Is this true, the name Nauvoo?

[_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.
...

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

Even he could have beaten Chuck Norris.

And the Red Queen believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

[_Robert F Smith]

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.

"Partially correct"? Like what, for example? None of those people knew anything about ancient Egypt, and their surmises were no more than stabs in the dark.

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.

False premises lead to false conclusions.
If he knew Arabic, which is doubtful, Charles Anthon could translate only one of the languages listed. Moreover, Anthon knew that he would not be contradicted if he merely said that they were true characters. But claiming that some "translation was correct" goes beyond his ability. Of the two consulted, Dr. Mitchill was the better linguist, but that would have been a dead end too. Languages written in cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs or hieratic had not yet been deciphered.

[_Robert F Smith]

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?

I don't know when the translation was made, but (to judge from the speed of translation of the Book of Mormon) it could have been done in one day. The Book of Abraham is, after all, quite short. Adding facsimile commentary and woodcuts could come much later.

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.

Hugh Nibley suggested that the GAEL constituted an attempt to “reverse engineer” Champollion-style the meaning of Egyptian characters via comparison with an already extant Book of Abraham text (generated immediately after the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland). However, it appears morel likely that the available KEP documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C.* Will Schryver has shown conclusively that William W. Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and he was the “dominant force” in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88). The conclusion of Schryver is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham via revelation – the same way he received the Book of Mormon and the book of Moses.#

* Cf. Christopher Smith, “The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations,” Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies, 1/1 (Apr 2011), 15-31; Samuel Brown, “Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden,” Church History, 78/1 (Mar 2009), 26-65;; Howard J. Wing, “Cryptograms from the Fractal Chiasmus of Messianic Speech in the Doctrine and Covenants,” School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, undated; copy in BYU Special Collections, MSS 3776, Box 6, Folder 107.
# William Schryver, “The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” paper delivered at the 2010 Conference of FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research), available online (as a video, http://vimeo.com/user439270/videos/sort:oldest ). Cf. May 27, 1835 letter of Phelps to his wife, and the July 17, 1835 History of the Church entry.

[_Tobin]

Robert,

You are much more generous in your response than I would have been. I'd like Fence Sitter to show us a GAEL (or an equivalent to the KEP) for the Book of Mormon if he is seriously going to float the balloon that this is the means by which Joseph Smith translated. It is simply an absurd notion pushed by the Mormon critic that Joseph Smith used means other than God revealing these texts to him. And as you and others have repeatedly pointed out, Joseph Smith and others were free to speculate (incorrectly) as to how to decipher the underlying text afterwards. That fact in no way means that he used this method in any of the translations he revealed from God however.

[_Robert F Smith]

Robert,

You are much more generous in your response than I would have been. I'd like Fence Sitter to show us a GAEL (or an equivalent to the KEP) for the Book of Mormon if he is seriously going to float the balloon that this is the means by which Joseph Smith translated. It is simply an absurd notion pushed by the Mormon critic that Joseph Smith used means other than God revealing these texts to him. And as you and others have repeatedly pointed out, Joseph Smith and others were free to speculate (incorrectly) as to how to decipher the underlying text afterwards. That fact in no way means that he used this method in any of the translations he revealed from God however.

d'accord.

[_Fence Sitter]

Regarding a 'GAEL' for the Book of Mormon, according to Richard E. Bennett

The outlines of this story are well known. In late 1827, working with the gold plates and the Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith began translating the “Reformed Egyptian” characters found in the book of Lehi on the Large Plates of Nephi. As part of this early work, he transcribed some of the characters as a sort of alphabet or reference guide.

JMH Vol 36 No. 1 pg 179-180

[_Tobin]

Regarding a 'GAEL' for the Book of Mormon, according to Richard E. Bennett

The outlines of this story are well known. In late 1827, working with the gold plates and the Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith began translating the “Reformed Egyptian” characters found in the book of Lehi on the Large Plates of Nephi. As part of this early work, he transcribed some of the characters as a sort of alphabet or reference guide.

JMH Vol 36 No. 1 pg 179-180

This is your evidence of a GAEL for the Book of Mormon?!? Wow, if that is the best evidence you've got to present, I can see there is no reason to take anything else you have to say seriously. After all, the ball was in your court and this is what you provided?!? I guess I shouldn't have expected anything of substance from a Mormon critic.

[_Fence Sitter]

Hugh Nibley suggested that the GAEL constituted an attempt to “reverse engineer” Champollion-style the meaning of Egyptian characters via comparison with an already extant Book of Abraham text (generated immediately after the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland). However, it appears morel likely that the available KEP documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C.* Will Schryver has shown conclusively that William W. Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and he was the “dominant force” in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88). The conclusion of Schryver is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham via revelation – the same way he received the Book of Mormon and the book of Moses.#

* Cf. Christopher Smith, “The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations,” Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies, 1/1 (Apr 2011), 15-31; Samuel Brown, “Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden,” Church History, 78/1 (Mar 2009), 26-65;; Howard J. Wing, “Cryptograms from the Fractal Chiasmus of Messianic Speech in the Doctrine and Covenants,” School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, undated; copy in BYU Special Collections, MSS 3776, Box 6, Folder 107.
# William Schryver, “The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” paper delivered at the 2010 Conference of FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research), available online (as a video, http://vimeo.com/user439270/videos/sort:oldest ). Cf. May 27, 1835 letter of Phelps to his wife, and the July 17, 1835 History of the Church entry.

Thanks for the references Robert, I am familiar with both Will's thoeries and Chris' work. I do not see much value in the chipher theory but I do hope that Will is able to publish something on it so it can be examined more carefully.

Can you offer an explanation as to why one should hold to the missing scroll theory and at the same time advocate Ab0? If Ab0 existed and was produced prior to the GAEL it would indicate that Joseph Smith and scribe had no clue where the Book of Abraham was on the papyri.

[_Fence Sitter]

Partially correct"? Like what, for example? None of those people knew anything about ancient Egypt, and their surmises were no more than stabs in the dark.

You do not find the description of “astronomical representations” similar to how Joseph Smith labeled several of the Facsimile#2 explanations, especially #5?

False premises lead to false conclusions.
If he knew Arabic, which is doubtful, Charles Anthon could translate only one of the languages listed. Moreover, Anthon knew that he would not be contradicted if he merely said that they were true characters. But claiming that some "translation was correct" goes beyond his ability. Of the two consulted, Dr. Mitchill was the better linguist, but that would have been a dead end too. Languages written in cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs or hieratic had not yet been deciphered

Does this mean you reject the following account by Martin Harris?

According to Harris, Anthon “stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian” and that the characters “were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic, and he said that they were true characters and that the translation of such of them that had been translated was correct.” He even wrote a note “certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters.”

Since Chaldaic is not a language (Chaldeans speak Aramaic) and Syriac would not appear in written form until the 1st century AD (how could it be on a transcript of the plates?) and if it is doubtful that Anthon even knew Arabic, it seems quite unlikely Anthon would make such a statement. Notwithstanding all these issues, the claim by Harris that Anthon did make such a translation has been accepted by members. Shouldn’t the same standard of evidence also apply when evaluating what scholars 5-7 years later might say regarding the Joseph Smith papyri?

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Still waiting on the actual writings of Abraham.

Also, what part did the magic peepstones play in this 'translation'?