Kep Dependency On Earlier Texts

[wenglund]

The intent of my previous threads on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) was to lay a foundation of evidence and hypotheses upon which to rest a four-fold thesis that has been evolving for several years now:

1. A significant portion of the Phelps' Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) was produced after, and was dependent upon the Egyptian Alphabets (EA's), particularly the Phelps alphabet (EA-WWP). And, to the extent that Phelps' GAEL was dependent upon the EA's, it was not dictated.

2. A significant portion of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Alphabet (EA-JS) was produced after and was dependent upon the Oliver Cowdery alphabet (EA-OC) and the Phelps alphabet (EA-WWP). And, a significant portion of the EA-OC was produced after and was dependent upon the EA-WWP. And, to the extent that EA-JS and EA-OC were dependent upon EA-WWP, they were not simultaneously dictated or dictated at all.

3. A portion of the Phelps alphabet (EA-WWP) was produced after, and was dependent upon Phelps' specimen of some of the pure language. And, to the extent that it was dependent, it wasn't dictated.

4.The Phelps specimen of some of the pure language was produced after, and was dependent upon Josephs' Sample of Pure Language. And, to the extent that it was dependent, it was not dictated.

Said another way, the Sample of Pure Language was produce by Joseph Smith in 1832. Then, some time prior to June of 1835, the Sample was used by W.W. Phelps to create a more developed version of the pure language (of which only a specimen is extant). This version was then used by W. W. Phelps, prior to July of 1835, to create an alphabetized version of an unspecified language, with two parts. This two-part version of the Phelps alphabet was copied and modified by Oliver Cowdery and later by Joseph Smith. At some point thereafter, though likely before July of 1835, Phelps determined to expand the two parts of his alphabet into five degrees, or a "grammar." This he did beginning with the Second Part. However, some time the latter half of1835, after the arrival of the Egyptian papyri, the unspecified alphabets were co-mingled with Egyptian characters (which comprised the last three parts of the EA's), and were dubbed the Egyptian Alphabets. For the most part, though, the Egyptian characters weren't given sounds and explanation in the EA, but some of them were expounded upon into the five degrees in the two parts of the "grammar." Accordingly, the "grammar" was likewise and later dubbed "the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language,"

In short, the two key KEP documents (EA's and GAEL) were developed primarily by Phelps, and were not dictated, but derived from earlier drafts of an unspecified language, which, when later combined with Egyptian characters, were referred to as Egyptian. The KEP were dependent upon earlier texts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 17, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

It should be noted that my four-fold thesis differs somewhat from Will Schryver's thesis (the expanded version of which will hopefully be published some day) in at least two respects. First. he treats more on the details than I, and he performs a text-critical analysis of the explanations and the sounds, whereas I look more at the general structure of the various drafts, and explicate the seeming evolution from draft to draft. And, second, his thesis is more focused on the dependency of the KEP documents on the scriptures, whereas my focus is on the dependency of later drafts on earlier drafts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

The Sample of Pure Language is odd.

[cinepro]

The Sample of Pure Language is odd.

I agree. It is fascinating to think there was once a time when the Prophet was working on stuff like this.

[wenglund]

The Sample of Pure Language is odd.

What is most odd is that it appears to have been written with a quail pen. Why didn't they just type it on an ipad and print it out with a lazer jet? Bizarre!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I agree. It is fascinating to think there was once a time when the Prophet was working on stuff like this.

So true. And, to think that he also enjoyed stick-pulls and at times he wore a cravat necktie. Unthinkable.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 18, 2013 by wenglund

[CASteinman]

What is most odd is that it appears to have been written with a quail pen. Why didn't they just type it on an ipad and print it out with a lazer jet? Bizarre!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was a bit unclear about my thinking.. You sharpened it right up. Those were exactly my thoughts.

[wenglund]

Another difference between Will Schryver's thesis and mine, is that my thesis leaves the door somewhat open to the proposition that the Book of Abraham may have been produced after the EA's/GAEL and may have, in part, been dependent upon the EA's/GAEL, whereas Will's thesis closes that door.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

What is most odd is that it appears to have been written with a quail pen. Why didn't they just type it on an ipad and print it out with a lazer jet? Bizarre!

Filthy socialist Democrats, lifting Republicans' writing implements.

[wenglund]

I was a bit unclear about my thinking.

Wonderfully understated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

I agree. It is fascinating to think there was once a time when the Prophet was working on stuff like this.

I like it that he was working on it. But the results in that note were a bit oddly worded.

[CASteinman]

Wonderfully understated.

With an emphasis on the wonderful.

That's just how I roll. Understated. Don't like to make waves. Avoid trouble.

You probably would have noticed before now except that my posts are mostly ... well .. you know...

[wenglund]

With an emphasis on the wonderful.

That's just how I roll. Understated. Don't like to make waves. Avoid trouble.

You probably would have noticed before now except that my posts are mostly ... well .. you know...

Unfortunately,now, the verbosity of your clarifying self-description can hardly qualify as understated. Perhaps you roll both ways--wonderfully, of course. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 18, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The Sample of Pure Language is odd.

Perhaps it would be more reasonable of me to ask what it is about the Sample that you found odd, and why? In other words, you mentioned to cinepro that the wording was odd. What did you find odd about the wording?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 19, 2013 by wenglund

[MormonMason]

I think it most fascinating that the project was abandoned whereas the Book of Abraham continued further from the point of abandonment.

[CASteinman]

Perhaps it would be more reasonable of me to ask what it is about the Sample that you found odd, and why? In other words, you mentioned to cinepro that the wording was odd. What did you find odd about the wording?

Hmmm. Lets see. First -- the Question and Answer format. I have a problem with the notion that a "Socratic approach" is the right way to provide a "sample of pure language". It is almost the opposite I think. That makes this odd and it leads to my second point below.

Second, the layout and approach seems to suggest a very high degree of precision and accuracy yet I do not detect it. As you will see below. What is more, it sort of bothers me that a "Pure" language would require so much difficulty to explain it.

Third, this answer: "The being who made all things in its parts". This reads vague to me and I would think a sample of pure language would be the most clear thing I have ever read.

Fourth, The answer "Son Awman". It seems odd to me that the Pure word "Son" would be exactly preserved through the indo european *sunu and get perfectly brought back into English as Son.

Fifth, this answer: "It is the greatest of all the parts of Awmen which is the Godhead the first born." Which sounds like Jesus is merely a "great part" of God and not a separate entity. It appears to directly contradict the first vision and other revelations regarding the nature of the Godhead.

Sixth, this answer: "This signifies Sons Awmen. the human family the children of men the greatest parts of Awmen Sons the Son Awmen", which sounds like babbling. Not helpful at all for a sample of "Pure Language" or even to explain the "Pure language" which if pure, should (I think) not be so obscure.

Seventh (really a continuation of the Sixth), this Q&A ---

QWhat are the meaning of these words.

A Awmen’s Ministerring servants Sanctified who are

sent forth from heaven to minister for or to Sons

Awmen the greatest part of Awmen Son. Sons

Awmen Son Awmen Awmen

Which is pretty close to babbling to me.

Each of those things and the sum total of them altogether makes it odd to me.

PS.. this is all Wonderfully understated. As you know.

Edited March 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

Hmmm. Lets see. First -- the Question and Answer format. I have a problem with the notion that a "Socratic approach" is the right way to provide a "sample of pure language". It is almost the opposite I think. That makes this odd and it leads to my second point below.

The "Socratic approach" is to answer questions with a questions. With the Sample, questions are posed and answers given along with additional explanations. It is the same approach as found in D&C 77, a revelation received by Joseph while translating the Bible, which provided explanation of the Revelation of St. John.

I don't think the commonality in approach between D&C 77 and the Sample is coincidental since, according to the Historical Introduction. they were delivered around the same time (March of 1832), and added together by John Whitmer in the Revelation Book 1.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

The "Socratic approach" is to answer questions with a questions. With the Sample, questions are posed and answers given along with additional explanations. It is the same approach as found in D&C 77, a revelation received by Joseph while translating the Bible, which provided explanation of the Revelation of St. John.

I don't think the commonality in approach between D&C 77 and the Sample is coincidental since, according to the Historical Introduction. they were delivered around the same time (March of 1832), and added together by John Whitmer in the Revelation Book 1.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ok.. sorry .. not Socratic. What then? Scholastic? (Which is probably worse).

Still its odd.

I find it less odd in the D&C though. Perhaps because the way it is presented is more like imperfect men seeking step by step revelation on specific matters rather than how this appears to us -- almost the reverse?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think it most fascinating that the project was abandoned whereas the Book of Abraham continued further from the point of abandonment.

This is something I have not really paid attention to before. Perhaps this fact can shed more light on what the project was about.

[wenglund]

Ok.. sorry .. not Socratic. What then? Scholastic? (Which is probably worse).

Still its odd.

I find it less odd in the D&C though. Perhaps because the way it is presented is more like imperfect men seeking step by step revelation on specific matters rather than how this appears to us -- almost the reverse?

The Sample appears to me to be nothing more than Joseph conveying the revealed identification and meaning of several Adamic names/titles--not unlike were I to ask what is the name/title of Jesus in Hebrew, and to be told that it is "Messiah," and then informed that the name/title means: "'one who is smeared with olive oil for office of authority' or, as it is usually translated, 'anointed'. (see http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_messiah.html )

This may seem odd to you, and that is okay. I, on the other hand, view it as pleasantly enlightening. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 19, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Getting somewhat back on topic, I should also mention that even though my thesis differs from Will's in various respects, I believe that my thesis provides and excellent set-up to Will's. My thesis shows a pattern of dependency of the KEP on preexisting texts, which leads in nicely to the prospect that part of the KEP were dependent upon the per-revealed text of a portion of the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 19, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Any objections to my thesis?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-