Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[mfbukowski]

As to the second question, by "quasi-scholarly," I only mean that he attempted to provide a one-to-one correspondence between characters and text--a process that he abandoned both for the Book of Abraham and for the Book of Mormon. For the Book of Mormon, read the history of the Anthon transcript. At the very beginning of the translation process between Dec. 1827 and Feb. 1828, Smith said he copied characters from the plates, and then translated some of the characters. (See DHC 1:19.) These characters, and Smith's purported translations, were then taken to Charles Anthon and others. We might have the Anthon transcript itself (though its authenticity is not absolutely certain), but Smith's translations of the characters appear to be lost.

Egyptian was already in the process of being translated, and Joseph was not stupid. Surely he would not have made the same mistake twice, ie: writing characters down which future "experts" would clearly be able to use to discredit his "translation".

[Analytics]

Chris Smith:

The bolded part is necessitated by the fact that Chris’s primary thesis breaks down after the first three verses of chapter one.

Does his thesis break down at that point, or does the capability of the failed "papyri deciphering tool" break down at that point?

If I may quote Kevin Graham here, "Come on guys. I never said the entire Book of Abraham was translated via the A&G. Never. No one has."

It isn’t fair to characterize the subtleties of Chris’s actual position as “giving up” on his theory.

You said in your video that “it is intuitively evident that the Alphabet is based on an already known text.” It seems that Chris essentially agrees with you. The only difference is that you insist that the “already known text” must have been committed to paper, while Chris says it was a mere prototype in Joseph Smith’s mind.

[Analytics]

Chris Smith:

The bolded part is necessitated by the fact that Chris’s primary thesis breaks down after the first three verses of chapter one.

Does his thesis break down at that point, or does the capability of the failed "papyri deciphering tool" break down at that point?

If I may quote Kevin Graham here, "Come on guys. I never said the entire Book of Abraham was translated via the A&G. Never. No one has."

It isn’t fair to characterize the subtleties of Chris’s actual position as “giving up” on his theory.

You said in your video that “it is intuitively evident that the Alphabet is based on an already known text.” It seems that Chris essentially agrees with you. The only difference is that you insist that the “already known text” must have been committed to paper, while Chris says it was a mere prototype in Joseph Smith’s mind.

[William Schryver]

Does his thesis break down at that point, or does the capability of the failed "papyri deciphering tool" break down at that point?

If I may quote Kevin Graham here, "Come on guys. I never said the entire Book of Abraham was translated via the A&G. Never. No one has."

It isn’t fair to characterize the subtleties of Chris’s actual position as “giving up” on his theory.

You said in your video that “it is intuitively evident that the Alphabet is based on an already known text.” It seems that Chris essentially agrees with you. The only difference is that you insist that the “already known text” must have been committed to paper, while Chris says it was a mere prototype in Joseph Smith’s mind.

Analytics,

You appear to believe that no one was ever arguing that the EA/GAEL was Joseph Smith's modus operandi for translating the Book of Abraham. Well, then, please feel free to articulate what you believe critics were arguing about the EA/GAEL prior to the publication of Chris Smith's JWHA paper back in the summer of 2010. They certainly weren't arguing Chris Smith's theory, since his argument represented a distinct innovation in terms of the critical arguments concerning the EA/GAEL. Indeed, I'm fairly certain his argument was, to at least some extent, motivated by the fact that I had been hinting at the notion of a pre-existing text of the BoA, in message board posts, for a long time prior to my 2010 FAIR presentation.

We all look forward to your reply ...

Edited November 2, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

I know this is specifically the opposite direction from the one in which Wade wants to take this thread, but I think it might be useful to have a few working possibilities for what the EA/GAEL actually WERE- perhaps that would strengthen the case in your favor

I think a strong enough case can be made for what the EA/GAEL were not intended to do without entering into the mystifying realm of trying to figure out what actually was their purpose. It is like it is easier to figure out what happiness isn't (such as a poke in the eye), than it is to figure out what it is. But your guess is as good as any.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

By far the most straightforward conclusion, and the one that best passes Occam's Razor, is that , consistently with the known external history of the texts, he made an (incomplete) grammar and alphabet first, and then later created the Book of Abraham drawing from, and inspired by, some of the ideas he developed in the EA/GAEL as well as the figures shown in the papyri. He tried to make a literal, character-per-character translation, but he didn't get past the first three or so verses before reverting to a modus operandus more similar to that by which he produced the Book of Mormon, although he still drew loosely from his prior work and from the figures.

Something just seems amiss here. If Joseph Smith, in essence, created the Book of Abraham from whole cloth, if, in other words, the BofA is a fictional book created entirely out of Joseph Smith's imagination, why on earth would he have created and involved himself with others in the creation of the EA materials, utilizing a language neither he nor they understood, instead of just sitting down, like J.R.R. Tolkien, and writing the bloody thing? He could just as easily have claimed afterword that his writing of the BofA was inspired as to have attempted, as Cobalt and other critics seem to think, to have somehow derived the Book of Abraham from the EA materials, which have no narrative form and which, as has been pointed out already, ad infinitum, contain, not primarily an Egyptian lexicon, but a small body of concepts and ideas that, if Will is correct (and I think the weight of the evidence is with him, thus far) already existed as theological concepts in preexisting texts.

However, even if we grant that the EA materials theoretically predate the BofA itself, we seem to run into some serious problems envisioning just what the rigamarole of the creation of the EA/GAEL was all about if all Joseph the fraud had to do was produce the text! In other words, as Joseph already claimed the mantel of prophet, capable and authorized by divine sanction to translate and restore ancient scripture, all he needed to do was restore scripture -produce it - as he had produced the Book of Mormon. The EA/GAEL, in other words, appears to be a needless procedure for a prophet, especially one who lacked any real knowledge of the language with which he was working, and who had already claimed to be able to translate ancient records through divine means beyond human capability.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Zeta-Flux]

Wade,

Let's grant (for a moment, for the sake of argument) that the EA and GAEL are mysterious documents, produced after the Book of Abraham, for an unknown reason. In that case, where does the translation of the mummy epitaphs that Chris Smith mentioned in my thread tie in?

[William Schryver]

Wade,

Let's grant (for a moment, for the sake of argument) that the EA and GAEL are mysterious documents, produced after the Book of Abraham, for an unknown reason. In that case, where does the translation of the mummy epitaphs that Chris Smith mentioned in my thread tie in?

Zeta,

I realize you did not ask me the question, but I would like to reply.

There is no evidence, of which I am aware, that suggests Joseph Smith performed the translation of the so-called "mummy epitaphs" in question. Chris likes to try to connect those things to Joseph Smith for his (Chris's) own purposes, but there is no real evidence that connects Joseph Smith to those things. I am personally inclined to think that it was Phelps who was "trying his hand" at translation when it comes to those things.

[Chris Smith]

The problem with the solution he has chosen is that, as I have noted repeatedly, the EA/GAEL contains elements, many of them virtually word-for-word, of all five chapters of the Book of Abraham; word-for-word elements of the explanations to Facsimile 2; and elements of D&C 76 and 88, and other of Joseph Smith’s previously received revelations.

Why is this a problem?

Given this reality, his “hybrid translation” theory does not answer to the evidence; it is not tenable—not to mention that it falls into the category of the unfalsifiable, which explains why Chris never provides any evidence for it in the first place. He merely (much as Cobalt-70 has done in this thread, asserts his conclusions, and asks us to trust that they are correct.

I have provided evidence for it. The fact that you're unpersuaded by that evidence doesn't mean you should deny it exists. And of course my theory is falsifiable. If you could provide chronological evidence that the BoA came first, it would be falsified. If you could provide textual evidence that the EAG is derived from the BoA rather than the other way around, it would be falsified. It only seems unfalsifiable because you haven't been able to find such evidence.

[Loran Blood]

Chris Smith:

The bolded part is necessitated by the fact that Chris’s primary thesis breaks down after the first three verses of chapter one. Therefore he casts about for something else to help him out of the bind he’s in.

I think recognizing that what Chris is doing here is essentially "tweaking" his thesis, on an ongoing basis, to ensure that its always able to take account of and undermine apologetic counter-arguments as they arise, is important in coming to some conclusions regarding both the nature of these kinds of arguments (how did a text long in the past originate (through what process and time frame) and what was the original intent, purpose, and relevance of various surrounding elements (such as the EAG) and the real sparseness of the documentary evidence that makes unalloyed theorizing of this kind necessary.

Chris must rely solely, as to central claims of his thesis, on floating theoretical assumptions (because there is no direct documentary evidence of these assumptions) from which he is able to derive further extrapolations as to what Joseph "probably" or "clearly" did and believed about his translation of the BofA. As this argument progresses, it becomes ever more apparent to me that the gap between the actual text-critical evidence that we actually have, and the preconceptions imposed upon it, is rather substantial.

The self referential nature of Chris's argument here is apparent:

My own hypothesis is that Joseph did have a prototype of the Book of Abraham in mind when he created the EAG. Furthermore, where there were lacunae in the papyri, he filled the lacunae with fictional characters constructed from the graphemes in the EAG. Very little of the material in the EAG was allowed to go to waste; he made sure to use as much of it as possible. (And really, there's not much there to begin with.) The EAG was used in translating the Book of Abraham only for the first chapter or so, and only as far as possible. Because most of the characters from the papyri do not appear in the EAG, for these characters Joseph had to supply an interpretation by revelation. The result is a hybrid translation-- partly derived from the EAG, and partly received by revelation.

Very neat and tidy. How to get ride of one of Will's salient criticisms? Propose that, to explain why the vast bulk of the characters in the Joseph Smith papyri do not appear in the EAG, hypothesize that Joseph used his imagination (revelation) to "supply an interpretation." not present in the EAG. That is, to save the critic's core thesis from being upended by the fact that the EAG does not appear all that related to either the papyri or the BofA, Chris theorizes that Joseph just made the vast majority of the text of the BofA up (supplied it by "revelation). Here, Chris gets to preserve the main element of the critic's argument (that the EA/GAEL preceded the BofA) by assuming that the quantity and quality of characters present in it were not adequate to Joseph's needs, forcing Joseph to "supply" the deficiency in the EAG through pure narrative creativity.

Lost here are two problems, the first being the lack of actual documentary evidence that Chris's theoretical assumptions are anywhere near the mark, and secondly that the EA/GAEL actually did preexist the text of the BofA, which is not at all settled. This is, in other words, fundamentally a circular argument, presuming much of what it intends ot demonstrate.

The problem with the solution he has chosen is that, as I have noted repeatedly, the EA/GAEL contains elements, many of them virtually word-for-word, of all five chapters of the Book of Abraham; word-for-word elements of the explanations to Facsimile 2; and elements of D&C 76 and 88, and other of Joseph Smith’s previously received revelations. Given this reality, his “hybrid translation” theory does not answer to the evidence; it is not tenable—not to mention that it falls into the category of the unfalsifiable, which explains why Chris never provides any evidence for it in the first place. He merely (much as Cobalt-70 has done in this thread, asserts his conclusions, and asks us to trust that they are correct.

Indeed. If the EAG preceded the BofA, and was, in some sense, a, or the major tool of its creation, and if, as Chris says, it was not adequate to that task, then obviously Joseph must have in some way "supplied" the necessary textual elements, EAG or no EAG. The circle is complete, with all the critics assumptions and biases intact.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Mortal Man]

Will,

In your Analysis by Character Study you state:

1 The “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language” contains divisions into “parts” and “degrees”. I am only distinguishing explanations by “degree” because there are no characters that appear in multiple “parts”. The EA documents also reference “parts” and “degrees”, but the distinctions are insignificant in the context of this study, and I have therefore omitted them.

This appears to be a major cause of your confusion regarding Chris' posts. "Parts" and "degrees" are two completely different things; their "distinctions" are not "insignificant". I'd suggest you review Chris' explanation before proceeding to publication, in order avoid embarrassment.

Because we're such good friends, I made you this visual aid.

Page 33 of the GAEL is entitled, "Second part of the Alphabet 1s[t] Degree". The "Alphabet" consists of the hieroglyphic characters in the 5 vertical registers shown above. When Joseph said that he was "...translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham..." he meant that he was translating the alphabet, graciously supplied by Abraham, on pJS 1.1. As I mentioned before, Joseph translated the "Alphabet" before the BoA because the "Alphabet" came before the "BoA" on the papyrus.

Your apologetic rush to divorce the BoA from the papyrus is blinding you to the obvious connections.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Mortal Man

[William Schryver]

If you could provide textual evidence that the EAG is derived from the BoA rather than the other way around, it would be falsified.

That is precisely what I have done. And the more opportunities you give me to link to that evidence, the more people become convinced of it. Here, let me do it again: Dependency of the EA/GAEL on Pre-existing Text of the BoA

I also recommend Dan McClellan's arguments in favor of a portion of the evidence I presented.

That you and your friends close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, shout "na, na, na, na, na, na, na ...", and deny it, will not make it go away.

[Zeta-Flux]

Zeta,

I realize you did not ask me the question, but I would like to reply.

There is no evidence, of which I am aware, that suggests Joseph Smith performed the translation of the so-called "mummy epitaphs" in question. Chris likes to try to connect those things to Joseph Smith for his (Chris's) own purposes, but there is no real evidence that connects Joseph Smith to those things. I am personally inclined to think that it was Phelps who was "trying his hand" at translation when it comes to those things.

Your reply is appreciated.

Let me refine my question. If we grant that the EA and GAEL are these "strange beasts" that are somewhat incomprehensible, the so-called "mummy epitaphs" differ in that regard, as far as I could tell from the sparse treatment I read by Chris. They look to be an actual attempt to translate actual ancient documents (whether that translation was commenced by Joseph Smith, or some other character). They don't involve made-up symbols, etc...

So, what are they? Is the date of 1835 correct? Do they involve previous revelations from Joseph Smith? In short, what leads you to find similarities between them and the other documents produced by Phelps?

(By the way, what shall we call the so-called "mummy epitaphs"? What is their proper title? And are there better pictures of this translation? The one on Chris's website was hard to read.)

[William Schryver]

Your apologetic rush to divorce the BoA from the papyrus is blinding you to the connections.

There is blindness occurring somewhere, that much I can see.

By the way, where on the papyri are the characters from Phelps's letter to his wife?

[William Schryver]

Your reply is appreciated.

Let me refine my question. If we grant that the EA and GAEL are these "strange beasts" that are somewhat incomprehensible, the so-called "mummy epitaphs" differ in that regard, as far as I could tell from the sparse treatment I read by Chris. They look to be an actual attempt to translate actual ancient documents (whether that translation was commenced by Joseph Smith, or some other character). They don't involve made-up symbols, etc...

So, what are they? Is the date of 1835 correct? Do they involve previous revelations from Joseph Smith? In short, what leads you to find similarities between them and the other documents produced by Phelps?

(By the way, what shall we call the so-called "mummy epitaphs"? What is their proper title? And are there better pictures of this translation? The one on Chris's website was hard to read.)

Zeta,

I appreciate your interest in these things, but I think I do not want to introduce that discussion as a sidetrack to the current one. Not at this point. There are some very interesting things in the small notebooks, which is where the things Chris calls "mummy epitaphs" are to be found. (At least I think it was Chris who called them "mummy epitaphs.") But discussion of them at this point would, I fear, launch us down a sidetrack I don't want to go down right now.

ETA: Especially since I'm going to sleep now.

Edited November 2, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mortal Man]

By the way, where on the papyri are the characters from Phelps's letter to his wife?

Right next to "Mehitabel".

[Zeta-Flux]

Zeta,

I appreciate your interest in these things, but I think I do not want to introduce that discussion as a sidetrack to the current one. Not at this point. There are some very interesting things in the small notebooks, which is where the things Chris calls "mummy epitaphs" are to be found. (At least I think it was Chris who called them "mummy epitaphs.") But discussion of them at this point would, I fear, launch us down a sidetrack I don't want to go down right now.

ETA: Especially since I'm going to sleep now.

Goodnight. Sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite.

I'm not sure it is a sidetrack since this thread is about the following question: "Rather than addressing the question of what was the intent and purpose of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers (JSEP), this thread is devoted to the presentation of arguments against the proposition that the JSEP were produced with the intent of "translating" or developing the Book of Abraham from the papyri."

I think the question of whether the mummy epitaph translations are an attempt at translating the papyri, and whether they have any connections to the other projects, is a step towards understanding whether we should group the EA and GAEL as a separate project. But I'll let Wade make the final decision on this.

[Analytics]

Analytics,

You appear to believe that no one was ever arguing that the EA/GAEL was Joseph Smith's modus operandi for translating the Book of Abraham. Well, then, please feel free to articulate what you believe critics were arguing about the EA/GAEL prior to the publication of Chris Smith's JWHA paper back in the summer of 2010. They certainly weren't arguing Chris Smith's theory, since his argument represented a distinct innovation in terms of the critical arguments concerning the EA/GAEL. Indeed, I'm fairly certain his argument was, to at least some extent, motivated by the fact that I had been hinting at the notion of a pre-existing text of the BoA, in message board posts, for a long time prior to my 2010 FAIR presentation.

We all look forward to your reply ...

I thought the basic argument has always been that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham and made up the EA/GAEL. The significance of the EA/GAEL was that it provided further proof that Smith couldn't translate Egyptian, and provided a connection to the papyri that was the alleged source of the translation, proving the text of the Book of Abraham was translated no better than the facsimiles.

[Analytics]

I just found out that the topic of whether or not Will accurately represents the critics viewpoint has been discussed on my so-called "home board". Here are some quotes from key critics that illustrate that Will doesn't represent their position accurately:

Brent Metcalfe: "I don't know a single scholar who has ever argued that the Egyptian alphabet and grammar project provided a translation key for the entire BoAbr (though I believe a strong case can be made that Abr. 1:1–3 evolved out of the project)."

Dan Vogel: "I certainly don’t think the GAEL and Alphabets were necessary before translation could begin."

Chris Smith: "[i believe the A&G were used to translate] those three verses [Abr 1:1-3] and a few others in chapter 1."

Kevin Graham: "I do not believe the GAEL were used to translate much beyond Abr 1:1-3"

Regarding the RLDS scholar Richard P. Howard, he has said, "it may be helpful to suggest that the Book of Abraham represents simply the product of Joseph Smith Jr.'s imagination," so also I doubt he would say that the EA/GAEL was an functioning lexicon that was actually used to produce the Book of Abraham.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

As I see it, whether the EA/GAEL came before or after the BOA is irrelevant. I think Joseph took elements from his environment, like masonry and the endowment, like the papyrus, also as he did with the Book of Mormon, combined them with what he was able to "study out in his mind" if we would see it today as "scholarship" or folk magic, or whatever, throw it all into a pot as it were in his mind, and come up with a unique stew in each case, which I personally believe was inspired by God.

I don't know how any human of his time could come up with the works of religious genius he did combining Christianity with philosophical principles which were in the avant garde during this period, without postulating some kind of divine gift- even though I personally feel I have had direct revelation from God that these works of his are indeed from God.

That was clearly his modus operandi - take bits and pieces from here and there, put them together according to his understanding, and come up with something completely new. In other words, I still buy into the "catalyst" theory.

The only issue that I see was whether or not he was a prophet or a fraud, and I have my answer to that one.

[Chris Smith]

That is precisely what I have done. And the more opportunities you give me to link to that evidence, the more people become convinced of it. Here, let me do it again: Dependency of the EA/GAEL on Pre-existing Text of the BoA

And I find your arguments unpersuasive for the reasons I've explained. Agree to disagree. *shrug*

[Chris Smith]

Regarding the RLDS scholar Richard P. Howard, he has said, "it may be helpful to suggest that the Book of Abraham represents simply the product of Joseph Smith Jr.'s imagination," so also I doubt he would say that the EA/GAEL was an functioning lexicon that was actually used to produce the Book of Abraham.

FWIW, here's something I posted a while back:

As an aside, it should be noted that I (following Hugh Nibley) and William (following me) probably mischaracterized Howard's claim. Upon re-reading the Howard essay since publishing my paper, I realized that he wasn't making a claim about the relationship of the Egyptian Alphabet to the translation manuscripts, but rather about the relationship of the Egyptian characters to the English text. The

modus operandi

Howard was referring to was simply that the English text of Abr. 1:4-2:18 was "created under the stimulus of each of the Egyptian markings [in the manuscript margins]."

The misunderstanding of Howard's claim arose because of the way Howard referred to the translation manuscripts as part of the "Alphabet and Grammar" material. The Tanners' 1966 publication of

Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar

made no distinction between the Alphabet and Grammar and the translation manuscripts, and this was the only edition of the Egyptian papers Howard had access to. When Nibley introduced a distinction between the translation manuscripts and the Alphabet and Grammar in 1971, Howard's meaning became confused.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

I just found out that the topic of whether or not Will accurately represents the critics viewpoint has been discussed on my so-called "home board". Here are some quotes from key critics that illustrate that Will doesn't represent their position accurately:

Brent Metcalfe: "I don't know a single scholar who has ever argued that the Egyptian alphabet and grammar project provided a translation key for the entire BoAbr (though I believe a strong case can be made that Abr. 1:1–3 evolved out of the project)."

Dan Vogel: "I certainly don’t think the GAEL and Alphabets were necessary before translation could begin."

Chris Smith: "[i believe the A&G were used to translate] those three verses [Abr 1:1-3] and a few others in chapter 1."

Kevin Graham: "I do not believe the GAEL were used to translate much beyond Abr 1:1-3"

Regarding the RLDS scholar Richard P. Howard, he has said, "it may be helpful to suggest that the Book of Abraham represents simply the product of Joseph Smith Jr.'s imagination," so also I doubt he would say that the EA/GAEL was an functioning lexicon that was actually used to produce the Book of Abraham.

Someone is not representing the truth accurately, that's for sure.

It is fascinating to me that, up until the summer of 2010, critics routinely argued that the Alphabet and Grammar was the modus operandi of Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham. But now they all act as though they have never heard of such a thing!

First of all, the Richard P. Howard citation I mentioned earlier, from 1970. Howard's paper was more or less the seminal work on the topic once the papyri had been restored to the Church and copies of the purloined microfilms of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers had begun to circulate:

The publication of Joseph Smith’s original Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar by the Modern Microfilm Company of Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1966 is significant from another standpoint too. Not only do the pages of this document reveal Joseph Smith’s unique system for approaching the study of the Egyptian language, but more importantly, a sizable portion of the early part of the Book of Abraham text itself appears there as well. A quick glance at any of the pages containing Book of Abraham texts discloses the modus operandi of Joseph Smith determining its content.

Richard P. Howard, The “Book of Abraham” in the Light of History and Egyptology, Courage – A Journal of History, Thought, and Action, April 1970:38

But, by far, the most often quoted work since its publication is Edward H. Ashment's 1990 essay from Dan Vogel's widely read compendium The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture. The relevant quote therefrom:

… it was felt that one and the same sign--and even parts of signs--could be used on several different levels in order to produce expanded meanings, with the result that entire verses could be produced from a single sign. Thus, contrary to Nibley's assertions that the A-G documents "were not used in any translation,"²⁴ they indeed were and indicate the "modus operandi"²⁵ for Smith's "translation" of at least the first two chapters and eighteen verses of the Book of Abraham.

Edward H. Ashment, Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study, from The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, Vogel ed., (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1990): 221-35 (emphasis mine)

I had forgotten, until re-reading it this morning, how riddled with factual errors Ashment's essay is. It is stunning to me that, for so many years, it has constituted the authoritative source for so many Mormon critics seeking to opine on the topic of the Book of Abraham and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

OK, Analytics, now that we have gotten that out of the way once and for all, why don't you share with us a different explanation put forth by critics of the purpose of the Alphabet and Grammar, and please cite for us a source that pre-dates Christopher Smith's summer 2010 article in the John Whitmer History Association journal.

Edited November 2, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

And I find your arguments unpersuasive for the reasons I've explained. Agree to disagree. *shrug*

Yes, but I find your arguments unpersuasive because they lack any evidence.

You choose to find my arguments unpersuasive despite the evidence.

[William Schryver]

Goodnight. Sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite.

I'm not sure it is a sidetrack since this thread is about the following question: "Rather than addressing the question of what was the intent and purpose of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers (JSEP), this thread is devoted to the presentation of arguments against the proposition that the JSEP were produced with the intent of "translating" or developing the Book of Abraham from the papyri."

I think the question of whether the mummy epitaph translations are an attempt at translating the papyri, and whether they have any connections to the other projects, is a step towards understanding whether we should group the EA and GAEL as a separate project. But I'll let Wade make the final decision on this.

Zeta,

There is actually only one so-called "mummy epitaph translation". One is copied from the other. I have not yet concluded with certainty which was copied from which, but I believe the W. W. Phelps version (EN-WP) is copied from the Oliver Cowdery version (EN-OC). I have a developing theory on what Cowdery was doing, or what he thought he was doing, but I am reluctant to divulge it at this point in time. I will say this: Nibley was definitely mistaken in terms of his interpretation of these two documents.

The text of the Cowdery "translation" reads as follows:

(characters)Katumin, Princess, daughter of On-i-tas [Pharaoh King]

of Egypt, (characters) who ^began to^ reigned in the year of the

world 2962.

(characters)Katumin was born in the 30th year of the reign of her

father, and died when she was 28 years old, which was

the year 3020.

ETA: As I have reviewed my notes, and looked again at the manuscripts this morning, I would say the textual evidence is virtually conclusive that Phelps copied the Cowdery version.

Here is the transcription of the Phelps version:

Katumin, Princess, daughter of On=i=tas ^King^ of Egypt, who

reigned began to reign in the year of the world, 2962.

Katumin was born in the 30^th year of the reign of her

father, and died when she was 28^th years old, which was ^the year^ 3020

Edited November 2, 2011 by William Schryver