Did the BoAbr precede the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar?

[_sock puppet]

Will Schryver himself has separated the cipher theory from the claims that the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar is dependent upon a pre-existing Abr text here.

Today I again listed to Will Schryver's FAIR presentation entitled "The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers." Part 1 is an explanation of the KEP documents, Will's database word study, and arguments for the Egyptian Alphabet purportedly being dependent upon a prior Book of Abraham, chapters 1-3 text and the Egyptian Grammar purportedly being dependent upon a prior Book of Abraham, chapters 1-4 text. Not until Part 2 does Will introduce us to his cipher theory. He closes with a PowerPoint slide that reads

Recognizing the dependent relationship of the Alphabet and Grammar materials to the previously received text of the Book of Abraham is the primary key to understanding the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

That brings right back to the primary topic of Part 1.

Will's database analysis began with his creating a cross-reference table of the Egyptian Alphabet documents. Then he created a table of "substantive words" (broken down between unique and generic words) found in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

Will then inventoried every instance of his "substantial words" in Abr 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and compared the occurrences using Genesis 12 and 13 as control texts.

There was, per Will, a significant occurrence of the "substantial words" of the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar in Abr chapters 1 and 3, but not in 2, 4, or 5, or in Gen 12 or 13. The substantial words of the Egyptian Alphabet are found in Abr 1 and 3, over 90% attested in Abr 1-3, but not 4 and 5 and Gen 12 and 13.

Will then said:

One of the first things that became apparent in the process of this particular study, before attempting to quantify anything, is that we are dealing with a very limited set of unique words with very specific applications, as opposed to a more non-contextual selection of wide-focus, building block words that one would reasonably expect to encounter in a document intended as a tool to decipher an unknown text. Instead we encounter words and phrases focused on a narrow subject matter. * * * * * The substantial words are almost all proper nouns, that form a lexicon of people, places and things. Almost all of them from the BoAbr, and often very uniquely so.

Then Will asks

how likely is it that the would-be translators would include virtually nothing but unique words and phrases from an as-yet unwritten book?

My problem with Will's argument here is that it is merely a bootstrap. The high correlation between the use of 'substantial' words between Abr 1 and 3 and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar merely demonstrates a likelihood that one of the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and the BoAbr depends on the other (or there was interdependence). This correlation between them does not of itself demonstrate that the BoAbr text came before the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, as opposed to the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar coming before the BoAbr text.

Where did Joseph Smith and W W Phelps get the Egyptian characters that are included in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar? From the papyri. So it would make sense that the English explanations that Smith assigned to these Egyptian characters would then be used in the English text that is later supposed to be a translation of that same papyri.

Given the context of the papyri, the materials that Smith and Phelps had before them, one would not expect "a more non-contextual selection of wide-focus, building block words".

Apart from the database 'word study', Will makes two other claims, with no further explanation:

There is too little of the story for [the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar] to have been used to produce the story, yet too much of the story for it not to be dependent on the rest of the story.

The second part of that ("yet too much of the story for it not to be dependent on the rest of the story") is simply evidence that there is a high correlation between text used in the BoAbr and that found in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. It does not suggest that either document came before the other.

So that leaves Will's assertion that there is too little of the story from the BoAbr found in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to have been used to produce the story. Really? Having a set of proper nouns--people, places and things--predefined would make the task for Smith of constructing a story around them much easier than if the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar did not pre-exist the Abr text.

I could not see any other rationale advanced by Will at the FAIR conference that suggests that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was dependent upon the Abr text already existing. Anyone know what Will's evidence of that dependence is, since he has not explained it. Anyone? Will?

[_CaliforniaKid]

I believe Will's argument was not just that the vocabularies of the two texts overlap, but that Abr. 1-3 account for virtually all of the substantial words in the EAG, whereas the reverse is not true. The assumption underlying the argument is that a translation cannot employ substantial words that aren't in the lexicon that was used to create it-- and, on the flip side, a lexicon cannot include substantial words that aren't in the "Rosetta Stone" from which it was derived. In other words, whichever text was the derived text must be entirely derivable from its source. Measured in terms of vocabulary, the EAG would seem more derivable from the Book of Abraham than the other way around. At least, so the argument goes.

Although this argument may initially seem valid, I see several problems with it. First, the translation method outlined by the EAG is inherently "loose" and allows for a large number of extra words to be supplied by the translator in order to connect lexical meanings into a coherent narrative. Second, William assumes that we'd expect a uniform method of translation-- that is, that the use of the EAG as a lexicon would not have been supplemented by other sources, such as arbitrary revelation. Third, vocabulary is not the only thing to be explained. We must also account for the complexes of meaning in which they are embedded and for their relationships to the characters. No responsible text critic would use raw, isolated vocabulary to establish dependence, let alone direction of dependence. Fourth, William neglects the possibility that a prototype of the Book of Abraham narrative existed in Joseph's mind when he created the EAG. If Joseph Smith was anticipating the Book of Abraham narrative when he created the EAG, then that would explain the limited semantic field of the EAG entries just as well as derivation from a written Book of Abraham text would.

My own hypothesis is that Joseph did have a prototype of the Book of Abraham in mind when he created the EAG. Furthermore, where there were lacunae in the papyri, he filled the lacunae with fictional characters constructed from the graphemes in the EAG. Very little of the material in the EAG was allowed to go to waste; he made sure to use as much of it as possible. (And really, there's not much there to begin with.) The EAG was used in translating the Book of Abraham only for the first chapter or so, and only as far as possible. Because most of the characters from the papyri do not appear in the EAG, for these characters Joseph had to supply an interpretation by revelation. The result is a hybrid translation-- partly derived from the EAG, and partly received by revelation.

My theory explains William's findings as well as his own theory does. Furthermore, my theory allows us to explain other features of the texts, such as why it is mainly the invented characters that are translated in the EAG, and why the first two characters in the Book of Abraham are the last characters translated in the EAG. If the Book of Abraham translation were primary, why would Joseph single out the invented characters for translation? Why does the endpoint of the EAG project correspond to the starting point of the Book of Abraham project?

There are many other problems with William's theory as well, but we've discussed some of those in other threads, so I won't rehash them here. Instead I will simply throw out one final question for William. Given the obvious 1842 dating of the extant Facsimile 2 explanation, do you agree that the explanation is dependent on the EAG rather than vice versa? The direction of dependence seems so clear in this case. How then can you justify reversing it for the remainder of the EAG?

Peace,

-Chris

[_Joseph]

Say anything to deflect folks from the fact Joseph Smith could not read, write or interpret Egyptian. Isn't that what this joker is really doing?

[_sock puppet]

I believe Will's argument was not just that the vocabularies of the two texts overlap, but that Abr. 1-3 account for virtually all of the substantial words in the EAG, whereas the reverse is not true.

Chris, do you know of any other arguments from Will that are not encapsulated in his couplet that I quoted above and re-quote here:

There is too little of the story for [the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar] to have been used to produce the story, yet too much of the story for it not to be dependent on the rest of the story.

That is,
1-Too much of the verbiage in the two documents overlaps for there to be no dependence of one on the other, and
2-Too little of the BoAbr story in the EA&G for Will to fathom that the EA&G was a tool for creating the BoAbr.

You make good points, Chris, of why Will's "too little" argument for dependence of the EA&G on a pre-existing BoAbr text is weak, and does not explain as much of the circumstances as your own theory does.

As will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with my posts, I think Joseph Smith was constructing the BoAbr as an expansive fiction based somewhat on Gen 12 and 13, and infusing it with earlier Mormon doctrines "received as revelations", such as those Will notes are now codified as D&C 76 and 88. I think, Chris, that your analysis of the construction of Abr 1:1-3 on the 5 degree expansions of those characters assigned is a bull's eye.

I think Joseph Smith probably let W W Phelps wring those three verses out of the EA&G, before Smith grew impatient and ready to "translate" with the "help of God" and used the rest of the EA&G as notes to help remember many of the pronouns as he wove together Abr 1-3, and later 4 and 5 too. Smith was peppering the story up with even more pronouns than just those that were then already part of the EA&G.

[_beastie]

Fourth, William neglects the possibility that a prototype of the Book of Abraham narrative existed in Joseph's mind when he created the EAG. If Joseph Smith was anticipating the Book of Abraham narrative when he created the EAG, then that would explain the limited semantic field of the EAG entries just as well as derivation from a written Book of Abraham text would.

I think this is the greatest weakness in Will's theory. I mean, this is so obvious. The only people who don't see this screaming pink elephant in the middle of the room are believers desperate for a Book of Abraham "game changer" of any sort.

[_MCB]

screaming pink elephant in the middle of the room

Any time they sense there is something like that, their best strategy is to concentrate on ANYTHING that is as far as they can get from the center of the room. Trouble is, it all leads to the middle of the room. So, then, they find something else to distract themselves and their followers from the middle of the room. When it leads them to the middle of the room, they again change the game. Repeat as necessary.

F-R-A-U-D.

[_zeezrom]

Egyptian is magical and romantic. How many movies have portrayed something amazing happening in correlation to ancient Egyptian? It is easy to use this material to play with the heartstrings of the gullible masses.

What if God's interaction was more mundane? What if revelation simply involved a smile or a helping hand when it was most needed? Who wants to make a religion out of that? Boring!

[_William Schryver]

Celestial Kingdom:

No responsible text critic would use, exclusively, raw, isolated vocabulary to establish dependence, let alone direction of dependence.

After adding the bolded qualifying word above, I concur with this statement.

Establishing the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham necessitates the employment of multiple methodological approaches, each of which will be seen to confirm the others.

… William neglects the possibility that a prototype of the Book of Abraham narrative existed in Joseph's mind when he created the EAG.

Quite to the contrary, your statement here constitutes the first evidence I have noted of the fulfillment of a prophecy I made (multiple times, both verbally and in writing) to various people in the weeks and months preceding my FAIR conference presentation.

Far from neglecting the possibility of the argument implicit in your statement, I fully anticipated it to ultimately become the only possible counter-argument to the thesis of the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Indeed, in the earlier drafts of my presentation, I listed what I considered to be several possible counter-arguments to my theses, along with my rebuttals to these anticipated arguments. The assertion that Joseph Smith already had in his mind a fully developed narrative for the Book of Abraham prior to the commencement of the Egyptian Alphabet project in mid-July 1835 was at the very top of my list of anticipated critical counter-arguments, and I spoke and wrote frequently of this in my conversations and correspondence with several people, including Brian Hauglid, John Gee, and Royal Skousen—among others.

I remain persuaded that this is the only potentially profitable counter-argument available to critics of my thesis of dependency. Now we shall see whether or not it is possible for you to convincingly support this argument. I am persuaded that those who opt to take this approach have a far greater challenge ahead of them than they are presently inclined to believe.

In any event, mark my words, unless it can be conclusively established that Joseph Smith essentially had the entire Book of Abraham text memorized (virtually verbatim) prior to the commencement of the Egyptian Alphabet project, then it will be effectively impossible, via credible and responsible text-critical methodologies, for my thesis of dependency to be disproven.

My theory explains William's findings as well as his own theory does.

I have yet to see from you a theory that even comes close to comprehensively explaining the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, although I very much look forward to a formal exposition of your ideas at some point in the future.

Given the obvious 1842 dating of the extant Facsimile 2 explanation, do you agree that the explanation is dependent on the EAG rather than vice versa?

Just as I had, as noted above, anticipated virtually every counter-argument to my theses as presented in my FAIR conference address, I also anticipated this particular gambit you have now played vis-à-vis the explanations for Facsimile 2 contained in the Richards manuscripts.

At present, suffice it to say that your question clearly demonstrates to me the fact that, not only have you have failed to pay close attention to things I have said previously, you are also blinded by a number of demonstrably incorrect assumptions about the Richards manuscripts.

Again, I have yet to see from you a theory that even comes close to comprehensively explaining the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, although I very much look forward to a formal exposition of your ideas at some point in the future.

[_sock puppet]

Celestial Kingdom:

No responsible text critic would use, exclusively, raw, isolated vocabulary to establish dependence, let alone direction of dependence.

After adding the bolded qualifying word above, I concur with this statement.

Establishing the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham necessitates the employment of multiple methodological approaches, each of which will be seen to confirm the others.

… William neglects the possibility that a prototype of the Book of Abraham narrative existed in Joseph's mind when he created the EAG.

Quite to the contrary, your statement here constitutes the first evidence I have noted of the fulfillment of a prophecy I made (multiple times, both verbally and in writing) to various people in the weeks and months preceding my FAIR conference presentation.

Far from neglecting the possibility of the argument implicit in your statement, I fully anticipated it to ultimately become the only possible counter-argument to the thesis of the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Indeed, in the earlier drafts of my presentation, I listed what I considered to be several possible counter-arguments to my theses, along with my rebuttals to these anticipated arguments. The assertion that Joseph Smith already had in his mind a fully developed narrative for the Book of Abraham prior to the commencement of the Egyptian Alphabet project in mid-July 1835 was at the very top of my list of anticipated critical counter-arguments, and I spoke and wrote frequently of this in my conversations and correspondence with several people, including Brian Hauglid, John Gee, and Royal Skousen—among others.

I remain persuaded that this is the only potentially profitable counter-argument available to critics of my thesis of dependency. Now we shall see whether or not it is possible for you to convincingly support this argument. I am persuaded that those who opt to take this approach have a far greater challenge ahead of them than they are presently inclined to believe.

In any event, mark my words, unless it can be conclusively established that Joseph Smith essentially had the entire Book of Abraham text memorized (virtually verbatim) prior to the commencement of the Egyptian Alphabet project, then it will be effectively impossible, via credible and responsible text-critical methodologies, for my thesis of dependency to be disproven.

My theory explains William's findings as well as his own theory does.

I have yet to see from you a theory that even comes close to comprehensively explaining the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, although I very much look forward to a formal exposition of your ideas at some point in the future.

Given the obvious 1842 dating of the extant Facsimile 2 explanation, do you agree that the explanation is dependent on the EAG rather than vice versa?

Just as I had, as noted above, anticipated virtually every counter-argument to my theses as presented in my FAIR conference address, I also anticipated this particular gambit you have now played vis-à-vis the explanations for Facsimile 2 contained in the Richards manuscripts.

At present, suffice it to say that your question clearly demonstrates to me the fact that, not only have you have failed to pay close attention to things I have said previously, you are also blinded by a number of demonstrably incorrect assumptions about the Richards manuscripts.

Again, I have yet to see from you a theory that even comes close to comprehensively explaining the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, although I very much look forward to a formal exposition of your ideas at some point in the future.

And there you go again, Will. Another verbose, multiple paragraph post that says nothing. You are a master of doing it. Even DCP, hell even Scotty "Dog" Lloyd, usually has at least one argument hid somewhere in a verbose post of vitriol. But not you, Will. You are the purist, the master of vapid posts that say nothing.

[_Fence Sitter]

And there you go again, Will. Another verbose, multiple paragraph post that says nothing. You are a master of doing it. Even DCP, hell even Scotty "Dog" Lloyd, usually has at least one argument hid somewhere in a verbose post of vitriol. But not you, Will. You are the purist, the master of vapid posts that say nothing.

I disagree. I believe he has quite clearly pointed out that he has anticipated all of these counter-arguments. In fact I think he views his ability to do this in religious terms. I would like to prophesy that this will not be the last time that he will claim to have known something in advance.

I am giving odds for those that are interested.