wenglund wrote:So, at the risk of having even more questions unreasonably dismissed and deflected, let me specifically ask:
What do you, personally, and other critics here, believe was the intended purpose of the KEP--if not to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri?
Hi, Wade,
The intended purpose of the KEP? Well, for me, it's complicated. Different parts have different purposes. Let's begin with the A&G. We know Joseph Smith had claimed to have translated 'Reformed Egyptian' into the Book of Mormon, and from the Professor Anthon experience. From Phelps' May 1835 letter to his wife that he had a keen interest in trying to understand ancient language and had already begun constructing something of an alphabet. Then about 6 weeks after Phelps' letter to his wife, Chandler arrives in Kirtland with Egyptian mummies and papyrus. I think Joseph Smith thought this coincidence too fortuitous and therefore the product of divine providence. This validated as God-inspired the work already done on an alphabet, and also provided them now more ‘Word of God’ on which to use Smith's language skills re Egyptian and Phelps’ partially developed alphabet.
Between their recent attempt to create an alphabet, and Joseph Smith's communing with God, certainly they would be able to translate the Egyptian characters into English. Of course, since they believed that the advent of the papyri was confirmation from God of what they had already done, they began by translating characters to add to the alphabet already begun. Only when they had commenced doing so, did they realize that the papyri 'contained' the story of Abraham, Joseph, etc.
Of July 5, 1835, Joseph Smith wrote: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.
In that passage, Smith explains that 'a more full account' will 'appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.' At this early juncture, he is explaining that there will be an expansion of
it (in "its place"). What did he mean by it?
Was
it the brief translation of some characters that had revealed that one roll contained Abraham's writings, and another those of Joseph of Egypt? Of note, it took translation of some of the characters on the rolls to know what they were. Smith had translated characters off of two separate rolls on that day, July 5, 2010, enough characters off of each to know that one contained the writings of Abraham and another the writings of Joseph of Egypt. Smith would only have had to get half way through the first English sentence (what is now Abr 1:1) to know it portended to be the writings of Abraham.
Was
it the story as he thought appeared in the characters on the papyri, and that through his embellishments (divine or self-concocted) as part of what he called 'examining or unfolding' the writings of Abraham and of Joseph of Egypt would be expanded beyond what then appeared from the characters on the papyri?
I think that these translations of “some of the characters” were the beginnings of the Egyptian Alphabet and the Egyptian Grammar. From their interest in ancient languages, Smith, Phelps and Cowdery were likely aware that to translate, you want to develop an alphabet and grammar. To-wit, Phelps had begun constructing one even before they knew of the papyri Chandler was bringing to Kirtland. So after receiving the papyri, they began constructing an alphabet from the Egyptian characters, Smith giving meanings to each via 'divine inspiration' or 'revelation'. In the process, Smith and Phelps also began
constructing Abr 1:1-3 from and in conjunction with the development of the A&G. Thus, I think the purpose of Abr 1:1-3 (Phelps scribed) portion of Abr Ms 1 was the primal manuscript for those passages.
This would have been more and more difficult to sustain as they progressed through Abr 1:1, 2 and then 3. The recurrence of a character, or the fact that it did not recur, coincident with a repetition of a name or concept. How could this be explained, particularly to Phelps? Verses 2 and 3 are very repetitive, each expressing a single idea, but in different degrees or expansions. Smith could not keep this charade going without Phelps figuring out it was Smith just making it up as they went along. Phelps was never allowed to return to working on the narrative text of the BoAbr.
So Smith quickly turned Phelps attention and efforts towards just working on the A&G. It was a focus of efforts through the end of July, and then in October. It was on October 1, 1835,
Joseph Smith wrote:This afternoon I labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with Brothers Oliver Cowdery and W. W. Phelps, and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter
Here, we see that Joseph Smith described laboring on the alphabet to be
research by himself, Phelps and Cowdery. What sources they might have been consulting as part of their research is not known. While doing that research, the principles of astronomy unfolded to their understanding. We would likely term that today as experiencing a gestalt understanding of the topic.
I think that the Egyptian Counting was something that Phelps wanted to construct, but Smith was not interested, and that Phelps alone contributed to it.
As to the Egyptian Grammar, I think that all but the very ending explanation, the bottom portions of each degree of the 2nd part were then assembled on October 1, 1835 and the days that followed, and that concluded the work of that team (Smith, Phelps, and Cowdery) on the A&G.
Of important note to the question of dependence of the A&G on Abr 1:1-3 as claimed by Will Schryver, in the various degrees of the second part of the A&G, the last character explained was the character for Kolob. It was written in Parrish's handwriting at the end of each of the degrees of the second part. (In Parrish’s handwriting are the explanations for the last one or two characters, for Veh Kli flos-isis and Kolob in the 4th and 5th degrees, part of that for Veh Kli flos-isis and all of Kolob in the 3rd degree, and just for Kolob in the 1st and 2nd degrees.) Yet Kolob is the primary concept discussed in Abr 3:2, 3, 9 and 16 and is used as the point of reference for much of the other astronomical discussion had in BoAbr. If the A&G was being worked back from and dependent on the Abr 1-3 text, why would Kolob be relegated to last position in all the degrees of the second part? If Kolob was the central concept in the astronomy, why would it's character and explanations be left for last in the A&G?
If they were deriving the A&G from the Abr 1-3 text, as Schryver suggests, why would Kolob not be the first concept among the astronomical ones in going through the preexisting text? After all, it is the first concept so appearing.
Anyway, back to the KEP's purposes, not its stemma necessarily. By mid October 1835, the A&G had been completed to the point it was (but for the explanations of the character for Kolob and Veh Kli flos-isis, as explained above). Indeed, the five degrees in the two parts might have resembled for Smith a finished product for its purposes. The practical and logistical problems of 'translating' from a language key (as Smith and Phelps had done to produce Abr 1:1-3) meant Smith could not continue his Abraham story with Phelps as scribe as he had been involved to that point. Phelps would realize Smith wasn't following the same
modus operandi as before.
From the perspective of Phelps, I think Abr 1:1-3 ended up being a bit of a prop. One purpose of the A&G was also as a prop for convincing Phelps that this was a real, linguistic translation. I think that Smith also had the A&G developed so that he would be able to use them as reference notes for dictating the English 'translation' of the papyri characters, to new scribes. So in that sense, I think the A&G (and to a lesser extent, Phelps' Counting) were useful notes for Smith to use when he came right down to orally dictating a narrative.
So Smith needed new scribes so he could change up the method of producing the BoAbr text. That's when he hired Parrish, and F G Williams got involved. He could not have them start at Abr 1:1, as what Smith would dictate would then not be the same as what Phelps had written down for Abr 1:1-3. So, the Abr Mss that Parrish penned from Abr 1:4-2:2 (Abr Ms 3) and Williams penned from Abr 1:4-2:6 (partial) did in fact begin with 1:4. If Parrish and Williams were just making copies taken from a parent text, why then not start from the beginning, Abr 1:1? Also, note the difference in style between Abr 1:3 (where the Phelps arrangement left off) and Abr 1:4 (where Smith’s oral dictation began).
I think that Abr Ms 2 (Williams) and Abr Ms 3 (Parrish) were taken down simultaneously as primal manuscripts of Abr 1:4-2:2 from dictation from Smith. I think this was original dictation, not from a parent text. So the purpose of Abr Ms 2 and 3 was the original manuscripts from oral dictation not being read from a prior text. I believe that the Egyptian (and Egyptian-like) characters in the left hand margins were inserted in transition (as the English text was being written, line after line). I think that Joseph Smith's purpose in having the characters added was as a prop to show both Parrish and Williams that he, Smith, was translating Egyptian characters into English text, in what we consider the conventional method, purpose and result of translating text in one language to corresponding text of another language. This is just as he had done with Phelps re Abr 1:1-3 on Abr Ms 1, and for the same purpose.
I think that Abr Ms 1, Abr 1:4-2:6 was merely added by Parrish copying from Abr Ms 2, and then Abr 2:6-18 was the primal manuscript from oral dictation by Smith of those portions.
I think that Abr 2:19-end did not get 'translated' until early 1842. Willard Richards was preparing manuscripts for the printer. He copied Abr 1:1-2:18 from Abr Ms 1 (Phelps and Parrish). By 1842, word has spread that Champollion had deciphered ancient Egyptian from the Rosetta Stone. Therefore, Joseph Smith could not afford to be found out to be a fraud and had Richards leave out the Egyptian characters. He was also careful then not to include any Explanation of Egyptian characters for the Facsimiles that would bear them, just Explanation of the pictographs.
I think I’ve covered in this explanation all the pieces of the KEP, and what would be the various and sometimes dual purposes of pieces of the KEP.