Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[William Schryver]

"Apologists were initially surprised by this claim, having previously viewed the claim to be more comprehensive."

Precisely! Very well said.

If they want to now claim that critics, throughout all recorded history, have never viewed things otherwise, then I'm fine with that. It does not have any effect whatsoever on the thesis I propose.

Edited November 4, 2011 by William Schryver

[Analytics]

Precisely! Very well said.

If they want to now claim that critics, throughout all recorded history, have never viewed things otherwise, then I'm fine with that. It does not have any effect whatsoever on the thesis I propose.

I don't know what critics have claimed throughout all recorded history. But I do know what the Ashment article says. When you referred me to the Ashment article, I found it disturbing that you comprehended what it says so differently than I do. If I can't even trust you to correctly understand and represent a main point of an important contemporary article, it makes me question your credibility.

[wenglund]

I don't know what critics have claimed throughout all recorded history. But I do know what the Ashment article says. When you referred me to the Ashment article, I found it disturbing that you comprehended what it says so differently than I do. If I can't even trust you to correctly understand and represent a main point of an important contemporary article, it makes me question your credibility.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Analytics]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course the other side of the stick is that if Ashment really meant what you think he did, then my reading comprehension is so low that I have no chance of understanding anything else that is going on.

[wenglund]

Of course the other side of the stick is that if Ashment really meant what you think he did, then my reading comprehension is so low that I have no chance of understanding anything else that is going on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Zeta,

Just to let you know, in the first five pages of this thread I set forth six arguments (1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d) that are counter to the proposition that the EA/GAEL were intended and or used to "translate" or develop the Book of Abraham either in part or in whole.

The arguments I have presented thus far aren't definitively against the proposition n question, but weigh to varying degrees against it (I believe arguments 3a - d weigh heavily against it).

Thus far, only Colbalt-70 has responded to each of my arguments, and I have replied to much of what s/he said.

I am still waiting for someone/anyone of the critics to take up the challenge I proposed in my last argument (3d) before moving on to present even more arguments against the proposition in question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 4, 2011 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

I don't know what critics have claimed throughout all recorded history. But I do know what the Ashment article says. When you referred me to the Ashment article, I found it disturbing that you comprehended what it says so differently than I do. If I can't even trust you to correctly understand and represent a main point of an important contemporary article, it makes me question your credibility.

It has been my experience with you that you question my credibility--indeed, you have frequently impugned my credibility--in virtually every post you have made that concerned me over the past several years. That you have taken a rather straightforward declaration by Ed Ashment and have now sought to interpret it in a way that no reasonable reader ever viewed it prior to the summer of 2010, and now want to turn what was previously a rather ubiquitous interpretation of it into a question of my personal credibility is no big surprise to me.

In any event, as I said above, for the sake of further discussion I will allow that no critic EVER thought the EA/GAEL was used by Joseph Smith to translate the papyri. It changes nothing in terms of my thesis.

[wenglund]

Given the conspicuous silence in response to my challenge (argument 3d), I am wondering if the particular string of characters I posted from the Joseph Smith papyri may have proven too difficult. If so, I am willing to post an assortment of other legitimate Egyptian character strings to chose from (some a bit shorter if needs be).

I can gather the assortment from a variety of sources (the notebooks, various fragments from the Joseph Smith papyri, or even from an array of other extant Egyptian papyri). And, for Kevin's benefit, since he seems to think that the Egyptian Counting document may have been derived from the Anthon Caraters, I am willing to even pull in some character strings from there to add to the assortment, and let you all use the EC and the AE/GAEL to come up with a translation.

What do you say? I mean, I am really trying to accommodate you here. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 4, 2011 by wenglund

[Zeta-Flux]

Wade,

Here is my summary of your observations/arguments.

1--Witnesses say that the Book of Abraham was translated by the power of God. Having the GAEL as the translation tool, would, at best, make the "power of God" aspect be removed one degree. If one can further show the GAEL wasn't even thought to be produced by the power of God, then that further removes the GAEL from the equation.

2--The GAEL doesn't fit within the normal operating parameters of Joseph Smith's revelations--direct revelation to Joseph's mind through the Spirit or tools such as the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim.

3a--The GAEL would significantly slow down any reception of revelation--with minimal side benefits.

3b--Critics seem to agree that the GAEL was used at most to translate a few verses, making it even less useful.

3c--If the purpose of the GAEL was, initially, to aid in eventually translating the Book of Abraham (and/or the Book of Joseph) then why include random characters not found on the papyri (and sometimes not so random), while ignoring ones that do occur on the papryi?

3d--Here is a string of characters from the papyri. Can you use the GAEL to translate them?

Edited November 5, 2011 by Zeta-Flux

[Cobalt-70]

You are describing an inspirational methodology that is foreign to, and not historically evinced comparatively to, what is consistently described as the methodology Joseph used for translating LDS scriptures. Look at all the accounts of the translation process and see if any of the scribes give any indication that Joseph received inspiration, and even some text for the Book of Mormon, by creating a reformed Egyptian lexicon. Given the relatively short amount of time in which Joseph was able to produce the Book of Mormon, there would have been precious little time for the kind of elaborate and complex and esoteric inspirational technique you are suggesting.

It is unrealistic to expect that Joseph Smith would use precisely the same method to create the Book of Abraham as he did to create the Book of Mormon. Smith did spend some time--three months, according to his history (Dec. 1827-Feb. 1828)--copying "a considerable number of" characters from the golden plates and translating them. But the Joseph Smith of 1827 was a far less mature prophet and leader than the Joseph Smith of 1835. Even in 1828, it was important for Smith that he prove himself as a competent translator of the Egyptian language, which is why he sent Martin Harris to at least three eminent scholars so that they could vouch that Smith's translation of these characters was correct.

Yes, over a year later than that, with the help of a permanent scribe Cowdery and financial support from Joseph Knight, they were able to plow through the translation of the Book of Mormon in about three months. But by then, there was no need to actually reference any physical artifact in producing the translation. By then, Smith had established his Egyptian credentials, had practice translating 116 lost pages of manuscript, and had people counting on him so he was in a hurry to get the translation done as soon as possible.

By 1835, Smith had already established himself as a competent translator of the Egyptian language. His followers believed he could translate Egyptian, and his reputation as an Egyptian "translator" is what prompted Michael Chandler to seek him out. As he did with the Book of Mormon, his first instinct was to copy some of the characters, individually, and try to determine their translations, before moving on to translating the papyri themselves: "Being solicited by Mr. Chandler to give an opinion concerning his antiquities, or translation of some of the characters, bro. S. gave him the interpretation of some few for his satisfaction." DHC 2:235. Smith then happily received a certificate from Chandler attesting to his ability to translate Egyptian characters. After purchasing the mummies and papyri, the first thing Smith did was "with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics." DHC 2:236.

This was in early July 1835. Then, "The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients." DHC 2:238. Then, the remainder of the year there are references to Smith working on the "Egyptian alphabet," and exhibiting the mummies and "the alphabet" to others. In contrast to the evidence that Smith's first concern was to translate the "characters," there is no evidence that Smith actually began producing the narrative of the Book of Abraham until well after his work on producing the Egyptian "alphabet" and "grammar."

Smith was particularly fascinated by ancient languages during this period. In November 1835, Smith got hold of some books (a "lexicon" and a "grammar") on Hebrew and Greek. In January, Smith praised his Hebrew tutor Seixas for having "a knowledge of many languages which were spoken by the Ancients." In Feb. 1836, Smith stated, "I am determined to persue the study of languages untill I shall become master of them, if I am permitted to live long enough, at any rate so long as I do live I am determined to make this my object, and with the blessing of God I shall succed to my sattisfaction." Clearly, Smith was not just interested in the papyri for the sole purpose of producing the Book of Abraham. During this period he was deeply interested in learning the "languages of the Ancients." His alphabet and grammar of the "Egyptian language" was one part of that.

Circumstances were different in Kirtland than they were in Harmony, and Smith was in a far different position. Yet despite this, Smith's first focus in translating both the golden plates and the Chandler papyri was the characters. In Kirtland, though, he was even more fascinated by ancient languages, and determined to learn them, and in a better position to actually study them, than he evidently was in Harmony.

[wenglund]

....Circumstances were different in Kirtland than they were in Harmony, and Smith was in a far different position. Yet despite this, Smith's first focus in translating both the golden plates and the Chandler papyri was the characters. In Kirtland, though, he was even more fascinated by ancient languages, and determined to learn them, and in a better position to actually study them, than he evidently was in Harmony.

I don't get the impression that in Harmony, PA, Joseph was translating characters for three months. Rather, to me, he, over three months , perhaps on rare occasion, when he wasn't getting his newly purchased farm ready for the coming season and getting his new bride settled into their new home, and traveling back and forth to Palmyra, wrote down some characters, of which he may have translated a few. As I see it, his efforts in Harmony weren't that different from what occurred during the first half July, 1835, in Kirtland. But, to each their own.

Be that as it may, I agree with you that Joseph, because of his extensive experience in translating the Book of Mormon, wouldn't have needed the kind of inspirational warm-up exercises (writing down characters and translating them). There was no need for him work towards producing a "dictionary" even if only as an inspirational warm-up exercise. He could have hit the translation ground running so to speak.

Yet, even if one charitably grants that the EA/GAEL were used as an inspirational warm-up, this is somewhat beside my point, which is: there is no indication from Joseph or his scribes or other leaders of the church at the time, that the EA/GAEL was ever intended or used to translate, in part or whole, the Book of Abraham from the papyri. A hypothesized inspirational warm-up in translating a small part of secular "dictionary", is separate and apart from translating holy scripture. Again, the historical evidence consistently points to the standard, divine, and direct method (seer stone or Urim and thummim) for translating the Book of Abraham, and not an indirect, secular (though perhaps inspired) method of translating. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

I haven't been following this thread for the last couple of days, but I now see that Chris has, for all intents, officially declined Will's offer to debate:

http://www.mormon***...=20958&start=84

Chris is clear:

Goodness gracious. Anyone who thinks I should be accepting Will's challenge need only glance at the thread on the other board for ample evidence of why that would be a waste of time.

There are several posts on the last couple of pages that all point toward a core position, which appears to be that Chris has no intention of engaging his critics in any other venue than the academic journal, in which he is free to quibble and fret over sundry text-critical details over long periods of time, while having to worry about nothing so much as fielding responses in other academic journals, again over long, drawn out periods time, safely shielded from the rigors of a direct exchange of arguments "on the hoof" with an expert interlocutor in which his own arguments can be seen in a clear, open, running confrontation with the major counter-arguments that he is so sure are too poor to bother with.

I find interesting, as well, the claims here regarding a similar challenge put out to Mr. Metcalf, in which, in the MDB posse narrative, Will ran for the hills with his "tail tucked between his legs" after Metcalf "called his bluff." This is odd, because, as I remember things, Metcalf flatly refused the challenge to debate - in a masterful display of dissimulation and meticulous tap dancing around a bevy of carefully manufactured issues, yes - but flatly nonetheless. I thought it was Metcalf who fled for higher ground, not Will.

Odd how the two sides in this debate recollect historic circumstances such as this in utterly different ways. This all only tends to confirm my conviction that the two respective sides in this ongoing conflict of ideas and evidence are also representative of two utterly incompatible visions or perceptions of the world. We are in open conflict over, not just issues surrounding the BofA, but over alternative views of reality that cannot coexist in close proximity. I'm reminded of the vast gulf Lehi saw in his dream separating himself and those holding to the Iron Rod from the Great and Spacious Building. To minimize the depth and breadth of that gulf is pointless, it would seem.

At the end of the day, the conclusion appears to be the neither Chris, or Metcalf, or anyone else is going to come out of their lair, like so many did on the old Firing Line television program, sit down, face to face (or post to post, as it may be), and "go to the mat" with their arguments in an intimate, continuous, cut, parry, and thrust manner without the protection of distance and time to construct new cavils and sophisticated pettifoggery afforded by periodic publishing in academic journals in which an unobstructed platform for a specific view is afforded and will stand over long periods of time between publication and the publication of countervailing views (I should say that I have nothing against academic journals, just that they are not the sum of all intellectual endeavors, nor always by any means the best venue for hashing serious things out).

In all honesty, I really think the other side of this debate actually prefers extending this debate out over excruciating periods of time and not bringing their arguments and evidence to the arena of live debate (not over months and years through a few sparse, intermittent pro/con publications in academic journals) because I think they know, at some level, that their arguments, while they may be sophisticated and detailed, are not sufficient to make the points and come to the conclusions they wish to settle. Hence, we see Chris engaging in freewheeling conjectural speculation regarding a number of elements of the KEP quandary which are necessary as a platform from which to support the rest of his case. So then, we always see this same scenario in which Chris makes claims for what Joseph Smith did, thought, or intended, to which Will or Wade respond that there is no actual documentary evidence for the assumptions of the thesis. Chris uses terms and a tone that indicate a high degree of certainty or evidential strength, while, upon closer inspection, the assumptions of the thesis turn out to be, not to overstate, pure speculation.

Why? The sheer dearth of historic documentation. Most of the textual material Joseph originally possessed? Gone. Documentation of the meaning and purpose of the KEP? Gone or never produced. What Joseph, Cowdery, Phelps etc intended and understood the KEP materials to be? Unknown.

What we do have is two utterly incompatible views of the universe in irreconcilable conflict over what the KEP means, because they are in irreconcilable conflict over what the BofA is.

So the critics continue to send us running for the hills, tails between legs, while we continue to tell them to show us some actual evidence.

This is going to go on for a very, very long time to come.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

I agree, actually. But the character in question nevertheless comes from a series of characters taken from the papyrus. It appears to be a "restoration" of a character missing due to damage. In other words, Smith and company apparently regarded it as having been anciently on the papyrus even though it was missing in modern times.

So Chris, I must ask, after years of reading your ongoing arguments with apologists on this issue and after digesting reams of "apparently," "probably," "appears to be," and "no doubt," statements such as this, what does the continual proliferation of terms such as this throughout your intellectual work bespeak as to the actual level of evidential strength you bring to the arena of ideas here?

Show me more than "Joseph and company apparently" this or that. Show me that your perception of the meaning and purpose of the KEP extends beyond naked personal bias and into the realm of real empirical and/or logical integrity. Show me something beyond free floating speculation and conjecture regarding the motives, intentions, and objectives of the original actors in the construction of the KEP materials. One can place any number of interpretations, depending upon bias and preassumption, upon any number of ambiguous, vague, and undefined statements Joseph and other made at the time, as upon the actual markings/characters in the EA/GAEL, but real evidential strength escapes you.

On the apologetic side? I don't think anyone here, in a strictly intellectual sense, has ever claimed to have soundly defeated the critics here. I think all the apologists have ever claimed is plausible refutation of the critic's arguments and the exposition of plausible counter-arguments that explain and provide coherent understanding of the possible answers to such historical questions.

If only you guys could at least meet us half way here, just a bit, and refrain from the posture of strutting certainty that has tainted so much of you and other critics work.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Here is my summary of your observations/arguments.

1--Witnesses say that the Book of Abraham was translated by the power of God. Having the GAEL as the translation tool, would, at best, make the "power of God" aspect be removed one degree. If one can further show the GAEL wasn't even thought to be produced by the power of God, then that further removes the GAEL from the equation.

Not really. Perhaps I am doing a poor job explaining my position. Let me state this argument a bit more simply. There is no direct historical evidence (witness testimony) that the Book of Abraham was translated, in part, from the EA/GAEL, while there is ample evidence that it was translated by the gift and power of God. The direct evidence, then, weighs against the proposition in question.

2--The GAEL doesn't fit within the normal operating parameters of Joseph Smith's revelations--direct revelation to Joseph's mind through the Spirit or tools such as the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim.

Close. There is a rational and consistent historical pattern established for producing spiritual things like scriptures using spiritual tools like the seer stone. Secular tools like alphabets and grammars have typically been used for secular purposes like learning a language and doing secular translations (like what Joseph experienced during his classes in Greek, Latin, and more particularly Hebrew). The proposition that a secular devise (EA/GAEL) was used to translate scripture (portions of the Book of Abraham) flies in the face of the consistent historical pattern. The historical pattern, then, weighs against the proposition in question.

3a--The GAEL would significantly slow down any reception of revelation--with minimal side benefits.

It isn't so much a matter slowness in speed and lack of side benefits, but rather an entirely unnecessary waste of a variety of resources. Prior to the development of the EA/GAEL, Joseph already possessed the means for creating the Book of Abraham (he had proven this capacity with the Book of Mormon and the JST of the Bible). There was no need for him to create a rather complex and elaborate and esoteric translation device to accomplish what he could already do far simpler. The impracticality and counter-intuitveness of the proposition weighs very heavily against it.

3b--Critics seem to agree that the GAEL was used at most to translate a few verses, making it even less useful.

To me, the relatively nominal and declining number of BoA passages claimed to have been translated using the EA/GAEL, increasingly weighs against the EA/GAEL having been used to translate any of the passages to begin with, and weighes in favor of the means used to create the growing number of BoA passages not attributed to the EA/GAEL.

3c--If the purpose of the GAEL was, initially, to aid in eventually translating the Book of Abraham (and/or the Book of Joseph) then why include random characters not found on the papyri (and sometimes not so random), while ignoring ones that do occur on the papryi?

To me, the very existence of the substantial number of extra-papyri non-Egyptian characters in the EA/GAEL (especially in the first several parts of the EA's), clearly suggest that it wasn't intended to translate the Joseph Smith papyri, let alone translate part of the BoA from those papyri.

3d--Here is a string of characters from the papyri. Can you use the GAEL to translate them?

I was hoping that this argument would be fleshed out by way of an object lesson. However, since no one seems to have taken up my challenge, I will have to spell the argument out myself.

I appreciate your attempt to summarize what I have said. It gave me a chance to reflect on whether I had communicated my arguments correctly, and if not, rephrase them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zeta-Flux]

Wade,

Perhaps you need to back up a step and justify why the GAEL is a secular document, and not a spiritual one.

[wenglund]

Okay, I won't prolong the misery, but will now spell out what I hope would have been learned through people attempting to take up my challenge.

In addition to all that I have argued so far, one of the reasons it is virtually impossible to use the EA/GAEL to translate real Egyptian hieratic strings from real Egyptian papyri, is that the EA/GAEL is incomplete. Incomplete lexicons don't make for effective translation devices.

How incomplete was the EA/GAEL? We'll of the 69 characters assigned sounds in the EA's, as best I can tell, only 7 of them represent complete real Egyptian characters:

1) ho hah oop, 2) jah ho e oop, 3) jah ni hah (or Kolob), 4) ki ah broam kiah brah-oam zub zool oan, 5) Iota ni tah vey ah que, 6) za ki on-hish or Kulsidon hish, 7) ah-brah oam.

These 7 characters were among the last of the 69 characters to be assigned sounds in the EA's. Of those 7, only two were given English explanations in the EA's (the last two--not coincidentally), though all but one (#4 above) were assigned English explanations in the GAEL (#4 above was only assigned explanations in its dissected form).

The 7 characters represent names or nouns or pronouns: 1) Intercessor, 2) Ambassador,

3) Second in command (or greatest star), 5) 25 people, 6) Chalcedon, 7) Abraham.

Now, since I am not an Egyptologists, I don't know how many characters there are in Egyptian hieratics (there are at least 24 hieratic characters in the alphabet and who knows how hieratic determinatives there are), but evidently, as the object lessons illustrates, the odds are pretty low that these six explained heiratic characters will all show up in a given character string, or at least enough of them to facilitate a meaningful translation.

These low odds weigh heavily against the EA/GAEL being used as a means to translate portions of the Book of Abraham

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade, Perhaps you need to back up a step and justify why the GAEL is a secular document, and not a spiritual one.

I would think the lexical nature of the documents would make that obvious. To me, lexicons, like gazetteers, topical guides, ciphers, cars, clothes, eyeglasses, computers, etc., while often use for religious purposes, tend to be secular in their general functionality, and may thus rightly be considered as secular.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zeta-Flux]

Wade,

That is not obvious to me at all. Separating the secular from the religious, especially in Mormon thought, is not just as easy as asking "What does its purpose usually portend?"

One could similarly cite the religious nature of the entries in the GAEL to say that the purpose was obviously a spiritual one.

[wenglund]

Wade,

That is not obvious to me at all. Separating the secular from the religious, especially in Mormon thought, is not just as easy as asking "What does its purpose usually portend?"

One could similarly cite the religious nature of the entries in the GAEL to say that the purpose was obviously a spiritual one.

They may argue the same about biblical maps, the LDS topical guide, Vatican ciphers, the Pope-mobile, white shirts worn by LDS missionaries, President Hinckley's eyeglasses, the computer in the ward clerks office, etc.

However, I wouldn't.

To me, the thing about the lexical EA/GAEL, is that not only is its lexical nature generally secular, there is no indication in the historical record that they were inspired, let alone ever used for religious purposes any more than the mummies and papyri were--except once, indirectly, when they may have provided a catalyst for Joseph and his scribe having the principles of astronomy, as understood by father Abraham and the ancients, opened to their understanding.

As I understand things, the EA/GAEL have not been canonized nor included in church educational materials, and were barely mentioned a couple of times in church publications or even in the history of the church. With the exception of ongoing scholarly discussions between a few critics and apologists, the EA/GEAL have been collecting dust.

So, I am hard pressed to view them as anything other than secular, any more than I would various artifacts in the church museum, like Brigham's can, Willard Richard's watch, pioneer quilts, wagon wheel odometers, etc., though I can respect if others may view these things differently. I am just arguing as I see things. To each their own.

[Edit: please note that the specific argument I am making, and to which you are objecting, pertains to the functionality of the EA/GAEL, and not so much to the content. Also, my argument isn't definitive, but in my estimation it weighs against the proposition in question. The reader is free to accept or reject it in part or whole.]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 8, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

-continued-

Granted, some of those 7 real and complete characters were given expanded explanations in the GAEL. However, only 5 were given explanations in their composite form: 1) ho hah oop, 2) jah ho e oop, 3) jah ni hah, 4) Iota ni tah vey ah que, 5) ah-brah oam. And, of these 5, only 3 were given expanded explanations in all five degrees: 1) jah ni hah (this character was addressed in only 4 degrees), 2) Iota ni tah vey ah que, 3) ah-brah oam.

So, in short, of the 7 real complete Egyptian characters , only 3 were given five degrees of explanation in their composite form, and 2 in their dissected form. And, presumably one of those characters is both (the character with the sound "ah-brah oam" is supposedly a complete character and also a part of the character "ki ah broam kiah brah-oam zub zool oan", thus reducing the total to 4 real complete Egyptian characters given five degrees of explanations in the GAEL.

What are the chances that one or more of those characters will show up in any given hieratic string?

What are the chances that one or more of those 4 or five characters are presumed by certain critics to be the one's used to translate the first three verses of the Book of Abraham? Coincidence?

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 7, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

I don't get the impression that in Harmony, PA, Joseph was translating characters for three months. Rather, to me, he, over three months , perhaps on rare occasion, when he wasn't getting his newly purchased farm ready for the coming season and getting his new bride settled into their new home, and traveling back and forth to Palmyra, wrote down some characters, of which he may have translated a few. As I see it, his efforts in Harmony weren't that different from what occurred during the first half July, 1835, in Kirtland. But, to each their own.

I don't suppose that Smith was working on translating the characters of the gold plates full time during that three-month period. But translating the characters was not just a hobby, either. There is no record of which I am aware that Smith left his pregnant wife to travel back to Palmyra during these months, even for his sister's wedding. Plus, Smith had the $50 (about $1000 in today's money) that Martin Harris had given him before the move, which would have lasted him a while. That Smith was going to focus initially on translating the characters, was part of the plan. According to Smith's mother (1844-45 transcript):

"Joseph started Dec. for Penn...it was agreed that Martin Harris should follow him as soon as Joseph should have sufficient time to transcribe the

Egyptian alphabet

which Mr. Harris was to take to the east and through the country in every direction to all who were professed linguists to give them an opertunity of showing their talents."

Thus, just like he did with the Chandler papyri, Smith's initial focus was to create an Egyptian alphabet from the gold plates, mainly to verify with the learned that Smith could translate the Egyptian language.

Be that as it may, I agree with you that Joseph, because of his extensive experience in translating the Book of Mormon, wouldn't have needed the kind of inspirational warm-up exercises (writing down characters and translating them). There was no need for him work towards producing a "dictionary" even if only as an inspirational warm-up exercise. He could have hit the translation ground running so to speak.

Yet, even if one charitably grants that the EA/GAEL were used as an inspirational warm-up, this is somewhat beside my point, which is: there is no indication from Joseph or his scribes or other leaders of the church at the time, that the EA/GAEL was ever intended or used to translate, in part or whole, the Book of Abraham from the papyri. A hypothesized inspirational warm-up in translating a small part of secular "dictionary", is separate and apart from translating holy scripture. Again, the historical evidence consistently points to the standard, divine, and direct method (seer stone or Urim and thummim) for translating the Book of Abraham, and not an indirect, secular (though perhaps inspired) method of translating. Sorry.

I'm not saying that Smith's Egyptian alphabet and grammar were intended as a "warm-up exercise." The Egyptian alphabets were important in their own right. One purpose was to demonstrate Smith's translation ability. Initially, perhaps Smith also had thoughts of using the alphabets to produce the later narrative script. That is not too important, though, because in actuality, Smith never did so, except perhaps for the first three verses of the Book of Abraham.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Not really. Perhaps I am doing a poor job explaining my position. Let me state this argument a bit more simply. There is no direct historical evidence (witness testimony) that the Book of Abraham was translated, in part, from the EA/GAEL, while there is ample evidence that it was translated by the gift and power of God. The direct evidence, then, weighs against the proposition in question.

Only if you accept the fallacy that the Book of Abraham could not be produced "by the power of God" and also be directly influenced by the prior work done on the EA/GAEL. Your argument is analogous to saying that because Smith said he translated the golden plates "by the power of God," that there could have been no influence from the King James Version of the Bible. Your underlying assumption is that it must be one or the other, but not both.

As to there being no witness testimony that the EA/GAEL influenced the Book of Abraham, that is not required. The textual evidence is pretty much conclusive that one influenced the other, and there is no real evidence that the Book of Abraham came first, whereas there is a plethora of external evidence that the EA/GAEL came first.

[Cobalt-70]

It isn't so much a matter slowness in speed and lack of side benefits, but rather an entirely unnecessary waste of a variety of resources. Prior to the development of the EA/GAEL, Joseph already possessed the means for creating the Book of Abraham (he had proven this capacity with the Book of Mormon and the JST of the Bible). There was no need for him to create a rather complex and elaborate and esoteric translation device to accomplish what he could already do far simpler. The impracticality and counter-intuitveness of the proposition weighs very heavily against it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If producing the EA/GAEL was a waste of resources, it was a waste regardless of whether it occurred before or after the Book of Abraham. Therefore, this is not a valid argument.

[Cobalt-70]

To me, the relatively nominal and declining number of BoA passages claimed to have been translated using the EA/GAEL, increasingly weighs against the EA/GAEL having been used to translate any of the passages to begin with, and weighes in favor of the means used to create the growing number of BoA passages not attributed to the EA/GAEL.

That there is any overlap at all between the EA/GAEL and the Book of Abraham proves, textually, that one document was influenced by the other. Once you get that far, you know that the Book of Abraham was influenced by the EA/GAEL unless the EA/GAEL was produced later--a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[Cobalt-70]

Some thoughts:

1. Clearly, based on textual evidence that nobody can really disagree with (for example, direct quotations or near-quotations), either the EA/GAEL influenced the Book of Abraham or vice versa. The EA/GAEL is not unrelated to the Book of Abraham.

2. There is much external evidence that the EA/GAEL came before the Book of Abraham manuscripts. The only apparent evidence presented by Will Schryver as to the reverse causation is textual evidence that the EA/GAEL is in some cases more detailed than the Book of Abraham, which does not prove that the Book of Abraham came first.

3. The EA/GAEL are referred to as an "alphabet" and a "grammar" of the "Egyptian language." To establish that these documents are not, in fact, a purported alphabet or grammar of the Egyptian language--and thus not what they claim to be--would require extraordinary evidence, and a very good explanation as to what they are, if not what they purport to be.

4. Claims that the EA/GAEL would have been a "waste of time" if their purpose had anything to do with the Chandler papyri get us nowhere, because the fact was, the EA/GAEL were created, they correspond to at least some of the characters on the papyri, as well as to the text of the Book of Abraham, and Smith is not known to have been a great time-waster. They would have been an even greater waste of time if their purpose were to create a Templar cipher whose only apparent use would have been to encode esoteric discussions about pseudo-Egyptian astronomy. Nobody has presented a theory as to what the EA/GAEL were that is less of a time waster than them being an alphabet and grammar of the Egyptian language.

5. The EA/GAEL is not the only time that Smith attempted to deciper words or characters of a supposed ancient language. He created an Egyptian alphabet from the golden plates in 1828, and he created a "sample" translation of words from the Adamic language in 1832 (http://josephsmithpa...-march-1832?p=1). Smith is also known to have been fascinated by ancient languages, and in late 1835 he vigorously studied Hebrew and Greek, as well. Even if we view the EA/GAEL as a waste of time in retrospect, Smith most certainly did not when he was working on them.

6. Smith had motive to show that he could translate the characters of the Chandler Egyptian papyri. It is the same motive that prompted him to send characters from the gold plates--with their translations--to learned scholars in 1828 to verify that Smith could translate. Unlike the golden plates, the Chandler papyri were permanently available for examination by others, and Smith even made facsimile copies of much of the papyri and published them. Smith had to have known that if his translation were incorrect, experts would eventually discover that fact. That Smith agreed to translate the Chandler papyri at all shows: (A) that he honestly believed he could translate Egyptian characters, and (B) that he thought his translation would be a contribution to the field of Egyptology.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Cobalt-70