Preexisting Text Theory

[Xander]

This is a response to Wade's comments he made a week ago. The subject deals with the so-called preexistence of the Book of Abraham translation, prior to the work done in Joseph Smith's Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.

Please try and stay focused. The quotes from the HoC I cited earlier, to which you have been objecting, weren't necessarily intended, themselves, as direct support of a preexisting written text (though one may reasonably extrapolate such), but rather in support of a preexisting partial translation of the BoA--via whatever medium one may conjecture. Whether that translation was written down or not, at this point in the process of ME laying out the evidence, it is still an open question (more to come later).

Wade, I'm focused. I asked you to produce evidence for a preexistent text and your only piece of evidence came from a questionable, late entry from the HotC. The citation itself doesn't even support your conclusion anyway, because it says nothing of a text. We may infer from this that something may have been written, but nothing to the extent that would serve as a foundation for William's GAEL theory. Joseph Smith provided, a quick translation of only a few characters for the purposes of identifying their origin and no published scholar has ever argued otherwise (until Gee dropped his wild claim on us). That's it. There is simply no evidence that much of anything was translated before he started the GAEL which took up all his time for the last 2-3 weeks of July 1835.

This means that if you wish to object to MY use or interpretation of the quotes I cited, you need to do so in terms of the context in which I presented them

Context doesn't save you, it refutes you. You presented them as evidence for a preexistent text, and I refuted that based on what the citations say in context. I do translations verbally all the time without putting them to paper.

With that having been said, and getting back to focus, do you disagree with me that the citations I provided are evidence of a preexisting translation?

Again, yes. The citation does nothing to support your argument, which is why I asked you to produce more from this alleged pile of "mounting" evidence.

That may be your ignorant opinion. We disagree.

I'm ignorant because I reject your baseless claim that the Book of Joseph project was underway? You don't seem to understand how burden of proof works. You don't get to make outrageous and unsupportable claims and then say "prove me wrong." I don't need to prove what Joseph Smith didn't do. You are the one making dogmatic assertions about what he supposedly did do, so you really need to back it up with evidence. The only thing I see mounting here is long-winded rhetoric.

You have textual evidence in Parrish's hand of Egyptian characters being written next to BoA text. Based on that evidence you have wildly ASSUMED that the Parrish Mss. constitutes a translation.

Uh, the text itself claims to be a translation. There is nothing "wild" about assuming something is what it claims to be.

I disagree. Rather, I suspect that it may have been an alternative to, or a worksheet for continuing production of, the GAEL. However, this is beside the specific point now at issue.

No you don't get to make wild claims like this and then dodge explaining your reasoning by saying "this is beside the point." You need to back up your reasons for believing it if you intend on passing judgment on my view as "ignorance." So far you've presented nothing as evidence and you are very unfamiliar with these documents if you think the Parrish manuscript was just some worksheet for the GAEL. You haven't even dealt with the overwhelming evidence that two of these manuscripts were dictated simultaneously. Before you try to say this has been refuted, don't even go there. The apologists promised to refute this in publication as far back as 2006, and they bragged about their progress for years on these forums. All that talk about professional LDS text critics who were going to pummel Metcalfe and Ashment with their expertise, etc etc. And then suddenly, the guy spearheading the project (Hauglid) abandoned that agenda and decided to avoid the topic altogether. He doesn't even want to be called an apologist anymore. So please, don't allude to some nonexistent publication that supposedly refutes what the critics have pretty much established for years now. We've played that game before and you guys lost. The apologists have no more credibility on the subject of the KEP, which is probably why Schryver felt the need to divert attention away from the Book of Abraham manuscripts, by reinventing the meaning and purpose of the GAEL.

So? It isn't specific enough for us to definitively know what exactly was translated.

What do you mean "so?"? Let me explain this to you as carefully as I know how. If Parrish was involved in at least some portion of the original Book of Abraham translation, and if Parrish was hired on as scribe the end of October, then this means the Book of Abraham could not have been completed before November. If it was already translated, as Gee and others have asserted, then this makes the employment of Parrish superfluous. It also means he lied about being involved in the original translation process.

That is your opinion. My opinion is that the only strong evidence within the Parrish Mss is that Parrish was involved with writing Egyptian characters next to BoA text.

Except my opinion is supported by actual evidence. Yours makes absolutely no sense. Why would you choose to believe he was writing Egyptian characters and nothing more, when the translated English text is in his handwriting as well?

The five very brief HoC references from November to December (Parrish didn't became Joseph's scribe until November) simply speak to translating, or translating the ancient record. They give absolutely no indication as to what was translated--the BoA or the Book of Joseph, or what part, if any, of the BoA.

This is not true. We know he translated enough from both scrolls to determine provenance. We also know from the same source that the majority of the time was spent doing translations for the GAEL. This began within a few days of purchasing the papyri and lasted 2 to 3 weeks before coming to a halt.

But, you are free to widely conjecture, even if this is beside the specific point you objected to earlier.

Calling my evidence-based viewpoint "wild conjecture" is just rhetoric. You actually have to show why it is just wild conjecture before you can call yours a valid argument.

Again, that is your ignorant opinion. We have reason to believe otherwise.

Who is we? And what are these reasons? Why won't you share them? And for you to call me "ignorant" on this subject is, well, that's just mean man.

I am not sure which of the two Mss. in Parrish's handwriting you had in mind, but I was under the impression that they differed somewhat from what may be found in the Willard Richard's Mss

Yes, they do differ somewhat, but that's to be expected when you have scribes simultaneously transcribing a text from dictation.

No. Smith mentioned that he recommenced translating from the record of Abraham for the tenth number of the Times and Seasons.

Right. Which began with 2:19. It is impossible to "begin translating" something that, according to the apologists, was already translated seven years prior. If that were the case, then he never would have said he was "beginning" it. He would have said he was "retranslating." Words have meanings wade.

He did not indicate that his translation would begin with Abraham 2:19. That is something YOU conjecture based on what ended up being published in that issue.

More rhetoric. My claim relies on Joseph Smith's statement, which the apologists have ignored for decades until the critics brought it to their attention. My claim is based on what he did say, not what he didn't say. Again, if Gee is right and the second issue was already translated before Smith's statement, then Joseph Smith must have misspoke. This is probably how Gee interpreted his comment since he refused to acknolwedge what he actually said. Gee said he was only engaged in "editing and revising" the translation, but twice during that week Joseph Smith said he was actually doing new translations "for" the second installment. OK, so what was he translating if not the text that would be published in the second installment? If I say I am cooking turkey "for" tomorrow, then it logicall follows that the turkey my family eats on Sunday is what I cooked on Saturday. This isn't difficult to understand and it hardly requires "wild conjecture."

continued...

Edited November 19, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

No. I can only see how YOUR disputed opinion about what was translated differs from OURS....I can't speak for Gee, but you are here conversing with me, and I have yet to deny that Joseph was engaged in translation on both those days. Where you and I differ is what portion of the BoA was being translated, and what that translation may have consisted of (I am partial to the word "revise" in Joseph's journal).

In one breath you claim to be independent but then in the next breath you keep referring to "our" position and the royal "we." So which is it? I'm responding to the more formal apologetic arguments available. John Gee has published on these matters, so I am more interested in addressing his errors than yours. How you agree or disagree with him is up to you.

The evidence in support of our various arguments are being presented in their due time.

So after claiming evidence for your position has been "mounting" more and more, you finally admit you cannot provide any? I thought it was against the rules here to declare XYZ unless you're prepared to present evidence for XZY. You and Will have a bad habit of reiterating the same things over and over, always speaking in absolute terms, and when asked to produce evidence, you refer us to some forthcoming publication that never sees the light of day. Meanwhile, Will engages in rhetoric overdrive by referring to the apologetic theories as "persuasive," the evidence "compelling," the conclusions "confirmed," etc.

I see no reason to consider Joseph a liar, or consider the evidence problematic for our position, based on YOUR disputed conjecture. Sorry.

I don't think Joseph lied either. I think he was telling the truth when he, on two occasions, claimed to be translating the Book of Abraham the week after he published Abr 1:1-2:18. If you don't see how that is problematic for the apologetic position, then you don't understand the apologetic position. You really need to read more from your published scholars instead of entertaining wild theories from unpublished netizens. I can tell from the other thread that you've read practically nothing from John Gee, since his recent publications, available online, made irrelevant your dozen or so questions regarding the imagery on the papyri. He already conceded most of that stuff.

How about this: YOU get to decide what evidence and arguments YOU believe you wish to and are in a position to present, and I will do the same from MYSELF. Is that asking too much?

I see you're backing away from your original claim. OK. So you cannot provide any examples of the "mounting evidence" you initially spoke of.

1. In this thread you have agreed that the quotes I cited indicate that prior to the EA/GAEL there was a translation of some characters from which it was learned that the Egyptian papyri contained the records of Abraham and Joseph.

We don't know enough about the reliability of these citations since they were added many years later, but yes, I believe an initial, brief, off-the-cuff translation occured for the sole purpose of identifying the text. This is the only thing your citations suggest happened.

2. Also in this thread you said: "We've been trying to tell him [Will] that the "narrative" already existed [prior to the Ea/GAEL], just not on paper.

Yes, at least a dozen times elsewhere, but he continues to misrepresent our position on this forum.

3. In the past on another board you have argued that portions of the BoA were taken from the Book of Genesis--i.e. the translation of the BoA consisted, in part, of reproducing the Book of Genesis. Clearly, the Book of Genesis was put to paper and clearly it existed long before the EA/GAEL. Essentially, from your point of view, it was a preexisting text of, in part, the translation of portions of the BoA.

But since we both know this is not the kind of "preexisting text" Will is proposing, what exactly is your point? Besides, this dependency on Genesis didn't take place until 1842, when those portions of the text were produced.

So, it strikes me as quite odd that you are arguing against our proposition that in relation to the EA/GAEL there was a preexisting text of the translation of a portion of the BoA.

Do you really think this strikes anyone as wit on your part? There is nothing odd about accepting the liklihood that Joseph Smith had a narrative or outline of a narrative, in his mind before for the first two chapters. And there is nothing odd about him relying on a preexistent text for other chapters. What you and Will are trying so desperately to prove is that the entire thing was complete before the GAEL, and the only reason you're doing this is to cast doubt on Chris' position that the first three verses derive from the GAEL. For the record, I don't entirely agree with Chris's view and I have told him so over the phone. Trajectory is a moot point for me. I think Andrew says it best when he says Joseph Smith "consulted" the GAEL in his translations, the same way Don Bradley proved he consulted the GAEL when he translated a portion of a Kinderhook plate. This doesn't require a trajectory or dependency either way. It just shows his desire to see some correlation or overlap between the two, the same way he tried to incorporate masonic themes.

Regarding whether the preexisting translation of part of the BoA was put to paper or not, Kevin contends that the two quotes I cited earlier do not explicitly or implicitly suggest that the translations were written down.

It may interest him to learn that many of the notations in Joseph's journal during the his translation of the Book of Mormon and the JST of the Bible, gave indication that Joseph was translating, but didn't explicitly state that the translations were put to paper. Yet, we know from empirical evidence that they were.

So? This is like saying Jason never explicitly told anyone that he went to the cinema on Friday. But we found out later than he did in fact go to the cinema. Therefore, we can assume that Jason watches a movie every Friday. You need to do a better job avoiding these non sequitur arguments. This is a lame argument. Besides, we also know that Joseph Smith frequently provided translations without writing them down. By your logic, it is safe to assume he never wrote them down.

So, I really don't see the absence of an explicit statement to be a convincing counter-argument against my reasonable induction. If anything, given the wealth of historical president, the absence of such explicit statements may, in a way, argue for my reasonable induction. [thumbs up]

Again, you are having serious trouble understanding how burden of proof works. You do this all the time. You make an argument based on what we don't know, and then tell me to prove what someone "didn't" do. That isn't how it works. Since you are the one claiming he did do something, you have to back it up with evidence. So far all you have done is provide a citation that speaks of a brief translation for the sole purpose of determining value. You then tell me it is reasonable to assume this refers to a detailed, "written" translation (enough to provide Will with a source for his GAEL theory), until I prove otherwise. That's nonsense. You're the one needing to back up your argument. Until you do, there is no reason to accept it.

Even still, there is stronger and mounting evidence, in addition to the wealth of historical president, supporting the proposition that the preexisting translations of part of the BoA was put to paper.

What the heck? You've written enough in response to cover a few chapters in a novel, and you still haven't provided any examples of this "mounting evidence" for a preexisting text. All you have done is rely strictly on the problematic citations found in the HotC; none of which support your argument to begin with.

I suppose it is possible that Joseph verbally gave Chandler the translations of the characters. However, I would think it more likely that the translation was given in writing, particularly so as to facilitate a minute comparison. (see more on this later)

Sure, he probably wrote down a few things to impress Chandler, but there is no indication that a preexistent, transcribed text, encompassing the first two or three chapters of Abraham, existed before the first week of July. That's what William is trying to show, which is the only reason you're arguing the point.

In a letter to his wife sent the middle of July of 1835, W.W. Phelps , one of the pre-named scribes, said: "...These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing secret or hidden that shall not be revealed, and they come to the Saints." To me, this indicates that the translations were being written down so as to eventually be printed in a book. Otherwise, how else could they be printed?

It only indicates that publication was the ultimate goal. Notice he said "when we translate" and not "as we translate." You're pretty fond of the "wild conjecture" phrase. Well, take a long hard look in the mirror buddy.

Most poignant is this statement collectively on behalf of several church leaders at the time

Most poignant? You're referring to comments that are most certainly dependent on the same original sources we've already addressed. All you're doing is reiterating the same, single piece of "evidence" in a repackaged format. So decades later the First Presidency talks about how Joseph Smith translated "some of the characters" in July 1835. How does this count as "mounting evidence" that a preexistent translation existed before the first week of July 1835? You're stacking the deck, but not adding new evidence.

There is textual critical evidence that the EA/GAEL was not a simultaneous dictation, and was dependent upon various preexisting texts, thus establishing a president for dependency on portions of the Book of Abraham

What evidence is this? Remember, you keep trying to divorce yourself from Gee and Schryver, claiming to be your own man, with your own views, criticizing me for assuming otherwise. But then you constantly refer to the "we" and "us" and "our" as if you're their spokesperson. But before I continue reading this long-winded straw man, please explain to me why any of this weighs on my argument. Why do I need the GAEL to consist of simultaneously dictated manuscripts? In reality, it has no bearing on my argument for what the GAEL is. I'm in the advantageous position of being able to accept the GAEL for what it claims to be and for what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

[Minos]

This is a one man slap down not a discussion. Get it moving in another direction or take it to private email.

[wenglund]

Kevin,

Do you understand the concept of building a case?

If so, do you realize that at the point at which you were responding to me it was at the very beginning of my building the case (I was then providing evidence that hinted of a preexisting text so as to lay the foundation for stronger evidence), and that I have since, and will continue, to build a rather elaborate case in favor of a preexisting text?

I am not sure as yet how to respond to your remarkably verbose equivalent to "nuh uh". But, I will give it some thought over the weekend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 19, 2011 by wenglund