Extant Abr Mss., Were Any The Original Dictation?

[wenglund]

In a previous thread, Kevin Graham made an assertion that, from what I can tell, may be the consensus among BofA critics (particularly the highlighted section):

The GAEL was an attempt by Joseph Smith to create a Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language, as indicated by his own statements. The Book of Abraham manuscripts are not part of that project, but there is evidence to suggest the GAEL were consulted when translating the first three verses of the BoA as well as the Facsimile. These manuscripts produced October-December 1835 represent, quite simply, the original translation manuscripts of the record of Abraham, and among them are copies of the same documents.

Granted, in a more recent post Kevin seems to have contradict himself or has changed his mind:

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. (emphasis mine)

Whatever Kevin may currently believe, I think it is fair to say that most, if not all of the BofA critics believe that the extant 1835 Abraham manuscripts were produced after the EA/GAEL, and that several of the manuscripts are the original dictation.

If, however, it can be persuasively established that portions of the Book of Abraham were translated prior to the EA/GAEL, then this would undermine not only critics' the theory that the EA/GAEL was the "modus operandi" for Abr. 1:1-3, but it would also undermine the theory that several of the extant 1835 Abraham manuscripts were the original dictation. And, if they weren't the original dictation, then this may negatively impact the critics' theory that the source for the Book of Abraham was JSP XI.

This thread will be devoted to exploring new and old evidence for or against a preexisting translation of portions of the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 30, 2012 by wenglund

[blackstrap]

For those of us who would truly benefit from such a topic, may we please avoid the usual assertions of "overwhelming"evidence" and "you don't(or can't)understand"

[wenglund]

This thread is a continuation of another thread (Abr. 1:1-3 and the test of two theories), though the scope here will extend beyond the first three verses and is also focused on the question of preexisting translation.

At the outset, I should give credit where credit is due. My pursuit in answer to the question about a preexisting text was serendipitously prompted and heavily influenced by Will Schryver's 2010 FAIR presentation (see videos HERE). As an integral part of his primary thesis he posited several arguments in favor of a preexisting text, and provided preliminary support for those arguments, with the promise of expounding further and comprehensively in a pending article to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Since Schryver has chosen to no longer involve himself in discussions on this topic on this board, and out of respect for the work he has already done, then prior to getting into my own arguments (which, to my knowledge, overlap very little with his, though they may augment and rest upon the firm foundation he has established), I will post a link to his presentation so that interested parties can view what he states for themselves.

See videos HERE.

However, the intent of this thread isn't to argue for or against what Will presented in 2010. Instead it is to argue for or against what I and others have and will yet presented elsewhere or on this thread. Those wishing to debate Will on this topic may do so in those venues in which he is willing to participate and speak for himself, but not here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 30, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

For those of us who would truly benefit from such a topic, may we please avoid the usual assertions of "overwhelming"evidence" and "you don't(or can't)understand"

You have my promise. I will do my best to lay out my arguments and let the reader decide for him or herself whether they are persuasive or not. I will also do my best to remain civil and academic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

Looking forward to it, Wade.

[wenglund]

While some critics agree that there may have been a partial translation of the Book of Abraham narrative predating the EA/GAEL, they question whether there is any historical evidence that the translation was written down, and they suppose instead that Joseph memorized it, or something along those lines. In other words, they argue for a preexisting translation, but not a preexisting text.

I suspect that part of the reason for their reluctance to accept the prospect of a preexisting text is because, as previously intimated, their belief that Abr. Mss. #2 and #3 represent an original, simultaneous dictation of Abraham 1:4 to 2:18 (or there about). Were they to allow for a preexisting text even of just the first three verses of Abraham, it would put their argument on a slippery slope.

What makes this somewhat odd is that several of these critics also believe that the Book of Abraham was taken from the Book of Genesis--an English translation of which predates the EA/GAEL by several hundred years. In other words, in a way on the one hand, they believe in a preexisting text of the Book of Abraham, yet on the other hand they deny the existence of a preexisting text.

In an earlier discussion I presented evidence that during the weeks prior to the inception of the EA/GAEL, Joseph translated "some characters" from the papyri (see below).

It is hard to say for certain what all the translation consisted of, but it appears to me to have consisted of enough for Joseph Smith to learn not only that the several scrolls contained records of Abraham and Joseph of old, but that the record of Abraham was autobiographical (i.e. written "by his own hand").

There is also indication in the historical record that the translation was written down. In other words, there is historical evidence for a preexisting text of at least a portion of the Book of Abraham.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 30, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

According to the HoC: "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)

Then, 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)

To me, even though this citation doesn't explicitly state that the translation was written down, I would think the presence of scribes when the translation commenced, strongly implies it.

There is also the statement made collectively on behalf of several church leaders at the time regarding the translations: "it so happened that in traveling through the country, he [Chandler] visited Kirtland, Ohio, where the Prophet Joseph Smith resided, bringing the mummies and the ancient papyrus writings with him. Mr. C. [Chandler] had also obtained from learned men the best translation he could of some few characters, which however, was not a translation, but more in the shape of their ideas with regard to it, their acquaintance with the language not being sufficient to enable them to translate it literally. After some conversation with the Prophet Joseph, Mr. Chandler presented to him the ancient characters, asking him if he could translate them. The Prophet took them and repaired to his room and inquired of the Lord concerning them. The Lord told him they were sacred records, containing the inspired writings of Abraham when he was in Egypt, and also those of Joseph, while he was in Egypt; and they had been deposited, with these mummies, which had been exhumed. And he also enquired of the Lord concerning some few characters which Mr. Chandler, gave him by way of a test, to see if he could translate them. The Prophet Joseph translated these characters and returned them, with the translation to Mr. Chandler; and who, in comparing it with the translation of the same few characters by learned men, that he had before obtained, found the two to agree." (REMARKS OF CHURCH LEADERS PUBLISHED IN JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 26 VOLS. LIVERPOOL, 1855-1886)

Evidently, Chandler had written copies of what various learned men had concluded was the meaning of some of the characters, and that these same characters were given to Joseph Smith to translate, which he did by the power of God, and returned the characters along with the translation (likely in writing) to Chandler for comparison.

This comports with the first quote, which mentioned that Joseph "gave" the translation to Chandler, thus implying a written translation that could be given to Chandler.

Her is the late recollection of Dr. Riggs: "The morning following [July 5, 1835] Joseph came with the leaves which he had translated, which Oliver Cowdery read, and Mr. Chandler then produced the translation of Professor Anthon as far as the Professor could translate it. Dr. Riggs, who was present at the reading, says that the translation of the Prophet and the Professor agreed so far, but "there was one language Professor Anthon could not translate which the Prophet did." Tullidges Quarterly Magazine 3/3 (1885): 282-83. (Cited by Will Schryver, MADB message Board, 10/13/09)

So, how did Joseph "give" and "return" the translation to Chandler? Did he do so verbally, himself? Evidently, he did so by way of "leaves" (presumably loose leafs of paper) that were read by Oliver, the "scribe".

Of course it is reasonable to question the complete accuracy of Riggs' 50-year-old recollections, though I see no reason to suggest that his late memory of the event was entirely confabulated. It is quite possible that he correctly recalled certain things--like the "leaves" and the reading of the translation, while incorrectly recalling others--like the translation supposedly given by Charles Anthon. The former seems supported by historical evidence, while the later appears to conflict with empirical data.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 30, 2012 by wenglund

[blackstrap]

According to the HoC: "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)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

hieroglyphic figures I understand. What might be the"devices"?

[wenglund]

Having presented the historical evidence for a preexisting text of a portion of the Book of Abraham, let's now look at the textual evidence found with the EA/GAEL and the 1835 Abraham manuscripts.

As intimated, in the first three BofA verses alone, of the 21 or so phrases contained therein, all but five have exact or close matches to explanations in the EA/GAEL (see Here and HERE).

Since the EA/GAEL presumably predate manuscripts Ab2 and Ab3 (the alleged original dictations), How do we then explain the presence of so many similar phrases in the EA/GAEL explanations? Where did these phrases come from? Could they have been derived from the translation of "some of the characters" that predate the EA/GAEL?

As my research progresses, it will be interesting to see if this trend continues through to Abr. 2:18 or beyond. If it does, then what would that suggest about the direction of dependency? We'll see.

Whatever I may find, Kevin evidently agrees that there "is clearly a lot of correlation going on between the two" sets of documents, and that "Joseph Smith could have been trying to integrate a translation into the GAEL rather than vice-versa."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

hieroglyphic figures I understand. What might be the"devices"?

I can't be sure, but they may be "astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c," (HoC Vol.2, Ch.25, p.348 - 351)

Also, the papyrus contain heiroglyphic figures and hieratic text framed in columns and registers. Perhaps to the untrained eye these framed columns and registers may be called "devices." Who knows?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 30, 2012 by wenglund

[blackstrap]

I really need to answer my own question Before I ask. A device can be an emblem or badge in the language of the 1800's. Sorry to distract.Carry on.

[wenglund]

As intimated, in the first three BofA verses alone, of the 21 or so phrases contained therein, all but five have exact or close matches to explanations in the EA/GAEL (see Here and HERE).

Since the EA/GAEL presumably predate manuscripts Ab2 and Ab3 (the alleged original dictations), How do we then explain the presence of so many similar phrases in the EA/GAEL explanations? Where did these phrases come from? Could they have been derived from the translation of "some of the characters" that predate the EA/GAEL?

Critics may reasonably ask why, if there was a preexisting text, not all of the Abraham text matches up with the EA/GAEL explanations? How do I explain the portions of the Abraham text that don't match up with the EA/GAEL explanations? They may reasonably suppose that were the EA/GAEL explanations dependent upon the Abraham text, then one may expect that all the content of the Abraham text would show up in the explanations.

Thus far, as I have compared and contrasted the portions of the text that match up with those that do not, it becomes evident that in most cases the match ups consist of noun phrases, whereas the phrases that don't match up tend to be other parts of speech.

Since virtually all of the EA/GAEL explanations are nouns or pronouns, this stands to reason.

Clearly, the EA/GAEL was far from complete, and who knows if the intent in the future was to eventually provide explanation for each of the other parts of speech. Whatever the case, since at the time that the extant 1835 Abraham manuscripts were written, only noun explanations made up the EA/GAEL, then as long as those explanations (or at least one explanation for each of the explained characters) can be accounted for in the Abraham text, particularly if there were more nouns in the Abraham text than in the EA/GAEL, then this may evince that the EA/GAEL was derived from a preexisting Abrahamic text rather than the other way around--the logic being that it is far more likely to derive all of the parts from the whole than it is to derive the whole from just some of the parts.

Again, as I continue with my research it will be interesting to see if this is born out. At least for Abr 1:1-3 it is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 30, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

In addition to the part/whole differentiation mentioned above, another textual means for determining direction of dependency, or in other words determining whether there was a preexisting text, is editorial evolution of the text--i.e. it is more likely that the more developed and gramatically correct phrases postdate and are dependent upon the less developed and grammatically correct phrases.

For example, in Ab1 is the phrase: ""a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and one who keeps the commandments of God, a rightful heir, a high priest." In the EA/GAEL, a similar phrase states: "a father of many nations, a prince of peace, one who keeps the commandments of God. a patriarch; a rightful heir; a high priest" (#69 and #66 GAEL d5--emphasis mine). Notice the addition of the words "a patriach" in the EA/GAEL phrase.

I will see if this pattern continues with Ab2 and Ab3. If it does, then this may give increasing indication that the EA/GAEL postdates, and may be dependent upon, a preexisting translation of a portion of the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Another means for textually determining direction of dependency, in conjuction with the pat/whole and textual evolution evidence, is movement from the specific to the general/generic--the logic being that it is much simpler and more likely to induce the general from a limited set of specifics than it is to deduce a specific from a limited set of general statements. This may be moreso if one of the documents in question is clearly meant to be general or generic.

For example, in my analysis of Abr. 1:1-3 it became clear that Ab1 was not only Abraham-specific, but also written in the first person (it was auto-biographical) and in the past tense. The same holds true for the remainder of chapter 1 as well as chapters 2 and 3.

Whereas, the explanations in the EA/GAEL are, for the most part, generic and person and tense neutral. A phrase in Ab1 says, "...at the residence of my fathers," and a comparable phrase in the EA/GAEL states, "Man's first residence…" (#38: EA WP, JS, OC, and GAEL d1) A phrase in Ab1 says, "...and peace and rest for me," whereas the EA/GAEL states, "…peace & rest for man" (#39: EA OC). A phrase in Ab1 says, "I, Abraham, saw…", while a similar phrase in the EA/GAEL states, "I see" (#14: GAEL d1),

To me, this generic vs. specific distinction suggest to me that the EA/GAEL were dependent upon, and thus postdate, the translation of a portion of the Book of Abraham, particularly if, as preliminary indicated, all or most all of the generic explantation in the EA/GAEL are accounted for in preexisting texts, and there are more specifics in the preexisting texts than in the EA/GAEL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Yet another means for determining direction of dependency is detecting patterns in the match ups that appear to correspond with, and perhaps somewhat explain the production sequence of one of the documents in question, patterns which suggest that one document may have been dependent upon another document, rather than vice-versa.

For example, of the first 10 phrases where there are match ups between Ab1 and the EA/GAEL, 6 of them are found in the EA's. Yet, 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.

Furthermore, in regards to the next nine characters, while the match ups between Ab1 and the EA/GAEL explanations 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.

Is this coincidental? It suggests to me some measure of intention--the kind that doesn't make sense from the perspective of Ab1 dependency on the EA/GAEL, but which makes good sense in reverse.

This 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 instance, 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.

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.

As my research continues, I will see if this pattern holds up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 30, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

So far, I have presented the following arguments in favor of a preexisting text:

1) Historical accounts of translation of some of the Book of Abraham prior to work commencing on the EA/GAEL.

2) Given the substantial number of phrases held in common between Ab1 and the EA/GAEL, though also the significant number not shared, the direction of dependency may be determined on the textual basis of the part vs. whole analysis in favor of the EA/GAEL dependency on a preexisting BofA text.

3) The direction of dependency may be determined on the textual basis of the editorial evolution of the texts in favor of the EA/GAEL dependency on a preexisting BofA text.

4) The direction of dependency may be determined on the textual basis of movement from the specific to the general/generic in favor of the EA/GAEL dependency on a preexisting BofA text.

5) The direction of dependency may be determined on the textual basis of certain patterns in favor of the EA/GAEL dependency on a preexisting BofA text.

All these arguments have a sound basis in regards to manuscript Ab1, and arguments 1 and 4 may already apply to manuscripts Ab2 and Ab3. We will just have to see if arguments 2, 3, and 5 also hold up with manuscripts Ab2 and Ab3.

While waiting for the results of my ongoing research, in the next several post I will provide additional arguments for dependency of the EA/GAEL on a preexisting text of portions of the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

6) There is precedent within the KEP documents for dependency of the EA/GAEL on preexisting texts.

First, as explained HERE, The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) are comprised of a number of documents, one of which is a notebook titled, "Valuable Discovery...," in the handwriting of W.W. Phelps, and another in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. Both notebooks contain translations of characters from the papyri, however the Cowdery notebook appears to be more character-specific in its translation, and appears to be dependent upon the Phelps notebook.

Then, in the EA's, we find at least one of the characters from the Phelps and Cowdery notebooks represented along with the sound/name ("Kah tou man") and brief explanations. This suggest to me that the EA's postdate and are dependent upon the preexisting notebooks.

Finally, while the sound appear to be the same across the EA's, the explanations are slightly different. In EA WWP it reads: "The name of the royal family, in the female line." In EA JS it states: "the name of a royal family in female line." And, in EA OC is says: "the name of a royal family - The female line." As for the GAEL, the explanation is the same as EA WWP. This suggests to me that EA JS and EA OC as well as the GAEL, were dependent upon the preexisting text of EA WWP.

Second, as indicated HERE, around March of 1832, Joseph was in a meeting where he asked questions about the meaning of five Adamic words, and then provided the answers. This Q&A was recorded on a sheet tilted, "Sample of pure Language." (see HERE).

A little over three years later, towards the end of May, 1835, Phelps sent a letter from Kirtland, where he resided with Joseph, to his wife in Missouri, which contained what Phelps called "A Specimen & some of the 'pure language'" (note that the Specimen is distinguished from the 'pure language")

This Specimen, while containing some variations of the content of the "Sample" was evidently dependent to some extent on the "Sample."

Portions of the "Sample" (format, characters, and some sounds) may have, in turn several months later, been used to produce related parts of the EA/GAEL. The EA/GAEL, then, was dependent upon the preexisting texts of the "Sample" and ultimately the "Specimen." To use Will Schryver's words, the "'Specimen' provides an example (one of many to come) where Phelps produced documents that were dependent upon a preexisting text of revelations received by Joseph."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 30, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

This suggests to me that EA JS and EA OC as well as the GAEL, were dependent upon the preexisting text of EA WWP.

For additional textual evidence (about 20 examples) in favor of this suggestion, please see HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-