Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[Cobalt-70]

-continued-

In a letter to his wife sent the middle of July of 1835, W.W. Phelps , one of the pre-named scribes, said: "...These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints."

To me, this indicates that the translations were being written down so as to eventually be printed in a book. Otherwise, how else could they be printed?

I don't see how you get that. Quite the opposite: he said "when we translate...them," which means that translation of the "witness" had not yet begun. All that had taken place thus far was the "translation" of individual characters or graphemes.

Most poignant is this statement collectively on behalf of several church leaders at the time: "it so happened that in traveling through the country, he [Chandler] visited Kirtland, Ohio, where the Prophet Joseph Smith resided, bringing the mummies and the ancient papyrus writings with him. Mr. C. [Chandler] had also obtained from learned men the best translation he could of some few characters, which however, was not a translation, but more in the shape of their ideas with regard to it, their acquaintance with the language not being sufficient to enable them to translate it literally. After some conversation with the Prophet Joseph, Mr. Chandler presented to him the ancient characters, asking him if he could translate them. The Prophet took them and repaired to his room and inquired of the Lord concerning them. The Lord told him they were sacred records, containing the inspired writings of Abraham when he was in Egypt, and also those of Joseph, while he was in Egypt; and they had been deposited, with these mummies, which had been exhumed. And he also enquired of the Lord concerning some few characters which Mr. Chandler, gave him by way of a test, to see if he could translate them. The Prophet Joseph translated these characters and returned them, with the translation to Mr. Chandler; and who, in comparing it with the translation of the same few characters by learned men, that he had before obtained, found the two to agree." (REMARKS OF CHURCH LEADERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 26 VOLS. LIVERPOOL, 1855-1886)

Evidently, as previously surmised, Chandler had written copies of what various learned men had concluded was the meaning of some of the characters, and that these same characters were given to Joseph Smith to translate, which he did by the power of God, and returned the characters along with the translation to Chandler for comparison. It seems nonsensical to me to suggests that Joseph verbal returned the translation along with the written characters, which Chandler then compared with the written statements of the learned men. Rather, it seems clear to me that the preexisting translation was written.

A bit of a non sequitur. The above quote only discusses the creation of a written translation for individual "characters" taken from the Chandler papyri in early July 1835. Assuming it still exists, the manuscript that best fits the description in the above quote, which could have been shown to Chandler, is the JS/OC manuscrupt, or at least the initial part in Smith's handwriting before later scribal additions by OC and WP--which contains a purported translation of a graphemes representing "Ah broam--ah-brah oam." (Abram--Abraham). I'm not saying it was that manuscript, just that it would have looked an aweful lot like it.

As to whether Chandler actually had procured "learned" translations of the same characters, and as to whether Smith's translations agreed with them, or whether somebody was exaggerating, bluffing, or exercising wishful thinking, is a different issue.

[Cobalt-70]

4b. There is textual critical evidence that the EA/GAEL was not a simultaneous dictation, and was dependent upon various preexisting texts, thus establishing a president for dependency on portions of the Book of Abraham.

First, I will consider some of the evidence against a simultaneous dictation, and then I will look into the evidence for EA/GAEL dependency on preexisting texts like the KEP notebooks, the Counting document, and several D&C passages.

Ample textual evidence is available against a simultaneous dictation of the EA/GAEL, including:

1. There are three Egyptain Alphabet manuscripts, one in the handwriting of WW Phelps (EA WWP), one partially in the handwriting of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (EA JS), and one in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery (EA OC). I believe the very existence of these three manuscripts weighs against a simultaneous dictation because it seem a bit out of character for Joseph or anyone else to have two scribes taking simultaneous dictation, but it seem even more unlikely that Joseph would take dictation from himself. And, if Joseph's EA is indication that he was taking dictation, then who was doing the dictating? And, if his manuscript isn't indicative of him taking dictation, then what might that suggest about the other EA's? Also, since Cowdery's handwriting is on two of the manuscripts, it seems a bit far fetched to think he was taking dictation simultaneous on both manuscripts.

I don't know who is hypothesizing simultaneous dictation of the EA manuscripts. Am I mistaken, or is this a strawman? The only simultaneous dictations I am aware of were manuscripts 1a and 1b of the Book of Abraham. In that case, simultaneous translation is not far fetched at all, and clearly established based on internal evidence. Smith had been burned, previously, by having only one existing manuscript of a translation, resulting in the loss of 116 pages and the loss of his translation gift. When the Book of Mormon was published, he never let the manuscript out of his close control until there existed two manuscripts. When Smith began translating the Book of Abraham, he would have wanted to be very careful. Smith had two scribes working for him (Williams and Parrish), so why not create two manuscripts at once? There were, obviously, no photocopiers in those days, so someone had to produce a second copy. It would have been more efficient and more accurate to do it simultaneously.

[Pahoran]

I don't know who is hypothesizing simultaneous dictation of the EA manuscripts. Am I mistaken, or is this a strawman? The only simultaneous dictations I am aware of were manuscripts 1a and 1b of the Book of Abraham. In that case, simultaneous translation is not far fetched at all, and clearly established based on internal evidence. Smith had been burned, previously, by having only one existing manuscript of a translation, resulting in the loss of 116 pages and the loss of his translation gift. When the Book of Mormon was published, he never let the manuscript out of his close control until there existed two manuscripts. When Smith began translating the Book of Abraham, he would have wanted to be very careful. Smith had two scribes working for him (Williams and Parrish), so why not create two manuscripts at once? There were, obviously, no photocopiers in those days, so someone had to produce a second copy. It would have been more efficient and more accurate to do it simultaneously.

I'm not sure which manuscripts you are referring to. I saw scans of the Abraham manuscripts among the KEP's a number of years ago (the ones that anti-Mormons call "translation manuscripts" in order to smuggle their conclusions into the discussion) and if they are the same ones you're talking about, then they are manifestly not dictated. They have capitalisation, punctuation, sentences and paragraphs. Contrast this to the Book of Mormon manuscripts, which have none of those things, and it becomes obvious whatever the source of the Abraham manuscripts, it wasn't spoken dictation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

I don't know who is hypothesizing simultaneous dictation of the EA manuscripts.

I think they were mostly produced that way, though obviously not entirely. The different phonetic spellings of the sounds would tend to indicate an oral source (e.g. "oan" and "one"), as would the way each writer captures slightly different facets of the interpretations or puts them in slightly different words.

[Cobalt-70]

I think they were mostly produced that way, though obviously not entirely. The different phonetic spellings of the sounds would tend to indicate an oral source (e.g. "oan" and "one"), as would the way each writer captures slightly different facets of the interpretations or puts them in slightly different words.

Okay. I just re-read note 1 or Ashment's "Abraham in the Breathing Permit of Hor" article in Dialogue, and I think I understand where this idea is coming from. But he's not saying that all three EA manuscripts were written at the same time--only that the one in Joseph Smith's handwriting is the original, and that Cowdery and Phelps were written at about the same time and following his lead. But I don't think that Ashment was necessarily saying that he thought all three transcripts were written while Smith was dictating, unless I'm misreading him.

To my mind, at the very least, it makes more logical sense that Smith did the work in his own handwriting first, and that if there is evidence of dictation for the other two manuscripts, it would be because Smith was reading parts of his own manuscript to the two scribes, possibly while elaborating. Are the phonetic spelling correspondences and other evidence consistent with that? Has anyone published anything describing these phonetic spellings?

Either that, or as an alternative theory, all three were written simultaneously, but it was not really a dictation in the sense that the scribes and Smith were literally writing everything that came out of Smith's mouth as they did with the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. There would have been some back-and-forth going on, and they would have been able to see each other's manuscripts. Since Cowdery and Phelps contain details that Smith's manuscript does not, Smith would have given the translation, and then all three of them would have written out what was said in their own words.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

I don't see how you get that. Quite the opposite: he said "when we translate...them," which means that translation of the "witness" had not yet begun. All that had taken place thus far was the "translation" of individual characters or graphemes.

I believe it can reasonably be interpreted both ways--particularly given not only Phelps' penchant for in-eloquence and awkward speech (something I can relate to), but also that no one is questioning that a translation, where Phelps was a scribe, had occurred prior to Phelps sending his letter, and that it was by way of that translation that Joseph learned that the papyri contained the records of Abraham and Joseph.

A bit of a non sequitur. The above quote only discusses the creation of a written translation for individual "characters" taken from the Chandler papyri in early July 1835. Assuming it still exists, the manuscript that best fits the description in the above quote, which could have been shown to Chandler, is the JS/OC manuscrupt, or at least the initial part in Smith's handwriting before later scribal additions by OC and WP--which contains a purported translation of a graphemes representing "Ah broam--ah-brah oam." (Abram--Abraham). I'm not saying it was that manuscript, just that it would have looked an aweful lot like it.

Again, I believe you are more than a little off on the timing of things--speaking of an actual non sequitur, as opposed to the baseless accusation you leveled at me. The translation event referred to in the quote I cited, is in early July, between the 2nd and the 6th. Whereas, work on the EA's presumably didn't begin until the latter part of July (the 19th), and the character with the sound you referred to, came way late in the EA production process (it was one of the last 4 or 5 characters to be given a sound), likely just before work started on the GAEL.

Also, several posts back I explicated the evolution of that sound, including how the sound you only partially mentioned was entirely scratched out and replaced with a somewhat different sound. Sorry.

As to whether Chandler actually had procured "learned" translations of the same characters, and as to whether Smith's translations agreed with them, or whether somebody was exaggerating, bluffing, or exercising wishful thinking, is a different issue.

I dealt with this in an earlier post. The historical record is sufficiently vague to reasonably allow a broad spectrum of differing opinions. To each their own.

To reiterate, I posited the quotes to which you are voicing a difference of opinion than mine, not thinking they, individually, were particularly strong evidence in support of my argument 4a, but when viewed in conjunction with other historical data, made for a reasonable conclusion that would then be further underscored as I present arguments 4b - 4f.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4.b.4 -continued-

c. Let's look now at the sounds to see what they may suggest contrary to the claim of simultaneous dictations as well as supportive of the WWP priority. In addition to what Will has pointed out in the past regarding the spelling of sounds in the GAEL being far more consistent with the WWP than the other EA's, thereby evincing dependency of the GAEL on the WWP, there are these points to consider:

1. EA WWP has more sounds than the other EA's.(EA JS is missing the critical "Za Ki..' sound and explanation, and EA OC is missing the critical "Kolob" and "Iota nitah veh aqua" and "Ah brah oam" sounds and explanation).

2. In EA WWP, the 16th character is given the sound "Oan", and later there was added "or ahe". This complete sound was then copied later to the other EA's.

3. The 19rd character in EA WWP was given the sound "Zub-Zool-oan-eh" and was later copied to the other EA absent the "oan".

4. The 53th character in EA WWP was given the sound "Jah-ho ni oop" this was later copied to EA JS in the abbreviated form "Jah-ho-e-oop" and in the OC as "Jah-ni-hah", and finally the "ho" in EA WWP was struck through.

5. The 65th character in the WWP was initially given the sound "Noh nit tish." This was later struck through and replaced with "Flo-ees." This revised sound was later copied to the other EA's.

6. The sounds for characters 5 & 6 ("Ho-oop-hah" and "Zi") were initially only missing in EA JS, though later inserted. This is evidently a coping and not a dictation error.

So, of the 69 characters given sounds in the EA's, at least 6 of them give strong indication that the EA's were not simultaneously dictated.

Granted, there are some sounds that certain critics have pointed to and believe are phonetically similar enough to be indicative of dictation (like "oan" compared with "one", or "Alkibeth" compared with "Alchibeth"). However, the "dictation" in these isolated cases may have consisted of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery copying the sounds via Phelps reading to them from what he had already written on his EA, rather than them copying the sounds from Phelps by sight.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 17, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

4.b.4 -continued-

d. Now let's look at the explanations to see what they may indicate in terms of copy/dictation and WWP priority:

1. For character 5 ("Ho-oop-hah") EA WWP gives the following explanation: "Crown of a princes, or signifies Queen." The other EA's give a more elaborate explanation For example, EA JS says, "Crown of a princys or queen or stands for queen"). The expanded explanations militate against dictation and suggest that EA WWP was written prior to the other EA's and that the other EA's may have been dependent upon EA WWP.

2. For character 8 ("Zi-oop-hah"), EA WWP says, "An unmarried woman, & a virgin, a princess." This is later amended by striking through the last comma and "a", and then copied in amended form into the other EA's.

3. For character 14 ("Iota tou-es Zip Zi"), EA WWP give the explanation: "Egypt. The land first seen, by a woman, under water," whereas EA JS writes, "the land of Egypt first seen under water," and EA OC says, " The land of Egypt first discovered under water by a woman.." Clearly, not a dictation.

4. The 17th character ("Ho-e-oop hah-pha-e") in EA WWP is given the explanation, " Riegn, government, power right, kingdom," whereas in EA JS it says, "government power or Kingdom," and EA OC writes , "Reign, government, power, kingdom, or dominion." Again, clearly not a dictation.

5. The explanation for character 23 ("Zool") in EA WWP initially read, "From a fixed period of time back to the beginning." The word "a" was later amended with "any", and this amendment explanation was copied into the other EA's.

6. Character 25 ("Aleph") in EA WWP shows the explanation, " In the begining with God the Son or first born," where as EA OC reads, " in the beginning with God, the Saviior."

7. The explanation for character 27 ("Alkabeth") in EA WWP states, " Angels in an unattainable state, men after they are raise from the dead," whereas EA JS says, " Angels in an unattainable immortal state," and EA OC reads, "Angels in an unattainable in new state - sactified or men after they are raised from the dead."

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4.b.4.d -continued-

8. Character 35 ("Ba-eth Ki") is given the following diverse explanations: EA WWP: " The third ordained under Adam," EA JS: " he third patriarch," and EA OC: " The ____ third ordained king under Adam, third patriarch."

9. For character 38 ("Beth"), here are the different explanations: EA WWP: " Man's first residence, a fruitful garden a great valley," EA JS: " man's first resident fruitful garden a great valy a place of happiness 1 times," and EA OC: " Man's first resident in a fruitful garden, a great valley or plain filled with fruit trees and flowers good to___ taste, pleasiing to the eye and sweet & precious to the smell, a place of happiness." Clearly not a simultaneous dictation.

10. For character 39 ("Beth Ka"), here are the explanations: EA WWP: "Another place of Residence 5 times as great more spacious, larger the the first," EA JS: " another place of residence or a more fruitful garden an a more fruitful garden a larger place of hapiness greater hapiness 5 times," EA OC: "A garden, valley or plain, larger more spacious, more pleasing, more beautiful - place of more complete happiness, peace & rest for man."

11. The explanations for character 40 ("Beth Kee") are: EA WWP: "The third place of residence 5 times as great as the last still greater &c," EA JS: " the third place 5 times Bethcha," and EA OC: "A third garden, or place of residence still more spacious, beautiful and pleasing - increasing in greatness five degrees or being five times as large as Beth-Ka."

12. The explanations for character 44 ("Beth Ku-Ain tri-ette") are: EA WWP: " The whole earth, pure, with all glory _____," EA JS: " the whole Earth or the largest place the greatest enjoyment on Earth garden of the Earth," and EA OC: " The whole earth, or the largest place, the greatest enjoyment on earth - man's residence in the garden of the earth."

13. The explanations for character 45 ("E beth-ku-ain tri-ette") are: EA WWP: " All the heavenly bodies - Eternity," EA JS: "Eternity," and EA OC: " The heavenly bodies, the worlds of light and glory, the heaven, heavens, and heaven of heavens - eternity." Again, definitely not a simultaneous dictations.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 17, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

4.b.4.d -continued-

14. The diverse explanations for character 46 ("E beth Ka") are: EA WWP: " The heaven of heavens, <wher God resides> the greatest place of happiness," EA JS: " the greatest place of hapiness where God resides the Celestial kingdom," and EA OC: " The greatests place of happiness, where God resides - The celestial kingdom."

So, of the 39 characters given explanations in the EA's, 16 of them (including ones addressed earlier in the thread), scattered throughout the EA's, from beginning to end, contain moderate to clear evidence that the EA's weren't simultaneously dictated, and that EA JS and EA OC were dependent upon EA WWP.

Could EA WWP have been dictated and the other EA's copied from EA WWP? I suppose that is possible. However, given what was mentioned earlier (arguments 4a and 4b1-2), it seems unlikely. Rather, it appears that Phelps may have spearheaded the venture, which venture may have consisted of some academic sharing back and forth between the several participants.

We know that the GAEL wasn't simultaneously dictated since there was only one copy, and this in the handwriting of Phelps, and some later on in the handwriting of Warren Parrish. Was it dictated, nevertheless? Again, it is uncertain, but from preliminary indications gathered during my research, it doesn't seem likely.

How about the Abraham manuscripts? Were they simultaneously dictated? Clearly, of the manuscripts produced in late 1835 or early 1836, there is only one containing Abr. 1:1-3, and this only in the handwriting of Phelps. So, at least that portion of the Abr. Mss. wasn't simultaneously dictated.

And, since two out of the three 1835/1836 Mss., with content from Abr. 1:4 - Abr. 2:2, are in the handwriting of Warren Parrish, at least one of them evidently wasn't part of a simultaneous dictation (it seems impractical for one person to take simultaneous dictation on two different manuscripts).

This leaves open the question whether the Fredrick Williams manuscript and one of the Warren Parrish manuscripts were simultaneously dictated, and if so, were they dictated or copied from an earlier Parrish manuscript, or copied from another non-extant manuscript. And, since Dan McClellan is far more educated and experienced at textual critical analysis than I, and since he is already exploring this territory, I will leave answering this question to him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4.b.5 Having set forth considerable evidence against the EA/GAEL being a simultaneous dictation, or a dictation at all, the question may reasonably be asked whether the evolving nature of the EA/GAEL may, in a way argue against a preexisting translation. One may astutely contend that were there a preexisting text from whence the explanations were derived, the scribes could have simply copied the text, and in so doing that would have eliminated or greatly diminished the chance of evolving content.

I will address this contention the first part of next week, and then continue to present other arguments in favor of a preexisting text.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

{as to interpreting "when we translate.." to mean that the translation had already occurred...}

I believe it can reasonably be interpreted both ways--particularly given not only Phelps' penchant for in-eloquence and awkward speech (something I can relate to), but also that no one is questioning that a translation, where Phelps was a scribe, had occurred prior to Phelps sending his letter, and that it was by way of that translation that Joseph learned that the papyri contained the records of Abraham and Joseph.

Who says W.W. Phelps was an ineloquent or awkward writer? Even before becoming a Mormon, he was a journalist. Plus, he was a lyricist, writing over a dozen poetic hymns that Mormons still sing at church meetings.

[Cobalt-70]

Again, I believe you are more than a little off on the timing of things--speaking of an actual non sequitur, as opposed to the baseless accusation you leveled at me. The translation event referred to in the quote I cited, is in early July, between the 2nd and the 6th. Whereas, work on the EA's presumably didn't begin until the latter part of July (the 19th), and the character with the sound you referred to, came way late in the EA production process (it was one of the last 4 or 5 characters to be given a sound), likely just before work started on the GAEL.

You seem to be willing to rule out translations of the EA based on the lack of specific HoC entries in early July, but you don't apply the same standard in order to rule out an early translation of the Book of Abraham.

But I'm not saying that the EA itself was the same presumed document that Smith showed Chandler. I'm just saying that that document, whatever it was and if it existed, looked something like the EA. According to the description, it was a list of characters with their translations. Nothing about the description of the Chandler translation implies that Smith did anything other than translate particular characters. The only thing he is described as knowing about the contents of the scrolls by that time was that they were written by Abraham and Joseph. (Which, for Abraham at least, he knew because he saw two characters that he believed represented Abraham's name.)

[Cobalt-70]

To reiterate, I posited the quotes to which you are voicing a difference of opinion than mine, not thinking they, individually, were particularly strong evidence in support of my argument 4a, but when viewed in conjunction with other historical data, made for a reasonable conclusion that would then be further underscored as I present arguments 4b - 4f.

And my point is that the natural interpretation of these quotes actually provide more compelling evidence against your hypothesis, than they do in support of it. if a quote could be interpreted to support your hypothesis, but most naturally does not, adding that evidence to "other historical data" weakens support for your hypothesis. You don't get any points for claiming that the quotes could be interpreted in support of your theory.

[Cobalt-70]

4.b.4 -continued-

c. Let's look now at the sounds to see what they may suggest contrary to the claim of simultaneous dictations as well as supportive of the WWP priority. In addition to what Will has pointed out in the past regarding the spelling of sounds in the GAEL being far more consistent with the WWP than the other EA's, thereby evincing dependency of the GAEL on the WWP, there are these points to consider:

1. EA WWP has more sounds than the other EA's.(EA JS is missing the critical "Za Ki..' sound and explanation, and EA OC is missing the critical "Kolob" and "Iota nitah veh aqua" and "Ah brah oam" sounds and explanation).

2. In EA WWP, the 16th character is given the sound "Oan", and later there was added "or ahe". This complete sound was then copied later to the other EA's.

3. The 19rd character in EA WWP was given the sound "Zub-Zool-oan-eh" and was later copied to the other EA absent the "oan".

4. The 53th character in EA WWP was given the sound "Jah-ho ni oop" this was later copied to EA JS in the abbreviated form "Jah-ho-e-oop" and in the OC as "Jah-ni-hah", and finally the "ho" in EA WWP was struck through.

5. The 65th character in the WWP was initially given the sound "Noh nit tish." This was later struck through and replaced with "Flo-ees." This revised sound was later copied to the other EA's.

6. The sounds for characters 5 & 6 ("Ho-oop-hah" and "Zi") were initially only missing in EA JS, though later inserted. This is evidently a coping and not a dictation error.

So, of the 69 characters given sounds in the EA's, at least 6 of them give strong indication that the EA's were not simultaneously dictated.

Granted, there are some sounds that certain critics have pointed to and believe are phonetically similar enough to be indicative of dictation (like "oan" compared with "one", or "Alkibeth" compared with "Alchibeth"). However, the "dictation" in these isolated cases may have consisted of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery copying the sounds via Phelps reading to them from what he had already written on his EA, rather than them copying the sounds from Phelps by sight.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Before touching any of this, I just want to see if I understand your hypothesis. Are you proposing that the for the EA JS, Joseph Smith actually acted as scribe for W.W. Phelps?

Edited November 19, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

Who says W.W. Phelps was an ineloquent or awkward writer? Even before becoming a Mormon, he was a journalist. Plus, he was a lyricist, writing over a dozen poetic hymns that Mormons still sing at church meetings.

Feel free to read his letters to see what I mean. If that isn't sufficient, feel free to read the grammar section of the GAEL. You don't have to agree with me about his, at times, convoluted phraseology, but that is my opinion, and I don't believe I am alone in thinking it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You seem to be willing to rule out translations of the EA based on the lack of specific HoC entries in early July, but you don't apply the same standard in order to rule out an early translation of the Book of Abraham.

I haven't entirely ruled anything out. I am simply stating what I believe to be the more likely case given the evidence as I see it.

But I'm not saying that the EA itself was the same presumed document that Smith showed Chandler. I'm just saying that that document, whatever it was and if it existed, looked something like the EA.

That is possible.

According to the description, it was a list of characters with their translations.

I am not sure the characters were on the same piece of paper as the translations. I get the impression that they weren't. Either way, it is of little or no matter to the point I was making.

Nothing about the description of the Chandler translation implies that Smith did anything other than translate particular characters.

No one is arguing otherwise, except as you go on to say...

The only thing he is described as knowing about the contents of the scrolls by that time was that they were written by Abraham and Joseph. (Which, for Abraham at least, he knew because he saw two characters that he believed represented Abraham's name.)

They learned that the were the records of Abraham and Joseph. This can reasonably be understood to mean that they were written by and about Abraham and Joseph. One may then reasonably assume form this that enough of the record was translated to learn who the records were written by and about. That is all that I argued in relation to the several quotes in question.

As for which characters were translated, we have no way of knowing. Your conjecture is as good as any, as is mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Before touching any of this, I just want to see if I understand your hypothesis. Are you proposing that the for the EA JS, Joseph Smith actually acted as scribe for W.W. Phelps?

I wouldn't describe Joseph's participation in the EA's as scribal. Rather, i would describe it more as collaborative, with Phelps taking much of the lead.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

And my point is that the natural interpretation of these quotes actually provide more compelling evidence against your hypothesis, than they do in support of it. if a quote could be interpreted to support your hypothesis, but most naturally does not, adding that evidence to "other historical data" weakens support for your hypothesis. You don't get any points for claiming that the quotes could be interpreted in support of your theory.

You are entitled to your personal opinion, as am I. I am not arguing for how you may interpret the evidence, but rather in terms of how I view it. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Feel free to read his letters to see what I mean. If that isn't sufficient, feel free to read the grammar section of the GAEL. You don't have to agree with me about his, at times, convoluted phraseology, but that is my opinion, and I don't believe I am alone in thinking it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So it sounds like you are saying that Phelps must be responsible for the GAEL, because it is ineloquent, as evidenced by the fact that his letter containing the phrase "when we translate" actually (given that he was ineloquent) meant that he had already translated them. The reason seems pretty circular.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

So it sounds like you are saying that Phelps must be responsible for the GAEL, because it is ineloquent, as evidenced by the fact that his letter containing the phrase "when we translate" actually (given that he was ineloquent) meant that he had already translated them. The reason seems pretty circular.

That isn't my reasoning. Rather, based on other evidence (which I presented, in part, in earlier posts), I believe that the GAEL is largely the brainchild of Phelps. Since I reasonably believe him to be largely responsible, it would make sense for me to consider him as the author of the grammar portion of the GAEL. The grammar, then, along with his letters to his wife, may reasonably be viewed as evidence of Phelps' lack of eloquence at times. There is no circularity.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 21, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

4.b.5 Having set forth considerable evidence against the EA/GAEL being a simultaneous dictation, or a dictation at all, the question may reasonably be asked whether the evolving nature of the EA/GAEL may, in a way argue against a preexisting translation. One may astutely contend that were there a preexisting text from whence the explanations were derived, the scribes could have simply copied the text, and in so doing that would have eliminated or greatly diminished the chance of evolving content.

I believe this would be a valid point were the EA/GAEL to have been your typical lexicon for a typical language, particularly an existing language.

However, they weren't. Unlike any other lexicon I am aware of, the EA/GAEL was comprised almost exclusively of nouns, and not only were the nouns divided into different parts, but also into different degrees (whatever that means), and they had their own grammar that didn't so much identify the part of speech for a given character (since they were predominately nouns), instead they identifies how many different parts of speech are required in association with a given noun for a given degree, and where pieces of characters (graphemes) are given sounds and explanation just as are composite characters.

Putting this mind-boggling complexity together (graphemes, characters, sounds, and explanations for different parts and degrees) in such a way that would be at least somewhat functional and compliant with the stated grammar, posed quite a challenge. As such, it is understandable then, that there would be not a few changes, corrections, additions, evolutions, and so forth, even given the proposition of a preexisting texts.

After all, a preexisting text would only provide the content for the explanation, and wouldn't pertain to evolving characters and sounds and the presumed relationship between them and the explanations.

Besides, it is reasonable to assume that there would have been no small measure of uncertainty and perhaps trial-and-error in deciding how to utilize the preexisting texts in producing the various degrees of explanations.

In short, because of the remarkable complexity of the EA/GAEL, the modest amount of evolution in characters, sounds, and even explanations, is not evidence against a preexisting text, but may, along with the other evidence I have and will yet present, counts in favor of a preexisting text.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4.c. As intimated in my previous post, since many of the characters in the EA are pieces (graphemes) of complete or composite characters, to me the only feasible way to increase the chances of the Alphabet and Grammar functioning somewhat properly is to work backwards from a finished or preexisting text.

Think of developing a translation devise for an existing document in an existing language as like putting together an existing puzzle--with the various characters representing the various shapes of the puzzle pieces, and the sounds representing the coloration of the various puzzle pieces, and the explanations representing the various artistic depictions on the puzzle pieces.

To me, when intending to put a puzzle together, even one with some of the pieces missing, it makes most sense to cull the pieces from the puzzle, itself, rather than culling them from some other sources . It makes even less sense to cull more complex shaped puzzle pieces from non-puzzle sources ( as in the case with the characters taken from the Phelps letter that predates the papyri arriving in Krtland), even to fill in missing pieces of the puzzle, because of the decreased chances that the complex-shaped pieces will fit in the existing puzzle .

However, culling pieces shaped to one's own liking, and selecting and drawing in one's own artistic depictions on those pieces, is not so much a problem when constructing a new puzzle.

Parsimony suggests, then, that given the seemingly intentional manner in which the characters, sounds, and explanations in the EA's were culled from different, and at times non-papyri sources, it is to reasonable to induce that the intent of the EA was to create a "new language" that could be used to encipher future documents, rather than translate an existing document into an existing language.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4.c -continued-

More to the point, and continuing with the puzzle metaphor, suppose we have a blank puzzle with the pieces (analogous to EA/GAEL characters) cut and already assembled together except for a few missing pieces. One could then create new pieces so that they fit together with the other missing pieces. This would be a relatively simple and workable process.

However, things might become problematic, depending upon how one goes about it, when adding colors (analogous to EA/GAEL sounds) and artistic depictions (analogous to EA/GAEL explanations) to the blank puzzle pieces.

What do you suppose the chances are that the puzzle would re-assemble coherently were one to take a section of the blank puzzle (including some of the filled in pieces), cut the pieces into smaller pieces, then pick seemingly randomly from the sub-pieces, line them up in a single column, and then for each individual sub-piece, add color and an artistic depiction?

How would the probabilities of that compare with, were one to take an assembled section of the blank puzzle, roughly laminate onto it an exiting picture (with colors and artistic depictions), and then cut the pieces into smaller pieces, and then order the sub-pieces into a single column somewhat according to color?

To me, the probabilities of the latter production sequence re-assembling coherently are astronomically greater than the former.

If so, then were the sub-pieces of a section of a puzzle to re-assemble fairly nicely into a coherent picture (as was the case with the Phelps Ms.--Abr. 1:1-3), one may reasonably assume, then, that it was a function of the later production sequence rather than the former.

The fact that sections of the papyri, listed as sub-pieces in the EA and GEAL, and later re-assembled together so nicely to form a relatively coherent picture that is the first three verses of the BoA, strongly suggests that the BoA text predates and was roughly "laminated" to later form the related sections in the EA and GAEL. The EA and GAEL were thus dependent upon the BoA and other preexisting texts, and not the other way around.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4d. Internal precedent for use of preexisting texts.

The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers are comprised of a number of documents, one of which is a notebook titled, "Valuable Discovery...," that is in the handwriting of W.W. Phelps. On one page of this notebook there is a "translation of the next page."

Here is the next page:

So, here we have an example where a number of characters on one page are translated on another page. At this point, we don't know which characters, or if all the characters, are being translated.

-continued-

[Edit: corrected errors pointed out by Brent Metcalfe]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund