Proofs of the Book of Abraham?

[enummaelish]

Dear Paul O.

Thanks for the great post! Since you are very well informed, I always enjoy reading what you have to say. You know that I agree with you on the historicity of the BOA, but I

[Daniel Peterson]

Olishem is merely an onomastic formation that emerged from this phonemic soup of fictive "Egyptian" terminology.

How about "Olishem could be merely an onomastic formation that emerged from this phonemic soup of fictive 'Egyptian' terminology"?

Real scholarship seldom deals in dogmatic declaratives, as it doesn't claim revealed authority.

[USU78]

Real scholarship seldom deals in dogmatic declaratives, as it doesn't claim revealed authority.

Indeed. And "Olishem is merely an onomastic formation that emerged from this phonemic soup of fictive "Egyptian" terminology" reveals far more about its author than it does about the BoA.

[enummaelish]

Upon further investigation, I don

[exegete]

Hi Dan,

I wrote:

Olishem is merely an onomastic formation that emerged from this phonemic soup of fictive "Egyptian" terminology.

To which you replied:

How about "Olishem could be merely an onomastic formation that emerged from this phonemic soup of fictive 'Egyptian' terminology"?

Real scholarship seldom deals in dogmatic declaratives, as it doesn't claim revealed authority.

Perhaps that was one of those "seldom" occasions. In any event, welcome to the informal world of online boards

[Beowulf]

1. Well of course it does.

They come from the same text at the same time period.

2. I cannot comment, not knowing enough about the issue. (And this admission would shock my wife, who thinks I have an opinion about everything, whether I know anything or not.)

btw, thanks for the clarification about Joshua Seixas.

Beowulf

[brugsch]

Olishem doesn't salvage BoAbr historicity or antiquity. Smith didn't invent Olishem in a vacuum; the name has a phonemic history. As Joseph progressed through his Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar project, certain phonemic combinations were favored in creating faux Egyptian words. Note the following patterns in words/names that appear in Smith's "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language":

• ash (four occurrences)
  

• Crash ma kraw
  

• Ele ash
  

• Kai-e ven-rash
  

• Kai-e van-rash
  

• Kaii ven rash
  

• Chalsidon hi^a^sh
  

• Za Ki=o^a^n-hi^a^sh
  

• ZaKi on hish
  

• Enish-go-on=dosh
  

• Enish go on dosh (two occurrences)
  

• Shineflis
  

• flis
  

• Lish Zi ho e oop Iota
  

• Ah lish (three occurrences)
  

• Ahlish (two occurrences)
  

• Oliblish (two occurrences)
  

• oliblish
  

• Obbles isim
  

[*](Shem

[Daniel Peterson]

You've already lumped me with such "scholarly" luminaries as Ed Decker, Bill Schoebelen, Loftes Tryk, and John L. Smith (see here), so your dismissive lesson on "Real scholarship" may strike some as slightly ad hominemish and completely diversionary.

Good grief, Brent. Don't worry about my needing to "lighten up."

I look forward to your substantive reply.

That's nice. Anticipation can be one of life's greatest pleasures.

I said my piece: You should not present speculation or hypotheses as established fact. I had no particular hankering to say more, and, in view of your instantaneous and hypersensitive defensiveness, think it wise to disengage.

[Paul Osborne]

Dear Paul O.

[Paul Osborne]

Real scholarship seldom deals in dogmatic declaratives, as it doesn't claim revealed authority.

Indeed.  And "Olishem is merely an onomastic formation that emerged from this phonemic soup of fictive "Egyptian" terminology" reveals far more about its author than it does about the BoA.

The Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar is a spectacular revelation, in my opinion. I believe it is the mind of the Lord revealing the Adamic language to the mind of Joseph Smith.

There aren't very many members of the church that believe as I do, but I will rejoice when its authenticity is verified by prophets who are yet to speak on this subject. I can hardly wait. And yes, I have high hopes and they won't be dashed - you will see. I predict that.

Paul O

lone wolf

[enummaelish]

As always, Paul you have some very nice ideas. Thanks for sharing the additional info. to consider. I think you are correct in questioning the formulation of foreign words in the BOA, as we really have no clue as to how the Prophet would have chosen to transliterate. I sincerely doubt that the Lord would fret too much over such trivialities. Fun for you and I though! I think I

[Paul Osborne]

How do you know that the Grammar and Alphabet was Joseph Smith's?

[Paul Osborne]

As always, Paul you have some very nice ideas. Thanks for sharing the additional info. to consider. I think you are correct in questioning the formulation of foreign words in the BOA, as we really have no clue as to how the Prophet would have chosen to transliterate. I sincerely doubt that the Lord would fret too much over such trivialities. Fun for you and I though! I think I

[enummaelish]

Actually, Paul, now that I think about it,

[Paul Osborne]

Brent,

What do YOU think about the ancient signs for sun, moon, and earth being placed in the EA&G manuscript to compliment the papyrus?

see here and scroll down:

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id515.htm

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Actually, Paul,  now that I think about it,

[exegete]

Hi brugsch,

I'm happy I could brighten your day.

I especially like your confusion of sibilants since they are distinguished in English as well as in Egyptian and the Semitic languages.

No confusion on my part

[exegete]

Hi Dan,

Relax, I'm not being hypersensitive (I only stumbled across your previous post while running a search on the FAIR boards earlier today); however, I must admit that I did underestimate your contempt for my scholarship (or whatever you want to call it).

Best regards,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

[Paul Osborne]

From over two decades of analyzing the primary sources and manuscript evidence.

It indeed is the work of Joseph Smith. I read it and can sense the prophet's breath in every word as he reveals marvelous things about astronomy. Here is a sample:

http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id551.htm

I'm a Mormon with a loud mouth but at least everyone will know that I believe in the EA&G and stand behind the brethren who made it.

I wish others would too. But suppose the EA&G is offically declared to be nothing but gibberish by the First Presidency of the Church; what will I do then? But suppose that it is vindicated and shown to be a marvelous revelation being confirmed by the First Presidency of the church in some future day. What will those who opposed it think then? How will they figure they came to their incorrect conclusion? What will they think of their scholarship then?

That is something to think about, folks. You too, Brent because I think the Lord has something special in mind for you - I predict that.

Paul O

[Daniel Peterson]

I must admit that I did underestimate your contempt for my scholarship (or whatever you want to call it).

What on earth are you talking about?

[exegete]

Hi Dan,

I'm more than a little perplexed. In a previous post, you clump me with the likes of Ed Decker, Bill Schoebelen, Loftes Tryk, and John L. Smith (see here), folks upon whom you've heaped nothing but scorn.

I reflected on your post:

I must admit that I did underestimate your contempt for my scholarship (or whatever you want to call it).

Then you replied:

What on earth are you talking about?

I would think it's abundantly clear. Care to elucidate?

Your mystified interlocutor,

Brent

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

[wenglund]

Hi Brent,

Wonderful as always to see you here.

And, I look forward to reading your anthology when it comes out.

I will be particularly interested to see how the many naturalistic hypotheses regarding the Book of Mormon posed in your previous publications, have application, in your mind, to the Book of Abaraham, or whether the presumed sources and impetus for the BoA are entirely different. For example, do you or one of your co-authors believe the supposed anti-Universalist rhetoric of the Book of Mormon spilled over into the Book of Abraham, or the D&C or Book of Moses, for that matter.

My interest is to see just how impressive was Joseph's draw upon the "ideational lexicon" and "phonemic soup" of his day, in order to, as you suppose, naturalistically compose the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

Is your group by chance compiling a list of all the possible sources from whence a young and relatively illiterate farm boy from the Western region in the early 1830 would derive the works attributed naturalistically to him?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[exegete]

Hi Wade,

Good to hear from you.

For example, do you or one of your co-authors believe the supposed anti-Universalist rhetoric of the Book of Mormon spilled over into the Book of Abraham, or the D&C or Book of Moses, for that matter.

Since Joseph Smith dictated Abraham 1:1

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm more than a little perplexed. In a previous post, you clump me with the likes of Ed Decker, Bill Schoebelen, Loftes Tryk, and John L. Smith, folks upon whom you've heaped nothing but scorn.

You failed to note Grant Palmer.

I reflected on your post:

I must admit that I did underestimate your contempt for my scholarship (or whatever you want to call it).

Then you replied:

What on earth are you talking about?

I would think it's abundantly clear. Care to elucidate?

My question doesn't require elucidation. It is, as you put it, "abundantly clear."

Your reasons for assuming that I grouped you with Grant Palmer and Loftes Tryk and the rest because of a perceived similar level of scholarship, however, could use some elucidation.

But I'm really not that interested. I'm tired of the everlastingly personal soap opera that these exchanges become, and will not be responding further on this matter. I regret that I've responded as much as I have. Mea culpa.

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

Good to hear from you.

For example, do you or one of your co-authors believe the supposed anti-Universalist rhetoric of the Book of Mormon spilled over into the Book of Abraham, or the D&C or Book of Moses, for that matter.

Since Joseph Smith dictated Abraham 1:1