Egyptian Alphabet And Grammar - Any Way To Distance Joseph Smith From It?

[bcuzbcuz]

If you are assuming that someone here wants to mislead rather than clarified or be precise in language, you should be clearer about whom you are accusing.

Maybe there are code words that signify the papyri that Joseph Smith translated, either the papyri recovered in Chicago, or the supposed missing papyri, the same missing papyri that no one knows whether or where they are. Whatever those code words are, I don't know them. I'm frustrated because my desire to be accurate/not misinterpretted is obfuscated into minutia about whether the word translate actually means translate. And whether my calling the papyri the "Book of the Dead", which the papyri actually are, in one of their milliard of versions, or calling them funerary texts, which they also are, clarifies or muddies the identification.

Joseph Smith repeatefly used the word "translate".

"with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. — a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.[4]"

Smith, Joseph, Jr. (n.d.), History of the Church 2, ISBN 1-60135-710-9.p. 236

“ "...translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients."[7]

Smith, Joseph, Jr. (n.d.), History of the Church 2, ISBN 1-60135-710-9. P. 238

I hope these references are accurate. I have read these sections before but have relied on internet data to verify them. My source is wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

There are more..

[cdowis]

Seriously?

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

http://www.lds.org/s...gp/abr?lang=eng

Now which the definitions for "translation" do you think Joseph Smith had in mind here?

Looking at the mneumonic theory, it indicates a "translation" from its original form or text (the BOA text) to its counterpart form or text (memory aid text). This theory seems to give us alot of answers.

Given Joseph Smith's background as a man who could provide "literal" translations of ancient documents, the onus is on the apologist who wants to say that he meant something completely different when translating Egyptian documents.

Already done.

I mean think about this. Look at the list of definitions provided by Kevin Christensen. Which one of them fit in these references?

"I commenced the translation of some of the characters." - July 6-8 1835

"This afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records" - Oct 3-7 1835

"spent the day in translating the Egyptian records." - Nov 19, 1835

OK, they all fit.

There are probably a dozen other examples of Joseph Smith referencing his attempt to translate the papyri. Joseph Smith said he literally translated these documents. It is really beyond me where apologists think they're going with this argument about revelation being his tool. None of this changes the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to have produced a valid translation. It doesn't matter how he claimed to have done it. What matters is that the end product can be tested to see if his translations were legit. They have been tested, and they show he could not provide valid translations as claimed.

Only one ignorant of the facts would make such an absolute assertion. My dear chap, you are only refuting a particular theory, that it is untenable, not whether JS was able to translate and give us an authentic BOA.

But I do agree that apologists are tasked to defend a theory which is not defensible. Gee, et al, are stuck with the FACT of the existence of the figures within the BOD manuscript, and are unable to tear themselves away from that (pardon the irony).

Edited June 11, 2013 by cdowis

[crixus]

Which Papyri are we talking about here?

You're avoiding the question here. You say Joseph Smith never claimed to have translated the papyri. Ok, then what, in your opinion, did he claim to have done with them?

The stuff that is refered to as the Book of the dead? The small amount that is left? That the critics constantly try to paint as the Papri that JS "thought" he was translating? Or are we talking about the "missing scrolls? I hold to that opinion.

There is no evidence that the Book of Abraham derive from "missing scrolls." All the evidence points directly to what you refer to as "the small amoung that is left."

And who is Kevin Graham?

[crixus]

Looking at the mneumonic theory, it indicates a "translation" from its original form or text (the BOA text) to its counterpart form or text (memory aid text). This theory seems to give us alot of answers.

It raises more questions and answers none.

Already done.

But you've provided no evidence at all. All you did was throw out "mneumonic theory," which was only a theory, and incidentally it had nothing to do with explaining the translation of the papyri. It was a theory, followed by very few, which tries to explain the Egyptian Grammar and Alphabet.

Only one ignorant of the facts would make such an absolute assertion.

So which facts am I ignorant of? You present none here.

Look, this isn't rocket science. Joseph Smith said he translated Egyptian documents into English. We know now that these translations are not valid. This is quite simple. Trying to redefine the meaning of the word "translation" only digs the hole deeper for defenders.

[crixus]

Photo or facsimilie?

We're really quibbling at this point aren't we? It is a copy of the facsimile which comes from the first sheet of the Sensen text.

[Calm]

We're really quibbling at this point aren't we? It is a copy of the facsimile which comes from the first sheet of the Sensen text.

I am not quibbling, I am trying to make sure I am thinking about the same thing you are and that you are not talking about a photo that the Church included as they do at times for study aids that had something special about it. Sheesh. Why so defensive?

[Glenn101]

Wow. Did you really just ask that?

This "we don't have rubrics" argument is a very old one, and has been refuted ever since Larsen first published color photos of the papyri. What do you think about Nibley's misrepresentation of these documents?

Thanks for posting the picture. Of course, this is all available on the Joseph Smith papers web site. The portion that you posted is part of the Book of the Dead belonging to the lady Tshenmîn as identified by Klaus Baer and is not part of the Breathing Permit of Hor. The breathing permit of Hor does not have any part in red ink. So, are you saying that Joseph made his translation from the Breathing Permit of Hor or the Book of the Dead, or both, not knowing that they were from different documents?

Either one has problems, even if the Book of the Dead and the Breathing permit of Hor were originally on the same scroll.

And eyewitness descriptions do say scroll, not fragments. That is the first problem.

The fragments from the Book of the Dead do have characters written in red ink, but those fragments hardly fit the description that Oliver Cowdery made of the scroll from which the Book of Abraham was translated. "Beautifully written" "In perfect preservation", "

many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking", " many characters or letters exactly like the present, though perhaps not quite so square form of the Hebrew without points". Of course, it may be argued that the fragments have indeed deteriorated over time so that is not a killer or savior, either way.

There is no "representation of the Godhead--three--yet in one", that Oliver described as being on the Abraham Scroll in any of the extant . There is a picture in one vignette of three personages siting side by side. There are three heads, two bodies, and three lower limbs

Nor can I find any representation of a serpent tempting "Mother Eve ....... standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear" as reported by Charlotte Haven. Truly there is a picture of a serpent on legs in the vignette posted, but it has its tail in the air and is just standing in front of a figure which is probably a female since this particular edition of the Book of the Dead is for a woman. However, in that picture, the serpent does not have its head in the womans ear. You may dismiss this as Haven just getting it wrong, but it is also even more likely that she was looking at another scroll altogether.

There is no judgement scene as described by Oliver in any of the extant papyri. No Jesus sitting on a his throne with the twelve tribes present. No angel with the keys to hell. No devil chained in hell. I have read the arguments for this, but the a dead person being led into the presence of Osiris just does not add up to the image Oliver describes.

Joseph F. Smith's recollection of seeing his uncle Joseph working on the Book of Abraham translation and that one of the scrolls when unrolled extended through two rooms of the Mansion House is third hand. However, it cannot be discounted completely. It gives some flavor to Charlotte Haven's observation of a long scroll.

I am not offering these tidbits up as proof of anything. But they do show that the idea that Joseph had other documents than the ones we now have and one of those could have been the source document for the Book of Abraham. Certainly "demolished" is not an apt description of the evidence.

Glenn

[cdowis]

It raises more questions and answers none.

OK, I guess you have done a detailed study on that theory, since you have come to this conclusion. Would you like to open a thread and tell us about your research.

snip

Look, this isn't rocket science. Joseph Smith said he translated Egyptian documents into English. We know now that these translations are not valid. This is quite simple. Trying to redefine the meaning of the word "translation" only digs the hole deeper for defenders.

Tell us your analysis of the mneumonic theory, since you have rejected it, and concluded that JS was a phoney.

Teach us, instruct us, please help us.

Edited June 11, 2013 by cdowis

[tagriffy]

There is no "representation of the Godhead--three--yet in one", that Oliver described as being on the Abraham Scroll in any of the extant . There is a picture in one vignette of three personages siting side by side. There are three heads, two bodies, and three lower limbs

Nor can I find any representation of a serpent tempting "Mother Eve ....... standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear" as reported by Charlotte Haven. Truly there is a picture of a serpent on legs in the vignette posted, but it has its tail in the air and is just standing in front of a figure which is probably a female since this particular edition of the Book of the Dead is for a woman. However, in that picture, the serpent does not have its head in the womans ear. You may dismiss this as Haven just getting it wrong, but it is also even more likely that she was looking at another scroll altogether.

There is no judgement scene as described by Oliver in any of the extant papyri. No Jesus sitting on a his throne with the twelve tribes present. No angel with the keys to hell. No devil chained in hell. I have read the arguments for this, but the a dead person being led into the presence of Osiris just does not add up to the image Oliver describes.

It may be helpful to see what Oliver did say. Is there a copy online anywhere?

[Calm]

Source: Oliver Cowdery to Mr. Wm. [William] Frye, Esq., December 22, 1835, Huntington.

Kirtland, Ohio, December 22, 1835

Dear Brother in the Lord [William Frye]:

. . . Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, and may I say a few words. This record is beautifully written in papyrus with black, and a small part, red ink or paint, in perfect preservation. The characters are such as you find upon the coffins of mummies, hieroglyphics and etc., with many characters or letters exactly like the present, though perhaps not quite so square form of the Hebrew without points.

These records were obtained from one of the catacombs in Egypt, near the place where once stood the renowned city of Thebes, by the celebrated French traveller Antonio Sebolo [Lebolo], in the year 1831. He procured license from Mohemet Ali, then Viceroy of Egypt under the protection of Chevralier [Chevalier] Drovetti, the French Consul, in the year 1828; employed 433 men four months and two days, (if I understood correctly, Egyptian or Turkish soldiers), at from four to six cents per diem, each man; entered the catacomb June 7, 1831, and obtained eleven mummies. There were several hundred mummies in the same catacomb. About one hundred embalmed after the first order and deposited and placed in niches and two or three hundred after the second and third order, and laid upon the floor or bottom of the grand cavity, the two last orders of embalmed were so decayed that they could not be removed and only eleven out of the first, found in the niches.

On his way from Alexandria to Paris he put in at Trieste, and after ten days illness, expired. This was in the year 1832. Previous to his decease, he made a will of the whole to Mr. Michael H. Chandler, then in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, his nephew, whom he supposed to have been in Ireland.

Accordingly the whole were sent to Dublin, addressed according, and Mr. Chandler's friends ordered them sent to New York where they were received at the customhouse in the winter or spring of 1833. In April of the same year Mr. Chandler paid the duties upon his mummies and took possession of the same. Up to this time they had not been taken out of the coffins nor the coffins opened.

On opening the coffins he discovered that in connection with two of the bodies were something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which when examined proved to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. I may add that two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, etc., were found with others of the mummies.

When Mr. Chandler discovered that there was something with the mummies, he supposed or hoped it might be some diamonds or other valuable metal, and was no little chagrined when he saw his disappointment. He was immediately told while yet in the customhouse, that there was no man in that city, who could translate his rolls; but was referred by the same gentleman, (a stranger) to Mr. Joseph Smith, Jr., who continued [that] he possess some kind of power or gift by which he had previously translated similar characters. Brother Smith was then unknown to Mr. Chandler. Neither did he know that such a book or work as the record of the Nephites had been brought before the public. From New York he took his collection to Philadelphia, [Pennsylvania], where he exhibited them for a compensation. The following is a certificate put into my hands by Mr. Chandler, which he obtained while in Philadelphia and will show the opinion of the scientific of that city:

"Having examined with considerable attention and deep interest, a number of mummies from the catacombs, near Thebes, in Egypt and now exhibiting in the Arcade, we beg leave to recommend them to the observation of the curious inquirer on subjects of a period so long elapsed; probably not less than three thousand years ago.

"The features of some of the mummies are in perfect expression. The papyrus covered with black or red ink, or paint, in excellent preservation, are very interesting. The undersigned, unsolicited by any person connected by interest with this exhibition, have voluntarily set their names hereunto, for the simple purpose of calling the attention of the public to an interesting collection, not sufficiently known in this city." signed

John Redman Cone, M.D., E. H. Rivinius, M.D., Richard Harlan, M.D., J. Pencoat, M.D., Wm. P. C. Barton, M.D., Samuel G. Morgan, M.D."

While Mr. Chandler was in Philadelphia he used every exertion to find someone who would give him the translation of his papyrus, but could not satisfactorily, though from some few men of the `first eminence' he obtained in a small degree the translation of a few characters.

Here he was referred to Brother Smith. From Philadelphia he visited Harrisburg, [Pennsylvania] and other places east of the mountains, and was frequently referred to Brother Smith for the translation of his Egyptian relic.

It would be beyond my purpose to follow this gentleman in his different circuits to the time he visited this place, the last of June or first of July, at which time he presented Brother Smith with his papyrus. Till then neither myself nor Brother Smith knew of such relics being in America. Mr. Chandler was told that his writings could be deciphered, and very politely gave me privileges of copying some four or five different sentences or separate pieces, stating at the same time, that unless he found someone who "could give him a translation soon he would carry them to London."

I am a little in advance of my narrative. The morning Mr. Chandler first presented his papyrus to Brother Smith, he was shown by the latter, a number of characters like those upon the writings of Mr. C. [Chandler] which were previously copied from the plates containing the history of the Nephites, or Book of Mormon.

Being solicited by Mr. Chandler to give an opinion concerning his antiquities, or a translation of some of the characters, Brother J. [Joseph] gave him the interpretation of some few for his satisfaction. For your gratification I will here annex a certificate which I hold, from under the hand of Mr. Chandler, unsolicited however, by any person in this place, which will show how far he believed Brother Smith able to unfold from these long obscure rolls, the wonders obtained thereon:

"Kirtland July 6th, 1835

This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jr., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters, in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, shown to the most learned; and from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I find that Mr. Joseph Smith, Jr., to correspond in the most minute matters.

Signed Michael H. Chandler

Traveling with and proprietor of Egyptian Mummies."

The foregoing is verbatim as given by Mr. Chandler excepting the addition of punctuation, and speaks sufficiently plain without requiring comment from me and it was given previous to the purchase of the antiquities, by any person here.The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking.

The evidence is apparent upon the fact, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the Creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas of the notions of the Deity.

The representation of the Godhead--three--yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writer's views of that exalted personage. The serpent represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the correctness and divine authenticity of the holy scriptures, and especially that part which has been assailed by the infidel community, as being fiction, as to carry away with one mighty sweep the whole atheistical fabric, without leaving a vestige sufficient for a foundation stone. Enoch's pillar as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll. True, our present version of the Bible does not mention this fact, though it speaks of the righteousness of Abel and the holiness of Enoch--one slain because his offering was accepted of the Lord, and the others taken to the regions of everlasting day without being confined in the narrow limits of the tomb, or tasting death, but Josephus says that the descendants of Seth were virtuous, and possessed a great knowledge of the heavenly bodies, and that in consequence of the prophecy of Adam, that the world should be destroyed once by water and again by fire. Enoch wrote a history or an account of the same, and put into two pillars one of brick and the other of stone; and that the same were in being at his (Josephus') day. The inner end of the same roll (Joseph's record) presents a representation of the judgment. At one view you behold the Savior seated upon His throne, crowned and holding the scepter of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled, the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which Satan is represented as reigning, Michael the Archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit.

But upon this last scene, I am able only to give you a shadow, to the real picture. I am certain it cannot be viewed without filling the mind with awe, unless the mind is far estranged from God; and I sincerely hope, that mine may never go so far astray, nor wander from those rational principles of the doctrine of our Saviour, so much, as to become darkened in the least and thereby fail to have that, to us, the greatest of all days and the most sublime of all transactions so impressively fixed upon the heart, that I become not like the beast, not knowing whither I am going, nor what shall be my final end . . .

Oliver Cowdery

http://www.boap.org/...rs-cowdery.html Edited June 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[tagriffy]

http://www.boap.org/...rs-cowdery.html

Thanks!

[tagriffy]

Thanks for posting the picture. Of course, this is all available on the Joseph Smith papers web site. The portion that you posted is part of the Book of the Dead belonging to the lady Tshenmîn as identified by Klaus Baer and is not part of the Breathing Permit of Hor. The breathing permit of Hor does not have any part in red ink. So, are you saying that Joseph made his translation from the Breathing Permit of Hor or the Book of the Dead, or both, not knowing that they were from different documents?

Either one has problems, even if the Book of the Dead and the Breathing permit of Hor were originally on the same scroll.

And eyewitness descriptions do say scroll, not fragments. That is the first problem.

That is not really a problem. As you granted for the characters, the scroll may have become fragmented, either deliberately or through deterioration. The fragment crixus posted does have an image of a walking serpent in front of an apparently female figure. This would be in line with Oliver Cowdery's description of the scroll he was describing, and suggests the fragment was part of that scroll.

The fragments from the Book of the Dead do have characters written in red ink, but those fragments hardly fit the description that Oliver Cowdery made of the scroll from which the Book of Abraham was translated. "Beautifully written" "In perfect preservation", "

many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking", " many characters or letters exactly like the present, though perhaps not quite so square form of the Hebrew without points". Of course, it may be argued that the fragments have indeed deteriorated over time so that is not a killer or savior, either way.

There is no "representation of the Godhead--three--yet in one", that Oliver described as being on the Abraham Scroll in any of the extant . There is a picture in one vignette of three personages siting side by side. There are three heads, two bodies, and three lower limbs

According to Oliver, he was describing Joseph's scroll, rather than Abraham's. Oliver also doesn't say what he is describing when he talked about the "representation of the Godhead." There is no way of knowing from his description whether he is referring to the vignette you are describing.

Nor can I find any representation of a serpent tempting "Mother Eve ....... standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear" as reported by Charlotte Haven. Truly there is a picture of a serpent on legs in the vignette posted, but it has its tail in the air and is just standing in front of a figure which is probably a female since this particular edition of the Book of the Dead is for a woman. However, in that picture, the serpent does not have its head in the womans ear. You may dismiss this as Haven just getting it wrong, but it is also even more likely that she was looking at another scroll altogether.

Can Haven's description be found online?

[CA Steve]

Can Haven's description be found online?

Here http://www.olivercow...0s/havn1890.htm

Scroll down to pages 623-624 for the descriptions of the mummies and papyri.

[tagriffy]

Here http://www.olivercow...0s/havn1890.htm

Scroll down to pages 623-624 for the descriptions of the mummies and papyri.

Thanks.

[tagriffy]

Nor can I find any representation of a serpent tempting "Mother Eve ....... standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear" as reported by Charlotte Haven. Truly there is a picture of a serpent on legs in the vignette posted, but it has its tail in the air and is just standing in front of a figure which is probably a female since this particular edition of the Book of the Dead is for a woman. However, in that picture, the serpent does not have its head in the womans ear. You may dismiss this as Haven just getting it wrong, but it is also even more likely that she was looking at another scroll altogether.

Haven is clearly referencing two different scrolls (emphasis added):

Then she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read seven minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament -- and it might have been for anything we knew -- but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who -- the serpent, I mean -- was standing on the tip of his tail, with which his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."

She is also clearly reciting from memory without access to the scrolls as she is writing. The extra line drawn from the tail in the fragment crixus posted could well have been remembered as forming a tripod. Otherwise, her description matches well with how Cowdery described the Joseph scroll.

[Glenn101]

Haven is clearly referencing two different scrolls (emphasis added):

Agreed, that is what I was saying.

She is also clearly reciting from memory without access to the scrolls as she is writing. The extra line drawn from the tail in the fragment crixus posted could well have been remembered as forming a tripod. Otherwise, her description matches well with how Cowdery described the Joseph scroll.

I assume that you are talking about Lucy Mack Smith reciting from memory. I would agree with that.

Oliver was describing the Joseph scroll. I did not get that reading from his letters. Could you point me to the part that says he was referencing the Joseph scroll?

Even with that extra line, which does not appear to be a part of the drawing, it is a really a stretch to say that it can be seen as "standing on the tip of his tail, with which his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear"

The point I was making is that the evidence for other scrolls from which the Book of Abraham could have been translated has hardly been demolished as crixus had stated.

Glenn

[tagriffy]

I assume that you are talking about Lucy Mack Smith reciting from memory. I would agree with that.

No, I'm talking about the letter itself. I'm talking about Haven writing about her description from memory without access to the scrolls. My use of the word reciting was mistaken and confusing. Sorry about that.

Oliver was describing the Joseph scroll. I did not get that reading from his letters. Could you point me to the part that says he was referencing the Joseph scroll?

Yes. Here is the quote with emphasis added:

The representation of the Godhead--three--yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply,

though impressively, the writer's views of that exalted personage. The serpent represented

as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of and near a female

figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a

writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the

correctness and divine authenticity of the holy scriptures, and especially that part which

has been assailed by the infidel community, as being fiction, as to carry away with one

mighty sweep the whole atheistical fabric, without leaving a vestige sufficient for a

foundation stone. Enoch's pillar as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll. True, our

present version of the Bible does not mention this fact, though it speaks of the

righteousness of Abel and the holiness of Enoch--one slain because his offering was accepted

of the Lord, and the others taken to the regions of everlasting day without being confined

in the narrow limits of the tomb, or tasting death, but Josephus says that the descendants

of Seth were virtuous, and possessed a great knowledge of the heavenly bodies, and that in

consequence of the prophecy of Adam, that the world should be destroyed once by water and

again by fire. Enoch wrote a history or an account of the same, and put into two pillars one

of brick and the other of stone; and that the same were in being at his (Josephus') day. The

inner end of the same roll (Joseph's record) presents a representation of the judgment. At

one view you behold the Savior seated upon His throne, crowned and holding the scepter of

righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled, the twelve tribes of Israel, the

nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which Satan is

represented as reigning, Michael the Archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and

at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit.

Even with that extra line, which does not appear to be a part of the drawing, it is a really a stretch to say that it can be seen as "standing on the tip of his tail, with which his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear"

I'm not insisting on it. All I'm saying is that the line, in Haven's memory, could have extended far enough for her to think it formed a tripod with the legs. Since she only spent a few minutes at most with the scroll and wrote about it some time later, it is a trick her mind could have easily played on her.

The point I was making is that the evidence for other scrolls from which the Book of Abraham could have been translated has hardly been demolished as crixus had stated.

That is an argument that I'm going to stay out of right now. It just seems to me that if we are going to talk about whatever the Book of Abraham may or may not have been translated from, we should at least be talking about the right scroll.

[Glenn101]

No, I'm talking about the letter itself. I'm talking about Haven writing about her description from memory without access to the scrolls. My use of the word reciting was mistaken and confusing. Sorry about that.

I'm not insisting on it. All I'm saying is that the line, in Haven's memory, could have extended far enough for her to think it formed a tripod with the legs. Since she only spent a few minutes at most with the scroll and wrote about it some time later, it is a trick her mind could have easily played on her.

Charlotte was writing letters from Nauvoo to her mother on a regular basis. It is not really apparent from the letter how much time had elapsed from the time that she had seen the scrolls and the time she wrote the letter, but we are talking days here, not weeks, months, or years. Charlotte was seemingly struck by that picture. The explanation that it was one of the serpent tempting Eve was apparently from Lucy Mack Smith. But the description seems to have been her own production.

Now, would you yourself really be induced to think that the extra line on the picture crisus posted, formed a tripod, without someone suggesting that such was the case? Even if someone suggested that it formed a tripod, would you actually believe it after looking at it? If someone told you that the picture was one of a serpent with its head in Eve's ear would you believe it after looking at it yourself?

It just seems to me that if we are going to talk about whatever the Book of Abraham may or may not have been translated from, we should at least be talking about the right scroll.

Agreed. That is what the hooraw is all about. Charlotte's was obviously describing a vignette from an entirely different scroll than the Joseph scroll. She tells us of two scrolls. There were other fragments of scrolls that had been preserved under glass that other visitors of the same period described.

And thanks for pointing out Olivers reference to the Joseph scroll.

Glenn

Edited June 12, 2013 by Glenn101

[tagriffy]

Now, would you yourself really be induced to think that the extra line on the picture crisus posted, formed a tripod, without someone suggesting that such was the case? Even if someone suggested that it formed a tripod, would you actually believe it after looking at it? If someone told you that the picture was one of a serpent with its head in Eve's ear would you believe it after looking at it yourself?

No, but you are missing the point. If I had only been in contact with the scrolls for a few minutes, and then tried to describe it from memory even a few days later, I might make such associations. That is why I suggested that possibility in the first place. Again, I am not insisting this was, in fact, the case.

And thanks for pointing out Olivers reference to the Joseph scroll.

You're welcome.

[Calm]

No, but you are missing the point. If I had only been in contact with the scrolls for a few minutes, and then tried to describe it from memory even a few days later, I might make such associations.

Especially if the story of Eve and the serpent was connected to it, I find it less likely the tripod being established with the legs and tail, but the impression that the serpent is whispering in Eve's ear could have been a memory of the story overlayed on the memory of the picture easily enough.

Perhaps Charolotte also confused the picture with other pictures she had seen of the Eden scene such as this one where the serpent is standing with the tail drooped:

http://1.bp.blogspot...r+Goes+1470.jpg

I am assuming no one has problems with naked men and women in such art, but just in case I screenshoted the serpent himself, you can see the whole picture though at the link.

add-on: can't get the clipped art to work so you will have to go to the page to see it, it's a lovely work 'The Temptation' - Hugo van der Goes, 1470

Edited June 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Found this glyph: http://glyphics.info/glyph/275

Edited June 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[USU78]

Found this glyph: http://glyphics.info/glyph/275

Cal, I'm having trouble with this. Any help you can give?

[Glenn101]

Especially if the story of Eve and the serpent was connected to it, I find it less likely the tripod being established with the legs and tail, but the impression that the serpent is whispering in Eve's ear could have been a memory of the story overlayed on the memory of the picture easily enough.

Perhaps Charolotte also confused the picture with other pictures she had seen of the Eden scene such as this one where the serpent is standing with the tail drooped:

http://1.bp.blogspot...r+Goes+1470.jpg

I am assuming no one has problems with naked men and women in such art, but just in case I screenshoted the serpent himself, you can see the whole picture though at the link.

add-on: can't get the clipped art to work so you will have to go to the page to see it, it's a lovely work 'The Temptation' - Hugo van der Goes, 1470

Years ago I saw a glyph of a scene very much like Charlotte described. I have been unable to find it again, so that will have to go in the waste bin unless I can find it again. However, Charlotte would have seen an Egyptian glyph, and not a artistic representation of the temptation of Eve. There are many Egyptian drawings depicting serpents with legs and sometimes arms also.

Here is one much like that is the image crixus posted, but with the tail on the ground. It could be identified as a tripod.

And here is one of a serpent feeding a person whom I would suspect to be a depiction of the serpent giving Eve a taste of the forbidden fruit. Note the short tail which if a bit longer would have formed a tripod.

The point I was making to tagriffey was not whether he or anyone else would have confused the recollection of the serpent facing the woman in the image crixus posted with a serpent siting on his tail making a tripod with his two feet and with his head in the womans ear.

If a person showed you (or anyone else viewing that image) and said that it was the serpent in the Garden of Eden with his head in Mother Eve's ear, would you believe that person, or would you believe your eyes. I myself and any of you viewing that image would say, balderdash, or something else equally pithy.

So, was Charlotte writing about something that she had seen and drawn her own conclusion that it was the serpent and Mother Eve, or was she telling what Lucy Mack Smith's explanation had been? If Lucy Mack had told her that the image crixus posted was the serpent in the Garden of Eden with his head in Mother Eve's ear, would Charlotte have just said, yep, ypu are right, or would she have said "balderdash" or something equally pithy.

Even if she had seen a scene much like the last one, she still would have noted that the serpent was offering her maybe the forbidden fruit, and did not have his head in her ear.

Glenn

Edited June 13, 2013 by Glenn101

[tagriffy]

Years ago I saw a glyph of a scene very much like Charlotte described. I have been unable to find it again, so that will have to go in the waste bin unless I can find it again. However, Charlotte would have seen an Egyptian glyph, and not a artistic representation of the temptation of Eve. There are many Egyptian drawings depicting serpents with legs and sometimes arms also.

Here is one much like that is the image crixus posted, but with the tail on the ground. It could be identified as a tripod.

And here is one of a serpent feeding a person whom I would suspect to be a depiction of the serpent giving Eve a taste of the forbidden fruit. Note the short tail which if a bit longer would have formed a tripod.

There you go. That is substantial evidence that Haven's memory might be sound.

The point I was making to tagriffey was not whether he or anyone else would have confused the recollection of the serpent facing the woman in the image crixus posted with a serpent siting on his tail making a tripod with his two feet and with his head in the womans ear.

If a person showed you (or anyone else viewing that image) and said that it was the serpent in the Garden of Eden with his head in Mother Eve's ear, would you believe that person, or would you believe your eyes. I myself and any of you viewing that image would say, balderdash, or something else equally pithy.

It's "tagriffy." The Griffeys are an entirely different clan. And as I said before, if I were standing there looking at it, I wouldn't make such an error. However, if I were trying to describe it from memory a few days later when I had only seen the image for a few minutes at most, I could see myself describing the glyph in that fashion. It is the latter situation we are dealing with when discussing Haven's letter.

So, was Charlotte writing about something that she had seen and drawn her own conclusion that it was the serpent and Mother Eve, or was she telling what Lucy Mack Smith's explanation had been? If Lucy Mack had told her that the image crixus posted was the serpent in the Garden of Eden with his head in Mother Eve's ear, would Charlotte have just said, yep, ypu are right, or would she have said "balderdash" or something equally pithy.

Even if she had seen a scene much like the last one, she still would have noted that the serpent was offering her maybe the forbidden fruit, and did not have his head in her ear.

Let's take a look here. Here is the relevant portion of Haven's letter:

Then she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read seven minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament -- and it might have been for anything we knew -- but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who -- the serpent, I mean -- was standing on the tip of his tail, with which his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."

"They did before the fall," she asserted with perfect confidence.

This could be a tough call. I would say Haven is connecting what Mother Smith is saying about Eve to the serpent she is describing. Since even here (let alone throughout her letter), she is treating Lucy's reading with a great deal of skepticism, I would say she is not venturing her own interpretation. "One" of the things Lucy "interpreted" was "Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent." Then follows the description of the glyph using Lucy's terms.

[Calm]

Cal, I'm having trouble with this. Any help you can give?

You can't see it? If not, it is a snake lying horizontally across about a third from the top of what looks like a croquet hoop/wicket with its tail dropping down and touching the ground, thus creating a tripod effect though the 'legs' are just straight lines and not drawn as animal or human legs as is the glyph we have. So apparently there is a hieroglyphic out there that might be seen as closer in appearance to what Haven described than what we currently have or might be combined with what we have to end up with what Haven describes. What this implies is open to pure speculation, of course. Perhaps she saw this glyph and combined it in her memory with the other one...