Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

[_Dan Vogel]

Blake Ostler, for you to praise Lindsay’s essay and his discussion of Hebrew in GAEL tells me you don’t know what you are talking about because Lindsay certainly doesn’t. Gee tried to date the GAEL to early 1836 by arguing that the GAEL shows knowledge of Seixas’ transliteration system, but so far no one can show it. Now, Lindsay want to date it to late November 1835 when Cowdery arrived with the Hebrew books. The problem is that the knowledge of Hebrew goes little beyond the Hebrew Alphabet. Besides, W. W. Phelps was involved and could have helped.

Some try to argue that the presence of Hebrew proves WWP wrote the GAEL, but those who date it to 1836 must allow for Joseph Smith’s authorship. Can’t have it both ways.

WWP probably helped write the entries in the History of the Church in 1843 that date the Alphabets and at least the beginning of the bound GAEL to July 1835. The part of the GAEL (the end) that describes the Egyptian astronomy coincides with Joseph Smith’s journal entry for 1 Oct. 1835. These entries also have WWP assigning authorship of the GAEL to Smith. Gee doesn’t quote these passages, but he does try to argue that the entire Book of Abraham was translated in July 1835 without giving a reference, but the only source to mention translating some of the characters is the HC.

Lindsay went on and on about the Hebrew influence on the GAEL, even arguing that the lines for the five degrees and dots (Iota) were influenced by Hebrew vowel signs. However, the lines probably came from the papyri and the dots were not meant to be dots on the papyri but Joseph Smith and Co. interpreted the flaking of the ink as dots.

The old Nibley apologetic that the GAEL was written by Joseph Smith’s scribes in an effort to reverse engineer Joseph Smith translation of Abraham is dead. It was born out of ignorance of the actual documents and is maintained by Gee and Muhlestein, neither of whom know what they are doing when it comes to the English documents.

The Lindsay essay is a complete mess from beginning to end. His explanation for the two text of Abraham 1:4-2:6 being written simultaneously at Joseph Smith’s dictation, that Parrish was copying from a complete text of Abraham while reading the same out loud so that F. G. Williams could make a copy as well, is complete nonsense. In his explanation of how we get several in-line corrections in both manuscripts shows that he doesn’t know what a visual mistake is (dittography or haplography). Lindsay is no better than Gee and Muhlestein for inventing the worst kind of apologetic.

[_Dan Vogel]

This is my continued reply:

“I am disheartened. I’m having great difficulty getting through my reading assignment – I’m still on the first paragraph of Mr. Lindsay’s paper. Perhaps Mr. Vogal would be better suited than myself for a first-round respondent? I fear it may take a fortnight to wade through the entire bog, as the young ones fondly say.” – Professor Lemming

Lindsay’s article is a slog for sure. Not only for its length—a full 91 pages—but because at times it is as if he were thinking out loud. Where were the editors? Interpreter is not only peer reviewed, it doesn’t seem to be edited either.

The whole section 7 of his article (pp. 87-88) could be cut. In this section, Lindsay wonders if Joseph Smith’s handwriting has been correctly identified, without giving a reason, and complains that the transcriptions on the JSP website and in the book are sometimes different. Perhaps Lindsay wants people to think that there is a question about Joseph Smith’s participation in creating the Egyptian Alphabets, because Gee’s attempt to make it appear that Joseph Smith was only half-heartedly following Phelps or that Joseph Smith merely copied from Phelps and Cowdery is a complete failure.

In Part 1 (pp. 21-24), Lindsay complains that Nibley’s work was not utilized by Jensen and Hauglid. “Yet Nibley is cited zero times compared to at least 49 citations of Ritner.” (23) Lindsay doesn’t get the difference between Nibley’s writings and Ritner’s. Nibley was not an Egyptologist. Ritner is. If, as Gee insisted in his review, Jensen and Hauglid can’t comment on things Egyptian, neither can Nibley. For sure, Nibley didn’t describe the papyri from a mainstream Egyptological standpoint. Nibley’s Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, for example, is not useful to Egyptologists. Using Ritner rather than Gee or Muhlestein removes suspicion of apologetically tainted opinion. Nibley’s 1971 essay in BYU Studies—“The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers”—was preliminary and outdated, although Gee and Muhlestein continue his missing papyri and reverse translation apologetic.

In Part 2 (pp. 24-34), Lindsay criticizes Jensen and Hauglid for not being balanced and being more critical than apologetic. Basically, he refuses to accept the explanation that apologetics was outside the purpose of the JSP project. He even suggests that they smuggle Mormon apologetics into their work, so that it lends “first aid” to members and undermines critical points of view but in such a way as to not provoke non-Mormon scholars to label their book as apologetic.

He criticizes them for “hint[ing] that at least part of the Book of Abraham was produced from the GAEL,” but not mentioning the reverse translation theory (pp. 24-25). Lindsay sakes, “why not open the door to the possibility proposed by other scholars that the GAEL was derived in part from the existing translated text?” (p. 25) Why refer to the works of those who refuse to let a bad theory die?

The problem with the reverse translation theory is that the GAEL isn’t about the Book of Abraham. The characters in the margins of the Book of Abraham manuscripts come from JSP XI, or were invented to fill gaps in the damaged papyrus. Whereas the characters in the GAEL come from the Amenhotep papyrus (copied into the Valuable Discovery notebooks), Ta-sherit-Min papyrus, the pure language, and the vertical columns that flank Fac. 1 on JSP I. These characters are interspersed with invented or derivative characters. So there is no way that the KEP can be explained as coming from Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham.

Moreover, a close examination of the content of Joseph Smith’s Egyptian documents, together with historical sources, shows the order and time of their creations. There was some overlap, but the chronology is basically as follows: Valuable Discovery notebooks > Egyptian Alphabets > GAEL > Book of Abraham.

The GAEL does contain material that was later used in the Book of Abraham, but the origin of that material was not the Book of Abraham but what was known as the epitaph of Katumin and the record of Joseph (a.k.a. Ta-sherit-Min papyrus). Part 1 of the Alphabets, which was expanded in part 1 of the GAEL, explains why the records of the Hebrew patriarchs were found with Egyptian mummies. In the process, it is stated that Katumin descended from the daughter of Ham, who discovered Egypt while it was still under water, presumably from the Flood. This information gets dropped into the text of Abraham, along with similar characters that coincide with a missing portion of JSP XI.

Do Gee and Muhlestein discuss any of this? No. They have merely asserted the reverse translation theory without any supportive arguments or evidence. Since there is no direct relationship between the GAEL and the text of Abraham, there is no need to have the entire Book of Abraham translated before the GAEL.

Continuing my response to Lindsay’s Part 2 (pp. 24-34), Lindsay makes this incredible statement: “If the goal is not to promote faith, neither should it unnecessarily undermine it. Subjective bias that supports positions that can undermine faith and weaken respect for the scriptures must be avoided. Cited scholarship and perspectives on the complex interpretative issues around the KEP must not actively exclude and ignore relevant scholarship that refutes or undermines key positions of critics of the Church” (pp. 26-27).

Lindsay seems to suggest that Jensen and Hauglid protect members by self-censorship, while at the same time include material that undermines the critics. Here we see that Lindsay is not really interested in balance but is simply an apologist. If Jensen and Hauglid did as he suggested, then they would be obligated to include critical viewpoint as well to avoid criticism, and that would be a very different book.

Lindsay should seriously question his assumption that a rejection of Nibley’s old reverse translation theory undermines faith. It doesn’t. Apologists are not infallible and their theories are not dogma. If the theory is bad, you don’t keep performing “first aid” on it, you discard it and look for a better one.

Lindsay demonstrates that he doesn’t know what he is talking about when he writes: “In fact, for the GAEL and the Egyptian Alphabet documents, one can examine the characters, their definitions, and the existence of any apparently related glyphs on the key existing scroll (Fragment of Breathing Permit for Horus-A), and see that, of the 62 characters assigned a meaning, only four (2.32, 2.41, 2.42, and 3.11) have a clear connection to a character on the papyrus, with three more characters (2.36, 2.40, and 3.15) possibly, but with less certainty, being found on the papyrus” (pp. 30-31).

As previously explained, the Alphabets and GAEL do not relate to the Book of Abraham, which was taken from JSP XI. Whereas part 1 of the Alphabets and part 1 of the GAEL were taken from the Amenhotep papyrus and the Ta-sherit-Min papyrus. Part 2 begins with the pure language, and then copies from column 3 of JSP I, with derivative characters scattered between copied characters. Lindsay thinks this is a problem for the critics, arguing with Gee: “This raises serious questions about the purpose and use of these documents and calls into question claims that Joseph was using them to create the Book of Abraham as a translation from an existing papyrus fragment” (31). However, the critics do not need to see the GAEL as showing how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, only that it shows Joseph Smith incorrectly translating specific characters, but the apologists’ reverse-translation theory demands that the GAEL have a direct relationship to the Book of Abraham.

The reverse-translation theory is not simply a different way of looking at the evidence, it is totally untenable to maintain once one understands the documents.

(to be continued if anyone is interested)

[_RockSlider]

Continuing my response to Lindsay’s Part 2 (pp. 24-34), Lindsay makes this incredible statement: “If the goal is not to promote faith, neither should it unnecessarily undermine it. Subjective bias that supports positions that can undermine faith and weaken respect for the scriptures must be avoided. Cited scholarship and perspectives on the complex interpretative issues around the KEP must not actively exclude and ignore relevant scholarship that refutes or undermines key positions of critics of the Church” (pp. 26-27).

It's not their fault, "in five years the board is not going to hold them accountable", Jesus, via the FP down through Elder Holland has instructed them to do this.

Elder Holland Calls The Maxwell Institute to Repentance

[_Philo Sofee]

I am most definitely still interested in your comments and analysis Dan..... this is terrific!

[_Shulem]

I am most definitely still interested in your comments and analysis Dan..... this is terrific!

me too. but what about Anubis's snout that has been hacked out . . . .

[_Symmachus]

Lindsay seems to suggest that Jensen and Hauglid protect members by self-censorship, while at the same time include material that undermines the critics. Here we see that Lindsay is not really interested in balance but is simply an apologist. If Jensen and Hauglid did as he suggested, then they would be obligated to include critical viewpoint as well to avoid criticism, and that would be a very different book.

I almost wonder why one of them doesn't just a write a book for a change, instead of complaining that everyone isn't writing the book they want to read. I say "almost" because I think we all know the answer.

Anyway, thanks for posting this Dan.

PS When is Signature going to publish a reprint of Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet?

[_Philo Sofee]

And when are you going to upgrade "Seekers" with extra material? It needs a second and enlarged edition.That was a great book! And I can't find my copy of it dang it!

[_TrashcanMan79]

When is Signature going to publish a reprint of Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet?

For those who might not know, the text is available here. Not as good as holding the book in your hands, but better than nothing, I guess.

[_Symmachus]

For those who might not know, the text is available here. Not as good as holding the book in your hands, but better than nothing, I guess.

Yeah, I have visited that link often, but I need the book.

[_moksha]

Lindsay seems to suggest that Jensen and Hauglid protect members by self-censorship, while at the same time include material that undermines the critics.

If Jensen and Hauglid are essentially historians they would be opposed to this dishonesty.