In my blog post (linked in the OP), I address the word "signature" as someone else used it. I'll try to add a screenshot here.
The Webster 1828 Dictionary server is still down. I therefore refer to my earlier post which I’m pretty sure is the No. 2 definition which is the one relevant to the discussion at hand that I had previously copied from the old dictionary:
Noah Webster 1828 wrote:SIGNATURE, noun [Latin signo, to sign.] Sign manual; the name of a person written or subscribed by himself.
Hence, the sign in this case *is* the name written by the hand of the person who makes a confirmation.
I agree with much of what you're saying, but subtle nuances (like word choices) are relevant today in ways Quincy (and Quincy's friend who weaved together the book) may not have foreseen.
Ryan,
I am willing to make a concession. I recognize that the account in “Figures of the Past” is a later work in collecting data about what occurred during that brief period in May of 1844 just one month before the prophet died. You have made the following point in your opening post that the “grace of expression” has to be taken into consideration whereby we may not be getting a literal carbon copy of exactly what was said between Joseph Smith and Josiah Quincy. I totally get that and can appreciate the implications that there may be more to it than meets the eye.
Therefore, I am willing to concede that it’s possible that Joseph Smith never actually said the word “signature” during the conversation in which he was describing Abraham’s connection to the papyrus. It’s also possible that Quincy never actually said the word “autograph” in his reply. It’s entirely possible that the later account is using these words to best describe the conversation that took place between both parties and that “word choices” through the “grace of expression” were later employed to provide added detail in explaining the verbal transaction between Smith and Quincy.
With that said, however, I still maintain that Joseph Smith claimed the papyrus was an original manuscript written by the very hand of Abraham himself. Everything we know about what was said by Smith, Cowdery, and others, shows that the saints believed they had a 3,500 year old document and that it was an original artifact produced by the patriarch himself.
Taking into consideration that I am willing to concede that the words signature & autograph may be an afterthought later on in describing what took place, I hereby offer this alternative to describe what may have been said and implied:
SMITH:“My time has hitherto been too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There, that is the name of the patriarch Abraham.”
QUINCY:“It is indeed a most interesting observation, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect in this place.”
That means a lot, really. Thank you. There are soooo many different data points when it comes to the Book of Abraham, as you know. And I don’t claim to have all the answers. But one thing we agree on, I think, is that the convergence of different points is what matters.
I do believe the papyrus containing the text of the Book of Abraham was more ancient than the Ptolemaic-era records. And I think Joseph Smith had both. This is based on witness statements, which I break down in my theory. I think you said that you have a hard time viewing my blog, is that something that we could maybe troubleshoot?
That means a lot, really. Thank you. There are soooo many different data points when it comes to the Book of Abraham, as you know. And I don’t claim to have all the answers. But one thing we agree on, I think, is that the convergence of different points is what matters.
I do believe the papyrus containing the text of the Book of Abraham was more ancient than the Ptolemaic-era records. And I think Joseph Smith had both. This is based on witness statements, which I break down in my theory. I think you said that you have a hard time viewing my blog, is that something that we could maybe troubleshoot?
I think we have reached a fair consensus on the signature & autograph and can put Quincy’s later testimonial in a different perspective than the letter written to his wife which is an exact statement to the facts at hand. And from that we KNOW that Smith interpreted hieroglyphs in the presence of Quincy and that he demonstrated having knowledge of the Egyptian language. We get very specific examples of Smith demonstrating these kinds of interpretations from the Facsimiles that Smith published two years previous of that time.
Yes, you blog is hard to read. The background seriously clashes with the color of the font and is very hard on the eyes and is a horrible glare. You need to have a font style and color that coordinates with the background to make it pleasing and easy on the eyes.
Of course the topic of the age of the papyrus would deserve its own thread because that is a wide subject and goes far deeper than Josiah Quincy’s experience and testimonial. I’ve spent many years mulling over those matters.
That means a lot, really. Thank you. There are soooo many different data points when it comes to the Book of Abraham, as you know. And I don’t claim to have all the answers. But one thing we agree on, I think, is that the convergence of different points is what matters.
I do believe the papyrus containing the text of the Book of Abraham was more ancient than the Ptolemaic-era records. And I think Joseph Smith had both. This is based on witness statements, which I break down in my theory. I think you said that you have a hard time viewing my blog, is that something that we could maybe troubleshoot?
I think we have reached a fair consensus on the signature & autograph and can put Quincy’s later testimonial in a different perspective than the letter written to his wife which is an exact statement to the facts at hand. And from that we KNOW that Smith interpreted hieroglyphs in the presence of Quincy and that he demonstrated having knowledge of the Egyptian language. We get very specific examples of Smith demonstrating these kinds of interpretations from the Facsimiles that Smith published two years previous of that time.
Yes, you blog is hard to read. The background seriously clashes with the color of the font and is very hard on the eyes and is a horrible glare. You need to have a font style and color that coordinates with the background to make it pleasing and easy on the eyes.
Of course the topic of the age of the papyrus would deserve its own thread because that is a wide subject and goes far deeper than Josiah Quincy’s experience and testimonial. I’ve spent many years mulling over those matters.
Your computer or phone must have some “night settings” you could turn on, which could maybe soften the colors.
The font is too light and thin. It needs to be darkened. It vibrates and hurts my eyes.
Could you perhaps take a partial screenshot, so I can see if it looks different on your device than on mine?
A screen shot may not show what I am seeing and you may simply see what you are accustomed to seeing so that is pointless. Believe me, the font is too light colored and not dark enough against the backdrop. You may elect to cut and paste the entire article here on this board if you are unable or unwilling to change the font and color to accommodate potential readers such as my self.
Philo and Res Ipsa, have you read it? Does it strain your eyes? What about others who are reading this thread? What do you think?
Could you perhaps take a partial screenshot, so I can see if it looks different on your device than on mine?
A screen shot may not show what I am seeing and you may simply see what you are accustomed to seeing so that is pointless. Believe me, the font is too light colored and not dark enough against the backdrop. You may elect to cut and paste the entire article here on this board if you are unable or unwilling to change the font and color to accommodate potential readers such as my self.
Philo and Res Ipsa, have you read it? Does it strain your eyes? What about others who are reading this thread? What do you think?
I have old eyes, too. I don't get the vibrating effect that you do. But it is a little hard to read because the font is so light, especially text in italics.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Haha well blogger is problematic in a number of ways. I’m reluctant to change things because of unintended consequences I’ve had to deal with in da past. But I guess you could copy a whole post and past it into word or somethin?
Could you perhaps take a partial screenshot, so I can see if it looks different on your device than on mine?
A screen shot may not show what I am seeing and you may simply see what you are accustomed to seeing so that is pointless. Believe me, the font is too light colored and not dark enough against the backdrop. You may elect to cut and paste the entire article here on this board if you are unable or unwilling to change the font and color to accommodate potential readers such as my self.
Philo and Res Ipsa, have you read it? Does it strain your eyes? What about others who are reading this thread? What do you think?
No it doesn't strain my eyes, but then I make the font really big, usually on everything I read online.
