KEP Debate in Pundits

[_KimberlyAnn]

I give up.

Scrhryver has moved into some strange mopologetic dimension that is beyond the reach of parody. Every word in his post is a gem. It rivals Swift's "Tale of a Tub" at its best. Or possibly the "scholarly" footnotes on de Selby in "The Third Policeman" by Flann O'Brien - see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Selby

for those who have not yet enjoyed this hilarious book.

(edited to add) And here is a sample:

http://www.hellshaw.com/flann/deselby.html

Chap, I recently read O'Brien's "The Third Policeman." Chris Salmon (cksalmon) recommended it to me. I liked it, though reading through the footnotes on de Selby made me almost crazy! Goodness. An intricate pancake, that was.

I wonder if Will has a bicycle?

KA

[_Trevor]

de Selby, if real, would make one hell of an apologist.

[_dartagnan]

I took some notes on some of the hilarious comments by Will in the past. Enjoy...

if you are familiar with the arguments put forth by the critics, specifically that the three manuscripts in question represent the simultaneous transcription of Joseph Smith's dictation by three separate scribes, and that they represent the "working translation" of the Book of Abraham. That is, Joseph was looking at an Egyptian character and then spouting off words that these three scribes then wrote down. - May 11 2006

After telling everyone he had studied the critical arguments thoroughly, he presents this straw man above. He never seemed to get it into his head, until later on in the year, that only two of the manuscripts were dictated simultaneously, while a third was a hybrid consisting mostly of a copy.

A secondary argument (and one which we haven't yet touched upon) is how Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps, F. G. Williams, and Warren Parrish (at least) managed to persuade themselves that you could derive an entire paragraph of English words from a single hieratic symbol. It was not a secret in the 1830s that Egyptian had been shown to be a phonetic language, with many similarities to Hebrew. These men certainly knew this, so how did they convince themselves that one flimsy character could "translate" into dozens of words? ...he and the men with him were certainly conversant enough with the nature of the language that they would never have suggested that a single symbol could be translated into dozens and dozens of English words.- May 11 2006

Athanasius Kircher was just one prominent Egyptologist who believed Egyptian symbols stood for concepts. For example, the small character that translates, “Osris says,” Kircher translated as “The treachery of Typhon ends at the throne of Isis; the moisture of nature is guarded by the vigilance of Anubis.” Will and the apologists have to come to grips with the fact that what Joseph Smith was doing, was normal for inexperienced people who thought they could take a crack at Egyptian. And he still hasn’t dealt with the fact that the EAG proves that this is exactly what they were doing. He would take tiny portions of a character and attribute to them entire phrases or meanings.

I really wish we had a full set of high quality photos of the manuscripts. I have now become convinced that there is a strong apologetic just waiting on the release of such photos...my concern with "waiting for Metcalfe's book" in order to get a glimpse of the manuscripts is that I know very well that Brent is cognizant enough of the possible apologetic angles, that he will be careful to not expose anything from the manuscripts that would tend to weaken his own arguments. I don't like being at his mercy to obtain un-edited copies of the contents of the KEP. - May 12 2006

Hilarious. John Gee literally deceived his audience with tweaked photos. Brian Hauglid was said to have presented the entire collection in his presentation, but the fact is he didn’t even present 10%. He only provided snippets that he thought would further his argument.

if the translation was completed prior to the production of the KEP, then the KEP represent something far different than what the critics claim they do. And I suppose that is my only objective at this point: to establish that the KEP mean something other than what Brent would like to convince everyone that they mean.- May 12 2006

Did you get that folks? This is Will admitting his agenda. Without any basis for making such leaps, he begins with the premise that the KEP mean something else. They have to. Why? Because Brent can’t be right. Will was never interested in the truth. He was only interested in trying to show-up Brent.

The news of Champollion's deciphering work had made its way "over the pond" at least to the extent that it was known that Egyptian was a phonetic language. That simple piece of knowledge alone would certainly have been known. Not only that, but Joshua Seixas had long since come and gone from Kirtland and is most likely the origin of Joseph's knowledge that Egyptian was read right to left (at least it is usually).- May 12 2006

Again, Will ignores the plethora of evidence that this is precisely how Joseph Smith believed Egyptian could be translated.

And where is the Egyptian symbol that corresponds to this passage? If you're suggesting that it is the symbols to the left, well then perhaps you can explain why those symbols are NOT the same in both documents and why neither of them correspond to the symbol adjacent to identical text in Ms. #2 - May 12 2006

Will again demonstrated his stupidity on the KEP. He really has no familiarity with them whatsoever. It was pointed out to him that these were identical in both documents.

I will say this: The characters which appear in the GAEL do NOT appear in the manuscripts of the partial translation of the Book of Abraham...The handful of characters which appear in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language are among those in the BoB, but NOT among those appearing in the left columns of the three Book of Abraham manuscripts...The bottom line, however, is that there is no evidence whatsoever which links the GAEL to the translation of the Book of Abraham. - May 23 2006

Hilarious. I presented a photo that proved the GAEL were taking characters from the same scroll that contained the facsimile at the “commencement” of the record. And Will went ballistic accusing me of deception. He clearly had no idea that the photo I presented was actually from the GAEL.

the so-called "Egyptian Alphabet" project of the KEP was produced between July and October 1835. We know that some portion of the "translation" of the Book of Abraham had taken place during this period, an initial portion in July and more beginning the first week of October 1835. Furthermore, we know that Warren Parrish had not taken part in any of the activity up to this point. Therefore the Book of Abraham manuscripts portion of the KEP (Mss. #1 and #2 -- one in the hand of Warren Parrish, one by W. W. Phelps and Parrish) necessarily were created AFTER November 1835, and possibly much later than that. Since it is apparent that both Mss. #1 and #2 were produced during the same session, we have compelling evidence of the fact that the Book of Abraham text to which they refer had long since been "translated", and that these papers contain copies of that earlier translation. – July 17 2006

Ben McGuire pointed out that the DHOC was inaccurate and that no journal entry exists for July 1835. But Will continued to wax ignorant. He can’t let facts get in the way of his theories.

the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (or, more accurately, the manuscripts within the collection that contain text from the Book of Abraham) really have little or no relevance to the actual creation of the Book of Abraham. Since they were obviously created "AFTER" the translation, they cannot demonstrate how it was "translated", nor do they represent a "translation in progress." – July 17

Obviously huh? This shows his agenda again. The apologists figured out that the best way to save Joseph Smith is to find a way to argue that these could not have been his translation manuscripts. So what lazier way to do that then to just assert the translation already preexisted? Of course we know it didn’t. Will is in denial.

You incorrectly claim that only Abraham 1 - 2:18 had been translated prior to its publication in the Times and Seasons. We know that the text had been completed at least through Abr. 3:26, as shown in Willard Richards' 1841 Manuscript #4. Why only Abr. 1 - 2:18 was printed in the orginial Times and Seasons installment is a question for which I do not currently have an answer. – July 17

The fact is Willard’s manuscript doesn’t contain Abraham 1:1 through 3:26. Will is again revealing his ignorance. And he is ignoring the fact that we know Joseph Smith worked on the translation for the next T&S issue, which contained 2:19 onward, shortly after 1:1-2:18 was published. Will ignores all of this. The facts cannot disrupt his theories.

The fact is, Warren Parrish could not have served as scribe for the initial stages of the translation that occurred prior to November 1835.

It was pointed out to him by Brent that Joseph Smith’s journal entry proved Parrish was working for him in October. So much for the stability of Will’s “facts.”

I am aware of more conclusive evidence that will establish that Abr. 1 - 2:18 was translated prior to the production of the Phelps/Parrish manuscripts contained in the KEP. I will anxiously await the FAIR conference for the formal articulation of those arguments. – July 17

Two years later and nothing is presented. Conclusive huh?

There is developing evidence (studies of which will be forthcoming) that the Egyptian characters were added AFTER the English text was written. - Jun 24 2006

There is always something “developing” in the apologetic camp. Every time we actually find out what it is, however, it gets pummeled to pieces with more facts.

I have researched enough into this specific topic and ancient Egyptian in general to recognize that what a hieroglyphic text seems to say (on the surface) is not always the only thing it can be saying. The Egyptians were especially skilled in the art of burying one message under another, seemingly unrelated one.- Jun 24 2006

What an idiot.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hey Kev,

A couple quick thoughts.

A secondary argument (and one which we haven't yet touched upon) is how Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps, F. G. Williams, and Warren Parrish (at least) managed to persuade themselves that you could derive an entire paragraph of English words from a single hieratic symbol. It was not a secret in the 1830s that Egyptian had been shown to be a phonetic language, with many similarities to Hebrew. These men certainly knew this, so how did they convince themselves that one flimsy character could "translate" into dozens of words? ...he and the men with him were certainly conversant enough with the nature of the language that they would never have suggested that a single symbol could be translated into dozens and dozens of English words.- May 11 2006

Athanasius Kircher was just one prominent Egyptologist who believed Egyptian symbols stood for concepts. For example, the small character that translates, “Osris says,” Kircher translated as “The treachery of Typhon ends at the throne of Isis; the moisture of nature is guarded by the vigilance of Anubis.” Will and the apologists have to come to grips with the fact that what Joseph Smith was doing, was normal for inexperienced people who thought they could take a crack at Egyptian. And he still hasn’t dealt with the fact that the EAG proves that this is exactly what they were doing. He would take tiny portions of a character and attribute to them entire phrases or meanings.

You're absolutely right, here. The evidence demonstrates quite conclusively that Joseph Smith & co. thought Egyptian was a "comprehensive" language in which a single hieroglyphic symbol could convey very elaborate ideas that require a large quantity of English text in translation.

You might also be interested in the following 1978 article by Ann Cline Kelly on the subject of the quest for the pure, Edenic language in 17th-18th c. England. Kelly makes some very relevant observations:

To achieve the integration of word and thing-- ideal in Eden-- numerous systems of "real characters" were devised, that is, sets of signs that contain their own meaning, such as mathematical symbols or musical notation (which, incidentally, are virtually universal)...In addition, interest in a "real character" promoted discussion of Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese characters because many thought that this type of pictogram could serve as a possible alternative to words composed of letters...The differences which divide men would be removed by such ideal languages, recreating the unity of Eden; for example, John Wilkins...predicts that his plan will "evaporate some of our Modern differences in Religion, by unmasking many wild errors, that shelter themselves under the disguise of affected phrases."
...
The intuition that the Original language might be hidden in some remote region of the world, in part, created an interest in the languages of distant people which was fed by narratives of voyages, both real and imaginary. The Adamic language might be identified, to some degree, by the resultant harmony of the society that used it and by the accurate and revelatory way it signified reality. Thus on any one of his forays, Gulliver could stumble into a pocket of paradisaical linguistic purity untouched by Babel's pollution. In Francis Godwin's The Man in the Moone (1638) Domingo Gonsales seems to do this exactly when he encounters a culture where food grows without labor, where eternal spring smiles, where diseases are unknown, where moral law is revered, and where "You have few words but they signifie divers and severall things, and they are distinguished onely by their tunes that are as it were sung in the utterance of them"-- in other words, "it seemed...a very Paradise."

Ann Cline Kelly, "After Eden: Gulliver's (Linguistic) Travels," ELH 45:1 (Sp 1978), 33-54.

Pretty much this entire passage provides important context for Joseph Smith's project. The parts that are immediately relevant to Schryver's points are the conception of hieroglyphics as "pictograms", the connection between them and the pure Adamic language, and the idea that Adamic has "few words but they signifie divers and severall things." It is possible that Joseph had gotten wind of Champollion's discovery that Egyptian was phonetic, but do we really want to hypothesize that Joseph Smith was that well-read? I thought he was just an uneducated farmboy! :-D In any case, Joseph's concept of hieroglyphic script as elucidated in the Alphabet and Grammar does include a sort of phonetic component, though the Grammar seems to have conceived hieroglyphs as primarily ideographic or pictographic in nature.

The fact is, Warren Parrish could not have served as scribe for the initial stages of the translation that occurred prior to November 1835.

It was pointed out to him by Brent that Joseph Smith’s journal entry proved Parrish was working for him in October. So much for the stability of Will’s “facts.”

The entry in question is on October 29, and there's no evidence of Parrish being involved in the Book of Abraham project till November. So in that respect, Will's observation is more or less correct.

The Egyptians were especially skilled in the art of burying one message under another, seemingly unrelated one.- Jun 24 2006

Somebody's been reading too much Nibley.

-Chris

[_Trevor]

A secondary argument (and one which we haven't yet touched upon) is how Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps, F. G. Williams, and Warren Parrish (at least) managed to persuade themselves that you could derive an entire paragraph of English words from a single hieratic symbol. It was not a secret in the 1830s that Egyptian had been shown to be a phonetic language, with many similarities to Hebrew. These men certainly knew this, so how did they convince themselves that one flimsy character could "translate" into dozens of words? ...he and the men with him were certainly conversant enough with the nature of the language that they would never have suggested that a single symbol could be translated into dozens and dozens of English words.- May 11 2006

Athanasius Kircher was just one prominent Egyptologist who believed Egyptian symbols stood for concepts. For example, the small character that translates, “Osris says,” Kircher translated as “The treachery of Typhon ends at the throne of Isis; the moisture of nature is guarded by the vigilance of Anubis.” Will and the apologists have to come to grips with the fact that what Joseph Smith was doing, was normal for inexperienced people who thought they could take a crack at Egyptian. And he still hasn’t dealt with the fact that the EAG proves that this is exactly what they were doing. He would take tiny portions of a character and attribute to them entire phrases or meanings.

Does it seem odd to you that, on the one hand, he argues that Joseph Smith must have known you could not derive an entire paragraph from a single character, but, on the other hand, insist that Egyptian can have multiple layers of significance? The EA&G shows evidence of translation in ascending "degrees," with the lowest level being a simple word, but the higher levels containing meanings of increasing complexity. This seems to me to show the conjunction of both views: a lot of meaning packed into one character, and multiple layers of significance. Too bad the apologists enter this chained to certain assumptions of what must be. They miss out on the discovery of what was. And it seems to me that Joseph Smith was, as your example shows, and as one can easily discover from reading Hornung's book on the mystique of Egypt in the West, very much a creature of his age in his belief in the special significance of hieroglyphics.

[_cksalmon]

A secondary argument (and one which we haven't yet touched upon) is how Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps, F. G. Williams, and Warren Parrish (at least) managed to persuade themselves that you could derive an entire paragraph of English words from a single hieratic symbol. It was not a secret in the 1830s that Egyptian had been shown to be a phonetic language, with many similarities to Hebrew. These men certainly knew this, so how did they convince themselves that one flimsy character could "translate" into dozens of words? ...he and the men with him were certainly conversant enough with the nature of the language that they would never have suggested that a single symbol could be translated into dozens and dozens of English words.- May 11 2006

Athanasius Kircher was just one prominent Egyptologist who believed Egyptian symbols stood for concepts. For example, the small character that translates, “Osris says,” Kircher translated as “The treachery of Typhon ends at the throne of Isis; the moisture of nature is guarded by the vigilance of Anubis.” Will and the apologists have to come to grips with the fact that what Joseph Smith was doing, was normal for inexperienced people who thought they could take a crack at Egyptian. And he still hasn’t dealt with the fact that the EAG proves that this is exactly what they were doing. He would take tiny portions of a character and attribute to them entire phrases or meanings.

Does it seem odd to you that, on the one hand, he argues that Joseph Smith must have known you could not derive an entire paragraph from a single character, but, on the other hand, insist that Egyptian can have multiple layers of significance? The EA&G shows evidence of translation in ascending "degrees," with the lowest level being a simple word, but the higher levels containing meanings of increasing complexity. This seems to me to show the conjunction of both views: a lot of meaning packed into one character, and multiple layers of significance. Too bad the apologists enter this chained to certain assumptions of what must be. They miss out on the discovery of what was. And it seems to me that Joseph Smith was, as your example shows, and as one can easily discover from reading Hornung's book on the mystique of Egypt in the West, very much a creature of his age in his belief in the special significance of hieroglyphics.

Another oddity, to my mind, is that Smith and co. are assumed "certainly" to know that Egyptian was a phonetic language: "he and his men were certainly conversant enough with the nature of the language that...," etc. Why is it that Smith is "certainly conversant" (no question about it) with material Will finds necessary for him to have been in order to bolster Schryver's own theory?

And yet...

Much more typically, the apologist will fuss and fume if the critic assumes that Smith was conversant with some bit a material X--that is, if Smith's knowledge of X would be detrimental to the apologist's position.

It is the completely predictable instances of inconsistency like this that make LDS apologetics so often seem contrived and desperate.

Schryver doesn't present himself as one who thinks historical issues through past the point where he comes to know what the "right" answer is.

Chris

[_Trevor]

Much more typically, the apologist will fuss and fume if the critic assumes that Smith was conversant with some bit a material X--that is, if Smith's knowledge of X would be detrimental to the apologist's position.

Yes, there is no way that Smith read book X, but he certainly knew about the characteristics of Egyptian characters! Must have!

[_Dr. Shades]

it can no longer be suggested that the text of the Book of Abraham self-references to the so-called “Book of Breathings.”

Wow. Just. . . wow.

Will, what do you have to say for yourself?

[_dartagnan]

Yes, there is no way that Smith read book X, but he certainly knew about the characteristics of Egyptian characters! Must have!

Oh it gets even better than that. We know for a fact that Joseph Smith owned a copy of Thomas Di[cks] "Philosophy of a Future State," wherein he borrowed ideas for the Book of Abraham. The concept of spiritual "intelligences" for example, was spoken of in that book. It was published in the 1820's and it was on record as one that Smith owned.

How did the apologists respond to the charge that he merely borrowed stuff from this book?

By arguing that it was absurd for us critics to think that just because he owned a book, that this meant he actually read any of it!

ROFL!

[_dartagnan]

Hey Chris, here is the context of Will's comments about Parrish.

the so-called "Egyptian Alphabet" project of the KEP was produced between July and October 1835. We know that some portion of the "translation" of the Book of Abraham had taken place during this period, an initial portion in July and more beginning the first week of October 1835. Furthermore, we know that Warren Parrish had not taken part in any of the activity up to this point.

So what? We also know that the first three, Abr:1:1-3, were worked on independent of Abr 1:4-2:18. We also know for a fact that the EAG was used to determine the translation for these initial verses. Who said Parrish had to have been involved in that when it wasn't even in his handwriting? Its a straw man.

Therefore the Book of Abraham manuscripts portion of the KEP (Mss. #1 and #2 -- one in the hand of Warren Parrish, one by W. W. Phelps and Parrish) necessarily were created AFTER November 1835, and possibly much later than that.

The Phelps portion of Mss #1 consisted of the first three verses. There is no reason to insist it had to have been transcribed "after November."

Since it is apparent that both Mss. #1 and #2 were produced during the same session, we have compelling evidence of the fact that the Book of Abraham text to which they refer had long since been "translated", and that these papers contain copies of that earlier translation.

What evidence? Will doesn't provide any.

The fact is, Warren Parrish could not have served as scribe for the initial stages of the translation that occurred prior to November 1835.

Who said he did? Straw man.

I allow that he probably served as a scribe for some or all of 2:19 - 3:26.

Though none of that is in his handwriting! Will is showing how he constantly rewrites the evidence to fit his theories.

Your argument which tries to link the KEP "Book of Abraham" manuscripts (written by Phelps and Parrish) to what was published in the first Times and Seasons installment is without merit in light of the 1841 Richards manuscript that ends at 3:26. Is it coincidental that 3:26 is where the "astronomy" portion of the text ends? Perhaps. In any event, it had been translated considerably prior to the first Times and Seasons installment.

No evidence of this. Just more assertion.

As I also stated previously, I am aware of more conclusive evidence that will establish that Abr. 1 - 2:18 was translated prior to the production of the Phelps/Parrish manuscripts contained in the KEP. I will anxiously await the FAIR conference for the formal articulation of those arguments. – July 17

LOL! Yea, we saw what a lost cause that presentation turned out to be.