Vogel's new book on Abraham

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Fence Sitter
Sunbeam
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:02 am

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Fence Sitter »

Chapter 3 talks about "The Adamic Language" . Evidently when Smith declared that Independence Missouri was the location of Zion he also gave the original Adamic name for it - "Zomar."

Catchy.

I wonder if Zelph was a Zoramite who lived in Zomar with his wife Zeptha who was from Zarahemla and their son Zeezrom, his father-in-law Zeniff and their servant Zoram?
Philo Sofee
First Presidency
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Philo Sofee »

Fence Sitter wrote:
Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:43 pm
Chapter 3 talks about "The Adamic Language" . Evidently when Smith declared that Independence Missouri was the location of Zion he also gave the original Adamic name for it - "Zomar."

Catchy.

I wonder if Zelph was a Zoramite who lived in Zomar with his wife Zeptha who was from Zarahemla and their son Zeezrom, his father-in-law Zeniff and their servant Zoram?
Zowzah! The horses were zebras. Nephi was secretly Zorro.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1593
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

I just completed chapter 1, Documents and Timeline. I thoroughly enjoyed and reviewed it carefully and with a meticulous interest. I find no errors. Vogel presents his case and ample clear cut examples, proving with hard evidence using logic and reason that the translation manuscripts contain writings consisting of simultaneous oral dictations from Smith's own mouth. Vogel demonstrates evidence and proof in a clear cut manner and and in simple terms. Vogel is an excellent writer and conveys his thoughts in a logical and straightforward manner without the usual clutter often used by writers who simply like to impress and overwhelm their readers.

Vogel also makes a clear case in showing that the Translation Manuscripts were "Smith's preliminary efforts to understand his newly acquired papyri and to convince followers that his translation was derived from the papyri." There is no doubt in my mind the sequential history of these documents disprove John Gee's theory that the Translation Manuscripts were an exercise in reverse engineering an already completed translation of the Book of Abraham alleged to have been produced in July of 1835 and that the theory must be "abandoned".
Fence Sitter
Sunbeam
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:02 am

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Fence Sitter »

Lindsay has blogged that he thinks Smith would have been aware of Champollion and thus would not have been part the botched GAEL. He is getting destroyed in his comments section for that blog. I do have to give him kudos for allowing the comments he has.

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2021/03/ ... -book.html
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1593
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Fence Sitter wrote:
Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:40 pm
Lindsay has blogged that he thinks Smith would have been aware of Champollion and thus would not have been part the botched GAEL. He is getting destroyed in his comments section for that blog. I do have to give him kudos for allowing the comments he has.

https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2021/03/ ... -book.html

There is no way, it's IMPOSSIBLE that Smith possessed knowledge of Champollion's work and I can prove it. One of the keys to understanding Egyptian language was knowing that a royal name is contained within a Cartouche. This was something that was somewhat understood before Champollion's breakthroughs and he simply advanced the cause in deciphering royal names.

Smith did NOT know that royal names were had in a Cartouche! He did not know it! He was not aware of Champollion's work and totally unaware of a fundamental rule in the Egyptian language and grammar: A king's name is in a Cartouche!

Wikipedia wrote:Using the fact that it was known that names of rulers appeared in cartouches, he focused on reading names of rulers as Young had initially tried. Champollion managed to isolate a number of sound values for signs, by comparing the Greek and Hieroglyphic versions of the names of Ptolemy and Cleopatra – correcting Young's readings in several instances.

Had Smith known anything about Champollion's work he would not have claimed that there is a king's name in Facsimile No. 3, which to this day and forever more, will remain a slam dunk in proving that Smith couldn't read, translate, or decipher hieroglyphic writing. It's an open and shut case, period.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1593
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Facsimile No. 3

Post by Shulem »

THERE IS NO KING'S NAME!

Image

So take that, you Mormons!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1593
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: QUESTION for Dan

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Mar 18, 2021 6:24 pm
Page 3 of your book, Figure 1.2:

Book of Abraham Manuscript-A in the handwriting of W.W Phelps. The first two characters were taken from Joseph Smith Papyrus X1, now damaged. The third character was taken from column 2 of Joseph Smith Papyrus XI.

The manuscript in question in your photo should be entitled Book of Abraham Manuscript-C, not Manuscript-A.

Right?

Oops, Dan, I found a tiny bit of confusion (chapter 2) that you might like to be aware of, not that it's a concern but it threw me just a little while referencing the difference between the papyrus and manuscripts with regards to the opening two translation characters.

p.35 wrote:The first two hieratic characters in the left margin were taken from column 1, line 1, of JSP XI, reading from right to left (fig. 2.1).

I understand margin above is in reference to the left margin that is in the manuscript, copied characters that were originally contained in JSP XI, but later damaged in the lacuna. Your statement above seems to apply "column" to the papyrus and there are no columns in that fragment, just rows. So it would be more clear if it simply read: "characters in the left margin of the manuscript were taken from row 1, of JSP XI"

I hope you don't mind me pointing this out. Also, my preference is for rows rather than lines.
dan vogel
Nursery
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by dan vogel »

Shulem:

Thanks for your comments. Yes, p. 3 caption should be "C" not "A"

On p. 35, my use of column is because when the fragments are placed in order, there are columns of text. On JSP XI, there are two. I picked up that way of describing the text from Ritner and Baer.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1593
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Thank you Dan, for your kind response. I value your opinion and viewpoint.

I hope to get back to reading in your book soon, hopefully tomorrow. I've enjoyed every page so far and will treasure it as a keepsake.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1593
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:22 am
I'm mostly interested in historical issues surrounding JS's production of the text, particularly its chronology. Understanding the documents and the order of events destroys Nibley/Gee/Muhlestein reverse-translation theory.

Dan,

I like how you introduced the Notebook of Copied Egyptian Characters (p. 1, W.W. Phelps) and the Valuable Discovery Notebook (p. 3, Oliver Cowdery) in showing how the hieratic characters relate with the translation text found in both manuscript notebooks -- you detail this on p. 46-48 of your book. I agree with the correlations you noted in that regard but I have a big problem with your conclusion in which you also thank Metcalfe in the notes, whereby you say, "A close examination of the two translation texts indicates that Cowdery and Phelps wrote simultaneously as Smith dictated." Then you follow with your reasons why you think it's a simultaneous dictation and on the surface it seems reasonable. But, I simply cannot agree and do NOT believe it was a simultaneous dictation but more on the lines of correction and proofs to the manuscripts after the fact.

Please note, Phelps's document doesn't have hieratic characters at the left or inline with the translated text but Cowdery's does have characters in the left column (not ruled) and inline with the text. The hieratic characters after the words "of Egypt" are directly inline with the text and could not have been copied and written fast enough to suggest a dictation. It goes to show that Cowdery's document *is* the original working translation document and Phelps's was a copy he made after the fact -- but both documents were later corrected (as you mention in your book) together at the same time.

Also, the inline hieratic characters of Cowdery's document represent the name of "Onitas", who in the correction phase of both documents was given the title "king". The reason, I believe, Cowdery's Notebook is signed by Joseph Smith on the front cover is because that was the translation notebook, the original. The other is a copy. Both were corrected together after the fact.

Am I not seeing this right? What am I missing?
Post Reply