KEP: A Quasi-Forensic, non-theory-ladened, Analysis

[Guest]

1. EC-WWP
2. EA-WWP, EA-OC, EA-JS
3. EAG-WWP
4. EAG-Parrish
5. BoA1-WWP
6. BoA1-Parrish
7. BoA2-FGW, BoA3-Parrish
8. BoA4-WR

I hope Brian introduces sigla we can all agree on.

[_Darth J]

I agree with the title of this thread, in that what William Schyrver presented at the last FAIR conference was a "non-theory."

That aside, if this is purporting to be a "non-theory-laden" analysis, then why does this thread continue to perpetrate the naked assertion that "the" Kirtland Egyptian Papers are all one thing simply because an LDS Church historian so labeled the various documents?

[Gadianton]

Hey, Wade,

Is there any evidence that the EC came first among the KEP?

First things first. At this point in the investigative process I am looking to determine if there is any evidence to rule it out. If there isn't, then it would make sense to entertain inductive arguments for it coming first or otherwise in the production sequence.

At the very least, I think most KEP researchers would agree that it sequantially predates Part 2 of the GAEL. I would even argue that names like Zub Zool Eh and Zub Eh and Phah Eh and Toh Eh and Su E Eh Ni and Auk Eh found in GAEL Part 1, suggest it may sequentially predate GAEL Part 1 (and this because "Eh" is the name for the initial character in the EC, which has the English explanation of "one"; and "ni", which is the name of the second character, which has the English explanation of "two")

Credit for this observation goes to Paul O.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

That aside, if this is purporting to be a "non-theory-laden" analysis, then why does this thread continue to perpetrate the naked assertion that "the" Kirtland Egyptian Papers are all one thing simply because an LDS Church historian so labeled the various documents?

I will let someone else explain to you the obvious difference between a "theory" and a convenient, and presumably non-controversial "title". For my part, I will try and stay focused on looking at quasi-forensic analysis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Darth J]

That aside, if this is purporting to be a "non-theory-laden" analysis, then why does this thread continue to perpetrate the naked assertion that "the" Kirtland Egyptian Papers are all one thing simply because an LDS Church historian so labeled the various documents?

I will let someone else explain to you the obvious difference between a "theory" and a convenient, and presumably non-controversial "title". For my part, I will try and stay focused on looking at quasi-forensic analysis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your thread title is argumentative, and your presumption is wrong. When you refer to "the" Kirtland Egyptian Papers, the unstated premise is that the people who created these documents saw them as one coherent whole. If you are being quasi-forensic and analytical, start by justifying why "the" Papers should be analyzed as if they are one thing---a justification besides a church historian years later putting all these documents in the same box.

[_CaliforniaKid]

At the very least, I think most KEP researchers would agree that it sequantially predates Part 2 of the GAEL. I would even argue that names like Zub Zool Eh and Zub Eh and Phah Eh and Toh Eh and Su E Eh Ni and Auk Eh found in GAEL Part 1, suggest it may sequentially predate GAEL Part 1 (and this because "Eh" is the name for the initial character in the EC, which has the English explanation of "one"; and "ni", which is the name of the second character, which has the English explanation of "two")

Yes, but the difference (If I recall correctly) is that Eh and Ni are not consistently associated with the meanings "one" and "two" when they appear as components in Part 1 of the GAEL. By contrast, in part 2 we find the sounds associated with their appropriate numerical meanings.

If Part 2 clearly makes use of the EC whereas Part 1 does not, then that would seem to count as evidence that the EC postdates Part 1 but predates Part 2.

Anyway, I haven't spent a lot of time with the EC, because it's fairly peripheral to both the Book of Abraham and the rest of the KEP. So I can't say much else about its place in the production timeline without further research.

[Gadianton]

At the very least, I think most KEP researchers would agree that it sequantially predates Part 2 of the GAEL. I would even argue that names like Zub Zool Eh and Zub Eh and Phah Eh and Toh Eh and Su E Eh Ni and Auk Eh found in GAEL Part 1, suggest it may sequentially predate GAEL Part 1 (and this because "Eh" is the name for the initial character in the EC, which has the English explanation of "one"; and "ni", which is the name of the second character, which has the English explanation of "two")

Yes, but the difference (If I recall correctly) is that Eh and Ni are not consistently associated with the meanings "one" and "two" when they appear as components in Part 1 of the GAEL. By contrast, in part 2 we find the sounds associated with their appropriate numerical meanings.

If Part 2 clearly makes use of the EC whereas Part 1 does not, then that would seem to count as evidence that the EC postdates Part 1 but predates Part 2.

Admittedly, it suggest a stronger dependancy for Part 2 than Part 1 on the EC, thereby making a stronger case for the EC predating Part 2 than Part 1 (or the EA's for that matter since "Eh" in the EC also shows up in the EA's as well). But, it is something to consider. That the dependency case is less strong for the EC predating Part 1 than Part 2, does not mean there is no case at all.

Anyway, I haven't spent a lot of time with the EC, because it's fairly peripheral to both the Book of Abraham and the rest of the KEP. So I can't say much else about its place in the production timeline without further research.

I am wondering if that "peripheral" relationship may be indicative of the EC's placement as first within the production sequence? I will explore that possibility to some extent in my next posts.

Thanks, -Wde Englund-

[Gadianton]

Let's take a closer look at the EC to see what we may discover about not only its placement in the KEP production sequence, but also its intended purpose.

There are several key questions that I can think of for best drilling deeper into the EC. I welcome your questions and answers as well. (To keep things managable, I will include my questions over several posts.)

1. Is the EC a completed document?

I can't tell since I have only seen a copy of the first page.

However, if the EC is complete, that may indicate that it was produced and completed prior to the EA's and the GAEL (which evidently weren't completed).

Granted, even though the EA's weren't completed, we still agree that they predate the GAEL Part 1. So, completeness or incompleteness isn't a definitive indicator of sequence.

Yet, the incompleteness of the EA's and the GAEL can be explained in terms of progressive drafts of the same essential project, whereas the EC cannot. The EC kind of stands "peripherally" on its own, and thus the completeness of the EC may be more indicative that it predates the somewhat separate projects (EA's and GAEL)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

2. Is there any evidence that anyone other than Phelps was involved in the production of the EC?

If not, then this means that Phelps may have produced the EC on his own, independent of, and prior to getting together with Oliver and Joseph on the EA's.

3. Is there any evidence, besides the word "Egyptian" in the title of the EC, that the production of the EC was dependant upon the Egytpian papyri or was directly relevant to the Book of Abraham?

I think it clear that the EC characters did not come from the papyri, and thus the EC is not dependant upon the papyri. And, since the characters in the EC were not taken from the Egyptian papyri, then that means that the production of the EC could have predated the arrival of the Egyptian papyri in Kertlant around the first of July, 1835. It could have been produced by Phelps any time in the months before.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

4. If the characters in the EC did not come from the Egyptian papyri, then where did Phelps get them?

As yet, I don't know.

5. If the characters of the EC did not come from the Egyptian papyri, then could the EC be used to translate the papyri?

Obviously not. Logically, the characters on the papyri cannot be translated using characters not on the papyri. The purpose for the EC, then, must have been something other than translating the papyri, let alone into the Book of Abraham.

6. If the purpose Phelps had in mind for the EC was obviously not to translate the papyri into the Book of Abraham, then what does that suggest about the other KEP documents that may be somewhat dependant upon the EC?

To me, it gives at least some indication that the purpose for the EA's and GAEL Part 1, but moreso GAEL Part 2, may have not been to translate the papyri into the Book of Abraham (more on this later).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-