Is this true, the name Nauvoo?

[_Robert F Smith]

The Caswall Psalter and Kinderhook Plates have long since been shown to be bogus issues.

I don't think they are bogus issues. I think they are issues whose events are debated by both sides. Clearly both incidents happened, the question is exactly what happened.

A bogus issue is one lacking legitimacy. Of course something happened and people disagree about what it was. That does not mean that "where there's smoke there's fire,' which is a classic fallacy. Evidence shows both to be bogus issues.

For example, Joseph had studied Greek long before Caswall showed up. Why should we believe the word of an anti-Mormon wthout corroboration? Especially one who (like Prof. Anthon) changed his story? In court they call it "hearsay," and it is inadmissable.

Do we have contemporary accounts that contradict what Caswall said?
Why should we take the word of anyone (anti, pro or neutral) without corroboration?
When there are multiple accounts by an individual of the same event they often contradict each other. One does not throw out the first vision merely because there are a variety of different accounts.

I would agree that Caswell likely slanted the story to make Joseph Smith look as bad as possible. What makes his story credible to me is its similarity to several other events in which Joseph Smith was known to make lengthy spontaneous pronouncements of this type about places, plates, documents or graves which he encountered.

Since Joseph had studied Greek, I think that it would be absurd to suggest that he could not recognize the letters in a Greek Psalter (a copy of the Psalms in Greek). Caswall wasn't just a liar, he was a reckless liar.

Same for the Kinderhook forgeries. joseph tried translating using the GAEL and couldn't get past the first character. He was as ignorant of secular means of translating as any other ordinary layman.

In the KEP Joseph Smith had already produced lengthy translations from just single characters. Whether his Kinderhook plates descriptions came from one character or from a cursory review does not matter. In the end he "translated" something from a set of plates which were forgeries. For over a hundred years the entire Church believed these plates to be authentic and accepted his translation.

So, how much of KEP was in Joseph's hand, and what did it in fact represent? Why should efforts by his secretaries to create a Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) be taken as anything more than laughable? Innocent but laughable. As the best textual analysts agree, the Book of Abraham had already been written when these attempts to match it with some Egyptian characters was made.

The official scriptural canon of the LDS Church, on the other hand, is fair game, and several Mormon scholars have taken a very close, detailed look. Hugh Nibley is one example of a detailed examination of the Book of Abraham. Another is Val Sederholm, who has been discussing the Book of Abraham for several years now (including Ritner's recent book) on his blog at [url]valsedereholm.blogspot.com[/url]. Val obtained his PhD under the great Prof. Antonio Loprieno. Val cites his sources and carries on a free-ranging discussion of all issues.
You might want to start with the Nibley & Sederholm examination of the Book of Abraham.

Thank you for the blog reference, I look forward to reading it. I also want to spend more time examining your Fac#2 paper and perhaps will have some comments about that later.

At the end of the day, you will find that Joseph was on target quite often. How is that possible?

I think there are very plausible explanations on how that was possible. Chandler had been exhibiting the papyri for some time before he showed up in Kirtland and was quite interested in selling them. It would be in his interest to tell Joseph Smith as much as possible about the documents, information he would have picked up already from previous scholastic examinations, and then praise Joseph Smith for any interpretation he might make of those documents. Information Joseph Smith would later incorporate into his facsimiles descriptions.

Chandler did not know Egyptian history or language and could not have provided any useful information to Joseph, so that assertion is a dead end.
Nice try, but no cigar.

Perhaps there are times Joseph Smith is on target but one has to wonder if the facsimiles are indicative of the accuracy of his translations, how accurate are his other translations, like the Book of Mormon? Does he just occasionally get it right there also?

My paper shows that far from only getting it "occasionally" correct, Joseph did so most of the time. My paper also shows that Egyptologists agree that one must "read" the pictures (illustrations) as much as the hieroglyphs -- something which is essential to any discussion of the Book of Abraham facsimiles.

I still would like to hear more from you regarding the KEP as well as the lengthy descriptions we have regarding the Book of Joseph, which could have only come from Joseph Smith. In both of those areas I think there is extensive material that show Joseph Smith did not know what he was translating.

Joseph Smith was not an Egyptologist and so was as ignorant as any other ordinary person about what glyph or illustration meant what. Is that what you are suggesting? We might agree on that. Where we might disagree would be on whether he was inspired by God in his interpretations. As to KEP, see the official Joseph Smith Papers online. Brian Hauglid has provided a nice descriptive analysis of them.

Thanks Robert I am enjoying our discussion and the appreciate the time you take to respond.

[_ludwigm]

...
Chandler did not know Egyptian history or language and could not have provided any useful information to Joseph, so that assertion is a dead end.
Nice try, but no cigar.
...

Joseph did know both. And he counted to infinity. Twice.

Even he could have beaten Chuck Norris.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Robert, while you are at it can you point us to the sections of the Papyrus that were actually written by Abraham? Joseph Smith apparently showed these to a few people and it would be nice to see the what are supposed to be the oldest actual Biblical writings in existence.

[Guest]

So, how much of KEP was in Joseph's hand, and what did it in fact represent? Why should efforts by his secretaries to create a Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) be taken as anything more than laughable? Innocent but laughable.

We don’t really know but according to Don Bradley “You could derive all the content that Clayton says Joseph got off the Kinderhook plates from this one definition for a single character in the GAEL”. How much of the GAEL he had in his hand in not nearly as important as the fact he saw it as a means to translate the Kinderhook plates. We have Joseph Smith using the GAEL in 1843 as a means to translate counterfeit plates. This tells us a few things. He viewed the GAEL as more than just a laughable attempt by scribes to produce a lexicon (remember he also contemplated publishing it) and he was unable to see that the Kinderhook plates were fraudulent.
More from Bradley’s presentation.

“the plates are evidently brass, and are covered on both sides with hieroglyphics. They were brought up and shown to Joseph. He compared, in my presence, with his Egyptian Alphabet,” Now, the guys a non-Mormon here, and so he doesn’t actually understand what this Egyptian Alphabet is. So he says, “which he took from the plates which the Book of Mormon was translated,” but he doesn’t know it’s from the Book of Abraham papyrus, he says, “He compared, in my presence, with his Egyptian Alphabet…and they’re evidently the same characters. He therefore will be able to decipher them.” So this is the Alphabet and Grammar volume, and you can see the title on the spine says “Egyptian Alphabet.”

As the best textual analysts agree, the Book of Abraham had already been written when these attempts to match it with some Egyptian characters was made.

Are you saying the Book of Abraham was written before the EC, EA & the GAEL? Or are you saying that it was written before MS#2 (Ab2 by Hauglid’s designations) ? Or both? In either case why would Joseph Smith and his scribes stop translating (or transcribing if you believe in Hauglid’s Ab0) the Book of Abraham correctly and start a really bad attempt at an Egyptian counting and alphabet system, within a very short time of receiving the papyri? Why not finish recording all of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph before expending time in a futile effort on a bad secular translation?

[_Fence Sitter]

Chandler did not know Egyptian history or language and could not have provided any useful information to Joseph, so that assertion is a dead end.
Nice try, but no cigar..

Not knowing any Egyptian would not prevent Chandler from relating what he had been told by the scholars in Philadelphia, and perhaps New York, before coming to Kirtland, some of which appears to be a reference to the hypocephalus. According to Oliver Cowdery’s letter to William Frye

. In April of the same year Mr. Chandler paid the duties upon his mummies [in Ney York] and took possession of the same. Up to this time they had not been taken out of the coffins nor the coffins opened.
On opening the coffins he discovered that in connection with two of the bodies were something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which when examined proved to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. I may add that two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, etc., were found with others of the mummies.

And this.

. While Mr. Chandler was in Philadelphia he used every exertion to find someone who would give him the translation of his papyrus, but could not satisfactorily, though from some few men of the `first eminence' he obtained in a small degree the translation of a few characters.

[_Robert F Smith]

From what is being said I could give copies of the papyrus to an Egyptologist and his translation would be close to what Joseph Smith said it was?

Which papyrus? So far as I know, we do not have the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated, even though we do have three facsimiles, only two of which are related to a Breathing Certificate among the currently known Joseph Smith Papyri. It is quite possible that the Book of Abraham text was on part of that Breathing Certificate, but now missing.
So are you talking about providing facsimiles to one or more Egyptologists to see how they match up against what Joseph Smith had to say? This has been done several times over the years by both LDS and non-LDS scholars. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the results of the ensuing debate.

[_Robert F Smith]

Chandler did not know Egyptian history or language and could not have provided any useful information to Joseph, so that assertion is a dead end.
Nice try, but no cigar..

Not knowing any Egyptian would not prevent Chandler from relating what he had been told by the scholars in Philadelphia, and perhaps New York, before coming to Kirtland, some of which appears to be a reference to the hypocephalus. According to Oliver Cowdery’s letter to William Frye

. In April of the same year Mr. Chandler paid the duties upon his mummies [in Ney York] and took possession of the same. Up to this time they had not been taken out of the coffins nor the coffins opened.
On opening the coffins he discovered that in connection with two of the bodies were something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which when examined proved to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. I may add that two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, etc., were found with others of the mummies.

And this.

. While Mr. Chandler was in Philadelphia he used every exertion to find someone who would give him the translation of his papyrus, but could not satisfactorily, though from some few men of the `first eminence' he obtained in a small degree the translation of a few characters.

Still no cigar.
There were no scholars in Philadelphia or NY who could have provided Chandler with any substantive information on Egyptology (history, language, etc.) apart from what was already available in well known Classical Greek and Latin authors. Perhaps you could provide us with some examples of what Chandler might have picked up before coming to Kirtland, along with examples of ways in which Joseph used such information or misinformation..

[_Robert F Smith]

So, how much of KEP was in Joseph's hand, and what did it in fact represent? Why should efforts by his secretaries to create a Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL) be taken as anything more than laughable? Innocent but laughable.

We don’t really know

Yes we do. Hardly any of KEP was in Joseph's hand, and the tendency to cryptography already began before any of the Joseph Smith Papyris arrived in Kirtland. The results of their efforts are laughable from our more enlightened point of view today because Egyptian has since been deciphered and much discussed.

but according to Don Bradley “You could derive all the content that Clayton says Joseph got off the Kinderhook plates from this one definition for a single character in the GAEL”. How much of the GAEL he had in his hand in not nearly as important as the fact he saw it as a means to translate the Kinderhook plates. We have Joseph Smith using the GAEL in 1843 as a means to translate counterfeit plates. This tells us a few things. He viewed the GAEL as more than just a laughable attempt by scribes to produce a lexicon (remember he also contemplated publishing it) and he was unable to see that the Kinderhook plates were fraudulent.

So?! As I said, Joseph and his scribes are as entitled as any of the rest of us to try to puzzle out how to read hieroglyphs of any sort by secular means. Neither the Bible nor Mormonism posit the infallibility of a prophet, even though some modern versions of religion do.

More from Bradley’s presentation.

“the plates are evidently brass, and are covered on both sides with hieroglyphics. They were brought up and shown to Joseph. He compared, in my presence, with his Egyptian Alphabet,” Now, the guys a non-Mormon here, and so he doesn’t actually understand what this Egyptian Alphabet is. So he says, “which he took from the plates which the Book of Mormon was translated,” but he doesn’t know it’s from the Book of Abraham papyrus, he says, “He compared, in my presence, with his Egyptian Alphabet…and they’re evidently the same characters. He therefore will be able to decipher them.” So this is the Alphabet and Grammar volume, and you can see the title on the spine says “Egyptian Alphabet.”

As the best textual analysts agree, the Book of Abraham had already been written when these attempts to match it with some Egyptian characters was made.

Are you saying the Book of Abraham was written before the EC, EA & the GAEL? Or are you saying that it was written before MS#2 (Ab2 by Hauglid’s designations) ? Or both? In either case why would Joseph Smith and his scribes stop translating (or transcribing if you believe in Hauglid’s Ab0) the Book of Abraham correctly and start a really bad attempt at an Egyptian counting and alphabet system, within a very short time of receiving the papyri? Why not finish recording all of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph before expending time in a futile effort on a bad secular translation?

Joseph's secretaries were working from an already complete Book of Abraham manuscript when they tried lining up glyphs with part of the text. Unfortunately, we do not have the original manuscript(s). The secretaries and Joseph failed in their attempt to create a useful GAEL, et c., and gave up.

[_Fence Sitter]

Still no cigar
There were no scholars in Philadelphia or NY who could have provided Chandler with any substantive information on Egyptology (history, language, etc.) apart from what was already available in well known Classical Greek and Latin authors. Perhaps you could provide us with some examples of what Chandler might have picked up before coming to Kirtland, along with examples of ways in which Joseph used such information or misinformation..

Well I would settle for the kewpie doll.

The examples have already been provided in the Cowdery letter to Frye. The description of "astronomical calculations" would seem a reasonable description of several of the hypocephalus interpretations by Joseph Smith. Certainly after touring for two years with the mummies and papyri, Chandler had gained some knowledge of what others thought the papyri represented, especially since they were examined "with considerable attention and deep interest" by the M.D.s in Philadelphia and were exhibited for two months the Baltimore museum. While we do not know the exact contents of those descriptions we do know Chandler arrived in Kirtland with preconceived notions of what was on the papyri, that some of those notion were partially correct and they fit in well with some of Joseph Smiths later descriptions of the hypocehalus.

If we are willing to accept the Harris statement below

Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyric, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct

with its obvious problems then it is even more reasonable to believe that seven years later Chandler might have some accurate information about the papyri. Certainly if Anthon was able to verify a translation of the Book of Mormon characters in 1828 then more information would be available five to seven years later. It is even possible that Chandler showed the papyri to Anthon by some accounts.

[_Fence Sitter]

Joseph's secretaries were working from an already complete Book of Abraham manuscript when they tried lining up glyphs with part of the text. Unfortunately, we do not have the original manuscript(s).

The mummies and papyri arrived in Kirtland somewhere between June 30-July 3 1835. Immediately after the purchase of the collection we know that Joseph Smith and his scribes

Spent the remainder of the month engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients

Robert when do you think Ab0 was written?

If the Book of Abraham Ab0 already existed why would it have been written before the papyri arrived in Kirtland? If Ab0 was extant before Ab1-3 were produced why bother with the missing scroll theory when that would make it clear that neither Joseph Smith or his scribes knew where on the papyri the Book of Abraham was to be found? (These are Hauglids designations of the Book of Abraham manuscripts which I think you know but I mention for any others reading this thread.)

The secretaries and Joseph failed in their attempt to create a useful GAEL, et c., and gave up.

We have several references to the value that Joseph Smith and the Church placed on the GAEL. They did not view the attempt as failed.