NorthboundZax wrote:Was there any actual Egyptology in Gee's paper?
I just had a look through, and the answer is: NO.
Kind of weird to have all the talk about the need to bow to his Egyptologist credentials when it is all discussion about how scrolls are missing and damaged so we can't judge Joseph Smith's translations. It doesn't take an Egyptologist to make that argument.
If I recall correctly, Ritner's paper was all about the Egyptology - by a credentialed Egyptologist no less. Hmmm...
Hey CK (or anyone for that matter) - what's your take on the charlotte haven account? Seems that this is Gee's main source for his missing papyri theory. According to gee, some of the papyri were mounted in glass (which he believes are the vignettes and text that were rediscovered), but then a while later, charlotte says lucy unravelled some other scrolls, and indicated that they were the writings of abraham (and isaac).
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Chap wrote:Joseph Smith did not know ancient Egyptian, but wanted people to think he did - this is clear both from the so-called 'Egyptian alphabet and grammar' he left us, and also from the amusing attempts to say things in Egyptian that he published in (If I recall correctly) 'Times and Seasons' with the evident aim of impressing the naïve with his linguistic gifts. The task is about as easy as deciding that "Wooloomoolo bazoomba' is not Latin: only the most elementary acquaintance with the target language is required, and it is obvious that Smith did not even have that.
In the latest issue of the Journal of Mormon History, there is an interesting piece by Samuel Brown on W. W. Phelps's ghostwriting for Smith of political pieces and bits with linguistic showing off. It seems that on occasion, it was the linguistic knowledge of Phelps that was being passed off as Smith's erudition.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Who Knows wrote:Hey CK (or anyone for that matter) - what's your take on the charlotte haven account? Seems that this is Gee's main source for his missing papyri theory. According to gee, some of the papyri were mounted in glass (which he believes are the vignettes and text that were rediscovered), but then a while later, charlotte says lucy unravelled some other scrolls, and indicated that they were the writings of abraham (and isaac).
Not all the papyri were cut up. The remainder of the Hor Book of Breathings, in fact, remained a roll. I believe I worked out that it would have been about 3-5 feet long, even after the first part was cut off. I think that that would satisfy Ms. Haven's "long roll" requirement.
Chap wrote:Joseph Smith did not know ancient Egyptian, but wanted people to think he did - this is clear both from the so-called 'Egyptian alphabet and grammar' he left us, and also from the amusing attempts to say things in Egyptian that he published in (If I recall correctly) 'Times and Seasons' with the evident aim of impressing the naïve with his linguistic gifts. The task is about as easy as deciding that "Wooloomoolo bazoomba' is not Latin: only the most elementary acquaintance with the target language is required, and it is obvious that Smith did not even have that.
In the latest issue of the Journal of Mormon History, there is an interesting piece by Samuel Brown on W. W. Phelps's ghostwriting for Smith of political pieces and bits with linguistic showing off. It seems that on occasion, it was the linguistic knowledge of Phelps that was being passed off as Smith's erudition.
Yes, Phelps ghost-wrote that article and used the EAG to do it. In fact, we have the Joseph Smith diary entry that reports Phelps coming to the office to pick up the EAG and reading Smith drafts of that particular letter.
Who Knows wrote:Hey CK (or anyone for that matter) - what's your take on the charlotte haven account? Seems that this is Gee's main source for his missing papyri theory. According to gee, some of the papyri were mounted in glass (which he believes are the vignettes and text that were rediscovered), but then a while later, charlotte says lucy unravelled some other scrolls, and indicated that they were the writings of abraham (and isaac).
I presume it was the MADB thread that raised this question. There are soooo many falsehoods in that thread right now, it's not even funny. Unfortunately, to refute them all would require considerable time and effort on my part, and would be like writing a miniature paper. School just ended, and I'm sick to death of writing papers. I'm also sick to death of arguing with Will, who is making the same old claims I thought we'd put to rest ages ago. I may just let the thread stand for now.
Who Knows wrote:Hey CK (or anyone for that matter) - what's your take on the charlotte haven account? Seems that this is Gee's main source for his missing papyri theory. According to gee, some of the papyri were mounted in glass (which he believes are the vignettes and text that were rediscovered), but then a while later, charlotte says lucy unravelled some other scrolls, and indicated that they were the writings of abraham (and isaac).
I presume it was the MADB thread that raised this question. There are soooo many falsehoods in that thread right now, it's not even funny. Unfortunately, to refute them all would require considerable time and effort on my part, and would be like writing a miniature paper. School just ended, and I'm sick to death of writing papers. I'm also sick to death of arguing with Will, who is making the same old claims I thought we'd put to rest ages ago. I may just let the thread stand for now.
No, it was Gee's piece you linked to yesterday. (i could only stand so much of that mad thread the other day - so i haven't even read most of it). In it, he pretty much uses charlotte as the basis for his missing papyrus theory. He doesn't go into much detail, just kinda states it matter of factly - which seems disengenous to me.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Chap wrote:Joseph Smith did not know ancient Egyptian, but wanted people to think he did - this is clear both from the so-called 'Egyptian alphabet and grammar' he left us, and also from the amusing attempts to say things in Egyptian that he published in (If I recall correctly) 'Times and Seasons' with the evident aim of impressing the naïve with his linguistic gifts. The task is about as easy as deciding that "Wooloomoolo bazoomba' is not Latin: only the most elementary acquaintance with the target language is required, and it is obvious that Smith did not even have that.
In the latest issue of the Journal of Mormon History, there is an interesting piece by Samuel Brown on W. W. Phelps's ghostwriting for Smith of political pieces and bits with linguistic showing off. It seems that on occasion, it was the linguistic knowledge of Phelps that was being passed off as Smith's erudition.
Yes, Phelps ghost-wrote that article and used the EAG to do it. In fact, we have the Joseph Smith diary entry that reports Phelps coming to the office to pick up the EAG and reading Smith drafts of that particular letter.
I love it ... so probably Smith didn't even have a phrase-book knowledge of the other languages (French and Greek amongst others) vaunted in the pieces Phelps wrote for him, and which he allowed to be published over his signature? It figures. But nevertheless, knowing what was in the article, he let it go ahead ...
And the joke is that we shall soon see this incident cited as another version of the let-out tactic 'the scribes did it'.
Scratch: Your take on this essentially mirrors my own: (1) So, you want to get involved with original research on the Joseph Smith papyri? Better think long and hard about it; it might not be worth it; (2) If you ever wish to have access to the papyri, you must distance yourself from interested "anti-Mormons" and Egyptologists who have "cooperated" with interested "anti-Mormons." Otherwise, no dice.
Bottom line, apparently: the documents aren't generally available, even to credentialed parties insofar as such can be linked to "anti-Mormon" interests.
It strikes me that this is the exact opposite of the way in which most libraries with important holdings guard their wares. Restricted access? Fine. Access only to those, sufficiently-credentialed, who can demonstrate a compelling research-related need? Good. The long wait time? That's not particularly odd. (My seminary's library holds some autographical Spurgeon materials; I would have had to jump through several hoops even to view them.)
But, the threat to exclude access to researchers purely on ideological grounds?
That's not normal.
Chris
Last edited by Guest on Fri May 09, 2008 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.