Schryver Fair 2010: What Is The Logic That The Boa Text Existed Before The Kep?

[robuchan]

I'm trying to understand this better. I watched part of the presentation a long time ago and have read various discussion of it. I watched it in full last night and read some more analysis.

I'm going to take baby steps in trying to understand this.

The first question I have is that what is the logic that the KEP was not used during the translation process?

I recall a few points:

--Phelps was working on Egyptian Counting before BoA translation was started.

--KEP refers to text outside of BoA (ie D&C passages)

--the KEP is too specific to be used for translation

Do I have this right and what are the other points?

[USU78]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58805-response-to-chris-ralph/page__st__40

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm trying to understand this better. I watched part of the presentation a long time ago and have read various discussion of it. I watched it in full last night and read some more analysis.

I'm going to take baby steps in trying to understand this.

The first question I have is that what is the logic that the KEP was not used during the translation process?

I recall a few points:

--Phelps was working on Egyptian Counting before BoA translation was started.

--KEP refers to text outside of BoA (ie D&C passages)

--the KEP is too specific to be used for translation

Do I have this right and what are the other points?

Those are some of them.

Some others were that some of the glyphs, or charactors, that are egyptian appear to be chosen at random. Another point was some of the charactors were found on some of the letters Phelps sent to his wife months before JS had any papyrus. Another, is that there is a good amount of charactors that are not even Egyptian esp on the counting document. Of course there is still more. I will need to re-watch the presentation. I remember WIll went into great detail about the degree's and tied those into be dependant upon an exsisting text.

[robuchan]

Those are some of them.

Some others were that some of the glyphs, or charactors, that are egyptian appear to be chosen at random. Another point was some of the charactors were found on some of the letters Phelps sent to his wife months before JS had any papyrus. Another, is that there is a good amount of charactors that are not even Egyptian esp on the counting document. Of course there is still more. I will need to re-watch the presentation. I remember WIll went into great detail about the degree's and tied those into be dependant upon an exsisting text.

Anything else, anyone? I still don't think i'm understanding it, because none of these seem very compelling logic to me as I understand the points. And to be clear, I don't mean the entire presentation or theory, I mean the logic that it's clear that the KEP was done after not during the translation process.

Edited September 5, 2012 by robuchan

[robuchan]

Summary so far:

1. KEP characters are random and not in order of BoA text

2. Phelps was working on Egyptian Counting before BoA translation was started.

3. KEP refers to text outside of BoA (ie D&C quotes on the celestial kingdgom, etc.)

4. the KEP is too specific to be used for translation

5. Some others were that some of the glyphs, or charactors, that are egyptian appear to be chosen at random.

6. Another point was some of the charactors were found on some of the letters Phelps sent to his wife months before JS had any papyrus.

7. Another, is that there is a good amount of charactors that are not even Egyptian esp on the counting document.

8. Of course there is still more.

I'm just a newbie at these issues, so be patient with me. But none of these are very compelling to me.

For point #1:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55240-kep-sequence-of-characters-challenged/page__hl__%2Bschryver+%2Bfair

For points 2,5,6,7: It seems obvious that the totality of the KEP and GAEL project is something larger than the BoA translation. It includes non-Egyptian characters and English text that doesn't occur in the BoA. But this does not preclude the possibility that the BoA translation was a part or a subset of the KEP GAEL project.

Point #3: The most likely interpretation of this to me is that Joseph was thinking about inserting this into the BoA English translation or else was going to put it into some other translation effort, but then never did for whatever reason.

Point #4: It's only too specific to be translation if your assumption is that the translater is knowledgeable about Egyptian.

What do I have wrong?

[mfbukowski]

I am only mildly interested in all this because I think these issues are irrelevant to the BOA being inspired scripture. I don't care about where it came from- my testimony is based on spiritual considerations and how what the BOA reveals is essential to understanding the endowment. Joseph was a religious genius regardless of if he was a prophet- but of course I have a spiritual testimony that he was a prophet AND restored the church and that the BOA was somehow a historical document - but I believe that because of my spiritual testimony.

So I am a newbie at this too.

But as a newbie I would never have the nerve to say to people that an argument "wasn't compelling to me" when it is blatantly clear that, as a newbie, I am admitting that I don't have a clue what the argument even IS, knowing that I am at the same time asking people who have spent years of their lives studying these issues to explain it to me.

That's chutzpah to the point of hubris (how's that for a mixed-cultural reference?)

That's like asking someone "I know you have spent years of your life on something worthless, but go ahead and try to convince me you didn't waste all that time".

Definitely chutzpah to the point of hubris.

[robuchan]

I am only mildly interested in all this because I think these issues are irrelevant to the BOA being inspired scripture. I don't care about where it came from- my testimony is based on spiritual considerations and how what the BOA reveals is essential to understanding the endowment. Joseph was a religious genius regardless of if he was a prophet- but of course I have a spiritual testimony that he was a prophet AND restored the church and that the BOA was somehow a historical document - but I believe that because of my spiritual testimony.

So I am a newbie at this too.

But as a newbie I would never have the nerve to say to people that an argument "wasn't compelling to me" when it is blatantly clear that, as a newbie, I am admitting that I don't have a clue what the argument even IS, knowing that I am at the same time asking people who have spent years of their lives studying these issues to explain it to me.

That's chutzpah to the point of hubris (how's that for a mixed-cultural reference?)

That's like asking someone "I know you have spent years of your life on something worthless, but go ahead and try to convince me you didn't waste all that time".

Definitely chutzpah to the point of hubris.

I'm not trying to make anything personal, so please don't make it personal with me. I'm sorry if you think I'm prideful.

I admit I might not understand the argument in the same sentence I say it doesn't seem compelling. I don't demand any of the heavyweights that have spent their whole life studying KEP explain it to me. But if this logic is as groundbreaking and important as several have asserted here, then certainly there should be plenty of people that understand it well enough to answer my questions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I need to watch Will's presentation again. For what it is worht I really like the tone and respect you seem to be devoting to this thread.

I will try to pin down some more specifics for you.

[robuchan]

Summary so far:

5. Some others were that some of the glyphs, or charactors, that are egyptian appear to be chosen at random.

This seems to be a good explanation for this point.

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?p=314100#314100

[William Schryver]

This seems to be a good explanation for this point.

http://forum.neworde...p=314100#314100

Seriously?

I don't consider "George Miller's" explanation in this respect "good" at all. I have been stunned to see how many of his fellow critics are willing to jump on the bandwagon of this "dissected character" thesis.

I'm also, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about Don Bradley's attempt to link the single character from the surviving Kinderhook plate to the GAEL, although I will grant that Bradley's case is marginally better than the one made by "George Miller." I will, at some point in the near future, be publishing a detailed critique of Bradley's thesis, which I will demonstrate to be fatally flawed in many respects. But first things first ...

As for the primary question of this thread, I recommend viewing this extract from my 2010 FAIR presentation: Dependency of the Alphabet and Grammar on a Pre-existing Text of the Book of Abraham.

I'm getting ready to travel out of town for the next few days, so my participation in this thread and the other one concerning the original length of the scroll of Hor will be rather limited.

Edited September 6, 2012 by William Schryver

[robuchan]

Seriously?

I don't consider "George Miller's" explanation in this respect "good" at all. I have been stunned to see how many of his fellow critics are willing to jump on the bandwagon of this "dissected character" thesis.

I'm also, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about Don Bradley's attempt to link the single character from the surviving Kinderhook plate to the GAEL, although I will grant that Bradley's case is marginally better than the one made by "George Miller." I will, at some point in the near future, be publishing a detailed critique of Bradley's thesis, which I will demonstrate to be fatally flawed in many respects. But first things first ...

As for the primary question of this thread, I recommend viewing this extract from my 2010 FAIR presentation: Dependency of the Alphabet and Grammar on a Pre-existing Text of the Book of Abraham.

I'm getting ready to travel out of town for the next few days, so my participation in this thread and the other one concerning the original length of the scroll of Hor will be rather limited.

I don't know how sound Miller's scholarship on this particular point is. His work on the parallels of BoA and other of Joseph's revelations with Antiquities of Freemasonry is compelling to me. But I think my point above suffices...that just because the KEP includes non-Egyptian characters and a grander scope, doesn't preclude it from being related to BoA translation.

[wenglund]

I have compiled a list of what I view as the 20 best arguments that the KEP (JSEP) were not used to translate the Book of Abraham. The list is contained in a Word document that I have attached to this post (actually, I am being told that the file is too big, so I will see if I can post it some other way).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 6, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I have compiled a list of what I view as the 20 best arguments that the KEP (JSEP) were not used to translate the Book of Abraham. The list is contained in a Word document that I have attached to this post (actually, I am being told that the file is too big, so I will see if I can post it some other way).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I placed the file in HTML format to minimize the size. However, some of the graphics went missing. So, this is the best I can offer until I can get my PDF creator to function properly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers and Death of a Theory.htm