Jump to content

My Own Little John Gee?


cinepro

Recommended Posts

Hey cinepro, That's really cool about your prococious daughter and all that. But I've been wondering if that's really you in the profile photo? If it is, you look like a really 'rad' intellectual type dude!. Your head appears very large in proportion to your body, so there's lots of extra room up there in your uniquely shaped cranium for additional grey matter. No wonder your daughter is so smart!

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment

Why spend money? The most authoritative Egyptian Grammar is available for free on the Internet:

http://josephsmithpa...a-december-1835

I bear my testimony that the Egyptian Grammar produced by Joseph Smith and his cronies is the most correct book on Earth, other than the Book of Mormon, with the sole caveat being "as far as it is translated correctly." Other than that, though, it's the mostest correctest book on Earth. ;-)

Link to comment

I bear my testimony that the Egyptian Grammar produced by Joseph Smith and his cronies is the most correct book on Earth, other than the Book of Mormon, with the sole caveat being "as far as it is translated correctly." Other than that, though, it's the mostest correctest book on Earth. ;-)

Except that it was never completed and was aborted by those who were working on it. Joseph Smith wanted to produce one but never did. He himself made the suggestion years after the Kirtland Era was over. If he had already had one, why would he want or even suggest to produce one?

Link to comment
Except that it was never completed and was aborted by those who were working on it. Joseph Smith wanted to produce one but never did. He himself made the suggestion years after the Kirtland Era was over. If he had already had one, why would he want or even suggest to produce one?

Produce as in publish.

If he hadn't thought he had one, then he wouldn't have used it to translate Facsimile 2 and the Kinderhook Plates.

Edited by Chris Smith
Link to comment

I bear my testimony that the Egyptian Grammar produced by Joseph Smith and his cronies is the most correct book on Earth, other than the Book of Mormon, with the sole caveat being "as far as it is translated correctly." Other than that, though, it's the mostest correctest book on Earth. ;-)

ROTFL!

Thank you, Sethbag, for the best belly laugh I've had in a good while. =)

Don

Link to comment

Produce as in publish.

If he hadn't thought he had one, then he wouldn't have used it to translate Facsimile 2 and the Kinderhook Plates.

There isn't enough material there to produce a publication in any sense. The project came to an abortive end almost as quickly as it was begun and not pursued further. Evidence of this is splattered all over the KEP. Of particular interest are all the swaths of blank pages between sections in the bound manuscript. As to their postulated use with respect to translation of Facsimile 2 and the Kinderhook Plates, I have my doubts. My reading of the evidence for the Kinderhook episode is that he didn't actually make an attempt at translation. The accounts of his alleged translation differ in key points as to what precisely was "said." In addition, John Taylor, who was very close to Joseph Smith at that time, and associated with the Times and Seasons, put in print that "we" have no idea what Joseph's opinions regarding them were. A translation would have been an opinion. This seems strange to me. I would think that if Joseph translated any portion of them, his closest associate, John Taylor, would have known what his opinions regarding them were. Other accounts stated that he wanted the hoaxers to get them authenticated with an Antiquarian first before he would do anything with them, but that he had not translated them at that first time. (If I recall correctly, it was the account of one of the hoaxers). Another account had Joseph Smith ask one of the brethren to fetch his Hebrew Lexicon when they were first brought to him. What a Hebrew Lexicon would have to do with those plates I have no idea. I do not recall any account that has him send for the bound manuscript book (the "Alphabet and Grammar"). And, when did he ever refer to that bound manuscript as a lexicon? Having in his possession both a Grammar and a Lexicon of the Hebrew language he would have known the difference between a Grammar and a Lexicon. When the men returned with the plates after "getting them authenticated" Joseph Smith actually was busy with other affairs and they would not leave the plates for translation. I don't see how he would have translated anything in that regard. So, as I wrote above, I have my doubts.
Link to comment

There are over thirty manuscript pages with writing on them in the bound Grammar volume alone, and the production of this material happened over the course of a few months. I don't doubt that Joseph planned to produce additional material to include in any publication of the Grammar, but it's simply not correct to dismiss the existing material as insubstantial. The Grammar was less abortive than the Book of Abraham itself, and in some ways Joseph Smith seems prouder of it.

With regard to the Kinderhook Plates, you evidently haven't yet read Don Bradley's recent FAIR paper on the subject. Joseph's Kinderhook translation quotes the Grammar, and the character associated in the Grammar with the quoted text also appears on the Kinderhook plates. Moreover, the New York Herald for May 30, 1843 explicitly says Joseph used his "Egyptian alphabet" (which is the title written on the Grammar's spine).

Link to comment

There are over thirty manuscript pages with writing on them in the bound Grammar volume alone, and the production of this material happened over the course of a few months. I don't doubt that Joseph planned to produce additional material to include in any publication of the Grammar, but it's simply not correct to dismiss the existing material as insubstantial. The Grammar was less abortive than the Book of Abraham itself, and in some ways Joseph Smith seems prouder of it.

With regard to the Kinderhook Plates, you evidently haven't yet read Don Bradley's recent FAIR paper on the subject. Joseph's Kinderhook translation quotes the Grammar, and the character associated in the Grammar with the quoted text also appears on the Kinderhook plates. Moreover, the New York Herald for May 30, 1843 explicitly says Joseph used his "Egyptian alphabet" (which is the title written on the Grammar's spine).

No, I hadn't read it until now. Thanks for linking to it. It is an interesting proposition. However, a key problem with this newspaper entry is that it also states that the characters in that "Egyptian alphabet" were those "which he took from the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and they are evidently the same characters." None of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers contain characters from the Book of Mormon plates, at least so far as I can recall.

Now, I noticed that that concern was somewhat addressed and it is possible, I suppose, but where would the person who wrote the letter get that idea about characters being taken from the plates of the Book of Mormon unless he had heard something like it at the time? Further problematic is that it requires one to dissect characters creatively to make a match. Well, if we are going to dissect characters, we could do the same thing with characters on the Anthon Transcript that look a lot like that character in several Kirtland Egyptian Papers. And, remember, that in Joseph Smith's day the copy that was taken to Anthon by Harris was accompanied by an English translation of the characters that were taken from the plates. The copy we call the Anthon Transcript today looks like a copy and it has no accompanying English translation.

In any case, even if it can't be shown that any character actually came from the bound volume, or that Joseph Smith considered that his Egyptian Alphabet (there are loose sheets not from that volume that specifically say Egyptian Alphabet at the top of the page and each of those loose sheets also has the same character) was authoritative in some sense, the article in the newspaper also shows that Joseph Smith did NOT make a translation. It is specific that all that he did was compare some characters and the writer of the article expressed his opinion that: "He therefore will be able to decipher them."

So, if we accept the proposal we have Joseph Smith mechanically propose a translation based upon a single character "match" and not be functioning as a prophet, or, if we reject the proposal, we have no translation given at all, and Joseph Smith simply did not translate them in spite of the three differing accounts stating that he did, with one account stating that his opinion concerning the plates was unknown by even one of his best friends, John Taylor.

We simply don't know what he used. His official scribe and record keeper writes that it was a Hebrew Lexicon (and Bible) that was called for. A. Gentile says that it was his Egyptian alphabet that was composed of characters taken from the plates of the Book of Mormon, which may have been the original Anthon Transcript, was the bond volume containing the Alphabet and Grammar, or was one of the loose sheets labeled Egyptian Alphabet in the possession of Joseph Smith.

The bound volume likely was in the possession of Phelps at the time but Joseph Smith does not request for Phelps to come along and bring the bound volume in this incident. Granted, the wording of the English text is closer and fuller, so it may have been a source. But, it isn't proven. Not yet.

In any case, note that the article does not state that he had deciphered them. No translation was mentioned in this happenstance, only comparisons of characters. Joseph Smith simply did not make any attempt at translating them at that time. I suspect that the author of the letter that appeared in the New York Herald would have mentioned a translation had such happened at the time. Irrespective of whether the proposal of Bradley were or were not valid, the newspaper article, in either case, certainly is a worthwhile find because the article itself mentions no actual attempt at translation. Had it happened at that time in question, A. Gentile very likely would have mentioned it happening.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...