Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[wenglund]

4.d -continued-

Then, in another notebook, in the handwriting of Cowdery, we find a similar translation, though with small groups of characters interspersed within the translation (see areas marked with red boxes):

From what I can tell, the interspersed characters in the Cowdery notebook were taken from the Phelps notebook (see corresponding red areas marked below), along with the translation:

-continued-

[Edit: corrected error pointed out to me by Brent Metcalfe]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

4.d -continued-

Finally, in the EA's, we find one of the characters from the Phelps and Cowdery notebooks represented (see area in red rectangle--in EA WWP and EA OC there is only one character showing and it is the same as the character in the second column of EA JS) along with the sound/name (Kah tou man) and a brief explanation :

This suggest to me that there was first a translation in the Phelps notebook, then an alignment of that translation with certain characters in the Cowdery notebook, both of which predate the entry into the EA's. In other words, we have at least one example where the EA's were dependent upon a preexisting translation, thus indicating a president for dependence upon other preexisting translations.

[Edit: corrected error pointed out to me by Brent Metcalfe]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 28, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The only other arguments I can think of at this time against the proposition that the EA/GAEL was intended for, and was used to, "translate" the BoA from the papyri, and in favor of the proposition that the EA/GAEL were dependent upon preexisting texts, including portions of the BoA, are the following set forth by Will in his 2010 FAIR presentation:

4.e. Based on Will's substantial word study of the EA, "we are dealing with a very limited set of unique words, with very specific applications...we encounter words and phrases focused on a narrow subject matter," thereby making intuitively evident that the EA/GAEL was "driven by an already known text." "Analysis by substantial words strongly suggests a dependency of the Alphabet on a pre-existing text of much of the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham."

4f. An expanded analysis of the GAEL confirms the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a preexisting text--All five chapters of the BoA are "substantially attested." "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."

4g. There is mounting evidence that the EA/GAEL may have been largely the brain child of W.W. Phelps rather than Joseph Smith, which suggest not only the unlikelyhood of Joseph using Phelp's secular invention to translate the BoA, but also the secular invention may likely have been dependent upon the BoA. (see the thread HERE for explication.)

Since Schryver will be publishing soon a more in-depth analysis on these points, I won't say anything further about them, but will let Will speak for himself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 25, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

To wrap things up here, let me briefly summarize all the arguments I am currently aware of against the proposition that the EA/GAEL were used to produce the BoA from the papyri:

1. Witness and authoritative statements are against the proposition.

2. Historical precedent is against the proposition

3. Joseph's proven abilities to "translate" without an alphabet/grammar are against the proposition.

4. The paltry number of correlated verses are against the proposition.

5. The large number of non-papyri and non-Egyptian characters are against the proposition.

6. The incompleteness of the EA/GAEL are against the proposition.

7. The virtual impossibility to translate strings of Egyptian hieratic is against the proposition.

8. The secular nature of the EA/GAEL are against the proposition.

9. The Kabbalistic/Midrashic "feel" of the EA/GAEL are against the proposition.

10. Textual indication that the EA/GAEL were intended to encipher future texts and not decipher ancient texts, are against the proposition.

11. Showing Chris Smith's article to have been unwitting a function of reverse engineering, is against the proposition.

12 Historical evidence for a preexisting text is against the proposition.

13. Textual critical evidence that the EA/GAEL were not a simultaneous dictation and in favor of EA WWP dependency (29 different arguments), is against the proposition.

14. The "puzzle" analogy is in favor of a preexisting text and against the proposition.

15. Internal precedent for preexisting text is against the proposition.

16. Will's substantial word study is in favor of a preexisting text and against the proposition.

17. Will's expanded analysis of the GAEL is in favor of a preexisting text and against the proposition.

18. Mounting evidence in favor of Phelps as the EA/GAEL project leader, is against the proposition.

[Edit; to correct spelling of "precedent" as per Mariner's suggestion]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 26, 2011 by wenglund

[Bill Hamblin]

To wrap things up here, let me briefly summarize all the arguments I am currently aware of against the proposition that the EA/GAEL were used to produce the BoA from the papyri:

1. Witness and authoritative statements are against the proposition.

2. Historical president is against the proposition

3. Joseph's proven abilities to "translate" without an alphabet/grammar are against the proposition.

4. The paltry number of correlated verses are against the proposition.

5. The large number of non-papyri and non-Egyptian characters are against the proposition.

6. The incompleteness of the EA/GAEL are against the proposition.

7. The virtual impossibility to translate strings of Egyptian hieratic is against the proposition.

8. The secular nature of the EA/GAEL are against the proposition.

9. The Kabbalistic/Midrashic "feel" of the EA/GAEL are against the proposition.

10. Textual indication that the EA/GAEL were intended to encipher future texts and not decipher ancient texts, are against the proposition.

11. Showing Chris Smith's article to have been unwitting a function of reverse engineering, is against the proposition.

12 Historical evidence for a preexisting text is against the proposition.

13. Textual critical evidence that the EA/GAEL were not a simultaneous dictation and in favor of EA WWP dependency (29 different arguments), is against the proposition.

14. The "puzzle" analogy is in favor of a preexisting text and against the proposition.

15. Internal president for preexisting text is against the proposition.

16. Will's substantial word study is in favor of a preexisting text and against the proposition.

17. Will's expanded analysis of the GAEL is in favor of a preexisting text and against the proposition.

18. Mounting evidence in favor of Phelps as the EA/GAEL project leader, is against the proposition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It would be nice if you combined all your arguments you've presented here into a single pdf file. Good stuff.

[wenglund]

It would be nice if you combined all your arguments you've presented here into a single pdf file. Good stuff.

I will see what I can do. It will take a bit of refining before I will feel comfortable presenting it in consolidated form. I hope to have it ready, though, by the middle of next week. I appreciate your interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill Hamblin]

I will see what I can do. It will take a bit of refining before I will feel comfortable presenting it in consolidated form. I hope to have it ready, though, by the middle of next week. I appreciate your interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You might want to consider publishing it.

[wenglund]

You might want to consider publishing it.

I am not sure, but I believe it would take a copious anointing of eloquence raining down upon my head before anyone but myself would be interested in publishing my work, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. I doubt my sows ear will ply very well in the silk purse market.

It was very generous of you to suggest it, though.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mariner]

precedent: prior in time, order, arrangement or significance.

president: an official chosen to preside over a meeting or assembly / the chief officer of an organization ( as in corporation or institution).

[wenglund]

precedent: prior in time, order, arrangement or significance.

president: an official chosen to preside over a meeting or assembly / the chief officer of an organization ( as in corporation or institution).

I think I just felt the first drop of eloquence-anointing rain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 26, 2011 by wenglund

[Mariner]

I think I just felt the first drop of eloquence-anointing rain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No problem.

I'm only here to help.

[wenglund]

No problem.

I'm only here to help.

And, I welcomed and appreciated it. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Earlier in this thread Kevin not only questioned whether the translation of characters that predate production of the EA/GAEL was "put to paper' (see: HERE, but he claimed that there was no evidence of that translation being put to paper.

I responded to his question by presenting implicit evidence that the translation was written down, which I posted HERE, and HERE, and HERE.

However, I neglected to post this account: "...The morning following [July 5, 1835] Joseph came with the leaves which he had translated, which Oliver Cowdery read, and Mr. Chandler then produced the translation of Professor Anthon as far as the Professor could translate it...." . (Tullidges Quarterly Magazine 3/3 (1885): 282-83. Cited by Will Schryver, HERE)

Clearfly, the translation of the characters was written down on "leaves" and later read by Cowdery.

So, we learn that not only was there a preexisting translation of "some of the characters" from the papyri, but also, in contravention to Kevin's claim, the translation was put to paper, thus making it literally a preexisting text.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 29, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Just a note to Bill Hamblin and anyone else who may be interested, I am still working on consolidating my arguments into a single document. The delay is in part because while recently researching past threads I came across some additional relevant arguments that I had neglected to post on this thread, and I am attempting to include them in the consolidation and tighten things up so as to make my presentation cogent and comprehensive. Please be patient. It may be the first part of next week before that work is completed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 1, 2011 by wenglund

[KevinG]

Please be patient.

Sorry Wade. That goes contrary to the traditions of this board where posters are accused of avoiding and obfuscation if they have a life.

[wenglund]

Sorry Wade. That goes contrary to the traditions of this board where posters are accused of avoiding and obfuscation if they have a life.

I wish I did have a life. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Earlier in this thread Kevin not only questioned whether the translation of characters that predate production of the EA/GAEL was "put to paper' (see: HERE, but he claimed that there was no evidence of that translation being put to paper.

I responded to his question by presenting implicit evidence that the translation was written down, which I posted HERE, and HERE, and HERE.

However, I neglected to post this account: "...The morning following [July 5, 1835] Joseph came with the leaves which he had translated, which Oliver Cowdery read, and Mr. Chandler then produced the translation of Professor Anthon as far as the Professor could translate it...." . (Tullidges Quarterly Magazine 3/3 (1885): 282-83. Cited by Will Schryver, HERE)

Clearfly, the translation of the characters was written down on "leaves" and later read by Cowdery.

So, we learn that not only was there a preexisting translation of "some of the characters" from the papyri, but also, in contravention to Kevin's claim, the translation was put to paper, thus making it literally a preexisting text.

If you read the text literally, "the leaves which he had translated" most evidently refers to leaves of papyrus. If Smith had written a translation of some of the characters, this account would have said something like "the leaves of his translation." Perhaps Smith and Cowdery worked out a translation of a part of the papyri (perhaps Smith was only allowed to take a fragment), and then Cowdery recited the translation that he and Smith had worked out, as if he were actually translating the papyri before Chandler's eyes. I'm still agnostic about whether Smith and Cowdery produced a (now missing) early dictionary of a few Egyptian characters. But this account doesn't necessarily answer that question.

[William Schryver]

If you read the text literally, "the leaves which he had translated" most evidently refers to leaves of papyrus.

It's getting harder and harder to take your posts seriously.

The original quote:

"...The morning following [July 5, 1835] Joseph came with the leaves which he had translated, which Oliver Cowdery read, and Mr. Chandler then produced the translation of Professor Anthon as far as the Professor could translate it...." . (Tullidges Quarterly Magazine 3/3 (1885): 282-83

According to your interpretation of the quote, Oliver Cowdery was reading the Egyptian (or the translation) right off the papyrus!

[wenglund]

According to your interpretation of the quote, Oliver Cowdery was reading the Egyptian (or the translation) right off the papyrus!

Can you say confirmation bias? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

If you read the text literally, "the leaves which he had translated" most evidently refers to leaves of papyrus.

Hardly likely.

Joseph took the leaves he had translated, and Oliver read them.

Unless you're implying that Oliver had a heretofore unknown talent for reading Egyptian, your interpretation doesn't make much sense.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

According to your interpretation of the quote, Oliver Cowdery was reading the Egyptian (or the translation) right off the papyrus!

Right. So Cowdery would point to a few particular characters on the "leaves" that he and Smith had translated, and tell Chandler what the characters meant. Then Chandler would pull out whatever he had from Charles Anthon and compare. Obviously, we are talking about just a few characters here, because Anthon did not know enough Egyptian, if any, to have translated the entire scrolls. This agrees with the other quote from HC: "the Prophet gave Mr. Chandler a translation of some few of the Egyptian characters, which agreed with the interpretation given by learned men in other cities."

[Cobalt-70]

Unless you're implying that Oliver had a heretofore unknown talent for reading Egyptian, your interpretation doesn't make much sense.

No, Smith and Cowdery spent the night studying whatever papyri fragments Chandler allowed them to borrow, and they came back and thought they knew what some of the characters meant. So Cowdery read that part of the papyrus for Chandler.

[William Schryver]

Right. So Cowdery would point to a few particular characters on the "leaves" that he and Smith had translated, and tell Chandler what the characters meant. Then Chandler would pull out whatever he had from Charles Anthon and compare. Obviously, we are talking about just a few characters here, because Anthon did not know enough Egyptian, if any, to have translated the entire scrolls. This agrees with the other quote from HC: "the Prophet gave Mr. Chandler a translation of some few of the Egyptian characters, which agreed with the interpretation given by learned men in other cities."

It's rather breathtaking to see how effortlessly you fictionalize history. If Dan Vogel ever decides to write another book, he should use you as a consultant.

Edited December 1, 2011 by William Schryver

[Pahoran]

If you read the text literally, "the leaves which he had translated" most evidently refers to leaves of papyrus. If Smith had written a translation of some of the characters, this account would have said something like "the leaves of his translation." Perhaps Smith and Cowdery worked out a translation of a part of the papyri (perhaps Smith was only allowed to take a fragment), and then Cowdery recited the translation that he and Smith had worked out, as if he were actually translating the papyri before Chandler's eyes. I'm still agnostic about whether Smith and Cowdery produced a (now missing) early dictionary of a few Egyptian characters. But this account doesn't necessarily answer that question.

If you read the text literally, "leaves" is an old-fashioned term for the pages of a codex-style book. This terminology still shows up in terms such as "flyleaf" referring to the page just inside the front cover. Joseph didn't translate any "leaves of papyrus" because the papyri were scrolls, not pages.

Regards,

Pahoran

[William Schryver]

If you read the text literally, "leaves" is an old-fashioned term for the pages of a codex-style book. This terminology still shows up in terms such as "flyleaf" referring to the page just inside the front cover. Joseph didn't translate any "leaves of papyrus" because the papyri were scrolls, not pages.

Regards,

Pahoran

Don't spoil his tale. He's just getting started.