was yet another false presupposition, which I corrected in post #54.

You then went on to dogmatically asserted that your presupposition was correct, and I responded by asking a challenging question, to which you accused me of being obtuse, and bid me a good day.

I am not sure why you are cluttering up this thread with an old discussion you abandoned in bad faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 30, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Wade,

Take my advice and stop getting sucked into his efforts at distraction.

I am not sure the distractions worked if that is what was intended. Rather, I think it backfired.

However, you have my apologies for the several times in which I have engaged tangents and irrelevancies on this thread. And, I look forward to viewing your focused discussion with Chris.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maklelan]

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?

[Mortal Man]

The extensive presence in the EA/GAEL of virtually word-for-word references to portions of every chapter of the published Book of Abraham can only be explained in two ways:

1 – The author(s) of the EA/GAEL had the entire story of the Book of Abraham essentially memorized before the project was commenced.

-OR-

2 – A text of the entire Book of Abraham was available to whoever produced the EA/GAEL.

-OR-

3 - Joseph consulted the GAEL in translating the papyrus, just like he consulted it in translating the Kinderhook Plates.

Why is this so? Because even though not every word of the Book of Abraham is contained in the EA/GAEL and even though not every passage of the Book of Abraham is contained in the EA/GAEL, virtually the entire story; the entire context of the Book of Abraham would be required for one to have included the references that are contained in the EA/GAEL.

By this logic, a preexisting text of the Liahona story would be required to explain the transcript of Joseph's 1826 glass-looking trial.

Therefore the only two possible explanations for what we see in the EA/GAEL are those I list above.

And your logic returns full circle.

Let us assume then, for a moment, that option #1 were true, my question then is: what would be the purpose of preparing the EA/GAEL at all?

Joseph's purpose was simply to start at the beginning of the Hor scroll and work his way through it. I don't believe he was trying to fool anybody. He thought that the 5 registers of hieroglyphics adjacent to the opening vignette (one tiny one above Anubis' forearm) were Abraham's translation key for the hieratic text which followed; i.e., he viewed these registers as a sort of Rosetta Stone for the Hor scroll. So, one of the first things they did was copy the characters in these registers into the EA manuscripts. He produced the EA/GAEL first because the EA/GAEL came first on the papyrus. Where the hieroglyphic "Rosetta Stone" ends, the hieratic "BoA" begins. Similarly, where the GAEL ends, the translation manuscripts of the main text begin. Of course, there was some chronological overlap in their production, e.g., Abr. 1:1-3, but the GAEL from pJS 1.1 was mostly completed by Oct. 1, 1835 and then they proceeded on to the hieratic instructions column in November.

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.

There's a lot in there that doesn't show up in the BoA. There is nothing in there that couldn't have been in Joseph Smith's mind at the time.

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!”

On the contrary, they expected Abraham's "Rosetta Stone" to contain everything necessary to translate his autobiography.

Think it through, people. The very notion that Joseph Smith had the whole story memorized and then created the EA/GAEL as a prop to fool his closest associates into believing he was using it to “translate” the papyrus is completely nonsensical.

What you're missing here, Will, is the omnipresence of the papyrus in everyone's experience and expectations. Unlike the Golden Plates, everyone could see the papyrus and Joseph was expected to explain each character. If you or Wade had answered my question regarding Imsety being Pharaoh, you might have realized that Joseph formed his ideas by examining the pictures and characters on the papyrus and trying to figure out what they might represent. This is actually the right idea, since that's basically what hieroglyphics are, little pictures of things.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Mortal Man