Advancing The Study Of The Kirtland Egyptian Papers (Kep)

[wenglund]

As one of his final beneficent acts at Interpreter, Bill Hamblin posted notice that the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) is now available at josephsmithpapers.org:

Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, circa July–circa December 1835

This, along with Joseph Smith's version of the Egyptian Alphabet (the Phelps and Cowdery versions have yet to be posted) and the Book of Abraham excerpt (Abraham 1:4–2:6--in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams), can be very useful in advancing the study of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP).

Where once we were limited to the relatively poor quality reproductions in Michael Marquardts book on the topic, we now have access to high resolution and high quality photos on line, which will facilitate greater accuracy in text-critical analysis and ease sharing and discussing research on discussion boards such as this.

Accordingly, I am commissioning this thread for just such sharing. Over the next several days I hope to post some of my latest findings, and I would encourage others going forward to share their thoughts, criticism, and findings as well.

Hopefully, the discussion here may renew interest in the topic preparatory for if, or when, Will Schryver and/or Brent Metcalfe publish their respective works.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There are sundry hypotheses and theories about the KEP posited by both critic and apologists alike. One hypothesis that is favored by people in each camp, is that the KEP were dictated by Joseph Smith Jr., to his scribes, intermittently between July and December of 1835, and thus Joseph Smith Jr. was the lead and main force behind the KEP. Joseph is ultimately their author.

This hypothesis is important because various other hypotheses and theories are dependent upon it. If it fails, then to some extent so do other hypotheses and theories.

However, I believe there is evidence to suggest that not only were portions of the KEP produced prior to the Egyptian papyri arriving in Kirtland in July of 1835, but also that significant portions of the KEP were likely not dictated, but much of it may have been solely the work of W. W. Phelps, with some collaboration at times with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and that Phelps may have been the major force behind the KEP production, though in the end it may have been left somewhat in the hands of others.

I will present the evidence as this thread proceeds.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[canard78]

Interesting that in GAEL "Page 27" is on page 109 (after about 12 pages blank from "page 26"). I wonder what all the blank pages were for. What did they leave space for to start the next part that they never got around to doing?

[Calm]

What did they leave space for to start the next part that they never got around to doing?

Playing Hangman?

[wenglund]

As a way of minimizing the degree to which my research may become theory-laden (i.e. where the theory asserts such pressure on interpretations and selection of the data as to simply result in debilitating confirmation bias), I have determined to collect as much data as reasonably prudent, and to some extent let the data direct the formulation of my hypothesis, rather than the other way around, while also continuing to be open to various alternatives and somewhat let the data take me wherever it may be want to go.

What has been of great help is that there are three different sets of Egyptian Alphabets (EA's--one written by Phelps, one by Joseph Smith, and a third by Oliver Cowdery), which allows researchers to not only perform internal comparisons, but also enables us to compare and contrast each of the EA's, and draw conclusions..

And, since the EA's appear to be directly related to, and perhaps depended upon by the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), this allows researchers to compare and contrast there as well.

In the next few posts I will list some of the points of comparisons, particularly where the EA's differ from each other as well as with the GAEL, and then examine whether those differences are best explained by the prevailing hypothesis and/or run counter thereto, and if so whether there is a better explanation--i.e. the one I proposed earlier.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

Interesting that in GAEL "Page 27" is on page 109 (after about 12 pages blank from "page 26"). I wonder what all the blank pages were for. What did they leave space for to start the next part that they never got around to doing?

I have concluded that, when it comes to his linguistic speculations, there was not always necessarily a method to W. W. Phelps' "madness."

That said, he wrote some of my favorite hymns in our hymnal: #2 - The Spirit of God; #3 - Now Let Us Rejoice; #6 - Redeemer of Israel; #27 - Praise to the Man; #49 - Adam-ondi-Ahman; #175 - O God, the Eternal Father.

[wenglund]

Interesting that in GAEL "Page 27" is on page 109 (after about 12 pages blank from "page 26"). I wonder what all the blank pages were for. What did they leave space for to start the next part that they never got around to doing?

This is an excellent question, the answer to which may shed some light on the production sequence.

If you skim through the GAEL document like you would most any English book (reading forward from left to right and front to back), you will see that the first page with writing on it starts at page 7 instead of page 1, and instead of beginning with the First Degree, it starts with the last or Fifth Degree of Part One, and works towards the First Degree (around the middle of the book), and then the same reverse process holds true for Part Two (beginning with the Fifth Degree and working towards the First Degree, from middle to the around the back of the book).

However, if you look at the starting pages for each of the degrees and count the pages in-between, a pattern emerges that, while not entirely consistent, it, in conjunction with other evidence (to be discussed later in the thread) suggests that the document may have been written somewhat backwards. And, to accomplish this feat, enough pages would need to have been anticipated beforehand and left in-between each intended degree in order to accommodate all that may have needed to be written for each of the degrees.

Counting from the front of the book to the back, here are the number of pages in-between the starting pages for each of the respective degrees: 7 (from page 1 of the book to the starting page of the Fifth Degree of Part 1), 33 (from the starting page of the Fifth Degree to the starting page of the Fourth Degree...), 10, 18, 16, 18, 16, 24, 24, 24, 45 (there were 45 pages between the start of Degree One of Part Two to the last page of the book).

I suspect that most researchers assume that at the very least, Part One was written from the middle of the book towards the front (from the First Degree to the Fifth), though they likely figure that the Second Part of the GAEL was written after Part One, from the back of the book to the middle (First Degree to Fifth).

Whereas, the evidence suggests to me (again I will present more evidence later in the thread) that portions of Part Two were written before Part One. The fact that there are more pages in-between each of the degrees in Part Two (24) than Part One (16-18), indicate to me that Part Two was likely started first, and when it was discovered that not as many pages were needed for each degree, the number of pages anticipated to accommodate each degree was reduced for Part One.

And, my hypothesis (portions of Part Two were written prior to portions of Part One), fits the overall pattern of reversed order (writing from the back of the book to front, rather from middle to front, and then from back to middle).

Now, this may seem like an odd way of compiling the Alphabet and Grammar (Bro. Schryver may be right about Phelps' "madness"), particularly given how things typically read in English, that is until we recall that ancient languages, like Egyptian, often, from our English perspective, read from back to front. And, while the GAEL was written in English, and for each degree it was written from left to right through ascending pages, there may have been some homage paid to ancient languages by producing the text, per degree, from back of the book to front. Who knows?

What is important is to realize that the sequence in the GAEL differs from how we English readers might expect, and that it was written either starting from the back of the book and working forward, or from the middle of the book moving forward then from the back to the middle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[William Schryver]

Now, this may seem like an odd way of compiling the Alphabet and Grammar, particularly given how things typically read in English, that is until we recall that ancient languages, like Egyptian, often read from back to front. And, while the GAEL was written in English, and for each degree it was written from left to right, there may have been some homage paid to ancient languages by producing the text, per degree, from back to front.

Wade,

I don't plan on participating on this thread, but I will try to check it out from time to time. I have read your posts above.

My only comment is this: One thing I believe it is important to consider as you examine the GAEL is that the three EA documents pre-date it, and since the GAEL contains its own version of the contents of the EA documents, that portion of the GAEL was therefore copied from one or another of the EA documents, or a redacted (4th version) of the EA portion was produced in the GAEL.

In my opinion, the relationship of the GAEL version of the EA data to the EA documents themselves can be a very enlightening focus of study.

Anyway, that's my only comment. I'll follow the thread with interest.

Edited March 5, 2013 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

Wade,

I don't plan on participating on this thread, but I will try to check it out from time to time. I have read your posts above.

My only comment is this: One thing I believe it is important to consider as you examine the GAEL is that the three EA documents pre-date it, and since the GAEL contains its own version of the contents of the EA documents, that portion of the GAEL was therefore copied from one or another of the EA documents, or a redacted (4th version) of the EA portion was produced in the GAEL.

In my opinion, the relationship of the GAEL version of the EA data to the EA documents themselves can be a very enlightening focus of study.

Anyway, that's my only comment. I'll follow the thread with interest.

I appreciate the input, and understand your not wanting to participate, but I will allow myself some regret since I have learned much from what you have previously said on this topic in the past.

Also, I agree, in part, with you that at least a portion of one of the EA documents predate a portion of the GAEL and that the GAEL is dependent on the EA's. Stay tuned.

And, please inform us if or when your highly anticipated papers will be published. I, for one, am looking forward to them (I have an emailed copy of one of the papers from way back, but I have yet to open it for fear of inadvertently blurting out some of the contents--my not reading it may prove useful if some of my work ends up matches yours, because it will mean that we arrived as some of the same conclusions independently, thus confirming each other).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Let's start assessing the three sets of Egyptian Alphabet (EA's) rather than the GAEL since this seems to be the logical place to begin (particularly given Will's comment above).

1. What should stand out in one's mind at the outset is the fact that there are three sets of EA's, and that one of the sets is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. And, there are two reasons why this is significant. First, in the modern era, it seems out of character to have multiple scribes taking simultaneous dictation. It is highly irregular, if not unheard of, and seems to serve little or no purpose--particularly when we are talking about rough drafts. Second, stranger still would be for the person allegedly giving dictation to be simultaneously taking dictation as well (is that even feasible?). Therefore, the fact that there are three sets of EA's, one in the handwriting of Joseph, suggests, though doesn't entirely prove, that the EA's may not have been dictated (at least in part) as many have supposed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

2. For each of the EA's, the 23 characters for Part One, and the first 23 characters for Part Two, are not Egyptian (see the characters in the left-hand column of pages 1-4 of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Alphabet--EA JS), though the remaining characters through to Part Five are Egyptian and taken from the Joseph Smith papyri. This means that the first 46 characters were not derived from the papyri, but from elsewhere, and may even have been compiled prior to the papyri arriving in Kirtland. Indeed, as the evidence mounts, it may appear more likely that they were compiled prior to July of 1835.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[Calm]

It is highly irregular, if not unheard of, and seems to serve little or no purpose.

Not if one were attempting to produce multiple copies at the same time, perhaps so as to be able to send them somewhere quickly. I believe volgadon mentioned this was a common practice in the distant past for important letters that were sent to multiple recipients.

If there was no hurry in producing copies, multiple copies still could be taken of a speech in order to check for accuracy.

But neither of these conditions seems to apply to the EAs so even if these cases exist, they do not seem relevant here.

Edited March 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

There are asunder hypotheses and theories about the KEP posited by both critic and apologists alike.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sundry?

[wenglund]

Not if one were attempting to produce multiple copies at the same time, perhaps so as to be able to send them somewhere quickly. I believe volgadon mentioning this was a common practice in the distant past for important letters that were sent to multiple recipients.

If there was no hurry in producing copies, multiple copies still could be taken of a speech in order to check for accuracy.

But neither of these conditions seems to apply to the EAs so even if these cases exist, they do not seem relevant here.

Correct. It makes sense if one is creating printer's copies where loss of copies is a concern, etc.. It doesn't seem to make sense with a working document, particularly early drafts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Not if one were attempting to produce multiple copies at the same time, perhaps so as to be able to send them somewhere quickly. I believe volgadon mentioning this was a common practice in the distant past for important letters that were sent to multiple recipients.

If there was no hurry in producing copies, multiple copies still could be taken of a speech in order to check for accuracy.

But neither of these conditions seems to apply to the EAs so even if these cases exist, they do not seem relevant here.

Beyond the practical and utalitarian, there is another dynamic at play- disciple-scribes. Writing down the teachings (and/or revelations) of one's master was done also with the purpose of being able to access and study his words.

[wenglund]

Sundry?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Beyond the practical and utalitarian, there is another dynamic at play- disciple-scribes. Writing down the teachings (and/or revelations) of one's master was done also with the purpose of being able to access and study his words.

In more modern times, like 1835, would this practice apply to early drafts of a work in progress, and would it also include the person who was giving dictation simultaneously taking dictation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

In more modern times, like 1835, would this practice apply to early drafts of a work in progress, and would it also include the person who was giving dictation simultaneously taking dictation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why would it have had to be taken in one sitting?

You do have a point regarding Joseph's copy, but who knows.

[wenglund]

Why would it have had to be taken in one sitting?

Good question. I'll take it into consideration.

You do have a point regarding Joseph's copy, but who knows.

You're right. We don't know, though I believe it worthy of consideration, particularly as the evidence mounts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

3. What stands out to me most when I compare and contrast the first page of each set of EA's is that the Phelps set is marked out in four columns (see red numbering in image below), and that in the second column, titled "letter", there are three letters in Part 1 and 13 letters in Part 2 (see green circles in image below).

However, the same is not true for the other two sets of EA's (see EA JS p. 1 HERE). While the EA JS and the EA OC have four columns marked out, they only use three of those columns, and neither of these sets contain any letters in the letter column.

This suggests to me that for at least a portion of the EA's production, Phelps was working independent of Joseph and Oliver, and likely in advance of Joseph and Oliver. Phelps had evidently thought on his own to include letters as a part of the alphabet, in addition to characters, but after working to a point, he decided against it, and no longer included "letters" thereafter (there are no more "letters" written in the letter column in the four remaining pages of Phelps' EA), and this decision by Phelps was evidently later reflected in EA JS and EA OC, as witnessed by the conspicuous absence of letters in the letter column (actually, there is no column titled "letter" in those two EA's) throughout those EA's.

So, here we have evidence that Phelps may have initiated the EA project, was working on it alone prior to Joseph and Oliver becoming involved (it seems impractical to assume that characters and "letters" would have been dictated, and so Phelps was likely operating solo at that time), and he was the decision-maker for the project up to this point. It also suggests some dependency on the Phelps set by the other two sets.

Again, there will be additional evidence provided in support of these conclusions as the thread continues.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

4. As indicated in point #2, the first 46 characters of the EA's are not Egyptian, but must have been derived from elsewhere other than the papyri. The question then becomes, from whence were they derived, and when were they derived?

While the original source for these 46 characters can't be definitively determined, some researches have speculated that some of the characters may have been appropriated from Masonic ciphers and some from astrological calendars and some possibly from the Anthon Caractors and/or Tironian notes, etc.. But, who knows for certain?

Even still, from what I have learned from Will Schryver and Chris Smith and others, 6 of the 46 characters were represented, along with sounds and explanations, in a "specimen of the 'pure langueage'" attached to a letter by Phelps to his wife, and sent about the end of May, 1835, a month or so prior to the Egyptian papyri arriving in Kirtland.

As it turns out, the specimen was configured into four columns (see the green portion of the image below borrowed from Chris Smith's website), much like the EA's, and the characters in the specimen were associated with similar sounds and explanations as likewise found in the EA's (compare the image below with Part Two of the EA WWP image in my previous post), putting the correlation somewhat beyond coincidence.

And, while the name/sounds and explanations for the specimen may have been derived from Joseph's Sample of the Pure Language recorded in 1832, it is uncertain where Phelps got the characters and sounds for the specimen.

To me, however, it isn't all that important to know where the characters/sounds originated. What is important is that the specimen provides evidence that Phelps, himself, had begun work on an Alphabet-like project similar to the EA, that he likely initiated (see #3 above), a month or so before the Egyptian papyri came to Kirtland, and that even though he was utilizing some of the material produced by Joseph from years earlier, he was adapting it to his own purposes and his own project. Indeed, it may be reasonable to assume that the Phelps specimen may have been the prototype for the Phelps EA, which may have later been used as a prototype for the Smith and Cowdery EA's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2013 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Let's start assessing the three sets of Egyptian Alphabet (EA's) rather than the GAEL since this seems to be the logical place to begin (particularly given Will's comment above).

1. What should stand out in one's mind at the outset is the fact that there are three sets of EA's, and that one of the sets is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. And, there are two reasons why this is significant. First, in the modern era, it seems out of character to have multiple scribes taking simultaneous dictation. It is highly irregular, if not unheard of, and seems to serve little or no purpose--particularly when we are talking about rough drafts. Second, stranger still would be for the person allegedly giving dictation to be simultaneously taking dictation as well (is that even feasible?). Therefore, the fact that there are three sets of EA's, one in the handwriting of Joseph, suggests, though doesn't entirely prove, that the EA's may not have been dictated (at least in part) as many have supposed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are saying that:

1. I, Wade Englund, cannot think of a reason why three people would write the same thing at the same time.

2. Therefore, it follows that the three people were not writing based on dictation.

I think your conclusion is simply the result of lack of imagination. Here's another possibility: Smith, Cowdery, and Phelps were trying to learn and decode the "Egyptian Alphabet." As part of the process of learning "Egyptian," they believed it was important that each of them physically write and copy down the characters, sounds, and their meanings as revealed to Joseph Smith. That's a very plausible way to learn a new language. Whether dictation was involved, I don't know if anybody can say for sure one way or the other. But the fact that there are three manuscripts does not cut in favor of your "Phelps as prophet" theory.

[Cobalt-70]

2. For each of the EA's, the 23 characters for Part One, and the first 23 characters for Part Two, are not Egyptian (see the characters in the left-hand column of pages 1-4 of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Alphabet--EA JS), though the remaining characters through to Part Five are Egyptian and taken from the Joseph Smith papyri. This means that the first 46 characters were not derived from the papyri, but from elsewhere, and may even have been compiled prior to the papyri arriving in Kirtland. Indeed, as the evidence mounts, it may appear more likely that they were compiled prior to July of 1835.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Taking a page from my favorite apologetic authors, isn't it obvious that the first 46 characters were taken from the part of the 30-foot long scroll that contained the "real" Book of Abraham and was burned in the Chicago fire?

But seriously, folks, the fact that the first characters are not from the papyri does not in any way prove or even suggest that the Egyptian Alphabet papers were started prior to July 1835. I'm not saying they definitely weren't, but there simply is no evidence that they were. While Smith had some interest in the "Adamic" language going a bit further back than that, and evidently Smith believed that Egyptian was close to Adamic, as evidenced by the fact that he reused some of the "Adamic" characters in his Egyptian Alphabet (though evidently not their "Adamic" sounds and meanings). But as far as I know, there is no contemporary evidence that even suggests that Smith, Phelps, or anybody else in the Kirtland inner circle was beginning an Egyptian language project, much less an "Egyptian alphabet," prior to the acquisition of the Chandler papyri.

[Cobalt-70]

3. What stands out to me most when I compare and contrast the first page of each set of EA's is that the Phelps set is marked out in four columns (see red numbering in image below), and that in the second column, titled "letter", there are three letters in Part 1 and 13 letters in Part 2 (see green circles in image below).

However, the same is not true for the other two sets of EA's (see EA JS p. 1 HERE). While the EA JS and the EA OC have four columns marked out, they only use three of those columns, and neither of these sets contain any letters in the letter column.

This suggests to me that for at least a portion of the EA's production, Phelps was working independent of Joseph and Oliver, and likely in advance of Joseph and Oliver. Phelps had evidently thought on his own to include letters as a part of the alphabet, in addition to characters, but after working to a point, he decided against it, and no longer included "letters" thereafter (there are no more "letters" written in the letter column in the four remaining pages of Phelps' EA), and this decision by Phelps was evidently later reflected in EA JS and EA OC, as witnessed by the conspicuous absence of letters in the letter column (actually, there is no column titled "letter" in those two EA's) throughout those EA's.

So, here we have evidence that Phelps may have initiated the EA project, was working on it alone prior to Joseph and Oliver becoming involved (it seems impractical to assume that characters and "letters" would have been dictated, and so Phelps was likely operating solo at that time), and he was the decision-maker for the project up to this point. It also suggests some dependency on the Phelps set by the other two sets.

Again, there will be additional evidence provided in support of these conclusions as the thread continues.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

By the way, I don't know if you noticed that the Phelps version of the EA is up on the Joseph Smith Papers website now too, as is the Cowdery version.

I think your conclusions are really speculative and are completely unwarranted from from the text. The fact that Phelps' version contains an additional column from the other manuscripts does not imply that Phelps' version was done earlier than the others.

In fact, you are incorrect that Cowdery's version does not contain a "letter" column. It does. However, Cowdery's "letter" column and Phelps' "letter" column do not quite match. Cowdery was apparently using his letter column to list a transliterated Latin character or group of characters similar to the "sound" of the character. For the "Ah" character, his letter was "a." For the "Pha-e" character, he first wrote "pp," then he crossed that out and wrote "ph," then he crossed that out and never tried to do "letters" for the rest of his alphabet.

Phelps started out using his letter column in much the same way. For the first character, he initially wrote "a" like Cowdery did. But he crossed out the "a" and wrote something that looks like an "x," and there is no way of knowing what he meant by that. Then further down the page, his "letter" is just a copy of the character itself.

Maybe both Phelps and Cowdery initially thought this Alphabet was going to be something like the Hebrew alphabet, where you could have transliteral Latin characters for each Hebrew character to represent the same sound. Maybe Phelps and Cowdery tried to do this, but soon figured out the effort was futile, because Joseph Smith's revealed understanding of the language was different from what they had thought. This is of course just speculation, but I think it is a far more plausible speculation than the "Phelps as prophet/Smith as student" theory you are putting forward.

[Cobalt-70]

To me, however, it isn't all that important to know where the characters/sounds originated. What is important is that the specimen provides evidence that Phelps, himself, had begun work on an Alphabet-like project similar to the EA, that he likely initiated (see #3 above), a month or so before the Egyptian papyri came to Kirtland, and that even though he was utilizing some of the material produced by Joseph from years earlier, he was adapting it to his own purposes and his own project. Indeed, it may be reasonable to assume that the Phelps specimen may have been the prototype for the Phelps EA, which may have later been used as a prototype for the Smith and Cowdery EA's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, all it means is that Phelps was involved in a project in trying to create an Adamic Alphabet. The letter only conveys the "Adamic" letters, sounds, and their meanings. It does not say that Phelps was the prophet who divined this information. Smith started this "Adamic Language" effort in 1832, and there is no reason to assume that he ceded control of this project to Phelps in 1835. He would have been involved in this effort, and as the prophet, he would have been the one divining these characters. Smith once tried to delegate his "translation" ability to Oliver Cowdery, and it was a failure. I am aware of no other evidence that he ever again tried to delegate his role as a magical "translator" to any other person. So if you are going to put Phelps in the role of "translator," you are going to need to come forward with contemporary evidence of that.