Jspp Post Boa Manuscripts And Egyptian Alphabet Online!

[David T]

http://josephsmithpa...5-abraham-14–26

http://josephsmithpa...ly–october-1835

All with freaking High Res photos.

This document and some of the other related materials apparently represent an effort by JS and his colleagues to understand the papyri obtained from Michael Chandler in July 1835. About two-thirds of the text is in JS’s hand with the remainder contributed by

Oliver Cowdery.William W. Phelps was the most prominent contributor to the other Egyptian manuscripts from this period.

Note: When an Egyptian hieratic character appears on the manuscript, it is represented by a stylized “H” in the transcript. The transcript of “Egyptian Alphabet” presented here is used with generous permission of Brian M. Hauglid, associate professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University. Hauglid is preparing a collection of JS Egyptian materials, including this document, for print publication. All of these materials will eventually be made available on the Joseph Smith Papers website.

Edited June 5, 2012 by David T

[mfbukowski]

Wow-

Solid proof that the Church continues to keep such things secret and away from scholarly scrutiny.

[mapman]

This is very exciting! It is interesting that they say that the alphabet

"and some of the other related materials apparently represent an effort by JS and his colleagues to understand the papyri obtained from Michael Chandler in July 1835."

Edited June 5, 2012 by mapman

[wenglund]

Excellent! This is the part of the explanation that I liked most:

The manuscript also contains nineteen Egyptian hieratic characters (a cursive form of hieroglyphics) in the left margins. These hieratic characters were taken from the papyri purchased from Chandler, but their exact significance and relationship to the text remains undetermined.

That the text is organized into paragraphs with some punctuation, and that it contains several cancellations and insertions of the sort often associated with recopying a document, suggests that it may have been transcribed from an earlier draft. The manuscript has been in the possession of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since the Nauvoo period. (Hauglid, Textual History of the Book of Abraham, 64–65.--emphasis mine)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

I spent only 10 seconds looking at the first page of the Egyptian Alphabet and noticed a transcription error in the first character of the second part. It is transcribed "Ahmaros", which is not correct. It is "Ahmeos".

I guess that's why it says "Interim Content" at the top of each page.

I will publish my full transcriptions of the EA/GAEL as soon as possible. Otherwise, I simply encourage everyone to recognize that the transcriptions posted on the Joseph Smith Papers site do indeed represent "Interim Content".

Edited June 5, 2012 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

There's another error just a little further down the page. This is actually a rather important error, for reasons I will not currently explain. The JSPP transcription reads "Alcatbeth", which is incorrect. It is "Alcabeth".

Anyway, I won't take anymore time today to review their transcription, but I can already tell that it was not done with great care, nor did they compare the EA-JS document with the EA-WP, EA-OC, and GAEL documents to inform their transcription of the EA-JS document.

[David T]

There's another error just a little further down the page. This is actually a rather important error, for reasons I will not currently explain. The JSPP transcription reads "Alcatbeth", which is incorrect. It is "Alcabeth".

Anyway, I won't take anymore time today to review their transcription, but I can already tell that it was not done with great care, nor did they compare the EA-JS document with the EA-WP, EA-OC, and GAEL documents to inform their transcription of the EA-JS document.

This appears to be Hauglid's independent transcription. They said they have just changed formatting on it, as I understand.

The transcript of “Egyptian Alphabet” presented here is used with generous permission of Brian M. Hauglid, associate professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University. Hauglid is preparing a collection of JS Egyptian materials, including this document, for print publication. All of these materials will eventually be made available on the Joseph Smith Papers website.

Edited June 5, 2012 by David T

[William Schryver]

This appears to be Hauglid's independent transcription. They said they have just changed formatting on it, as I understand.

Yes, I understand that.

There are also numerous transcription errors in Brian's recently published book on the Abraham manuscripts. Some of the more egregious and significant errors will be described in detail in two forthcoming articles.

[wenglund]

I will publish my full transcriptions of the EA/GAEL as soon as possible.

Are you going to publish them online? It would be nice to have a better and more expanded verison than what Marquardt has offered on his web site for years.

I am pleased to see that high resolution copies of some of the Egyptian Papers are now legitimately posted online. It permits ease of online reference without inadvertantly violating copyright and permission restrictions.

I hope the JSPP post the other versions of the EA's as well as the GAEL, along with correct transcripts of each. I don't know why they don't just ask for your help since you have already completed most if not all of the work.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

[William Schryver]

Are you going to publish them online?

I'd rather not, at this point in time, describe the parameters of my work on the EA/GAEL. I do believe, however, that what I am doing will constitute an extremely functional tool for anyone--apologist, critic, etc.--who is interested in the Egyptian Alphabet papers. My primary publication will be in book form, but there will be an online component of the study that will permit "zooming in" on the documents, much as you see on the JSPP website.

I am pleased to see that high resolution copies of some of the Egyptian Papers are now legitimately posted online. It permits ease of online reference without inadvertantly violating copyright and permission restrictions.

Yes, it's very useful--at least in comparison to what has previously been available.

I hope the JSPP post the other versions of the EA's as well as the GAEL, along with correct transcripts of each.

I agree. The EA-JS without the EA-WP, EA-OC, and GAEL is not very useful if one is attempting to do a comprehensive study of the EA/GAEL. You've got to have them all.

I don't know why they don't just ask for your help since you have already completed most if not all of the work.

Well, it looks like Hauglid is intent on "going it alone". I wish him the best of luck as he proceeds. Maybe he can enlist his good buddy Kevin Graham to help him out.

Edited June 5, 2012 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

Maybe he can enlist his good buddy Kevin Graham to help him out.

It only makes sense that Hauglid would enlist the help of that endearing, unassailable, and foremost expert on all thing BoA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mapman]

On the homepage they say that "In the future, the website will include all of the Abraham manuscripts and the other Egyptian Papers."

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow-

Solid proof that the Church continues to keep such things secret and away from scholarly scrutiny.

And yet another example of the Church hiding in plain sight the fact that there were alternate accounts of the First Vision. (The earliest known account, partly written in Joseph's own hand, is part of Letterbook 1, which is included in the newly released content on the website.)

[William Schryver]

And yet another example of the Church hiding in plain sight the fact that there were alternate accounts of the First Vision. (The earliest known account, partly written in Joseph's own hand, is part of Letterbook 1, which is included in the newly released content on the website.)

I think this is a great development, especially in advance of the things on my publishing agenda. People will now be able to pull up the online documents and see for themselves!

[volgadon]

Absolutely fantastic news!

[wenglund]

On the homepage they say that "In the future, the website will include all of the Abraham manuscripts and the other Egyptian Papers."

Fantastic!

I have to wonder, though, if the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers supposedly evince that Joseph Smith couldn't translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri using the gift and power of God, then why is the Church willing to make them public, particularly in high resolution?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

On the homepage they say that "In the future, the website will include all of the Abraham manuscripts and the other Egyptian Papers."

Excellent

[Brian Hauglid]

Dear Will,

I feel a need to respond to your public criticisms of my work (and me).

It is saddening and disappointing that you have chosen to take pot shots at my work from the sidelines rather than trying to be supportive of a larger effort to assist the Church (via CHD and JSPP) in acquainting the saints with these complex documents.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am working in a vacuum. This is patently not true. The CHD and the JSPP invited me to contribute my work to the JSPP website and offered their full support. I gladly accepted. The JSPP has graciously assigned several very skilled and competent researchers and transcribers to assist me. For this I am very grateful. This support will continue until all the documents have been published both online and in print.

The content currently on the website is in the interim phase because it has not gone through the third-level (most rigorous) verification process, which takes place before it can go into a print volume. However, the CHD and the JSPP thought that it would be acceptable to put it up now and make changes along the way.

I appreciate your critique. We will take it under advisement.

As far as my previous book is concerned I have never said it is the final word in any way. Fortunately I had help from many people, including some very capable and skilled transcribers such as John Gee and Robin Jensen, who went through every letter and word in the transcriptions. Although I take full responsibility for the final product, it could never have happened without the help of these and others who willingly took time from their busy schedules to offer assistance.

It is really quite easy to point out different interpretations in transcriptions. This is the nature of documentary editing. It is a difficult task to say the least. However, your criticisms have the tone and tenor of someone who has a chip on the shoulder. You seem more interested in discrediting me than trying to contribute to helping the saints come to grips with these documents.

You say I have committed some egregious errors in my last book and, perhaps, in what is currently on the JSPP website. Please send me your critique. Most know that this is an academic work where research is always in flux, but I am always open to suggestions, revisions, and corrections to improve my work.

If you have any desire to be involved in making a difference in how the saints look at these documents I would strongly encourage you to take a different approach than the one you have chosen. We would be most grateful for your input. However, if you continue to treat my work with the CHD and JSPP with polemics then that is your choice.

You also criticize me for reaching out to those who disagree with us. I do not apologize for that. I have learned much from their point of view that has been helpful in how I will present these documents.

Please know I have no hard feelings against you.

We are brothers in Christ and should act accordingly.

My best to you and yours,

Brian Hauglid

[David T]

Thanks for the thoughts and insight, Brian. Very much looking forward to seeing how this project progresses.

[wenglund]

You also criticize me for reaching out to those who disagree with us. I do not apologize for that. I have learned much from their point of view that has been helpful in how I will present these documents.

That seems reasonable.

However, with certain parties it might be wise to consider not just the potential benefits, but also the plausible costs. Are you aware that your "reaching out," and your name, may have been used by certain parties in smear campaigns against several of your "brothers in Christ"? It puts me in mind of the fable about The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

I'm curious if Will, who made the public statements above which Hauglid responded to, is considering a public response here. He has posted several times already on this board since Brian has offered his defense, response, and invitation.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm curious if Will, who made the public statements above which Hauglid responded to, is considering a public response here. He has posted several times already on this board since Brian has offered his defense, response, and invitation.

Both Schryver and Hauglid (I have met neither of them) have taken hits on this board, and in the real scholarly world that is quite normal -- there is nothing unusual or outlandish about that. A scholar must learn not to whine, bellyache, and complain about the attacks, but to simply learn from them and be gracious about them, even when they are unjustified. Let them defend their turf like grownups, and accept valid criticism when offered. Meanwhile the rest of us can learn something from the potentially bitter exchanges. This is not Sunday School.

[wenglund]

http://josephsmithpa...5-abraham-14–26

I am wondering why the first excerpt of the Book of Abraham to be posted was the one in the handwriting of Fredrick Williams (Abr. 1:4 - 2:6), rather than the one written earlier by W.W. Phelps (Abr. 1:1-3)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Dear Will,

I feel a need to respond to your public criticisms of my work (and me).

It is saddening and disappointing that you have chosen to take pot shots at my work from the sidelines rather than trying to be supportive of a larger effort to assist the Church (via CHD and JSPP) in acquainting the saints with these complex documents.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am working in a vacuum. This is patently not true. The CHD and the JSPP invited me to contribute my work to the JSPP website and offered their full support. I gladly accepted. The JSPP has graciously assigned several very skilled and competent researchers and transcribers to assist me. For this I am very grateful. This support will continue until all the documents have been published both online and in print.

The content currently on the website is in the interim phase because it has not gone through the third-level (most rigorous) verification process, which takes place before it can go into a print volume. However, the CHD and the JSPP thought that it would be acceptable to put it up now and make changes along the way.

I appreciate your critique. We will take it under advisement.

As far as my previous book is concerned I have never said it is the final word in any way. Fortunately I had help from many people, including some very capable and skilled transcribers such as John Gee and Robin Jensen, who went through every letter and word in the transcriptions. Although I take full responsibility for the final product, it could never have happened without the help of these and others who willingly took time from their busy schedules to offer assistance.

It is really quite easy to point out different interpretations in transcriptions. This is the nature of documentary editing. It is a difficult task to say the least. However, your criticisms have the tone and tenor of someone who has a chip on the shoulder. You seem more interested in discrediting me than trying to contribute to helping the saints come to grips with these documents.

You say I have committed some egregious errors in my last book and, perhaps, in what is currently on the JSPP website. Please send me your critique. Most know that this is an academic work where research is always in flux, but I am always open to suggestions, revisions, and corrections to improve my work.

If you have any desire to be involved in making a difference in how the saints look at these documents I would strongly encourage you to take a different approach than the one you have chosen. We would be most grateful for your input. However, if you continue to treat my work with the CHD and JSPP with polemics then that is your choice.

You also criticize me for reaching out to those who disagree with us. I do not apologize for that. I have learned much from their point of view that has been helpful in how I will present these documents.

Please know I have no hard feelings against you.

We are brothers in Christ and should act accordingly.

My best to you and yours,

Brian Hauglid

I will reply to this post at some point in the near future. Suffice it to say at present that, were I you, I would be very hesitant to carve out too large of a lot for yourself on what you imagine to be the moral high ground. And while karma may not be a recognized principle of the restored gospel as revealed to Joseph Smith, I suspect it falls under the category of those truths that "... the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue ... all that he seeth fit that they should have ..."

[Calm]

I would be very hesitant to carve out too large of a lot for yourself on what you imagine to be the moral high ground.

I think you are misreading his comments, Will.