KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_wenglund]

I don't want to detract from Wade's fascination with the Egyptian Counting document, but I think Mortal Man has put forth a very compelling explanation of the translation manuscripts over on MAD, complete with an explanation of the dittograph.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... d-scrolls/

Will's response is classic apologetics. Will summarized: "we can't possibly know what exactly was being translated when the History of the Church refers to Joseph translating for days on end." If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, then it is a . . . (Will: it is impossible to really know).

Would you say that Mortal Man is essentially proposing that the purpose of the KEP (or at least the EA and GAEL) was to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri?

I would ask him directly but I don't have pundit status.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_dblagent007]

The HOC doesn't ever say what was being translated at any given time, and there are lots of different translated things to choose from when attempting to assign a particular translation session to a particular text.

Uh Will, I mean Nomad, please list all the different things Joseph Smith could have been translating at the time.

[_Kishkumen]

I think Kishkumen is suggesting that BoAbr defenders step back from the literal attestations by Joseph Smith as to what he was doing. Having clung to the literalness and stretching beyond all reason to try to make the square peg fit in the round hole of logic, they've driven many once-TBMs away.

It seems to me that Joseph Smith did not consistently use and there probably did not understand the word "translate" in the sense a linguist or most people, for that matter, would. My educated guess is that his first exposure to translation was through his contact with Luman Walter in the treasure digs. This would explain why translation is so closely related to seership in Smith's religious vocabulary.

The misunderstandings concerning Smith's understanding of translation multiplied very early on, and yet, instead of resist them, Smith appears to have incorporated a mixture of approaches, which goes a long way toward explaining his work with Phelps.

Kishumen, I understand, thinks that the BoAbr might be a 'sacred text' even if Joseph Smith was not doing what he claimed he was with the Egyptian characters on the papyri. For me, a text would not be 'sacred' in a religious sense unless I truly believed it was directed by God, through revelation, in its original composition (God inspiring Abraham to write the substance of it in the Egyptian characters) and its translation (God inspiring Joseph Smith to write that same substance in English, or God just implanting the story of Abraham in Joseph Smith's mind, the papyri and its characters being nothing more than a 'catalyst').

Yes. I understand the Book of Abraham to be a sacred text in the LDS tradition, as it was formally canonized by the LDS Church. I don't think fraud is a very productive or even credible way to approach the text, with all due respect to my many friends at MDB who think otherwise. I am not advocating Mormonism, but I have a certain academic respect for the tradition.

For me, text would not be 'sacred' in a human experience/historical sense unless its antiquity could withstand scrutiny. Even then, it might have wisdom of the ages to live by as a general guideline, but I would not follow it implicitly thinking my eternal salvation depended upon it.

As a historian, I see nothing unusual about a pseudepigraphic text that is set in deep antiquity and is yet, at the same time, accepted as a sacred text. And, I think it is a normal and legitimate mode for composing sacred texts. Indeed, I think the claim to antiquity, although surely not to be taken literally, is one of the authentic elements of Mormon sacred texts.

[_dblagent007]

Would you say that Mortal Man is essentially proposing that the purpose of the KEP (or at least the EA and GAEL) was to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri?

MM didn't say much about the EA or GAEL in his post so I have no idea what his views are. The historical record is clear, however, that they were produced before the translation manuscripts. I believe Ashment provided some text critical evidence demonstrating the same thing.

Can you contradict any of the arguments MM actually made?

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, you have. and, I apologize--though I didn't intend for it to be snarky, just a little fascetious.

Ah, OK.

I guess what puzzles me is that in terms of the relevance of the KEP to the verity of Joseph's prophetic calling, you and I are in agreement (though for reasons that excape me, you seem to think otherwise), whereas you and Kevin (and Sock Puppet) seem diametrically opposed. Yet, you are taking issue on that point with me. I must admit that this leaves me scratching my head and wondering why you aren't talking to Kevin and Sock Pupppet about it.

Because that isn't my thing. When I undertook to bring Kishkumen back from the boneyard, it was with a very specific purpose in mind: as a critique of aspects of LDS apologetics. I hope that helps you understand why I am focusing on you instead of Kevin and sock puppet.

I can only speak for myself as someone who is reluctant to class myself as an apologists, but while I do hold firm to the Church's truth-claims about Joseph's revelatory translation of ancient documents (and this because I firmly believe it to be true), I don't see how that somehow burdens me with the responsibility for members losing their testimony by buying into the arguments of critics that the Book of Abraham was translated academically from the KEP. I have consitently suggested quite the opposite.

There is an important difference between chiding you for your personal shortcomings and pointing out some aspects of apologetic history that are pertinent to the discussion at hand. My interest and purpose was to do the latter, not the former. My apologies if that was confusing.

[_Kishkumen]

One thing that is very obvious at this point is that people on the both sides of the controversy have seriously underestimated the academic rigor that Schryver has applied to his analysis. Like I’ve mentioned before, I did some undergraduate studies in textual criticism, so I’m not entirely ignorant when it comes to that topic. Plus, I have recently taken the opportunity of getting some of the more recent publications, in order to re-acquaint myself with the methodologies. It has been very enjoyable for me and it proves that one is never to old to expand knowledge.

Anywho … as I said, I think people (including me, I confess) have seriously underestimated the scholarly underpinnings of Schryver’s work, and I really look forward to seeing his detailed stuff get published so that it will be seen that not only are the arguments sound from a logical standpoint, but that the data is there to prove the arguments he has made, in particular the dependence of the EAG stuff on an already translated Book of Abraham. I can’t imagine that anyone will even try to argue against that conclusion after all the evidence is available for consideration.

More empty rhetoric brought to you by the captain of the pep squad, Nomad.

[_wenglund]

May I just say that, while the historical record is clear that many a critic has argued that the KEP was intended as a key (modus operandi) to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri, and Chris Smith's recent JWHA paper argues that at least portions of the GAEL were the "modus operandi for part of the Book of Abraham translation"

Yes, and Chris has explained what he meant by thaat, and narrows this description to a few verses alone. Whereas you and Wilbur are pretending someone on our side has argued that the entire Book of Abraham derived from the GAEL. It proves once again you aren't up to speed.

I bolded a critical word above which you evidently missed in your hast to self-justify and deflect. I trust that you can figure out the difference between "intended" and "derived" and thus alter your thoughtless dismissals so as to ironically bring yourself up to speed as to what Will and I have actually said.

The Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar's purpose was exactly as Joseph Smith said. He wanted to create an Egyptian Alphabet and grammar. Mystery solved.

This explains WHAT Joseph allegedly wanted to do. It does not explain WHY or the INTENT or PURPOSE for creating the EA or the GAEL, which is what my question was specifically asking for.

How about giving it another try? Here is a rephrasing of the question in a way that perhaps you will better understand: "To your way of thinking, what reason did Joseph or Phelps have for creating the EA and the GAEL, if not to translate the Book of Abraham from papyri?"

I must acknowledge that you did at least attempt to answer one of my questions, and I very much appreciate that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Kevin Graham]

Yet, here are some quotes from Kevin I found on this very thread just in the last several days:

"…we know that Abr 1:1-3 came from characters that were given speciaal attention in the GAEL" Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:35 am

And? Where do I say the A&G's purpose was to translate the Papyrus?

"But virtually everything we know from history tells us that the extant papyri were used in translating the Book of Abraham, making the missing roll theory highly improbable. " Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:31 pm

And? Where do I say the A&G's purpose was to translate the Papyrus?

"For example, the smoking gun found in Abr 1:12, which pretty much solidifies the fact that the Sensen text was used to translate the Book of Abraham." Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:13 pm

And? Where do I say the A&G's purpose was to translate the Papyrus?

"Of course Joseph Smith was the one behind the Egyptian Counting document. Any attempt to translate an otherwise unknown language was the duty of the Prophet who had the keys to do so. " Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:11 am

And? Where do I say the A&G's purpose was to translate the Papyrus?

We're still waiting Wade.

I see William "coward" Schryver has two of his three idiot sychophants doing his bidding again. The third stooge is lurking on the forum I see. Go ahead and speak up Droopy, the idiot party wouldn't be complete without you.

[_wenglund]

Would you say that Mortal Man is essentially proposing that the purpose of the KEP (or at least the EA and GAEL) was to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri?

MM didn't say much about the EA or GAEL in his post so I have no idea what his views are. The historical record is clear, however, that they were produced before the translation manuscripts. I believe Ashment provided some text critical evidence demonstrating the same thing.

Can you contradict any of the arguments MM actually made?

First of all, I am not looking to contradict so much as to understand.

Second, the historical record, as well as the textual-critical record, are currently in dispute as to dependancy.

Finally, while I can see how MM may align some of the evidence so that it seems to logically fit, it would help to know if he has a coherent theory in mind for which his argument is intended to substantiate. What may appear logical when looking close up at part of the data, may appear illogical when looking from a distance at all of the data.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Yet, here are some quotes from Kevin I found on this very thread just in the last several days:

"…we know that Abr 1:1-3 came from characters that were given speciaal attention in the GAEL" Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:35 am

And? Where do I say the A&G's purpose was to translate the Papyrus?

"But virtually everything we know from history tells us that the extant papyri were used in translating the Book of Abraham, making the missing roll theory highly improbable. " Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:31 pm

And? Where do I say the A&G's purpose was to translate the Papyrus?

"For example, the smoking gun found in Abr 1:12, which pretty much solidifies the fact that the Sensen text was used to translate the Book of Abraham." Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:13 pm

And? Where do I say the A&G's purpose was to translate the Papyrus?

"Of course Joseph Smith was the one behind the Egyptian Counting document. Any attempt to translate an otherwise unknown language was the duty of the Prophet who had the keys to do so. " Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:11 am

And? Where do I say the A&G's purpose was to translate the Papyrus?

We're still waiting Wade..

To me, it is unmistakably implied. But, you can certaily settle the matter by not only explicitly denying that the EA or GAEL were intended to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri, as well as by answering my rephrased question: "To your way of thinking, what reason did Joseph or Phelps have for creating the EA and the GAEL, if not to translate the Book of Abraham from papyri?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-