The KEPA Manuscripts as Oral Dictation Transcripts

[_TrashcanMan79]

Well, if Mr Schryver does visit us again, here is something for him to comment on...

Great stuff, Chap. I hope Will finds his way back over here to respond sometime.

[_harmony]

Well, if Mr Schryver does visit us again, here is something for him to comment on...

Great stuff, Chap. I hope Will finds his way back over here to respond sometime.

I predict that this is one thread he will avoid at all costs.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Just wanted to let everyone know that Brent has posted on Will's Pundits thread, and the discussion thus far has been promising.

[_harmony]

Just wanted to let everyone know that Brent has posted on Will's Pundits thread, and the discussion thus far has been promising.

Is there any reason you can't post the comments here?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Just wanted to let everyone know that Brent has posted on Will's Pundits thread, and the discussion thus far has been promising.

Is there any reason you can't post the comments here?

Well, it's a little complicated. Maybe when the conversation is done, I'll be able to condense it here for everyone.

[_TrashcanMan79]

Is there any reason you can't post the comments here?

I'll post one of Will's, since it is in part about the good folks here at, to use his phrase, "the Shady Acres Trailer Park":

I find it intriguing that, when faced with concrete evidence that there might just be aspects of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers that don’t conform to their facile theories, the critics instantly resort to their tried and true arsenal of personal attacks, ridicule, and casual dismissal of every argument advanced from this side of the aisle.

I first proffered these arguments at the end of last year on another message board. Brent Metcalfe shortly appeared and we had a brief exchange on some points, but the bulk and strength of my arguments went unaddressed. On 11/28/2007, Metcalfe posted:

Hi Will,

My apologies for the delayed response ...

I hope to post a few text-critical comments on Abraham 1:12 either tomorrow day or Thursday night.

On 11/30/2007 he posted again:

Hi Will,

I've prepped photographs that relate to the early textual history of Abraham 1:12 for online display, but helping my son with a school project absorbed the remainder of the evening (read: my rejoinder will be delayed a few more days).

Thanks for your patience.

My best,

</brent>

Then ensued a long period of silence, which I broke several days ago (05/05/2008):

I wonder why Brent decided to just forget about this discussion?

Is it possible that he was persuaded by my analysis of the interlineal insertion of Abraham 1:12 in KEPA #2?

Probably not. But we never did get to hear his counter-analysis.

Metcalfe promptly appeared and issued the following retort:

I don't agree with your armchair assessment of the textual history of Abr. 1:12; and I can't imagine that Brian Hauglid (et al.) would concur with your assessment either.

When I questioned whether or not professional credentials were a prerequisite to participating in this discussion (since, of course, Metcalfe himself lacks them), he responded thusly:

"[E]xtensive credentials"? Well, when you've garnered a few of your own, perhaps we'll have something meaningful to discuss.

Then there ensued, from Metcalfe's gallery of devoted fans, a spirited illustration of how the critics respond when they apparently lack serious counter-arguments: a litany of claims that LDS scholars are incompetent clowns, or shameless liars; that Ashment and Metcalfe are the only true "scholars" of these things, and that every time critics come into contact with apologists on these issues, the apologists invariably turn tail and run, leaving the jubilant critics once again in control of the field.

Right.

And now Metcalfe is claiming that the MAD board has banned him in order to prevent him from responding to these arguments:

Evidently to prevent me from responding to Brian, I've been banned from the MAD board. (See here.)

Well, I’ve confirmed that he is not, in fact, banned from the MAD board.

What we are seeing is a phenomenon that will no doubt repeat itself again and again as scholarship on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers begins to advance. Bear in mind, there has been very little scholarship produced so far. The field is literally in its infancy. Good grief, the first critical edition of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers hasn't even been published! And yet we have all these exmormon critics crowing about how everything is already settled! We are assured that it is an absolutely proven fact that Joseph Smith claimed to “translate” the Book of Abraham from these few surviving fragments of papyri. We are assured that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers prove this. And yet almost no one can tell you why. Few people appreciate the fact that these claims made by the critics appear to be based on very uncertain premises. And now that there are some people, with apologetic leanings, who are examining these things – and raising questions – we hear nothing but the old refrain repeated over and over again: it’s a done deal already; everything’s already been proven; it’s all so obvious; etc., etc., etc.

Well, the fact is that it is not so obvious. When one begins to examine these documents, question after question begins to arise. Before I was privileged to actually see KEPA #2 and #3, I was assured that it was a proven fact that these documents were the transcripts of Joseph Smith’s original dictation of the text of the Book of Abraham. In the event, this so-called “proven fact” has proven to be anything but. Oh, I can see why someone might have reached that conclusion at first glance. But the more you examine the evidence, the more questions occur to you. Thus this thread. It makes a simple observation, and asks for a critical response. How hard can it be?

As I have demonstrated, the text-critical evidence appears to suggest that this important phrase in Abr. 1:12 was added later. If the critics believe this to not be the case, then I challenge them to present a counter-argument that is sufficient to explain the evidence that has been cited. Otherwise I think we may be justified in concluding that no such counter-argument currently exists.

Anyone?

- (all emphasis and font colors in original) [ LINK ]

[_Dr. Shades]

Forgive the dumb question, but even if the manuscripts were copies of an earlier manuscript--what's the difference?

We still know that J.S. made the whole thing up, don't we?

[_Chap]

Mr Schryver said:

We are assured that it is an absolutely proven fact that Joseph Smith claimed to “translate” the Book of Abraham from these few surviving fragments of papyri.

The point that concerns me is not whether Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham from the papyrus fragments that are extant today (though no-one has yet shown me reason to demote this from the position of most probable hypothesis).

The vital point is that Joseph Smith DID claim to have translated the Book of Abraham from some Egyptian papyruses amongst those he purchased from a travelling showman:

See http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History ... rch/Vol_II.

On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit
some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some
two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and
devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought
me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a
gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:

KIRTLAND, July 6, 1835. This is to make known to all who may be
desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in
deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession,
which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and,
from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of
Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. MICHAEL
H. CHANDLER,

Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies.

Sunday 5.--I preached in the afternoon. Michael H. Barton tried to
get into the Church, but he was not willing to confess and forsake all his
sins--and he was rejected.

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies
and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W.
Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some
of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of
the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of
Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its
place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord
is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.

Now given that it is quite clear that Joseph Smith could not translate ancient Egyptian (see the other evidence I cite above ), clearly he must have been either deluded or lying. Not good.

Mr Schryver has been to this board, and I am sure he has read this thread.

If he has an answer to this point, which if true is a pretty telling one, why not post it?

[_William Schryver]

I don’t have time to play on this thread while simultaneously trying to keep up with the other one which you folks seem to be following closely. But I thought I’d pop in for just a moment to laugh at Shades (once again!), silence Chap’s puerile crowing, and intentionally ignore Graham (who is painfully aware of how irrelevant he has become when it comes to Book of Abraham conversations).
.
.
.
Shades:

Forgive the dumb question, but even if the manuscripts were copies of an earlier manuscript--what's the difference?

We still know that J.S. made the whole thing up, don't we?

Classic Shades.

And another example to justify my sig line:

The trouble with the critics is not that they're ignorant; it' s just that they know so much that isn't so.

In Shade’s case, he is both ignorant of the issues, and he knows so much that isn’t so.
.
.
.
Chap:

Hey buddy, I know you’ve been exulting pretty shamelessly over here, but I’m sorry to have to tell you that you’ve based it all on a simple misunderstanding. You see, all I was doing, back when, was making a semantic distinction between what Joseph Smith called “translation” and what a typical scholar would consider “translation.” Joseph Smith believed he could “translate” – but only via the “gift and power of God.” That’s all I was trying to say. Sorry you spent so much time making a big deal out of nothing. As I already have before, I concur with you that Joseph Smith doesn’t seem to fare very well when it comes to rendering conventional Egyptian.

That said, I remain intrigued by the connections of this Egyptian funerary stuff and the concepts of the modern Endowment (as Nibley so adroitly documented in The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri.) I can certainly see why Egyptian/Jewish sectaries would have been attracted to the stuff in the first place. And it wouldn’t surprise me at all that such people would have a Book of Breathings Made by Isis in the same collection with a Book of Abraham. They would have been, in the mind of an Egyptian Jew circa 250 B.C., logically connected in many ways.
.
.
.
By the way, is it true that Graham left his wife and family behind when he skedaddled back to the home country? That’s too bad – if true.
.
.
.
Anyway, bye folks. It’s always an adventure to visit here at the Shady Acres Trailer Park, but it’s not a place where I like to stick around for long – it’s always so hard to get that smell out of my clothes.



Hey, Shades. Put a shirt on. Please.

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades:

Forgive the dumb question, but even if the manuscripts were copies of an earlier manuscript--what's the difference?

We still know that J.S. made the whole thing up, don't we?

Classic Shades.

And another example to justify my sig line:

The trouble with the critics is not that they're ignorant; it' s just that they know so much that isn't so.

In Shade’s case, he is both ignorant of the issues, and he knows so much that isn’t so.

Nice blustering, but I notice that you yourself are too ignorant of the issue to even answer my question.

Pot, meet kettle.