Abr. 1:1-3 And The Test Of Two Theories

[wenglund]

WARNING: Critics, this thread may contain new information that may be both fatally damaging to several of your favored theories, but also extremely boring. Continue reading at your own risk.

By way of introductions, several leading critics of the Church of Jesus Christ believe that the Egyptian Alphabet (EA) and Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) were developed with the intent of translating the Book of Abraham from the Egyptian papyri then in Joseph Smith's possession, and that these incomplete documents were used as the "modus operandi" in translating at least the first three verses of the Book of Abraham from papyrus fragment JSP XI.

Also, several critics believe that the Book of Abraham was plagiarized from the Book of Genesis. Some even contend that the EA/GAEL were dependent upon the Book of Genesis, and that the Book of Abraham was then, in turn, dependent upon the EA/GAEL.

In this thread I will be using the text of the Book of Abraham, specifically the first three verses, to scrutinize both sets of theories, beginning with the former. It will be shown that the former theory is implausible at best and that the later theory is more than a bit of a stretch.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Arguments in favor of the "modus operandi" theory have surfaced over the years and on multiple discussion boards, and they have been formally presented by Chris Smith in the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal some time towards the end of 2009 or the beginning of 2010 (I don't believe the article is available online).

I won't detail these arguments, but essentially the critics believe that because certain characters and sub-characters (graphemes) in the EA/GAEL (presumably derived from the papyrus JSP XI), along with their associated EA/.GAEL explanations, seem to correspond rather well with the characters and text contained in one of the extant Abraham manuscript (Ab1), as such the EA/GAEL was used as the modus operandi or key to "translate" Abr. 1:1-3 and perhaps a couple of other verses.

While I don't dispute that there is significant correlation between the EA/GAEL and Ab1, in this thread I will challenge the presumed direction of dependency. I will demonstrate that there is compelling reason to conclude that Abr. 1:1-3 was not derived from the EA/GAEL, but rather it was likely the opposite.

Perhaps the reader will recall that in a previous thread I presented 20 or so arguments against the theory in question (see Here). I won't reproduce those arguments in this thread. Instead, I have consolidated them into file, which I will attach to the end of this post. However, over the next several posts I will present even more arguments that expand upon the textual analysis I began in another Book of Abraham thread HERE.

[i should briefly mention that the material I am about to present not only counters the theory in question, but it may also negatively impact the much larger theory from the critics that the 1835 Abraham manuscripts (particularly Ab1 - Ab3) represent the initial dictated "translation" from JSP XI of the first chapter or so of the Book of Abraham.]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers and Death of a Theory.doc

[wenglund]

I trust that the reader (assuming there are any at this point) is familiar enough with various documents (JSP XI, EA/GAEL, Ab1) to forego the customary introductory explanation. If not, then please let me know and I will post one.

For reasons of convenience, I will be using the character numbering convention devised by Will Schryver, as mentioned in his 2010 FAIR presentation (where he numbered each of the characters, particularly those given sounds and explanations, in sequence as they appeared in the EA, from 1 to 69).

Because of the limited scope of the theory in question, this analysis will concern itself with only a few of the 69 characters--specifically two characters identified in the GAEL as composites characters, and the several characters that comprise the dissected parts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Let's begin by looking at the first character that appears on Ab1 (circled in white, image scanned from Brian Hauglids book, "A Textual History of the Book of Abraham").

This is the same character that appears first (reading from right to left) in the top row of column one of the JSP XI (circled in red, image posted online by Chris Smith).

It is the 68th character to be listed in the EA's, and identified in the GAEL as a composite character comprised of the following dissected parts (this character is dissected both into individual parts and compound parts using some of the same sub-characters--note the shared character numbers):

Note the sequence (from top to bottom) of the dissected character numbers (38, 14, 39, 18, 14, 38, 18). This sequence will factor into the analysis to come.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As a part of my research, I have examined, in sequence, each phrase in Ab1, and searched through the explanations of the relevant characters in each of the degrees in EA/GAEL to find the best match. I have compiled my findings in the table below:

As mentioned earlier, with few exceptions, the text of Ab1 that was assigned to the first character (about half of the first paragraph and consisting of the first verse and part of the second verse of today's Book of Abraham) appears to match up very well with certain text in the EA/GAEL.

So far so good, right?

However, by looking more closely at the table one may see why, even given the match ups, this is problematic for the theory in question?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

So far so good, right?

However, by looking more closely at the table one may see why, even given the match ups, this is problematic for the theory in question?

For one, as mentioned in a previous thread (HERE), the characters in the EA/GAEL are almost exclusively explained as nouns or pronouns. The marked absense of other parts of speach make the EA/GAEL problematic as a "translation" key, and may explain the conspicuous gaps in match ups between the two texts.

Also, the Ab1 text is written in the first-person and in the past tense; whereas the EA/GAEL is person and tense generic. This means that at best the EA/GAEL may be used as a template (likely for producing future documents rather than translating ancient documents) and not a key for translating. Whoever utilizes the EA/GAEL, whether in dictating or composing, must of necessity, themselves, supply the person and tense as well as the other parts of speech.

More important, though, isn't so much that there are match ups, but rather where in the EA/GAEL those match ups seem to occur. According to the table above, they are scattered seemingly at random between characters and among the EA and GAEL and the different degrees. For example, the first Ab1 phrase matches the explanation for character #68 in EA OC. The second phrase kind of match character #38 in EA OC. Only a portion of the third phrase matches character #14 in the GAEL first degree. There is no match for the 4th phrase. The 5th phrase matches character #39 of EA WP. One word in the 6th phrase matches character #14 in the GAEL fifth degree. The 7th phrase matches character #39 in EA JS. The 8th phrase kind of matches character #39 of EA OC. There is no match for the 9th phrase…and so on and so forth.

I don't know about you, but the eclectic nature of the textual match ups renders highly implausible the EA/GAEL as a translation key for the Ab1 text. It is hard to imagine any rhyme or reason for it. Try visualizing Joseph Smith or whomever drawing the first, composite character, on the Ab1 manuscript and then supposedly using the EA/GAEL as a translation key for the dissected parts, dictating the text of Ab1 by inexplicably jumping back and forth between the different pages of the EA's and GAEL, and back and forth between different degrees of the GAEL. As the saying goes, "the thought makes reason stare." LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

What I find interesting about the data in the table above, is that of the 10 phrases where there are match ups between Ab1 and the EA/GAEL, 6 of them are found in the EA's. Whereas, given that the GAEL was supposed to take the EA's to the next level (expanding the 1st degree explanations of the EA's into the five degrees of the GAEL), and supposedly be the next step in the narrative development sequence, one would anticipate that there would be far more match ups with the GAEL, if not exclusively.

The fact that the opposite appears to be the case, seems to me to suggest a reverse dependency--i.e. the EA's, and then the GAEL, are dependent upon a preexisting text of at least a portion of the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The haphazard relationship between the EA/GAEL and the Ab1 can, in some limited respects, be explained by the dissected parts of the composite character (see the image posted earlier of the dissecting of character #68). Here is the sequence of character numbers for the respective dissected parts: 38, 14, 39, 18, 14, 38, 18.

Here is how the numbers break out sequentially for the phrases in the table above: 68, 38, 14, 39, 14, 39, 39, 69, 69, 69.

So, as you can see, there is at least some similarity in the pattern.

However, in the latter string there is the conspicuous absence of character #18 (zubzooloan), and an overabundance of character #39 (Beth Ka).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Critics, this thread may contain new information that may be both fatally damaging to several of your favored theories, but also extremely boring.

I agree that wading through these long diatribes is rather boring, but it doesn't appear to me that "new" data has been presented here. All I see is a rhetorical conglomerate of assertions self-described as "arguments," based on anecdotes that wade apparently believes the critics were never aware of to begin with.

Well, I guess the first thing that needs to be said is that Schryver's focus on this one single phrase has been completely blown out of proportion for apologetic purposes. He needed a quick "win" over something to drive his 2010 FAIR presentation and the RLDS historian Richard Howard provided just that. Analytics demonstrated two months ago that Schryver and company have completely misunderstood what was meant by the phrase when reiterated by Ashment and Smith, and they have tried to spend all their time and effort refuting a rather irrelevant point and then reiterate it as their flagship apologetic victory over all critics. As I said to Chris Smith over the phone just after reading his paper, I do not believe Abr 1:1-3 was necessarily produced from the GAEL. There is clearly a lot of correlation going on between the two, but I see that Joseph Smith could have been trying to integrate a translation into the GAEL rather than vice-versa. Either way, the primary critical thesis, which the apologists have completely ignored, stands on firm ground and the apologists have yet to dent it.

several leading critics of the Church of Jesus Christ believe that the Egyptian Alphabet (EA) and Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) were developed with the intent of translating the Book of Abraham from the Egyptian papyri then in Joseph Smith's possession

Call for references!

I have always argued that the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language was produced for the sole purpose of providing a grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian language. Brian Hauglid agrees with me on this point because we have to let teh text speak for itself. We also have to accept the historic references that indicate this was Joseph Smith's baby. If wade wants to claim "several leading critics" have argued that the GAEL was produced for the strict purpose of producing the Book of Abraham, then he needs to provide examples. It just so happens that Joseph Smith believed Egyptian alphabet characters could be found listed in the five columns on JSP 1, which is why we'd expect to see so much overlap with a proposed "alphabet" of the Egyptian language.

The thrust of the critical argument with respect to the GAEL, is that it provides even more evidence that the source of the Book of Abraham can be identified in the extant papyri. If JSP XI was believed to be thr source for the Book of ABraham, then game over. That's really all the critics need to establish. And we have. It proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient documents by any means. This is why it is so important for folks like Nibley and Gee to keep asserting alternatives; hypothetical possibilities, such as the missing papyrus, and then presenting them as if they were plausible. So my point here is that wade is really beating a dead horse that ignores the elephant in the room, but I understand he is merely following Schryver's lead without putting much into this by way or original thought.

The elephant is something that seems to have completely escaped Schryver and Englund, whether consciously or not. And no matter how many times we keep pointing this out, they keep reverting back to the "modus operandi" straw man.

In any event, I know I promised to post a new thread covering the evidence requested by Altersteve, but it has been a busy two weeks and my kids ruined my laptop with cranberry juice while playing angry birds. It will probably be this weekend before I can sit down and post something.

[wenglund]

Continuing on from what I said in my previous post, there is also the conspicuous presence of explanations for character #69 (Ah brah oam). Their presence in the mix is odd because this character is not a dissected part of character #68, but is represented as its own character, and the second character listed sequentially in Ab1 and JSP XI (circled in yellow and then orange respectively in the images below):

The problem is, according to the numbering on Ab1, this second character is only supposed to be associated with the name "Abraham" (see numbers circled in yellow below), yet here its explanations are showing up in the text assigned to the first Ab1 character (see below the areas marked at the beginning by numbers circled in red and ending where the next character begins):

The inexplicable match ups between the explanations for character #69 with text assigned to the first Ab1 character (EA/GAEL character #68), is inconsistent with the theory that Ab1 was translated using the EA/GAEL, and suggests that the later may have been dependent upon the former--i.e. again, the EA/GAEL was evidently dependent upon a preexisting text of at least a portion of the Book of Abraham. .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

[delete nauseating blend of vacuous dismissals and unwarranted posturing]

As I said to Chris Smith over the phone just after reading his paper, I do not believe Abr 1:1-3 was necessarily produced from the GAEL. There is clearly a lot of correlation going on between the two, but I see that Joseph Smith could have been trying to integrate a translation into the GAEL rather than vice-versa.

In a recent thread, Analytics quoted you as saying: "I do not believe the GAEL were used to translate much beyond Abr 1:1-3."

If he quoted you correctly, the implication is clear, though it is encouraging to see that you are now open to seeing the correlation in reverse.

Either way, the primary critical thesis, which the apologists have completely ignored, stands on firm ground and the apologists have yet to dent it.

Evidently a lot has happened outside your scope of awareness.

Call for references!

As explained to you before, the belief in question is implicit in the theorized use of the EA/GAEL. In other words, those arguing that the EA/GAEL were used to translate Ab1, implicitly assume that the EA/GAEL were used as intended. This isn't rocket science, but seems rather obvious and reasonable to me. It is too bad that it continues to allude you. If needs be, though, I can provide you with a number of references where critics have argued that the EA/GAEL were used to translate Ab1.

Now, if my explanation and offer doesn't suffice for you personally, then feel free to ignore that inconsequential part of my statement. It is sufficient for the reasonable reader.

I have always argued that the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language was produced for the sole purpose of providing a grammar and alphabet of the Egyptian language. Brian Hauglid agrees with me on this point because we have to let teh text speak for itself.

Fine. Are you aware, though, that the critics' implied belief that the EA/GAEL were intended to translate portions of the Book of Abraham, is a subset of the broader purpose upon which you and Brian supposedly agree? In other words, the purpose you proffered is consistent with the implied belief, and the implied belief is not at odds with what the text supposedly says about itself, though, as I have demonstrated, is at odds with the evidence.

We also have to accept the historic references that indicate this was Joseph Smith's baby. If wade wants to claim "several leading critics" have argued that the GAEL was produced for the strict purpose of producing the Book of Abraham, then he needs to provide examples.

I don't wish to argue that. If I did, then I would have. So, let's set aside that straw man distraction.

[delete self-serving and tangential caricature of the debate along with more nauseating admixtures of vacuous dismissals and unwarranted strutting and preening.]

As expected, you failed to engage even one of several argument I have made thus far in this thread; but instead, and as usual, you cranked up the veritable fog machine. Please be so kind as to not clutter this thread with your counter-productive distractions. It is enough that I am boring people into submission. I don't wish you to add the socially repelling and cruel and unusual punishment of insufferable arrogance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

What is also odd about the explanations for character #69 (the second Ab1 character) showing up in the text assigned to the first Ab1 character (EA/GAEL character #68), is that character #69 is presumably a dissected part of EA/GAEL character #66 (Kiahbroam Kiahbrahoam zub zool oan), which is also the third character in Ab1 and JSP XI (circled respectively in green below):

In my next post I will show how this composite character (#66) is dissected in the GAEL, including character #69 ("Ah boam"), and character #18 ("Zubzooloan") as two of its three parts.

I mention this now, in transition, so as to make the confusing point that, as mentioned before, character #69 is not a dissected part of character #68, and yet some of its explanations showing up in the portion of Ab1 assigned to character #68; and furthermore, while character #69 is, presumably, a part of composite character #66, it shows up on Ab1 as its own character, though none of its EA/GAEL explanations fit the portion of the Ab1 text to which is was assigned. This, too, is incompatible with the notion that the EA/GAEL was the translation key for Ab1. However, it is compatible with the notion that the EA/GAEL is dependent upon a preexisting text of at least a portion of the Book of Abraham.

Also, it will be interesting to see if the explanations for character #18 that were conspicuously absent in the portion of the Ab1 text assigned to its composite character #68, are also conspicuously absent from the Ab1 text assigned to its other composite character #66.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 25, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

In my next post I will show how this composite character (#66--"Ki ah broam kiahbrahoam zubzooloan") is dissected in the GAEL, including character #69 ("Ah broam"), and character #18 ("Zubzooloan") as two of its three parts.

Actually, as will be shown, it is not exactly certain which characters make up composite character #66 since they are not explicitly identified in the GAEL (see image of GAEL page 3 below):

It is presumed that character #69 is one of the parts of composite character #66 because of its shape (which is similar to one of the parts shown in the dissection) and its sound ("Ahbroam", which is similar to one of the sounds for the composite character), and how it tends to be juxtaposed together with another known part (let's call this known part, character #66a, with the sound "Kiabroam") throughout the five degrees of the GAEL.

It is presumed that character number #18 is also a dissected part because its sound ("Zubzooloan") is the same as one of the sounds of the composite character, and this even though the shape of character #18 is not exactly the same as the dissected part.

Here, then, is the presumed numbering of the composite character and its respective parts:

Note the sequence of sounds for the composite character as compared with its parts. For future purposes, also note the sequence of the numbers for the dissected parts(#69, #66, #18).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Now that I have identified the third Ab1 character (EA/GAEL character #66) and presumably its respective parts (characters #69, #66, #18), lets examine Ab1 and the text assigned to the third character to see how well it matches up with the corresponding EA/GAEL explanations (see the table below):

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 25, 2012 by wenglund

[Vance]

I agree that wading through these long diatribes is rather boring, . . .

I got this far with your long diatribe.

BORING!

[wenglund]

For future purposes, also note the sequence of the numbers for the dissected parts(#69, #66, #18). Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Compare this with the sequence of EA/GAEL characters with matching explanations: #69, #69, #18, #18, #66, #18, #33 or #2. Not exactly the same, but somewhat close.

What I find interesting about the match ups for the portion of Ab1 text assigned to the third JSP XI character, is that unlike with the portion of text assigned to the first character, most of the EA/GAEL match ups came from the GAEL rather than the EA's, though there still was a lot of jumping around, which, as previously mentioned, in practical terms argues against the theory in question, rendering it implausible.

Another point of interest for me in terms of the jumping around, is that while the match ups expectedly moved from character to character, they also appear to have cycled sequentially through the various degrees: degree 4, degree 5, degree 1, degree 2, degree 3, degree 5.

This differs somewhat from the EA/GAEL match ups with the Ab1 text assigned to the first JSP XI character, virtually all of which were in the first degree. Fascinating.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

-continued-

I don't believe this is coincidental. It suggests to me some measure of intention--the kind that doesn't make sense from the perspective of the theory in question, but which makes good sense in terms of the EA/GAEL being dependent upon a preexisting text of portions of the Book of Abraham.

What I just said may be supported by several points: first, The pattern of cycling sequentially from degree to degree became the standard for the second part of the GAEL. Unlike with Part 1, which presented explanations for each of the character in each of the five degrees; for the most part in Part 2, each character, sequentially in turn, was explained in only one degree. For example, character #24 was explained in degree 1, character #25 in degree 2, #26 in degree 3, #27 in degree 4, #28 in degree 5, and so on and so forth.

This tells me that at the beginning of the EA/GAEL production process it was initially decided that the respective phrases in the preexisting translation of the Book of Abraham, would be divided up and assigned to explanations for various characters and in the 1st degree. Then, part way through the processes the decision was made instead to divvy the phrases in ascending order to explanations in a given degree and a given character, with the explanations for the remaining degrees to be filled in with similar or expanded content. And, finally, the decision was made to not fill in explanations for the other degrees, but just for the single degree.

At least this appears to be how things shaped up for the EA/GAEL explanations associated with the Ab1 text.

Second, if you look at the table several posts above, the third row down, you will see that the matching phrase in the GAEL contains additional content (the phrase "a patriarch"--marked in bold) not found in Ab1.

This suggests to me that the respective phrases in the GAEL was an editorial expansion of the preexisting phrase in Ab1.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 25, 2012 by wenglund