Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks Chris. I look forward to your response. I've looked over that thread once already, but I'll take a closer look.

Not the whole thread, just that one post.

[_maklelan]

I'm approaching this from a strictly academic point of view. None of this is relevant from that point of view.

I'd love to believe this Mak, but the fact is scholars have tackled this issue for years and none of them felt it was necessary to take us down Will's yellow brick road that creates more problems than it solves.

I don't think you're being disingenuous, I just think you don't fully appreciate how we are affected by our own biases. This goes for everyone, and academics are no exception. Now having said that, I think it is fine to argue that the Book of Abraham would have been too difficult to produce via the convoluted mechanics - which perhaps none of us will ever truly understand - found in the GAEL.

But I think most critics are open to the notion that Joseph Smith had a preexistent storyline before ever trying to "translate" the papyri. But of course that storyline could have just as easily been in his mind, rather than on paper. After all, he pumped out D&C scripture while in prison without benefit of a preexisting text. It all came from his mind. There is no manuscript or historical evidence to suggest a translation was transcribed before the KEP manuscripts. None. This should mean something to those insisting the contrary, but I don't see how this thesis (the manuscripts came before the A&G) really does anything to thwart the evidence that the translation manuscripts prove there was a transcription via dictation involved. That, for me, has always been the big issue and I think that it is the issue for most modern critics. This is why Will's presentation ended up arguing against some obscrure RLDS figure from the late 60's, and really no one else.

At the very least the evidence means Joseph Smith wanted his scribes to believe he was translating to them as they transcribed the text. This has to be explained by the apologists, and Will has presented nothing. He cannot claim to have explained the meaning or purpose of the project without dealing with the best evidence against his argument.

The evidence is just too overwhelming, and after four years, the apologists don't want to address it (seriously they don't). But every time they get a crazy idea from left field, the nomads and Greg Smiths crawl from the woodwork and start declaring victory, and if we don't indulge them with thorough analysis and explication as to why said theory is wrong, they just take it for granted they've "decimated" us. It is really a double standard, but that is to be expected.

Anyway, I suppose it is even possible that the A&G did come after the translation manuscripts. But then, what would that really prove? It goes against a ton of historical evidence that flies in its face, but I really don't see the problem even if we just concede the argument. Maybe by doing that, they'll finally decide to address the elephant in the room.

OK, I'll go pass out now.

Make sure you drink plenty of water first.

On the question of translation manuscripts, I'm still unconvinced, but I'm still waiting to have the chance to view them all.

[_sock puppet]

Hey, mak,

You note that what Chris Smith termed, at least at one time, about Abr 1:1-3 as choppy and repetitive of the degrees in the EG for a single character are idiosyncratic of Joseph Smith's prior productions, such as the Book of Mormon. From the seer stone in the hat, the character from the gold plates would appear above the stone along with the English translation. This suggests a tight translation, not a loose one. It also suggests that the choppy/repetitiveness in the Book of Mormon as you point out is either God's composition idiosyncracy or a prose style of Nephi passed down to other prophet/authors of the gold plates.

Again, I'm not approaching this from a position of traditional orthodoxy. I'm approaching this from a strictly academic point of view. None of this is relevant from that point of view.

Hi, Mak,

Maybe Trevor can help me out here since history was nothing more for me than my undergraduate minor, but I think that the historical record would be part of the academic point of view, and important for me and any other reader in putting in context the findings you draw from your the textual analysis.

I raise these concerns here at what I consider yet to be an early stage of your analysis, so that you will understand a criticism of the Abr that surrounds the alleged use of the EA/EG as a tool that assisted in the development of at least parts of Abr.

I think that Kevin Graham's pointing out for him it is not the EA/EG that is the chief problem, but another part of the KEP, the Abr Mss. because of how apparent they seem to be simultaneous transcriptions by two different scribes suggests they were taken as oral dictation, and the obvious dictator would be Joseph Smith, and with same characters from the Hor Breathing Permit papyri appearing in the same spots in the left hand columns in relation to the English text to the right. I too share Kevin's concerns as they relate to the Abr. Mss.

I guess what I'm saying here, Mak, is that for your text analysis findings to have meaning, and not just add to the Abr confusion, you might want to take into account what criticisms there are and the historical record is a part of that.

[_William Schryver]

Maybe Trevor can help me out here since history was nothing more for me than my undergraduate minor, but I think that the historical record would be part of the academic point of view, and important for me and any other reader in putting in context the findings you draw from your the textual analysis.

I raise these concerns here at what I consider yet to be an early stage of your analysis, so that you will understand a criticism of the Abr that surrounds the alleged use of the EA/EG as a tool that assisted in the development of at least parts of Abr.

I think that Kevin Graham's pointing out for him it is not the EA/EG that is the chief problem, but another part of the KEP, the Abr Mss. because of how apparent they seem to be simultaneous transcriptions by two different scribes suggests they were taken as oral dictation, and the obvious dictator would be Joseph Smith, and with same characters from the Hor Breathing Permit papyri appearing in the same spots in the left hand columns in relation to the English text to the right. I too share Kevin's concerns as they relate to the Abr. Mss.

I guess what I'm saying here, Mak, is that for your text analysis findings to have meaning, and not just add to the Abr confusion, you might want to take into account what criticisms there are and the historical record is a part of that.

It appears to me that one reason many critics are not appreciating the implications of my findings is that they aren’t aware of the historical facts that underlie those implications.

The documents that have long been claimed to be “the simultaneously produced transcripts of Joseph Smith’s original dictated translation of the Book of Abraham” (exact words from my FAIR presentation) are in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish. The historical record makes it clear when Warren Parrish actually started working as a scribe for Joseph Smith (right around the second week of November 1835).

Therefore, if these documents are what the critics have claimed them to be, then we know they were produced no earlier than sometime in November 1835.

We also know that the Egyptian Alphabet documents were commenced in the third week of July 1835.

If, therefore, it can be demonstrated that the text of the Book of Abraham to which the Alphabet documents refer must have existed prior to the Alphabet documents, then we know that the alleged “translation manuscripts” are nothing of the sort; they must necessarily be copies of one or more predecessor documents, and they cannot represent a scenario where Joseph Smith was claiming to “translate” the characters from the Book of Breathings text in order to produce the Book of Abraham; the hieratic characters must therefore be juxtaposed with the English text for some other purpose.

I’m convinced these facts are lost on most of the people who have been opining on this issue.

Simply put, if the Alphabet & Grammar is dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham, then virtually all of the critics’ arguments of the past 40 years concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are wrong, along with the theory that the Williams/Parrish documents are the original translation manuscripts.

[_maklelan]

Hi, Mak,

Maybe Trevor can help me out here since history was nothing more for me than my undergraduate minor, but I think that the historical record would be part of the academic point of view, and important for me and any other reader in putting in context the findings you draw from your the textual analysis.

It's definitely part of it. At this point I'm conducting an internal textual analysis of the KEP. When I've reached some conclusions I will see how the historical context illuminates the textual evidence further.

I raise these concerns here at what I consider yet to be an early stage of your analysis, so that you will understand a criticism of the Abr that surrounds the alleged use of the EA/EG as a tool that assisted in the development of at least parts of Abr.

I think that Kevin Graham's pointing out for him it is not the EA/EG that is the chief problem, but another part of the KEP, the Abr Mss. because of how apparent they seem to be simultaneous transcriptions by two different scribes suggests they were taken as oral dictation, and the obvious dictator would be Joseph Smith, and with same characters from the Hor Breathing Permit papyri appearing in the same spots in the left hand columns in relation to the English text to the right. I too share Kevin's concerns as they relate to the Abr. Mss.

I plan to fully analyze all of the manuscripts once I have full access, but at this point my access is still limited. I am waiting to hear back about that access.

I guess what I'm saying here, Mak, is that for your text analysis findings to have meaning, and not just add to the Abr confusion, you might want to take into account what criticisms there are and the historical record is a part of that.

I will take it into consideration in due time.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

So in other words, you cannot believe that the early leaders canonized this failed attempt by Joe to prove he could translate.

And now you must go on for several megabytes about how it might have a remote chance of being true.


Greaaaattttaahhhh.

[_sock puppet]

It appears to me that one reason many critics are not appreciating the implications of my findings is that they aren’t aware of the historical facts that underlie those implications.

The documents that have long been claimed to be “the simultaneously produced transcripts of Joseph Smith’s original dictated translation of the Book of Abraham” (exact words from my FAIR presentation) are in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish. The historical record makes it clear when Warren Parrish actually started working as a scribe for Joseph Smith (right around the second week of November 1835).

Therefore, if these documents are what the critics have claimed them to be, then we know they were produced no earlier than sometime in November 1835.

We also know that the Egyptian Alphabet documents were commenced in the third week of July 1835.

If, therefore, it can be demonstrated that the text of the Book of Abraham to which the Alphabet documents refer must have existed prior to the Alphabet documents, then we know that the alleged “translation manuscripts” are nothing of the sort; they must necessarily be copies of one or more predecessor documents, and they cannot represent a scenario where Joseph Smith was claiming to “translate” the characters from the Book of Breathings text in order to produce the Book of Abraham; the hieratic characters must therefore be juxtaposed with the English text for some other purpose.

I’m convinced these facts are lost on most of the people who have been opining on this issue.

Simply put, if the Alphabet & Grammar is dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham, then virtually all of the critics’ arguments of the past 40 years concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are wrong, along with the theory that the Williams/Parrish documents are the original translation manuscripts.

Will, thanks for putting your thesis so succinctly.

I don't think, however, that if it could be established that the GAEL is dependent upon the Abr text that one gets away from the KEP tying the Abr text to the Hor Breathing Permit papyri characters. To successfully disconnect the Abr text from the Hor Breathing Permit papyri characters, one needs to establish that each of the four pieces, the EA, the EG, the GAEL and the Abr Mss. is derivative of a completed, final version Abr. Granted, you might have set your sights a bit dimmer, hoping for now just to knock off the GAEL and AG, for example, which is what mak seems focused on for the immediate time being.

Problematic for knocking off the Abr Mss. is that you have corresponding corrections on both of 1a and 1b that made their way into the final, printed text of Abr. Even if there is a prior manuscript to 1a and 1b, Joseph Smith was obviously not done yet.

If Joseph Smith was reading from a prior manuscript, what evidence is there for the hieratic characters in the left hand margins of 1a and 1b from the Hor Breathing Permit papyri only being inserted during this dictation and not read off of the hypothetical prior manuscript from which Joseph Smith would have been reading?

There is no reason that the default position is that a prior text would have been without the Hor Breathing Permit papyri characters that appear on both the Phelps (1a) and Parrish (1b) Abr Mss. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it would seem that forensically the assumption would be that the hieratic characters appearing on 1a and 1b would also appear on the source text from which the dictation resulting in 1a and 1b was read by Joseph Smith.

Indeed, due to the changes made in that process, it would be safe to say that 1a and 1b are less of a draft copy and more towards an end product than whatever the hypothetical prior text was. So why would there be inserted unrelated hieratic characters corresponding to the first of each paragraph and next line after an abrupt stop mid-sentence?

I suppose that establishing your succinct thesis would indeed establish that 1a and 1b are secondary to a prior, "lost" manuscript of Abr 1-3. However, the best evidence of what might or might not be on the "lost" manuscript would be the dictations taken by Phelps and Parrish (less the corrections noted Abr 1-3). It would not forensically "erase" the hieratics from the best evidence we have. So we're back to the best theory supported by the historical evidence being that those hieratic characters were there and a part of a prior manuscript. For apologists, that's back to square one on the problems posed by those hieratic characters being in the margins of 1a and 1b.

Game unchanged.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Will,

Given how hard you are straining at the gnat's ass sized plausible truth in the Book of Abraham, I can say without doubt that when you fall you will fall hard and fast.

Fear not, you will be openly welcomed into this place.

Just ask Paul O.

[Guest]

I suppose that establishing your succinct thesis would indeed establish that 1a and 1b are secondary to a prior, "lost" manuscript of Abr 1-3.

I'm going to let Will respond to the rest, if he wishes, but this brings something up that I've been wondering about. Looking at the translation manuscript with Abr 1:1-3 on it, it seems likely to me that the characters in the margins were added after the text was written. It seems space was left for them, but the text flows without breaks at the characters (as is found in other pages) or trying to squeeze in writing before arriving at the character in the margin. Additionally, the first two characters are moved further to the left in the margin to make room for the notations which were added in the text. This makes little sense if the characters were written first. Some of the definitions associated with the third character in the margin are, as I've pointed out, found before the character, and well after other characters pop up to govern the text. The translation does not seem to be secondary to the placement of the characters, but the other way around. Considering these observations, it seems, dictated or not, Abr 1:1-3 was written out, more or less, all at once. Now, I don't think that Smith composed this on the fly with just the EAG sitting in front of him. That's incredibly unlikely. It would have moved incredibly slowly, and the organization of the EAG definitions in the text is too accurate for the EAG to simply have obliquely inspired him as he dreamed up the narrative. The secondary insertion of "a possessor of greater knowledge" is also intriguing. Is this an example of homoioarchon? Why would Smith be concerned with telling Phelps to go back and insert this principle in that specific location if he were composing the narrative on the fly? It's not found in that arrangement anywhere in the EAG. It's actually not even associated with the character in the margin. The only reason I can think of that it would need to go there is that it went there in the parent text. If it is homoioarchon, then Phelps was transcribing. If it was dictated, it seems most logical that Smith had the narrative in front of him.

Now, while there are many reasons to conclude the manuscripts were dictated, there are reasons to conclude it was not entirely dictated. For instance, there is a very clear example of homoioteleuton on one page of the translation manuscripts. Phelps ends Abraham 2:2 with the word Haran. He then copies down Abr 2:3-5, which ends with the word "Haran." When he begins the next paragraph, however, he starts with the "Haran" at the end of Abr 2:2, reproducing the entire paragraph again. The fact that he didn't catch the repetition, and the size of the text reproduced, indicates he was likely away from the text for quite some time. Dictation is unlikely to produce this result. I would have to ask Skousen, but I don't think dittography like this ever happened during the dictation of the Book of Mormon. It's possible both methods were used. I still have a lot of work to do on this, though.

[_William Schryver]

It appears to me that one reason many critics are not appreciating the implications of my findings is that they aren’t aware of the historical facts that underlie those implications.

The documents that have long been claimed to be “the simultaneously produced transcripts of Joseph Smith’s original dictated translation of the Book of Abraham” (exact words from my FAIR presentation) are in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish. The historical record makes it clear when Warren Parrish actually started working as a scribe for Joseph Smith (right around the second week of November 1835).

Therefore, if these documents are what the critics have claimed them to be, then we know they were produced no earlier than sometime in November 1835.

We also know that the Egyptian Alphabet documents were commenced in the third week of July 1835.

If, therefore, it can be demonstrated that the text of the Book of Abraham to which the Alphabet documents refer must have existed prior to the Alphabet documents, then we know that the alleged “translation manuscripts” are nothing of the sort; they must necessarily be copies of one or more predecessor documents, and they cannot represent a scenario where Joseph Smith was claiming to “translate” the characters from the Book of Breathings text in order to produce the Book of Abraham; the hieratic characters must therefore be juxtaposed with the English text for some other purpose.

I’m convinced these facts are lost on most of the people who have been opining on this issue.

Simply put, if the Alphabet & Grammar is dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham, then virtually all of the critics’ arguments of the past 40 years concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are wrong, along with the theory that the Williams/Parrish documents are the original translation manuscripts.

Will, thanks for putting your thesis so succinctly.

I don't think, however, that if it could be established that the GAEL is dependent upon the Abr text that one gets away from the KEP tying the Abr text to the Hor Breathing Permit papyri characters. To successfully disconnect the Abr text from the Hor Breathing Permit papyri characters, one needs to establish that each of the four pieces, the EA, the EG, the GAEL and the Abr Mss. is derivative of a completed, final version Abr. Granted, you might have set your sights a bit dimmer, hoping for now just to knock off the GAEL and AG, for example, which is what mak seems focused on for the immediate time being.

Problematic for knocking off the Abr Mss. is that you have corresponding corrections on both of 1a and 1b that made their way into the final, printed text of Abr. Even if there is a prior manuscript to 1a and 1b, Joseph Smith was obviously not done yet.

If Joseph Smith was reading from a prior manuscript, what evidence is there for the hieratic characters in the left hand margins of 1a and 1b from the Hor Breathing Permit papyri only being inserted during this dictation and not read off of the hypothetical prior manuscript from which Joseph Smith would have been reading?

There is no reason that the default position is that a prior text would have been without the Hor Breathing Permit papyri characters that appear on both the Phelps (1a) and Parrish (1b) Abr Mss. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it would seem that forensically the assumption would be that the hieratic characters appearing on 1a and 1b would also appear on the source text from which the dictation resulting in 1a and 1b was read by Joseph Smith.

Indeed, due to the changes made in that process, it would be safe to say that 1a and 1b are less of a draft copy and more towards an end product than whatever the hypothetical prior text was. So why would there be inserted unrelated hieratic characters corresponding to the first of each paragraph and next line after an abrupt stop mid-sentence?

I suppose that establishing your succinct thesis would indeed establish that 1a and 1b are secondary to a prior, "lost" manuscript of Abr 1-3. However, the best evidence of what might or might not be on the "lost" manuscript would be the dictations taken by Phelps and Parrish (less the corrections noted Abr 1-3). It would not forensically "erase" the hieratics from the best evidence we have. So we're back to the best theory supported by the historical evidence being that those hieratic characters were there and a part of a prior manuscript. For apologists, that's back to square one on the problems posed by those hieratic characters being in the margins of 1a and 1b.

Game unchanged.

To tell you the truth, sock puppet, as I read through your post above, it was really quite a frustrating experience, because your misconceptions and lack of understanding about the documents and their relationships is such that it would take me a five page post just to explain it all to you. This is one of the reasons why I have chosen to cease any attempts to dialogue with people on this board. With the exception of Chris Smith and Brent Metcalfe, no one else has the requisite understanding of the documents in order to carry on an intelligent and worthwhile conversation. Of course, that doesn't stop people from attempting to talk about this stuff, and doing so with an undercurrent of confidence that they really do have a grasp of the material. But they simply don't.

An example is contained in this sentence from your post above:

To successfully disconnect the Abr text from the Hor Breathing Permit papyri characters, one needs to establish that each of the four pieces, the EA, the EG, the GAEL and the Abr Mss. is derivative of a completed, final version Abr.

In the first place, my thesis does establish that the entire collection of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is derived from a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham, as revealed in at least two stages. That said, the inaccuracies and misconceptions contained just in this one sentence of yours are such that I don't feel motivated to discuss this stuff with you. I will say that you are just plain wrong in believing that the Abraham manuscripts are relevant if the Alphabet & Grammar can be shown to be dependent on the text from the Book of Abraham to which they refer. Metcalfe and Smith understand, and that's why they have decided that they will fight to the death on the question of dependency.

Frankly, I don't understand how you could not "get it" if you have really viewed my presentation. I explained the different groups of documents. I explained the critics' arguments of the past forty years. I explained why they are rendered moot if my thesis is correct. I explained it all such that many people who never paid attention to this stuff before came away from the presentation finally understanding what the KEP are and how they relate to the Book of Abraham. But in order to profit from the presentation, you have to view it with the desire to learn something rather that with the desire to find fault with it.

In any event, given the fact that I'm sure there is nothing I could possibly say that would persuade you to believe my theses are correct, I really have no motivation to make the attempt to disabuse you of your ignorance when it comes to these things. Suffice it to say that the thrust of your post above is incorrect. The fact is that, if the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar materials are dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham, then the prior arguments of Howard, Ashment, and Smith are necessarily rendered moot.

I suspect that both Metcalfe and Smith are beginning to realize, on the basis of Dan McClellan's arguments of the past few days, that the Schryver Thesis of Dependency is not quite as ridiculous as you were all led to believe. And this after an analysis limited to only the first three verses! In other words, the first quarter hasn't even ended and you're already down three touchdowns, and I haven't even published my detailed article yet.