Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers

[wenglund]

Hi Cobalt70,

I was mistaken about Joseph traveling back to Palmyra during the two month time period in question (late December to mid February). I was thinking of later that year when Harris took other writings (160 pages) home.

Anyway, here again is what is reported in the History of the Church by Joseph Smith about the early period of translation of the Book of Mormon:

"The persecution, however, became so intolerable that I was under the necessity of leaving Manchester, and going with my wife to Susquehanna county, in the state of Pennsylvania. While preparing to start,--being very poor, and the persecution so heavy upon us that there was no probability that we would ever be otherwise--in the midst of our afflictions we found a friend in a gentleman by the name of Martin Harris, who came to us and gave me fifty dollars to assist us on our journey. Mr. Harris was a resident of Palmyra township, Wayne county, in the state of New York, and a farmer of respectability. By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife's father, in the month of December, and the February following." (History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch.3, p.19)

Note that only "some of the characters" were translated. Note that they weren't translated using an alphabet or grammar, but they were translated using the Urim and Thummim, which is the standard method Joseph used for translation. Note the conspicuous absence of any mention of an alphabet.

Here is what was written in the History of the Church by Joseph Smith regarding the characters Joseph translated for Chandler:

""On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation..." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.235)

Note in this instance as well that only "some of the characters' were translated. Note the conspicuous absence of any mention of an alphabet.

Between the 5th and 9th of July, this is recorded in the same history:

"Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.16, p.236)

Note once again the use of the phrase "some of the characters." Note the conspicuous absence of any mention of an alphabet or grammar. Note implicitly that the translation was of "some" of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph, and that the translation was attributed to the Lord's revelation, and not to an alphabet or grammar--all consistent with my arguments and weighted against the arguments of certain critics.

The first mention in the history of the alphabet wasn't until on the 19th of July, 1835, several weeks after Joseph translated "some of the characters" for Chandler, and translated "some of the characters" to learn that the papyri contained the records of Abraham and Joseph of old. The history states: "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." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.17, p.238)

As Will has mentioned on occasion, the translation of the alphabet was "to the Book of Abraham". In other words, the Book of Abraham was used to translate the alphabet, and not the other way around.

Does this mean that your pure speculations is necessarily false about Joseph translating an alphabet prior to the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, and about Joseph allegedly having used that alphabet to, against all reason, translate the first three verses of the Book of Abraham? No. It just strikes me as highly unlikely, particularly in light of the other arguments I have presented and will yet present.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 8, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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.

First of all, my argument isn't in relation to some nebulous notion of "influence." Rather, it is specific to proposed means of translation. Do you understand the important difference? My argument isn't fallacious.

Second, while there is a great deal of material shared in common between the Book of Abraham and the Alphabet and Grammar, you wildly overstate your case by claiming that the textual evidence points overwhelmingly to the former being dependent upon the latter. You, yourself, have suggested in this thread that at best maybe a couple of verses (about 6%) of the Book of Abraham were translated using the EA/GAEL. This is a far cry from "a plethora of evidence," let alone "pretty much conclusive." LOL

I won't be discussion the textual evidence in this thread since there are others people on both sides far more knowledgeable about it than me. However, there are serious arguments that have been, and will yet be raised, quite to the contrary of what you suggest.

In this thread, though, I am just looking at things pragmatically and logically given the historical evidence. And, to me, the evidence weighs against the proposition that the Book of Abraham as translated in part using the EA/GAEL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

I didn't claim that it was a waste, per se, just a waste in terms of translating the Book of Abraham. Please try and read more carefully what I have said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

I didn't claim that it was a waste, per se, just a waste in terms of translating the Book of Abraham. Please try and read more carefully what I have said.

If you are arguing that Smith did not create the EA/GAEL as a "key" to translate the narrative Book of Abraham, then I think we are actually on the same page. All I'm saying is (1) that the EA/GAEL was the first part of the "translation" of the Chandler papyri, and (2) that the EA/GAEL directly influenced the Book of Abraham, which was also considered to be a "translation" of parts of the Chandler papyri.

[Cobalt-70]

The first mention in the history of the alphabet wasn't until on the 19th of July, 1835, several weeks after Joseph translated "some of the characters" for Chandler, and translated "some of the characters" to learn that the papyri contained the records of Abraham and Joseph of old. The history states: "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." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.17, p.238)

As Will has mentioned on occasion, the translation of the alphabet was "to the Book of Abraham". In other words, the Book of Abraham was used to translate the alphabet, and not the other way around.

The manuscripts comprising the DHC were written in retrospect, years after the Book of Abraham existed. But this entry is not saying that the Book of Abraham was already translated at this time. It just says that Smith was engaged in translating the "alphabet" and the "grammar" from papyri, which would (as was known at the time of the writing) later constitute the Book of Abraham. When History of the Church manuscripts were written, it was understood that the Chandler papyri were the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph.

If you look at the contemporary external references to the alphabet and grammar--the ones that were written before the Book of Abraham was translated, you can't make this argument. Moreover, Smith's diary carefully recorded when he worked on the papyri, and there is no journal entry that indicates he translated the Book of Abraham narrative before he began working on the alphabet and grammar. And if he had the translation by July 1835, why didn't he publish it then? The only excuse anyone ever gives for the delay in publishing the Book of Abraham is the Kirtland Safety Society crisis, but that didn't happen until late 1837. If it was translated at such an early date as July 1835, it could easily have been published in Messenger and Advocate. To the contrary, in the December 1835 edition of the M&A, Oliver Cowdery described the papyri in terms that show he was not aware of the existence of a narrative translation at that time. If the translated Book of Abraham had existed in December 1835, Cowdery would certainly have known about it.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

If you are arguing that Smith did not create the EA/GAEL as a "key" to translate the narrative Book of Abraham, then I think we are actually on the same page.

[thumbs up]

All I'm saying is (1) that the EA/GAEL was the first part of the "translation" of the Chandler papyri,

Argument #4, which I have yet to explicate, will more fully address this point. In part, as intimated in my previous post, there is indication in the historical record that at least some translation of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph predate (during the two weeks prior to) the commencement of the EA/GAEL. Other evidence will also be presented to show a dependency of the EA/GAEL on portions of the Book of Abraham as well as other sacred texts.

...and (2) that the EA/GAEL directly influenced the Book of Abraham, which was also considered to be a "translation" of parts of the Chandler papyri.

Again, I hope to argue just the opposite.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The manuscripts comprising the DHC were written in retrospect, years after the Book of Abraham existed.

I was quoting from the HoC and not the DHC. Even still, the HoC was based, in large part, on journal entries and other documents written at the time.

But this entry is not saying that the Book of Abraham was already translated at this time. It just says that Smith was engaged in translating the "alphabet" and the "grammar" from papyri, which would (as was known at the time of the writing) later constitute the Book of Abraham. When History of the Church manuscripts were written, it was understood that the Chandler papyri were the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph.

If you look at the contemporary external references to the alphabet and grammar--the ones that were written before the Book of Abraham was translated, you can't make this argument. Moreover, Smith's diary carefully recorded when he worked on the papyri, and there is no journal entry that indicates he translated the Book of Abraham narrative before he began working on the alphabet and grammar. Why would he omit such an important entry? And if he had the translation by July 1835, why didn't he publish it then? The only excuse anyone ever gives for the delay in publishing the Book of Abraham is the Kirtland Safety Society crisis, but that didn't happen until late 1837. If it was translated at such an early date as July 1835, it could easily have been published in Messenger and Advocate. To the contrary, in the December 1835 edition of the M&A, Oliver Cowdery described the papyri in terms that show he was not aware of the existence of a narrative translation at that time. If the translated Book of Abraham had existed in December 1835, Cowdery would certainly have known about it.

First, I didn't say that the Book of Abraham was translated during the first several weeks of July, 1835, I said that a portions of it was translated.

As for why it wasn't published at the time, I can't read Joseph's mind. However, were I to guess, I would say that he didn't publish it because: 1) only a portion had been translated, and Joseph may have wanted to wait until it was completed before publishing the record; 2) the D&C was being compiled and readied for publishing at that time and Joseph may have wanted the church to be focused on it rather that distracted by the BoA translation, and 3) the partial translation may have contained new and potentially sensitive doctrine that Joseph may have wished to keep sacred for awhile and reserved until later, after the Kirtland temple had been dedicated and certain temple ceremonies instituted that may have been based, in part, on what was revealed in the partial translations. Who knows?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

First, I didn't say that the Book of Abraham was translated during the first several weeks of July, 1835, I said that a portions of it was translated.

Which is what I have also argued: that only chapters 1 - 3 (or substantial portions of them) were translated--using the seer stone--in the first two weeks of July 1835. As for the dating of the reception of the remainder of the BoA, all we can go on is the fact that the GAEL attests a dependency on those things. Therefore we can date the remainder of the translation of the BoA to late 1835 - early 1836. As I have stated previously, I don't believe the Book of Abraham or the GAEL are dependent on anything the Saints learned from their Hebrew study under Seixas. We know that "Shinehah" was referenced elsewhere in August of 1835.

As for why it wasn't published at the time, I can't read Joseph's mind.

I suspect the main reason it wasn't published at the time was because Joseph Smith recognized that it contained some fairly radical new doctrines (a plurality of gods, for one) and he did not feel the Saints were yet ready to receive those things. Even so, there are hints here and there of the new doctrines that begin to show up beginning in about August 1835. By early 1842, the Prophet obviously felt the Saints were ready to receive these new doctrines.

Edited November 8, 2011 by William Schryver

[Cobalt-70]

I was quoting from the HoC and not the DHC. Even still, the HoC was based, in large part, on journal entries and other documents written at the time.

Journal entries that date Smith's work on the Egyptian alphabet and grammar prior to his other translation.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

Before moving on to argument #4 (the preexisting text/dependency argument), I will briefly summarize the arguments that have been made thus far in this thread against the proposition that the EA/GAEL were intended and/or used to translate a portion of the Book of Abraham from the papyri:

1. Consistent witness and authoritative statements about how the BoA was translated weigh in contravention to the proposition.

2. The consistent pattern for translating scripture using divine means weighs in contravention to the secular means proffered by the proposition.

3a. Since Joseph had already demonstrated an ability to translate scripture from ancient texts using divine means, it makes no sense for him to add an unnecessary step to the translation process by creating and then using a complex and elaborate secular lexicon to accomplish what he had already demonstrated he could do far simpler. And, even if one believes that all of Joseph's scriptural "translations" were produced naturalistically (made up using his imagination and drawing from available resources), it makes no sense for him to invent an elaborate lexicon for developing the BoA since he had already demonstrated his ability to do so far simpler without it.

3b. Since more than 94% of the translation of the BoA is unattributable in most any way to the EA/GAEL, but to some other means of translation (likely the standard/divine methodology), it is likely that all of the BoA was intended to be, and was translated by that other means.

3c. Since the vast majority of the characters and sounds in the EA/GAEL are not from the papyri, and are not real Egyptian characters, this weighs against the proposition that the EA/GAEL was intended to, let alone was used, to translate a portion of the BoA from the papyri.

3d. The fact that the EA/GAEL was woefully incomplete (at best only 3 or 4 real complete Egyptian characters were given full explanations), weighs against the proposition.

3e. Besides the grammar being incomprehensible and not used consistently within the GAEL, the content and structure of the document not only seems less like a translation device and more like a Kabbalistic or Midrashic methodology, but it also contains language that suggests it was intended for producing future documents rather than for deciphering past or ancient documents, thus weighing against the proposition.

There may have been other arguments against the proposition in question that have surfaced over the course of this thread and elsewhere, though I can't at present recall them. Whatever the case, I believe sufficient foundation has been laid to now present the 4th argument, with its various parts.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

As for why it wasn't published at the time, I can't read Joseph's mind. However, were I to guess, I would say that he didn't publish it because: 1) only a portion had been translated, and Joseph may have wanted to wait until it was completed before publishing the record; 2) the D&C was being compiled and readied for publishing at that time and Joseph may have wanted the church to be focused on it rather that distracted by the BoA translation, and 3) the partial translation may have contained new and potentially sensitive doctrine that Joseph may have wished to keep sacred for awhile and reserved until later, after the Kirtland temple had been dedicated and certain temple ceremonies instituted that may have been based, in part, on what was revealed in the partial translations. Who knows?

1) The Book of Abraham was not completed even in 1842 when it was published. (In a newspaper article dated Feb. 1843, Smith said that more extracts to the Book of Abraham would be provided later, though they never were. Also, he had not even begun the "Book of Joseph" part.)

2) It seems very implausible that Joseph Smith would have viewed the Book of Abraham as a distraction for Mormons. The D&C added many new revelations that Mormons had not seen before, and why would adding one more revelation be a distraction?

3) The "new and potentially sensitive doctrine," which I presume you mean the doctrine of plural gods and the revised Genesis story, comes from chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham, which were almost certainly not written until 1842. I don't know when chapter 3 was translated, but I don't think it contains anything that Smith hadn't already been preaching openly, except the astronomy, which is not particularly sensitive. Chapters 1-2 (at least to 2:18) were written earlier, some time between November 1835 and late 1836 (though not before November 1835, at least, when Warren Parrish first started serving as scribe), but they don't contain anything revolutionary, either.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

Journal entries that date Smith's work on the Egyptian alphabet and grammar prior to his other translation.

There are journal entries and historical data that date portions of "his other translation" prior to, during, as well as after production of the EA/GAEL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

1) The Book of Abraham was not completed even in 1842 when it was published. (In a newspaper article dated Feb. 1843, Smith said that more extracts to the Book of Abraham would be provided later, though they never were.

Assuming you are correct, this underscores rather than counters my guess.

Also, he had not even begun the "Book of Joseph" part.

I disagree.

2) It seems very implausible that Joseph Smith would have viewed the Book of Abraham as a distraction for Mormons. The D&C added many new revelations that Mormons had not seen before, and why would adding one more revelation be a distraction?

I wasn't thinking just in terms of adding new revelations, but rather the translation of an ancient document.

3) The "new and potentially sensitive doctrine," which I presume you mean the doctrine of plural gods and the revised Genesis story, comes from chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham, which were almost certainly not written until 1842. I don't know when chapter 3 was translated, but I don't think it contains anything that Smith hadn't already been preaching openly, except the astronomy, which is not particularly sensitive. Chapters 1-2 (at least to 2:18) were written earlier, some time between November 1835 and late 1836 (though not before November 1835, at least, when Warren Parrish first started serving as scribe), but they don't contain anything revolutionary, either.

You are entitled to your opinion about when you believe certain BoA chapters were translated. I don't happen to entirely agree with you. Besides, I was speculating as to why the BoA wasn't published prior to 1842, and not just why some portions weren't published in late 1835. Also, please remember that within the D&C published at that time (Sept. 1835), certain names and precepts were disguised for protective purposes. So, there was obviously some concern about disclosure of sensitive information. Furthermore, I have reason to believe that some of what was revealed to Joseph in the course of divinely translating the BoA, may have influenced the Endowment and other temple ceremonies partially instituted in conjunction with the dedication of the Kirtland temple in 1836.

Whatever the case, this is just a guess of mine and not an argument against the proposition in question (the topic of this thread). To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Before moving on to argument #4 (preexisting text/dependency), and in light of the arguments previously made and just summarized, the question may be asked about how one may respond to the arguments presented by Chris Smith in the JWHS Journal regarding the EA/GAEL as the modus operandi from translating Abr. 1:1-3?

Well, Will is likely in a better position than I to critique Chris' article, particularly point-by-point (he may have done so already, though I am not sure if his critique has been published yet).

However, for my own part, I got the impression from studying Chris' article, that the only reason Chris was able to make his argument is because he had the end product available to him (the Abraham Mss.) with which to work backwards so as to figure out plausible correlations--like using the picture on the box to put a portion of the puzzle together.

I am quite confident (because I have also issued this challenge without any takers) that were he, or any other bright person, to have only been given the three characters associated with Abr. 1:1-3, and this along with the EA/GAEL, it is very unlikely that they would be able to come up with a translation closely resembling what is found in Abr. 1:1-3.

Why? Because of what I argued in 3a - 3e above (particularly 3d and 3e).

For one, the three characters, themselves, don't give a clue which degree they should supposedly be translated in--except, since there are no lines below or above the three characters, then according to the grammar, they ought to be translated in the 1st degree, whereas Chris's argument pulled from various parts and degrees.

Second, even if one decides on a 1st degree translation, one would need to determine whether to use the EA or the GAEL for that 1st degree translation, and this because not all the explanations for the characters and sub-characters (graphemes) are the same between the EA and GAEL, and some of the explanations are only in the one and not the other. Whereas, Chris picked and chose arbitrarily between the EA and GAEL so as to fit his argument.

Finally, it is unclear from the EA/GAEL whether to just use the sounds, themselves (assuming it is a name), and/or the explanation for the composite characters, and/or the combined explanations for the dissected parts of the composite characters, and/or whether to combine just the explanations for the individual sounds (like "Beth"), and/or to also include duplicate explanations for the composite forms of those individual sounds (like "ki"). Again, Chris chose arbitrarily so as to fit his argument.

In short, perhaps without realizing it, Chris evidently worked backwards from the Abr. Mss to the EA/GAEL to develop his argument (reverse engineered), or in other words he depended upon the Abr. Mss to figure out which explanation to chose from in the EA/GAEL to make his argument fit, which, to me, ironically evinces the opposite dependency from what he may have intended. He demonstrated to me that the EA/GAEL was dependent upon the Book of Abraham. [thumbs up]

And, this provides a great transition into the long awaited argument #4

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4) There is evidence that the EA/GAEL were dependent upon preexisting texts, including, but not restricted to, portions of the Book of Abraham. Since portions of the Book of Abraham predate dependent portions of the EA/GAEL, then logically the EA/GAEL weren't intended or used to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri.

And, while most of the critics are now arguing that at best only several verses (Abr. 1:1-3, etc.) were translated using the EA/GAEL, and thus all that is needed to negate their argument is for us to demonstrate the preexistence of Abr. 1:1-3, we hope to demonstrate much more.

At the very least, argument #4 consists of four sub arguments:

4a. There is historical evidence that translation of "some characters" from the papyri predate the production of the EA/GAEL, and that the translation of those characters were of a portion of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph.

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

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

4d. An expanded analysis of the GAEL confirms the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a preexisting text--All five chapters of the BoA are "substantially attested." "We are able to discern within the Alphabet and Grammar the complex contextual elements of the Book of Abraham only because we already know the story. And the complex, interrelated aspects of the references we find simply could not have been achieved unless the whole story had already been produced."

4e. The alphabet and Grammar are dependent upon other revelations that have no relation to the Egyptian papyri (they predate the arrival of the papyri at Kirtland).

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

There are journal entries and historical data that date portions of "his other translation" prior to, during, as well as after production of the EA/GAEL.

But I thought you were claiming that the "other translation" (at least the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham) took place in early July 2005, prior to the time work on the EA/GAEL even began. Or am I confusing your position with that of Will's?

Also, what are you referring to, and how can you tell that it relates to translation of the papyri to create the Book of Abraham, rather than translation of the papyri (or some esoteric source of Egyptian language accessible by the seer stone) to create the Egyptian alphabet/grammar?

Edited November 8, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Assuming you are correct [that Smith's Book of Abraham was incomplete as of 1843], this underscores rather than counters my guess.

I don't think so. It means that even though the Book of Abraham was incomplete in 1842, Smith had no qualms with publishing as much as he had done thus far, and presenting the rest later on an installment basis. He evidently wanted to get the work he had done out as soon as possible. He could have done this just as easily in July 1835, if he had already produced the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham by that early date and had moved on to some hypothetical Templar Knights project or whatever the EA/GAEL was supposed to be if not what it purports.

[Cobalt-70]

I disagree [that Smith had not begun the Book of Joseph in 1843].

You think Smith started translating the Book of Joseph? If so, please explain.

[wenglund]

But I thought you were claiming that the "other translation" (at least the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham) took place in early July 2005, prior to the time work on the EA/GAEL even began. Or am I confusing your position with that of Will's?

I haven't specified how much of the BoA was translated in early July, 1835 because I am uncertain. That may change once I read Will's pending article.

Also, what are you referring to, and how can you tell that it relates to translation of the papyri to create the Book of Abraham, rather than translation of the papyri (or some esoteric source of Egyptian language accessible by the seer stone) to create the Egyptian alphabet/grammar?

I induced that it was a translation of a portion of the Book of Abraham and not a translation of the EA/GAEL because, as previously explained, and among other things, the translation of "some" of the characters predates the first mention and presumed commencement of the EA/GAEL project, and because it was through this translation of "some" characters that Joseph learned that the papyri contained the record of Abraham and Joseph of old, whereas the EA/GAEL doesn't mention Joseph, and Abraham's name didn't even show up in the English explanations until after Phelps had moved on from the EA and worked through to degree two of the GAEL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't think so. It means that even though the Book of Abraham was incomplete in 1842, Smith had no qualms with publishing as much as he had done thus far, and presenting the rest later on an installment basis. He evidently wanted to get the work he had done out as soon as possible. He could have done this just as easily in July 1835, if he had already produced the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham by that early date and had moved on to some hypothetical Templar Knights project or whatever the EA/GAEL was supposed to be if not what it purports.

I do think so because the partial translation of the Book of Abraham wasn't published for nearly six years (from late 1835 to 1842)---not that this matter all that much to the subject of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You think Smith started translating the Book of Joseph? If so, please explain.

I did. Again, it was through the translation of some of the characters in early July of 1835 that Joseph learned that the papyri contained the record of Joseph and Abraham. How much of the record of Joseph was translated at that time, is indeterminate, though prior to the end of that year, enough of the record had been translated to make it possible for Cowdery to talk at length about it in his letter published in the Messenger and Advocate in December of 1835--not that this matters much to the subject of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 9, 2011 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

But I thought you were claiming that the "other translation" (at least the first three chapters of the Book of Abraham) took place in early July 2005, prior to the time work on the EA/GAEL even began. Or am I confusing your position with that of Will's?

I'm not sure what Wade is arguing; but I am absolutely confident that we had all of the Book of Abraham, as it currently stands, even before July of 2005.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Xander]

Wade, Cobalt asked you for a reference and you alluded to the July 1835 citation, saying Joseph Smith translated "some characters." Is this the extent of your argument, from the historical record, supporting Will's contention that most or all of the Book of Abraham was produced before the GAEL?

I frequently hear apologists like you and Will claim that your argument is supported by the historical record. I think this can easily be shown to be false.

[Xander]

At the very least, argument #4 consists of four sub arguments:

4a. There is historical evidence that translation of "some characters" from the papyri predate the production of the EA/GAEL, and that the translation of those characters were of a portion of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph.

Please explain how you arrived to this conclusion. There is nothing in the context of this citation to suggest his translation of "some characters" was ever put to paper. So there is no evidence for a preexisting "text," only a preexisting translation. The context of this citation only tells us that he translated enough to determine the provenance of these records, which means he really didn't need to translate much at all. The bulk of the translation process was recorded in Joseph Smith's journals. They all begin in October and go through December. The July citations were added by Phelps in 1843, so it is really impossible to know for certain when each translation for the month of July, began and ended. Brian Hauglid believes that this period of translation involving "some characters" was between 1 and 3 days. After that, we are told that he spent the "remainder of the month" (2-3 weeks) working on the Egyptian alphabet, at which point the project came to a sudden halt, not to pick up again until October 1st, when we are told yet again, that Joseph Smith took over where he left off in July, working on the Egyptian alphabet. So we have at least two weeks in July and the beginning of October dealing with work strictly on the GAEL. Only after this period do we see numerous Journal entries referencing translation work of the actual Book of Abraham. And we know Warren Parrish, according to his own testimony, was involved in transcribing the dictated translation which Joseph Smith spoke via revelation. We also know Parrish was not working as a scribe until early October. So if the Book of Abraham had already existed by July 1835, then how do we explain Parrish's participation? Meaning, what portion of the BoA did he transcribe if the entire thing already existed, as John Gee has argued? Also, is it just a wild coincidence that in 1842 Joseph Smith publishes the exact amount of translated text that appears on several of the KEP manuscripts of 1835? And was Joseph Smith lying in March 1842 when he said he would begin translating for the next installment, which began with Abraham 2:19? Why would he say this if, according to you and Will, that text already existed as far back as July 1835? Why would he need to "translate" it again? These are all hard hitting pieces of evidence I have yet to see the apologists address, and they all undermine the weak thesis that keeps being floated out on these forums, which is usually presented as though it were already "confirmed." We see a lot of rhetoric to this effect. Much talk about the "mounting evidence," or the "compelling" or "persuasive" evidence, even though scant evidence is ever presented, and it never succeeds to persuade even most LDS loyalists. Claims of "confirmations" and "verifications" based on "Substantial textual evidence" as though we were talking about a professional text critic using some established scholarly method, accepted by his peers. But rhetoric doesn't help get anyone to the truth. All rhetoric does is distort perceptions, for the sake of appearing to win a losing argument.

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

What evidence are you referring to? Please don't direct me to Will's video. I've seen it so many times I have it memorized.

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

Will's methodology can be easily dismissed, since it is something he created from whole cloth. It is not a standardized method recognized or accepted by text critics.Unfortunately, we don't get to invent our own system just because it is designed to produce results that support our predetermined conclusions. Critics would never be able to get away with this, so I don't know why Will should. Remember, Will already admitted that he had been pushing or hinting at a preexistent text long before he came up with his so-called "substantial word analysis" which, conveniently confirmed what he always tried to substantiate. This means he had a bias to produce a certain outcome. It means he came up with this methodology for the sole purpose of producing results he felt would serve an apologetic purpose. Besides, he hasn't even begun to scrape the surface of all the data and evidence he must be using to come to these conclusions. The few examples he provided in his video were unimpressive to say the least. I mean really, the Celestial, Terrestial and Telestial kingdoms showing up in sequence? That's about as surprising as a phrase containing the word Alpha immediately following the word Omega. Is it really a stunning revelation that these three kingdoms would appear in the same order as they do in other Mormon texts? Or is it really hard to fathom Joseph Smith genuinely believing Mormon doctrines (i.e. the three kingdoms) were so old that even the ancient Egyptians knew about them? All Will did was connect dots between two sets of documents that contain the same exact doctrines/wording. He then leaps to the conclusion that this proves one is dependent on the other, when in fact both are simply dependent on Joseph Smith's theology, which he derived from the Bible. By this logic, all of the NT elements found in the Book of Mormon, should serve to prove that the Book of Mormon is strictly dependent on the Bible, right? I seem to recall quite a few anti-Mormons arguing along those lines, and I also remember quite a few apologists rejecting it out of hand using the same logic I'm using right now. As far as the presence of the "eternal kingdoms" in the GAEL, it is most reasonable to assume Joseph Smith was simply interpreting three Egyptian characters as references to the three kingdoms, and naturally his definition for these kingdoms would be identical to already established definitions in Mormon scripture. We see word for word cut and paste jobs in the Book of Mormon as well, so this should hardly be surprising. That William would use this anecdote to mean one was strictly dependent on the other, is not impressive, and requires far more evidence than either of you have yet to present.

4d. An expanded analysis of the GAEL confirms the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a preexisting text

You keep repeating this, as does Will. But we have yet to see any evidence for it. It must be fun creating one's own form of scholarship where the model is rigged to constantly "confirm" what you want it to. Again, Will created this from whole cloth, basing it on "intuition' along with his background as a database administrator. He said so in his video. It has nothing to do with the science of text criticism, recognized by scholars. So there is no reason to accept an argument based on such an analysis. If I come up with an analysis based on Cheese and Crackers, and I keep asserting that it "confirms" the results I want, would you accept it? Of course not. Likewise, there is no reason for me or anyone else to accept Will's "analysis" based on his official-sounding "substantial word analysis."

4e. The alphabet and Grammar are dependent upon other revelations that have no relation to the Egyptian papyri (they predate the arrival of the papyri at Kirtland).

And since no one ever said the contents of the GAEL was entirely related to the Egyptian papyri, your point is irrelevant. But this goes back to the straw man that started this thread.

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

Excellent. Then I challenge you to produce, oh say, just three examples of this "mounting evidence." If it is really "mounting," then three shouldn't be too much to ask. So far all I have seen is William's misuse of Phelps's letter to his wife, which, much to his chagrin, turned out to be based on a preexistent 1832 revelation produced by none other than Joseph Smith.

Thanks, - Kevin Graham-

Edited November 13, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Wade, Cobalt asked you for a reference and you alluded to the July 1835 citation, saying Joseph Smith translated "some characters." Is this the extent of your argument, from the historical record, supporting Will's contention that most or all of the Book of Abraham was produced before the GAEL?

No. There are other journal entries and authoritative statements which add support to the four other sub arguments previously listed in favor of a preexisting text, which may also be added to the seven argument delineated earlier in the thread against the proposition that the E/A/GAEL were intended and used to translate part of the Book of Abraham.

I frequently hear apologists like you and Will claim that your argument is supported by the historical record. I think this can easily be shown to be false.

I believe the historical recorded is sufficiently vague as to allow differences of opinion. However, I don't believe that it can be used to easily show false the five arguments in favor of a preexisting text--though you are welcome to present your case.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-