In the translation manuscripts from the KEP, a character appears in the margins of Abr 1:2b–3 which seems to be a variation of a character from the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) with the following transliteration and explanation (the character in the GAEL contains three separated graphemes, where the character in the margin of the manuscript contains only two of those):
Kiah broam = kiah brah oam = Zub Zool oan
This character shown dissected
Kiah brah oam Coming down from the beginning. right by birth and also by blessing, and by promise; promises made; a father of many nations; a prince of peace; one who keeps the commandment of God; a patriarch; a rightful heir; a high priest
According to the modus operandi theory (MO theory), Joseph Smith composed the following text from that character:
desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge; a greater follower of righteousness; a possessor of greater knowledge; a father of many nations, a prince of peace; one who keeps the commandments of God; a rightful heir; a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.
The bold portions above represent the concepts or phrases attested in the character in the margin. The underlined portions represent concepts or phrases attested in other characters not found in the translation manuscripts, such as Pha-e, Ah-broam, Zub Zool, and Zub Zool oan. What becomes immediately evident is that the information contained in the other characters represents as much of the verse as the character in the margin. The MO theory does not account for this methodological gap. It seems to suppose that the meanings of those other characters have been consolidated in the character in the margins.
Is this a logical supposition? Is Kiah broam meant to communicate all the sense contained in the various characters represented by Ah-broam and Zub Zool oan? Kiah broam, 5°, says Kiah broam “equals” kiah brah oam and Zub Zool oan. Does this mean it encapsulates all the meanings found attached to that transliteration? This is an unlikely solution given (1) the dissection of the character does not indicate this, and elsewhere it is indicated when a different character’s meaning is contained in the character being discussed; (2) the ideograph in the first part of the first four degrees of Kiah broam is the second ideograph found in the margin of the translation manuscript, putatively responsible for Abr 1:1b, even though none of the meanings assigned to the five degrees is found directly quoted in that verse. All the meanings for the second through fifth degrees of this character, but not the first degree, are found in Abr 1:2b–3 without any determinant indicating that repetition is necessary; (3) there is overlap in the meanings explained in the dissection with those of other characters; (4) Ah broam, from GAEL 2°, is explained as “a follower of righteousness,” which is actually found in the translation manuscript in the line that appears before Kiah broam in the manuscript; (5) “right by birth and also by blessing,” listed in the dissection, appears to be represented in the second and third lines before Kiah broam; (6) the second part of Kiah broam 1° contains words (“appointment,” “fathers”) found together in Abr 1:4, which has an entirely unrelated character in the margin in the manuscript; and (7) and the other Zub Zool oan explanations are linked to unrelated graphemes. Unless additional guidelines or directives can be produced or hypothesized to account for the discrepancies between the explanations of the characters found in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (EAG) and the putative translations of the characters found in the translation manuscripts, the MO theory remains insufficient to account for the data as a whole.
How, then, does one account for the shape of Abr 1:2b–3? In his paper “The Dependence of Abraham 1:1–3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar,” Chris Smith describes v. 3 as “choppy and redundant,” but he has since stated that he has refined his characterization of the verse. He still maintains that the serial semicolon use is anomalous within Phelps’ body of scribal work, as well as Abraham’s desire to become one who possesses “great knowledge” as well as “greater knowledge.” He contends the shape of the narrative points to a cobbling together of lexemes from the EAG. I have elsewhere argued that the serial appositives are in no way incongruous with Smith’s compositional idiosyncrasies. Here I intend to show that a closer look at Smith’s previous compositions further supports the conclusion that the Abrahamic narrative is chronologically prior to the EA. If that is supported by the argument, then it must follow that the GAEL and translation manuscripts are tertiary.
First, I will respond to Chris’ concerns. He points out that the explanation for Kiah brah oam contains a number of semicolons:
a father of many nations; a prince of peace; one who keeps the commandment of God; a patriarch; a rightful heir; a highpriest.
Which is mirrored in the translation manuscript:
I should be ordained to administer the same: having been myself a follower of righteousness; desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge; a greater follower of righteousness; a possessor of greater knowledge; a father of many nations; a prince of peace; one who keeps the commandments of God; a rightful heir; a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers, from the beginning of time; . . .
However, in the GAEL, there are no semicolons associated with the following phrases, which have semicolons in the translation manuscript and appear prior to the phrases from Kiah brah oam:
a follower of righteousness
one who possesses great knowledge
a possessor of greater knowledge
These phrases also do not appear in the same order in the GAEL as they do in the narrative. The colon after “administer the same” is also bizarre, but unrelated to the EAG. In the explanations of the same characters in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, there are no semicolons. They seem to be Phelps’ unique production. Whatever the reason for the serials semicolons, Phelps begins to repeat them for reasons unrelated to their appearance in the EAG. “A possessor of greater knowledge” is also a secondary addition added between the lines. I have further research to conduct on Chris’ concerns, but this is food for thought.
Other concerns contribute to the skepticism with which we must view the conclusion that the Abrahamic narrative is secondary to the EAG. Zub Zool oan, Schryver’s character 18, constitutes a simple line drawn diagonally from the bottom left to the upper right, and is not found in the papyri or the translation manuscripts. It is explained in the three Egyptian Alphabet (EA) manuscripts as follows:
EA-WP: Zub-zool=oan The beginning first, before appointing to
EA-JS: Zub Zool oun the beginning first before pointing to
EA-OC: Zub-zool-oan The beginning first, before, or pointing to
In the case of at least this character, it seems Smith was dictating to his scribes. Phelps seems to have misheard “pointing to,” and wrote “appointing to.” He also seems to have missed a pause, indicative of a comma, between “before” and “pointing.” Cowdery added “or” to the series of words and phrases, but catches the separation of the last two elements. This is the earliest manifestation of these meanings for this character, but I intend to argue they already anticipate a portion of the narrative of Abr 1:3.
The last phrase, “pointing to,” is the most peculiar of this sequence. I argued earlier that it seems to represent a description of the syntactic function of a phrase underlying the translation, specifically “down to the present time” in Abr 1:3:
It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time; even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time; even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers, unto me.
Dan Vogel disagreed:
the concept “down to the present time” comes from the 5th definition, not the 1st.
I pointed out that there was little else it could mean considering the sequence preceding it and the use elsewhere of “pointing to.” There’s no other word in Abr 1:3 that could derive from it, either. I wondered if other texts written by Joseph Smith prior to Abr contained the same vernacular. It turns out it they do:
D&C 76:13–14 - Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning;
1 Nephi 5:12–13 - And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah; And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah
Heleman 6:29 - and he has brought it forth from the beginning of man even down to this time.
Alma 18:38 - he expounded unto them all the records and scriptures from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem down to the present time.
Alma 47:35 - from the reign of Nephi down to the present time.
D&C 88:127 - established for their instruction . . . beginning at the high priests, even down to the deacons
“Pointing to” is undeniably a description of the syntactical function of a predetermined phrase of some degree of development. The question is whether the EA drew the phrase from those other Smith texts, or directly from Abr. It is perfectly reasonable to assume Smith and company drew inspiration for their character explanations from earlier texts. The combination of "beginning of . . . ," "before," and "down to," however, are not all three found combined in one non-Abrahamic scriptural text. An intriguing dynamic in the relationship of the EAG to Abr, however, is the fact that none of the EAG quotations of previous scriptures found their way into Abr:
GAEL 5° - Ho e oop hah: possessor of heaven and earth, and of the blessings of the earth
Gen 14:19, 22 - El Elyon, Possessor of Heaven and Earth.
Possessor of heaven and earth is not found in Abr, but see Abr 1:26: “Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth.”
GAEL 5° - Hoeoophahphaheh: Patriarchal government, or authority; a land governed according to the pattern or order given to the patriarchs or fathers; rules and laws of government administered by the direction of Heaven or God; a people living under the laws of the gospel; or that law by which they may be sanctified and see the face of God; A priestly government; a government administered by the authority of the priesthood less or under the patriarchal; it sometimes means any priestly government, whether by the direction of heaven or by the tradition of the heavens
D&C 88:68 - Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will.
D&C 88:68 is nowhere alluded to in Abr, though the rest of the concepts are found therein to one degree or another.
GAEL 5° - Toan tau ee tahee tahee tou es: Under the sun: under heaven; downward; pointing downward going downward; stooping down; going down into another place,= any place; going down into the grave—going down into misery=even Hell; coming down in lineage by royal descent, in a line by onitas, one of the royal families of the kings of Egypt
Onitah and her lineage is mentioned in Abr 1:11. Going down or downward to a place is mentioned in Abr 2:21 and 3:21, 24; 4:1, 26; 5:4. “Under heaven” is found in Abr 4:9. “Under the sun” is repeated frequently in Ecclesiastes, but appearing nowhere in Abr. “going down into the grave/misery/even Hell” is from 2 Nephi 4:5; 26:10; Jacob 7:27; Enos 1:26; Mosiah 2:28; Ether 6:19; and Moroni 8:14, but is found nowhere in Abr.
GAEL 4° - Zi: One possessing greater beauty, modesty and virtue; taught more perfectly
D&C 105:10 That they themselves may be prepared, and that my people may be taught more perfectly, and have experience, and know more perfectly concerning their duty, and the things which I require at their hands.
A few comments on this one. The idea of “great beauty, modesty, and virtue” is an expansion of the EA entry of the same character, “Virgin, unmarried, virtuous, or the principle of virtue,” and is an allusion to Abr 1:11. My theory holds that the EA represents the primary extraction of basic semantic values from Abr which were distilled to lexemes and basic syntactical descriptions. The GAEL represents an expansion on those concepts as well as an extraction of further material. In both stages many concepts were borrowed straight across. This example shows all three stages, as the quotation from D&C 105 is found verbatim in 4°, but is distilled to “well taught” in 3°, and expanded to “being taught most perfectly and upright” in 5°. None of them appear in Abr.
It is asserted by some that the fact that other quotations do not make it into Abr is not unusual, since several ideas from EAG don’t make it into Abr, but this is specious reasoning. There would have had to have been a conscious decision to leave out all scriptural quotations if the narrative had not yet been composed. The MO theory does not account for this. Additionally, the non-scriptural concepts found in the GAEL that are left out of the narrative are largely expansions of the Abr narrative dealing explicitly with Egyptian culture, and are found primarily in the fifth degree of GAEL, such as the following:
GAEL 5° - Ho oop hah: Queen Kah tou mun, a distinction of royal ^female^ lineage or descent from her [by] whom Egypt was discovered while it was under water, who was the daughter of Ham; a lineage with whom a record of the fathers was entrusted by tradition of Ham, and according to the tradition of their elders, by whom also the tradition of the art of embalming was kept
A prince of the royal blood; a true descendant from Ham, the son of Noah, and inheritor of the kingly blessings from under the hand of Noah, but not according to the priestly blessing, because of the transgressions of Ham, which blessing fell upon Shem from under the hand of Noah
GAEL 5° - Zub Zool: From the beginning of the creation until now; pointing out or designating at the present time; having foreordained, or decreed or having before seen
For instance: Abraham having been chosen before was sent by commandment into the land of Canaan; having preached the gospel unto the heathen, was forewarned of God to go down in Ahmehstrah, or Egypt, and preach the gospel unto the Ahmehstrahans.
According to the MO theory, we would have to conclude that, in cobbling together the narrative, Smith and company expanded on principles in the fifth degree of the GAEL, but where a narrative was already present in that degree, they only incorporated non-narrative portions from the fifth or earlier degrees, expanding on them to develop a different narrative context. Why were developed motifs omitted? Why was Queen Kah tou mun rejected from the developing narrative? Why was the tradition of embalming omitted? Why was “Ahmehstrahans” omitted? Why were Shem and Noah omitted? Whenever the fifth degree produces a narrative of its own, rather than non-contextual words, phrases, or concepts, it does not find its way into the subsequent narrative. The best explanation for this phenomenon is that a narrative already existed into which the GAEL expansions did not fit. Those expansions serve some purpose unrelated to the production of a narrative.
A good way to answer the question of directionality is to see if phrases that cross character boundaries within the EA are found in pre-existent Smith texts. My theory holds that words and phrases were drawn from the Abr narrative and assigned to different characters in the EA, then further developed with the incorporation of more of the narrative in the GAEL. My theory also holds that the Abr narrative relies on fairly common vernacular and concepts utilized by Smith in previous writings. It would be reasonable to assume that some of this borrowed vernacular was split up upon incorporation into the EAG, with constituent words and phrases assigned to different characters. It is unlikely, however, that different characters with independently determined meanings would be cobbled together to produce more complex concepts coincidentally parallel to previous compositions, especially given the fact that material from previous compositions is consciously being omitted. Examine D&C 84:14–16:
Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah; And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers; And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man.
The passage above combines explanations for Pha-eh, Zub zool oan, and Zool. Compare to Abr 1:1–4:
And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me. I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.
There are no direct quotations, but rather related concepts, and they are not in the same order. D&C 84 did not influence the combination of the EAG explanations, but it very well could have influenced the composition of Abr 1:3–4. The MO theory must hold this was a coincidence, which is complicated by the fact that it must also hold (without explanation) that, at least for the first three verses, the word and concept order obtained in the production of the EAG were required to be maintained. Observe:
GAEL 1° - Phah-eh:
The first man—Adam, first father
Abr 1:3 - the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.
EA-JS Smith - Zub Zool oun: the beginning first before pointing to
Abr 1:3 - from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time
GAEL 5° - Zub zool oan: The first born, or the first man or father or fathers
Abr 1:3 - down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.
The probability that these arbitrarily assigned semantic values were cobbled together on the fly, and without manipulation of the words or their order, to produce a cohesive and cogent narrative that also happens to allude directly to concepts and vernacular from pre-existent narratives written by Smith is incredibly, incredibly low. The theory that such was the case also must account for a number of assumptions not yet explained. For instance, why was it determined that the word order obtained in the EAG must be preserved in the above-mentioned cases while splicing together the narrative? Chris Smith has stated the following in response:
Page 16 says of the dissected "Chaldea" character, "This order should be preserved according to the signification of degree." However unlikely it may seem that they should have come up with such a rule, it appears that they did.
This is insufficient to account for Abr 1:3 since this dissection only applies to a single degree of a single character that is unrelated to the verse in question. It does bear on Kiah broam, which has no such rule.
Continuing, how did the translators go from the characters and their related explanations in the EAG to a single character subsuming a variety of explanations in the translation manuscripts? Why do several concepts contained in the explanations subsumed into Kiah broam appear in verses previous to the character’s appearance and in verses translated under different, entirely unrelated characters? Why are scriptural quotations entirely omitted from the narrative?
Until these questions can be answered, it is my contention the dependence of Abr on the EAG does not best account for the data.