Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[Chris Smith]

You have no evidence to suggest that he did.

Besides the HC and diary entries, you mean? And besides his handwriting on one of the manuscripts?

They weren't followed at all! There is no indication anywhere else that these instructions factored into anything they did!

It appears to me that they did supply parts of speech in translating Abr. 1:1-3, albeit not strictly following the rules (just as you observed of the examples within the GAEL itself). I agree with you, though, that the rules specifically regarding horizontal lines were not used in the Book of Abraham translation at all. But again, that has no bearing on whether they were intended to be a translation tool.

Other than the highly disputable example you demonstrate, there are clearly no instances of characters on the papyrus that have horizontal lines above or below them.

That single example is the character in relation to which these rules were initially formulated. Therefore, no other example is necessary.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Cobalt-70]

I have answered your question. Now may I ask again if you would please be so kind as to respond to the arguments I have raised in this thread (arguments 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and now 3d)?

Okay, here we go:

1. You argue that because (i) Smith and his scribes never said that the EA/GAEL was used to translate the BofA, and (ii) they did say that the BofA was translated "by the power of God," that therefore, (iii) the EA/GAEL was not used to translate the BofA.

The first problem with that argument is that it is possible for Smith to have used the EA/GAEL while also translating by the power of God (i.e., using seer stones or some other mystical process). In translating the Book of Mormon, for example, Smith used the King James Version of the Bible, yet still used his seer stone. It is not an either-or proposition. The second problem is that just because Smith did not say that he used the EA/GAEL does not mean that he didn't in fact use it. He didn't say that he used his seer stone, or the KJV, to translate the Book of Mormon, either, but we know that he did, based on external and internal evidence.

2. You argue that the use of the EA/GAEL in translating the BofA runs against Smith's "standard operating procedures" for translation, because Smith's standard procedure was to use a mystical process such as the use of seer stones.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the use of EA/GAEL, and the use of a mystical process, are mutually exclusive. Smith is capable of using pre-existing texts during the process of performing a mystical translation. If you believe Smith used the papyri itself, that is a pre-existing text. Same with the golden plates. Same with his use of the KJV in producing Smith's translation of the Bible. Your argument leaves out the option that Smith used the EA/GAEL (along with the papyri itself, the D&C, and the Book of Genesis) as one of his sources during the course of a mystical translation, just as he used the KJV and arguably the golden plates while mystically translating the Book of Mormon.

3a. You argue that it makes no sense to you that Smith would produce a complex and esoteric Egyptian dictionary as a means for producing the BofA, when he could have just done it mystically, and been done with it.

If Smith were a conscious fraud, then I think he would have taken the course you suggest. That he actually tried to figure the characters out, one by one, is evidence that he honestly believed he had the gift of translation. It makes perfect sense that he would try (at least initially) to do a character-by-character analysis, in view of what he had earlier said about the translation process. When Oliver Cowdery once tried to translate a lost ancient document using his dowsing rod, Smith produced a revelation chastising Cowdery because he did not "study it out in [his] mind" first, before he could receive a mystical verification that his translation was correct. See D&C 9:8. That Smith followed the same advice with the Book of Abraham should not be surprising.

3b. You argue that because little of the BofA corresponds with the EA/GAEL, that it would have been a waste of time for Smith to have spent time on the EA/GAEL as a means to translating the BofA.

First of all, it would have been an even greater waste of time to produce the EA/GAEL after the BofA was already translated. I think that William Schryver's hypothesis that it was produced as a cipher with some connection the Templar Knights is a bit far-fetched. And if that were the purpose of producing the EA/GAEL, then I can't think of a greater waste of time than producing a cipher that could only encode texts about pseudo-Astronomy and esoteric Egyptian history.

Second, it is easy to judge, with 20-20 hindsight, that the EA/GAEL was a waste of time, given that not much of it directly went into the final BofA. However, from Joseph Smith's 1835 perspective, it might have seemed like a very good idea, given that he had a lot of papyri to translate, and he had always said that some day he would be bringing forth many lost ancient scriptures., much of them perhaps in Egyptian. He did not know at the time that the Book of Abraham would be his last translation of lost ancient scripture. He also presumably did not know that producing a comprehensive Egyptian alphabet and grammar was biting off more than he could chew, and that to complete the BofA in any reasonable amount of time he would have to abandon the project.

3c. You argue that because not all the characters from the EA/GAEL come from the papyri, that the EA/GAEL was not related to translating the papyri.

That the EA/GAEL contains any characters from the papyri, and purports to give translations that are also found in the Book of Abraham, shows that this dictionary contained intended translations that are at least related to the translation process of the BofA.

The (incomplete) EA/GAEL was to be an alphabetic and grammatical dictionary for the Egyptian language. The EA/GAEL was not, itself, the direct translation of the papyri. The likelihood that the Chandler papyri would contain every single "character" of the Egyptian language would have been remote. Where did the other Egyptian characters come from? Probably Smith's seer stone.

3d. You argue that because nobody can use the EA/GAEL to translate the snippet of your choosing from the papyri, that therefore the EA/GAEL was not intended for use in translating the papyri.

This is a non-sequitur, because Smith never completed a comprehensive alphabet or grammar of the Egyptian language, and the incomplete grammar and alphabet he did produce was not very suitable for directly translating more than the first three verses of the BofA anyway.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[KevinG]

Can someone post a short glossary of the various acronyms describing the various documents in the various arguments. Thanks!

[William Schryver]

Besides the HC and diary entries, you mean? And besides his handwriting on one of the manuscripts?

No one is disputing the EA-JS document, but it looks to me like he lost interest in the thing.

There is no evidence he had anything at all to do with the GAEL.

It appears to me that they did supply parts of speech in translating Abr. 1:1-3 ...

No they didn't. As I demonstrate very plainly here, virtually every word, almost word for word of Abr. 1:1-3 is contained in the EA/GAEL, phrases listed in the precise order they appear in Abr. 1:1-3. What you say is simply not true.

.. albeit not strictly following the rules (just as you observed of the examples within the GAEL itself).

You mean "not following the rules at all." (Sometimes I wonder if you're just messing with us when you say things like this; testing us to see if we'll catch you in your dissembling (which is a "participle".)

I agree with you, though, that the rules specifically regarding horizontal lines were not used in the Book of Abraham translation at all. But again, that has no bearing on whether they were intended to be a translation tool.

Are you serious? Can you seriously just ignore the implications of the methodological instructions in terms of them absolutely precluding a papyrus translation? Wade also made a good observation that I hadn't caught previously. In the rules for the fifth degree, it reads:

By inserting a straight mark

over it thus, (2) it increases its signification five

degrees: by inserting two straight lines, thus: (3) its signi=

fication is increased five times more. By inserting

three straight lines thus (4) its signification is again

increased five times more than the last.

It is speaking not of something a writer has done, but of something the writer may do. Again, this reveals the purpose of the document to not be related to translating the papyrus, as do many other aspects of the EA/GAEL about which I have already spoken.

That single example is the character in relation to which these rules were initially formulated. Therefore, no other example is necessary.

No it's not!

Are you simply counting on the fact that very few people are going to know you're dissembling on these points? Is that why you throw these false statements out the way you do? I'm seriously beginning to wonder.

The methodological instructions for the fifth degree of which I am speaking are on page 1 of the GAEL. They apply to the characters in the fifth degree. The entry for iota nitah veh ah que that you cited consist of a small paragraph, associated with the character explanation itself, in the first degree, on page 21.

You're not being honest Chris. Why is that? Please don't question other posters honesty. -mod

[Mortal Man]

In the reproduction of the lion couch vignette as Facimile 1 in the published Book of Abraham, why does it not contain the alleged "invented" characters from your proposed Part 1?

Good question Will, I was waiting for someone to ask that.

There was a 6.5 year gap between the EA/GAEL exercise and production of the woodcut for Facsimile 1. I'd say that Hedlock simply missed it. Apparently they weren't too concerned about the characters on the papyrus at that time because Richards didn't bother with the margin characters in the printer's manuscripts.

I should also say that, while Parts 2, 3, 4 & 5 are certain, my label for Part 1 is somewhat speculative. I think it's probably what they would have called Part 1 but there is just not enough of the column available to know for sure.

Oh, and you still haven't answered my previous question concerning the characters from the Phelps letter to his wife. Where would they be found on the papyrus? Where exactly would you fit them into Part 2? And how exactly did Phelps come to be using them weeks before the papyri rolled into town?

Obviously, we should not expect these characters to be on the papyrus. By "restoring" them to the damaged papyrus, Joseph co-opted Abraham's endorsement of his work on the pure language.

[wenglund]

I am wondering about this image of the papyri, particularly the character given the sound of "iota ni tah veh - Ah que". On the graphic of the papyri that Mortal Man posted earlier (with the numbers 1-5 supposedly marking the parts of the alphabet), there doesn't appear to be a line with a dot underneath it center right, but rather a series of 5 dots spread out. Could someone with a better graphic confirm which is the correct image.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

{skipping the mocking, ad hominem rant}

Never mind that there is no record of Joseph Smith, of all people, ever doing such a thing. He had, a little more than five years previous, recited, over the course of less than 90 days, a 500+ page Book of Mormon. But for the Book of Abraham, the printed text of which occupies all of 11 pages, he composed beforehand a dossier of characters, the total length of which is greater than the book it was supposedly being prepared to facilitate!

You forget that Smith also intended to translate the Book of Joseph, and perhaps other Egyptian artifacts. He could not have known, prior to translating it, how long the Book of Abraham would turn out to be. Plus, if Smith had been able to create a real alphabet and grammar of the Egyptian language, this would have been valuable to scholars of his day, and the church would likely have obtained many learned converts to the church.

[wenglund]

Okay, here we go:

1. You argue that because (i) Smith and his scribes never said that the EA/GAEL was used to translate the BofA, and (ii) they did say that the BofA was translated "by the power of God," that therefore, (iii) the EA/GAEL was not used to translate the BofA.

The first problem with that argument is that it is possible for Smith to have used the EA/GAEL while also translating by the power of God (i.e., using seer stones or some other mystical process). In translating the Book of Mormon, for example, Smith used the King James Version of the Bible, yet still used his seer stone. It is not an either-or proposition. The second problem is that just because Smith did not say that he used the EA/GAEL does not mean that he didn't in fact use it. He didn't say that he used his seer stone, or the KJV, to translate the Book of Mormon, either, but we know that he did, based on external and internal evidence.

Actually, the problem is yours in that you are confusing the source document with the means of translation. With the JST, the KJV was, in some respects, the source document, and the seer stone the means of translation; whereas with in terms of the BoA, the papyrus was the source document, whereas you and others are suggesting that the EA/GAEL is the means of translation (a naturalistic methodology), whereas the principles involved (Joseph and his scribes--Warren Parrish in particular) and church historians (John Whitmer), leaders, and members at the time, consistently indicate it was translated by the gift and power of God (a supernaturalistic means).

Granted, this first argument isn't definitive, but it weighs against the proposition in question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 3, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

... Smith never completed a comprehensive alphabet or grammar of the Egyptian language ...

Mainly because he never attempted to do such a thing, as evidenced by what is rapidly becoming a mountain of facts.

... and the incomplete grammar and alphabet he did produce was not very suitable for directly translating more than the first three verses of the BofA anyway.

As I have demonstrated repeatedly, it wasn't suitable for doing anything, least of all "directly translating" something that had been translated prior to the EA/GAEL project's commencement.

I've concluded that you people are simply counting on the fact that your target audience (the already apostatized) are entirely disinterested with the facts and details of this issue, and are entirely willing to accept literally anything said by those they have chosen to regard as their "experts" on the issue. Those experts are also rather disinterested in the facts and details, except as they can harness a handful of them and then misrepresent them such that they can present the semblance of knowledge to the target audience.

I can see how it makes your job much easier than mine. I have to actually dig into this stuff, tearing apart detail by detail and organizing and analyzing the data in order to see why people like Ashment, for example, didn't have a freaking clue what he was talking about when he addressed questions about the KEP. Unfortunately, (and this may be, I acknowledge, consequent to the long-standing difficulty in obtaining high-quality images of the source documents) very few people among the believing LDS have undertaken, in the past forty years, to really study and seek to come to an understanding concerning the meaning and purpose of the KEP. In the meantime, you've got someone like Metcalfe who has had high-quality images, but who has spent 25+ years clinging resolutely to his monopoly on them and pretending to be the sole-source expert on them, all the while never really saying anything about them, except to assure his target audience (the confirmed apostates) that everything in them confirms what they've always suspected: they prove Joseph Smith was a fraud.

Well, thank goodness the times, they are a-changin'. I don't have the background of a scholar, and I may not always apply to the questions methodologies that qualify as "scholarly", but I do at least have images that are even superior to those of Metcalfe, and therefore I have been able, in the course of less than two years, to lift the covers on these things to my target audience: those who are believing LDS who want to know more about this topic. I have been able to share my findings to date with people like Royal Skousen and Dan McClellan, who then begin to apply classic text criticism methodologies to the problems, and confirm my findings through those means. Although I have become convinced (after self-educating myself, with works suggested by Royal and Dan) that the questions posed by the KEP very often do not fall under the umbrella of methodologies that have been developed to deal with transmitted texts (Old and New Testament, for the most part). The KEP are original documents, with a few copied texts as well. Classic text-critical methodologies are very helpful with the Abraham manuscripts, but are not very helpful at all when it comes to the EA/GAEL. When it comes to the EA/GAEL, my computer programming skills have actually served me very well in attempting to decipher their meaning and purpose.

Anyway, I have no doubt that Chris Smith and Cobalt-70 will continue to toe the party line and try to hoodwink the faithful apostates that these documents confirm their unfaith. But the tide is turning when it comes to these things. Give it another ten years, and it will turn into a tsunami. The Kirtland Egyptian Papers do NOT prove Joseph Smith was a fraud and that the Book of Abraham was a rank imposture. They likewise do not prove that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the BoA is inspired scripture. But what they do is shed light on the process of how the BoA was produced, and what a group of inquisitive men in Kirtland, OH, circa 1835 did in their quickly aborted attempt to craft a lexicon consistent with the properties of what they thought was "pure language".

There is no historical evidence that they developed or used the EA/GAEL to translate Egyptian papyri. That is a myth crafted by 20th century apostates. On the other hand, there is abundant textual evidence that the EA/GAEL derives from an already received Book of Abraham, as well as elements of the Doctrine and Covenants, and that its purpose--although unclear and unfinished--was related to exploring their understanding of and desires to recapture "the pure language of the ancients."

Edited November 3, 2011 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

2. You argue that the use of the EA/GAEL in translating the BofA runs against Smith's "standard operating procedures" for translation, because Smith's standard procedure was to use a mystical process such as the use of seer stones.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the use of EA/GAEL, and the use of a mystical process, are mutually exclusive.

Actually, I am logically assuming a difference between a naturalistic methodology (EA/GAEL) and a supernaturalistic methodology (seer stones, etc.). Based on that logical assumption, I have looked at the historical data, and I have determined that in terms of translation of scripture, the standard methodology used by Joseph for translating scriptures has consistently and authoritatively been attributed to the supernaturalistic. I am arguing that the EA/GAEL as a naturalistic methodology, runs contrary to the standard methodology when it comes to translating scriptures like the BoA.

Smith is capable of using pre-existing texts during the process of performing a mystical translation. If you believe Smith used the papyri itself, that is a pre-existing text. Same with the golden plates. Same with his use of the KJV in producing Smith's translation of the Bible. Your argument leaves out the option that Smith used the EA/GAEL (along with the papyri itself, the D&C, and the Book of Genesis) as one of his sources during the course of a mystical translation, just as he used the KJV and arguably the golden plates while mystically translating the Book of Mormon.

Here again you are confusing the source document with the means of translation.

Again, this argument isn't definitive. It simply weights against the proposition in question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Answering my question about why the characters from Part 1 of the EA/GAEL (characters 1 - 23) do not appear on his proposed "Part 1" of the papyrus:

There was a 6.5 year gap between the EA/GAEL exercise and production of the woodcut for Facsimile 1. I'd say that Hedlock simply missed it. Apparently they weren't too concerned about the characters on the papyrus at that time because Richards didn't bother with the margin characters in the printer's manuscripts.

I am ... speechless.

Yeah, Andrew, that must be the reason.

I'll bet it really looked just like this, right?

I've always said, you do have a good sense of humor.

[Chris Smith]

There is no evidence he had anything at all to do with the GAEL.

The October 1 diary entry doesn't count, I suppose?

No they didn't. As I demonstrate very plainly here, virtually every word, almost word for word of Abr. 1:1-3 is contained in the EA/GAEL, phrases listed in the precise order they appear in Abr. 1:1-3. What you say is simply not true.

You're exaggerating. If you examine your own video, you'll see that not everything you bolded is actually there in the EAG.

It is speaking not of something a writer has done, but of something the writer may do.

Right. The part of my argument you and Wade don't seem to understand is that I've never claimed the EAG was created exclusively to translate the BoA. That was its immediate purpose, sure, but Smith and his colleagues apparently hoped to achieve actual mastery of the language. In accordance with this ambition, the EAG is written as an all-purpose Egyptian lexicon. (In fact, there's an interesting homology between the Grammar's degrees and the Masonic degrees, suggesting that Smith and his colleagues may have seen the stages of this project as stages of initiation into esoteric knowledge. Understanding Egyptian was a religious, not just a utilitarian goal.)

The methodological instructions for the fifth degree of which I am speaking are on page 1 of the GAEL. They apply to the characters in the fifth degree. The entry for iota nitah veh ah que that you cited consist of a small paragraph, associated with the character explanation itself, in the first degree, on page 21.

The fifth degree instructions are of course an expansion of the instructions from the earlier degrees.

You're not being honest Chris. Why is that?

First I'm a blowhard, then a coward, and now a liar. Is this kind of rhetoric really appropriate to the Mormon "Dialogue" board?

Edited November 3, 2011 by Chris Smith

[William Schryver]

Could someone with a better graphic confirm which is the correct image.

What's wrong with you, Wade? Can't you see the line with a dot underneath it?

[William Schryver]

The October 1 diary entry doesn't count, I suppose?

Why should it? It says nothing about working on the Grammar and Alphabet.

You're exaggerating. If you examine your own video, you'll see that not everything you bolded is actually there in the EAG.

You're bluffing. Bad idea. I list the EA/GAEL entries in the left column. Let our readers see for themselves how much of Abr. 1:1-3 is contained in the EA/GAEL. No one had any need to fill in any substantial gaps. It's virtually all there.

Right. The part of my argument you and Wade don't seem to understand is that I've never claimed the EAG was created exclusively to translate the BoA. That was its immediate purpose, sure, but Smith and his colleagues apparently hoped to achieve actual mastery of the language. In accordance with this ambition, the EAG is written as an all-purpose Egyptian lexicon. (In fact, there's an interesting homology between the Grammar's degrees and the Masonic degrees, suggesting that Smith and his colleagues may have seen the stages of this project as stages of initiation into esoteric knowledge. Understanding Egyptian was a religious, not just a utilitarian goal.)

Given the contents of the EA/GAEL, your argument is incoherent. Saying things like this still flies pretty well with your ignorant-about-the-details target audience at MDB, but with the folks here who are becoming increasingly educated about these things with each new thread in which you attempt to defend your arguments against my detailed (and evidence-laden) explanations, these kinds of assertions are becoming less and less capable of fooling them.

The fifth degree instructions are of course an expansion of the instructions from the earlier degrees.

No, they're not. They're virtually unrelated to the first and second degree instructions. And you are either consciously dissembling, trying to pull one over on the unsuspecting reader, or else you are ignorant of the huge differences between the methodological instructions in each degree.

Those following along can see here:

First Degree

Second Degree

Fifth Degree

First I'm a blowhard, then a coward, and now a liar. Is this kind of rhetoric really appropriate to the Mormon "Dialogue" board?

Look, you're the one saying the things that are demonstrably untrue. I'm simply demonstrating the evidence. I can't help what you're saying. Stop saying things that aren't true, and I'll stop having to prove you wrong.

Edited November 3, 2011 by William Schryver

[Ares]

Saying things that are demonstrably untrue can be lying, speaking honestly from misinformation or confusion.

While anyone is welcome to point out that another poster is demonstrably wrong, they are not welcome to call the other a liar.

Clear enough?

[Chris Smith]

Why should it? It says nothing about working on the Grammar and Alphabet.

Now who's saying things that are demonstrably untrue?

You're bluffing.

Your third graphic amply illustrates my point. You've highlighted "holding the right belonging to the fathers," but that's not in the entry. You did this in other slides, as well. Are most of the key words and concepts in the EAG? Yes. But some of the connecting verbiage is not.

No, they're not. They're virtually unrelated to the first and second degree instructions. And you are either consciously dissembling, trying to pull one over on the unsuspecting reader, or else you are ignorant of the huge differences between the methodological instructions in each degree.

Those following along can see here:

First Degree

Second Degree

Fifth Degree

I do hope you're going to link your readers to the Iota nitahach ahque entries as well, since those are the entries we were discussing.

Given the contents of the EA/GAEL, your argument is incoherent. Saying things like this still flies pretty well with your ignorant-about-the-details target audience at MDB, but with the folks here who are becoming increasingly educated about these things with each new thread in which you attempt to defend your arguments against my detailed (and evidence-laden) explanations, these kinds of assertions are becoming less and less capable of fooling them. ... Look, you're the one saying the things that are demonstrably untrue. I'm simply demonstrating the evidence. I can't help what you're saying. Stop saying things that aren't true, and I'll stop having to prove you wrong.

You appear to be coming unhinged. I think I'll get back to work while you cool off. Have a good evening,

-Chris

Edited November 3, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Ares]

You appear to be coming unhinged. I think I'll get back to work while you cool off. Have a good evening,

-Chris

Don't make comments like then then complain to the moderators about how you are being treated. A break is probably warranted.

[William Schryver]

Saying things that are demonstrably untrue can be lying, speaking honestly from misinformation or confusion.

I agree 100%. I don't believe Chris has been speaking honestly from misinformation or confusion. Chris has been stating things that I believe he knows to be untrue. Therefore I have demonstrated the evidence that proves it.

While anyone is welcome to point out that another poster is demonstrably wrong, they are not welcome to call the other a liar.

Clear enough?

Clear enough to me. I have called no one a liar. I believe I used the word "dissembling," which is rather different than calling one a liar.

[William Schryver]

You appear to be coming unhinged. I think I'll get back to work while you cool off.

No, Chris. Demonstrating with evidence where your statements do not accord with the facts is not "coming unhinged." Quite to the contrary.

[William Schryver]

Weird. Duplicated in a quote box again.

Edited November 3, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

Now who's saying things that are demonstrably untrue?

The entry reads:

He stayed at home and labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with brethren O. Cowdery & W.W. Phelps: The system of astronomy was unfolded.

There is, as I have noted frequently, and as I believe most of our readers now understand very clearly, a distinct difference between the "Egyptian Alphabet" and "The Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language".

The HOC entry in question appears to directly reference the Egyptian Alphabet documents, which Joseph Smith, quite admittedly, helped produce. On the other hand, I have steadfastly maintained that Joseph Smith had little or anything to do with the GAEL, which appears to be Phelps's production.

No, what I said is NOT demonstrably untrue. In fact, it fully supports my statement, as I well knew.

ETA: As a matter of fact, we don't know, and I seriously doubt, that the GAEL project had been commenced prior to October 1, 1835. I think Phelps started it sometime later that month.

Edited November 3, 2011 by William Schryver

[Chris Smith]

A break is probably warranted.

After this thread, I think I will take a break. The bullying and unwarranted abuse has taken its toll. We'll see if I have the willpower to stay away for good.

[KevinG]

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, the problem is yours in that you are confusing the source document with the means of translation. With the JST, the KJV was, in some respects, the source document, and the seer stone the means of translation; whereas with in terms of the BoA, the papyrus was the source document, whereas you and others are suggesting that the EA/GAEL is the means of translation (a naturalistic methodology), whereas the principles involved (Joseph and his scribes--Warren Parrish in particular) and church historians (John Whitmer), leaders, and members at the time, consistently indicate it was translated by the gift and power of God (a supernaturalistic means).

With respect to the Book of Abraham (excluding the first three verses), the EA/GAEL was not a "means of translation." It was an intermediary source from which he drew inspiration and in many cases actual text as part of a process that was primarily mystical, and hardly at all "naturalistic" in his eyes. That Smith wished for a more academically-valid and naturalistic process--a true Egyptian grammar and alphabet--is evident, but he never achieved that. He ended up translating most of the Book of Abraham much the same way he did the Book of Mormon, though by then he had more sources to draw from than just the King James Version of the Bible, such as the EA/GAEL, the D&C, the papyri illustrations, the book of Genesis, and completely new ideas that came to him mystically from no physical source at all.

[William Schryver]

I do hope you're going to link your readers to the Iota nitahach (sic) ahque entries as well, since those are the entries we were discussing.

You see, Chris, that bluff will not work, either. The short iota nitahveh ahque entry will not help your case. It is not one of the three sets of methodological instructions. It is one of the few instances where Phelps adds some methodological commentary to the explanation given for an individual character.

Here is the text:

Iota nitahveh ahque - a mark of distinction

[p.20]

qualifying different degrees, increasing or

lessening the power of the sentences accor

ding to their signification: as for instance

Iota nitahveh ahque: (as in the margin) sig=

nifies "I saw twenty-five-

persons," or it signifies "twenfives persons"

Whatever Phelps is doing with this character, it does not conform to the 5th degree methodological instructions, as I noted above.

In any case, you had asserted that:

The fifth degree instructions are of course an expansion of the instructions from the earlier degrees.

They are not. They are VERY different from the instructions in the earlier degrees. I gave the links to the transcriptions above, so that our readers may see for themselves.

Edited to remove lines at end of post that I didn't notice.

Edited November 4, 2011 by William Schryver