It is currently Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:26 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:11 pm 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm
Posts: 859
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 BofA 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.

_________________
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:15 pm 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm
Posts: 859
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 BofA 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 BofA.

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 > BofA.

The GAEL does contain material that was later used in the BofA, but the origin of that material was not the BofA but what was known as the epitaph of Katumin and the record of Joseph (aka 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 BofA 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 BofA, 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 BofA, 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 BofA.

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)

_________________
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm
Posts: 6691
Dan Vogel wrote:
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:52 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 5721
Location: Firmly on this earth
I am most definitely still interested in your comments and analysis Dan..... this is terrific!

_________________
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:00 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 10409
Location: Hell
Philo Sofee wrote:
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 . . . .

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1343
Location: Parowan, Utah
Quote:
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?

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 5721
Location: Firmly on this earth
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!

_________________
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:21 pm 
First Presidency
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 830
Symmachus wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1343
Location: Parowan, Utah
TrashcanMan79 wrote:
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.

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 20862
Location: Koloburbia
Dan Vogel wrote:
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.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:23 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 9020
Does anyone have a link to the Jeff Lindsay piece Dan has responded to?

_________________
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:27 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 8592
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
I have a question wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the Jeff Lindsay piece Dan has responded to?


Here you go.

Robert "Gas Bag" Smith at MAD has called this a "lengthy and devastating critique". He is half right.

_________________
What Joseph Smith should have said: "No man knows my hagiography."
What Jane Manning did say: "I am white except for the color of my skin."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:11 pm 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm
Posts: 859
In Part 3 (34-58), Lindsay criticizes Jensen and Hauglid for assuming work on the Egyptian project ended when Joseph Smith began studying Hebrew under Joshua Seixas in January 1836, arguing that there are clear signs of Hebrew influence in the GAEL and therefore Jensen and Hauglid are wrong to date it to “circa July-circa November 1835.”

Lindsay believes that evidence of Hebrew influence in the GAEL necessarily dates it to after the arrival of Cowdery with Hebrew lexicons, dictionaries, and lesson books on 20 November 1835, and therefore Jensen and Hauglid “may need to be revised to later dates more in line with the dates previously proposed by John Gee (e.g., Oct. 29, 1835 to April
1836 for documents in the handwriting of Warren Parrish)” (p. 35). Actually, Gee dates the GAEL to “Between January and April 1835” (Gee, Introduction, 33), because he incorrectly argued that “The system of transliteration that Phelps used in the [Grammar] book follows the transliteration system taught by Josiah [Joshua] Seixas beginning in January of 1836” (Gee, “Joseph Smith and Ancient Egypt,” in Approaching Antiquity, 440-41). To his credit, Lindsay questions Gee’s assertion (pp. 42-43) but instead argues that the GAEL was written in late November-December 1835, after the arrival of the books but before lessons with Seixas. This is because he recognizes that Hebrew influence on the GAEL is rudimentary, not going much beyond knowledge of the alphabet or a “very basic study of Hebrew.”

The problem with this timeline is that it requires very limited time for Joseph Smith (or Phelps) to study Hebrew on his own, workout the “Egyptian Counting,” and dictate the entire GAEL. It also requires Lindsay to dismiss the entry in the History of the Church, written probably with Joseph Smith’s and/or Phelps’ help, which dates the beginning of the Alphabets and GAEL to the latter part of July 1835, as well as the entry in Joseph Smith’s journal mentioning working on the Egyptian alphabet and the unfolding of the system of astronomy, which appears at the end of the GAEL.

While there is some evidence of a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, Lindsay knows that it’s not enough to date the GAEL to after 20 November 1835. So he makes the astonishing claim that “one can readily find evidence of a more extensive impact of Hebrew study on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, even to the point of being able to pinpoint specific content in some Hebrew books as potential sources of both characters and concepts in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers” (35). This overstates his evidence.

His evidence is a similar shaped character on the “Egyptian Counting” document representing the number 2 that looks a lot like an alternate shape for the character for Beth (the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet), which appears in a chart in Moses Stuart, A Grammar of the Hebrew Language, 5th ed. (Andover, MA: Gould and Newman, 1835), one of the books Cowdery brought from the East. Based on this one character Lindsay wants us to revise a carefully-constructed and sound chronology. I don’t think so.

However, this evidence has problems that even Lindsay seems to recognize. First, if one looks at the “Egyptian Counting” document the shape for 2 is similar to the Arabic 2, and therefore could simply be a disguised 2. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that the numbers for 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are also similar to their Arabic equivalents.

Second, Cowdery brought the 5th edition of Moses Stuart’s A Grammar of the Hebrew Language printed in 1835, but that doesn’t mean that no one had access to an earlier edition of Stuart’s book.

Third, the character was published in other similar charts by other authors as early as the eighteenth century. Lindsay himself gives an example from Thomas Astle, The Origin and Progress of Writing: As Well Hieroglyphic as Elementary (London: T. Payne & Son, B. White, P. Elmsly, G. Nichol, and Leigh and Sotheby, 1784), Table 1, p. 64.

However, I don’t see Joseph Smith looking at the chart in Stuart’s book, or any book, and borrowing just one letter, no matter what date one wants to assign. Even Lindsay notes that these characters on the “mysterious Egyptian Counting document” aren’t Egyptian (p. 49). So where did they come from and how does this document fit into the Egyptian project? Despite the words at the top of the first page “Egyptian Counting,” there is no connecting to the Egyptian project. I think this document is best understood as part of the pure language project that predated the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and was subsequently carried over into the Egyptian project, as we see happening in the Alphabets. An examination of so-called the Book of Mormon characters shows that Joseph Smith favored familiar shapes derived from English letters and Arabic numerals when inventing ancient-looking characters. So it seems probable that the “Egyptian Counting” document reflects an earlier rather than later time.

Besides, the one character from Stuart’s chart, Lindsay states: “No other clear correspondence exists with the Egyptian Counting document” (p. 50). Nevertheless, Lindsay attempts to compare Stuart’s characters with other characters in the KEP, but these are random, superficial, and limited to simple characters (characters shaped like a sideways F, a Y, and an inverted A, for example). There is nothing that could be considered compelling or striking. However, trying to locate Lindsay’s parallels is difficult because they are highly subjective, forced (by rotating or deleting parts of the characters), and downright silly.

Lindsay demonstrates that he doesn’t know the KEP well when compares a character on page 2 of the GAEL with an Arabic character corresponding with the Hebrew character daleth in Stuart’s chart (p. 52). Lindsay evidently doesn’t know that this character in the GAEL appears at the ends of the three Alphabets and was taken from the beginning of JSP XI, referred to as the w-loop character (by Nibley even), but has since flaked off.

Lindsay tries to suggest that the underlining of characters to indicate degrees and the Iota dot in the GAEL are like Hebrew diacritics or vowels. However, the lines come from the papyri and the dots come from Joseph Smith’s misreading of the flaked ink.

This should be enough to show that Lindsay has no evidence from Hebrew that forces us to abandon dating of the GAEL to between July and October or November 1835. The rest of Lindsay’s discussion is weak speculation that should have been cut by the editors.

To be continued.

_________________
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:47 pm 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm
Posts: 859
In Part 4, Lindsay criticizes Jensen and Hauglid’s dates for key documents (pp. 58-62). Lindsay is correct in noting that documents with Warren Parrish’s handwriting necessarily date to after he was hired as Joseph Smith’s scribe on 29 October 1835, at least the portion of the document in his handwriting. Hence, he finds it improper for Jensen and Hauglid to label Book of Abraham Manuscript-B, which is entirely in Parrish’s handwriting: “circa July-circa November 1835.” This is a reasonable concern. However, he also questions the same dating for Book of Abraham Manuscript-C, which bears both the handwriting of Phelps on the first page and Parrish’s for the remainder of the document. Here Jensen and Hauglid’s dating is perfectly sound.

Lindsay tries to defend Gee’s dating: “Here John Gee’s assessment is more reasonable: he lists both documents as from October 29, 1835 to April 1836, a range that leaves open the possibility of Hebrew study influence” (p. 59). However, this is not Gee’s dating. Gee dates Phelps’ contribution “Between July 1835 and 29 October 1835” and Parrish’s “Between 29 October 1835 and 1 April 1835” (Gee, Introduction, 27, 34). The only difference is the cut-off date, Gee apologetic reverse-translation theory motivating him to extend the dating as far as possible. Because the Williams and Parrish documents begin with a notation in the top margin mentioning the “second part” of the “fifth degree,” they necessarily date to after the GAEL. Since Gee dates the GAEL to early 1836, the Williams and Parrish documents must be copies, not original dictated documents, and must also date to 1836. This is pure speculation motivated by a need to maintain the equally speculative reverse-translation theory, which is founded on a flawed and superficial understanding of the document sources.

Lindsay also criticizes Jensen and Hauglid for dating the three Egyptian Alphabets and GAEL to between July and November 1835, because “this generous date range would enable the Kirtland Egyptian Papers to serve as sources for the production of the Book of Abraham, a theory favored either intentionally or unintentionally in the treatment of these documents in JSPRT4, consistent with the personal views at least one of the editors but not consistent with the unreferenced analysis of other scholars” (p. 61). On the other hand, Lindsay argues, “If these documents arose after November 1835, then that would strengthen the argument of apologists that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are derived from the revealed translation and not the other way around. The dates matter, at least to some people and for some issues. Unfortunately, textual clues indicate the assumed dates presented in JSPRT4 are in serious error (see Issue 3, above, on the implications of Hebrew study on the dates of documents)” (p. 61).

As previously mentioned, Lindsay’s arguments are irrelevant because the Alphabets and the GAEL are not about the text of the BofA. They stand alone as translations of various characters taken from other portions of the papyri that JSP XI, which is the source of the BofA. The History of the Church, which was written with the participation of both Phelps and Joseph Smith, dates the beginning of the Alphabets and the GAEL to July 1835, and the entry in Joseph Smith’s journal mentioning working on the Egyptian alphabet and unfolding of ancient astronomy probably refers to the material at the end of the GAEL, although a little more was later added in Parrish’s handwriting.

To be continued.

_________________
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:33 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 10409
Location: Hell
Dan,

I studied this crap in depth a long time ago but these days it has all turned to rust. I was wondering if you like to comment on this:

Egyptian Counting within the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:53 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 6579
Location: The Land of Lorn
I have read Lindsay at length since Mormon apologists love to quote him. His arguments are shallow, lack any common sense, and are carefully written with the conclusion already in mind: protect the church at all costs. He's a horrible writer and an even worse researcher. What he is doing here though, is a new low, complaining that others aren't doing what he is doing, lying about everything.

_________________

Riding on a speeding train;
trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain;
Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world
can change your direction:
One step where events converge
may alter your perception.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:41 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 5721
Location: Firmly on this earth
grindael wrote:
I have read Lindsay at length since Mormon apologists love to quote him. His arguments are shallow, lack any common sense, and are carefully written with the conclusion already in mind: protect the church at all costs. He's a horrible writer and an even worse researcher. What he is doing here though, is a new low, complaining that others aren't doing what he is doing, lying about everything.


And, as he well knows, he could bring his ideas over here for actual peer review, and his materials would end up being a lot better. Or actually, he would end up not writing anything at all, since none of it would pass peer review. :cool: And NONE of his counter arguments would EVER be deleted, modified, or banned! But wait! There's more! If he acts right now, we will peer review him for free, and offer him a Dan Peterson bobble head for the back window of his car. But wait, there's more! If he hurries now, we will throw in the bonus of peer reviewing anything he writes as co-author with the world famous traveler and historical scholar Lou Midgley for free. But this offer ends soon, so you must act NOW! And, YES! There is MORE, much more! If you act NOW, we will also include, at no extra charge, a free Lou Midgley bobble head for the back window of your car, so you can have two free world famous Mormon apologist bobble heads!!! This offer ends soon, act NOW!

_________________
Is Midgely serious? Peterson's blog is a patty-cake, surface only, all too frequently plagiarized bit of ephemeral nonsense. Why would anyone suppose avatars must be real? Midgley has lost his tiny little mind. Maybe he can go over to never-neverland and harass Peter Pan for not really knowing how to fly. -Lemmie-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:12 pm 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm
Posts: 859
Shulem wrote:
Dan,

I studied this crap in depth a long time ago but these days it has all turned to rust. I was wondering if you like to comment on this:

Egyptian Counting within the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language


Yes, it appears the Egyptian Counting influenced the content of the GAEL.

_________________
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:13 pm 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm
Posts: 859
In Part 5 (pp. 61-76), Lindsay criticizes Jensen and Hauglid for giving “improper credibility” to the critics’ claim that BofA Manuscripts A and B in the handwritings of Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish were created simultaneously as Joseph Smith dictated. The evidence for this is quite strong, but Lindsay strenuously resists evidence because he knows it is devastating to the apologists’ reverse-translation theory.

Proponents of the reverse-translation theory want the entire BofA and possibly more to have been dictated by Joseph Smith in July 1835 before the creation of the Alphabets and the GAEL. However, if the Williams and Parrish documents were created simultaneously then both are originals, not copies, and necessarily date to after Parrish was hired on 29 October 1835, which is much too late to fit the apologists’ scenario. Another problem is that both documents begin with a notation mentioning the “second part” of the “fifth degree,” which implies that they date to after the GAEL. One would also have to conclude that if any translation were performed in July 1835, it would necessarily be limited to the first three verses.

The evidence for simultaneous recording is several inline corrections made near the beginning of both documents that are not otherwise easily explained. Jensen and Hauglid try to accommodate both critics and apologists when they state:

“Joseph Smith may have dictated some or most of the text to both scribes at the same time. In that case, these two manuscripts would likely be the earliest dictated copies of the Book of Abraham. Some scribal errors in the later portion of the manuscript made by Williams, however, indicate that he copied some of his text from another manuscript. Joseph Smith may have read aloud to Williams and Parrish from an earlier, nonextant text, making corrections as he went; ...” (Jensen and Hauglid, 192). The was quoted by Lindsay (p. 62), but this wasn’t good enough for him because it “undermines” belief in the BofA and the Restoration. “Those are all key talking points for critics of the Book of Abraham, part of the basic fabric for the case against Joseph as a prophet. But a more careful examination of these documents reveals the questionable scholarship behind such arguments” (p. 63). However, Lindsay’s attempt to escape this evidence only undermines his scholarship and demonstrates that he is only interested in apologetic talking points, not in fair play as he professes.

The first example occurs in Abraham 1:4:

Williams
I sought for {the} <mine> appointment
{whereunto} unto the priesthood according
to the appointment of God unto the fathers
concerning the seed

Parrish
I sought for {the} <mine> appointment
{whereunto} unto the priesthood according
to the appointment of God unto the fathers
concerning the seed

Here both Williams and Parrish wrote “whereunto” then cancelled it and wrote “unto” on the line immediately following this cancellation. This shows that one scribe was not simply copying the other; nor were they copying a now missing document. The simplest way to explain how the same emendation could occur in two documents is that both were writing from dictation at the same time and Joseph Smith made an immediate correction.

To escape the implications of this evidence, Lindsay invents an ad hoc scenario wherein he imagines Parrish was visually copying an existing document while at the same time reading aloud so that Williams can make a copy too. In the “Valuable Discovery” notebooks there is evidence for Joseph Smith dictating while Cowdery and Phelps recorded the passage about princess Katumin, but where is evidence for what Lindsay describes? Besides, what he describes in implausible because it requires Parrish to see what he is copying incorrectly, copy it incorrectly, verbally repeat it incorrectly, then after Williams has copied it correct himself. This is what leads Lindsay into wild and unrestrained speculation about how such a thing could occur in the real world.

Lindsay asserts: “The common mistakes and corrections in the beginning of the documents are hard to explain if Joseph were dictating and already had a sentence in his head, but make sense if a scribe is reading aloud from an existing manuscript a few words at a time as both scribes then write what has been spoken” (p. 65). The truth is the other way around. Conceivably, Joseph Smith began to say, “I sought for the appointment whereunto God had appointed me” or “the fathers,” but changed his mind. This happens all the time in dictation.

Instead, Lindsay tries to explain it as a visual mistake. He believes that the text Parrish was looking at read “I sought for mine appointment unto,” but that he copied and spoke “I sought for the appointment whereunto,” and then caught his mistake. He explains that Parrish’s eye skipped ahead to “the appointment” before “of God,” or Parrish may have “subconsciously” changed “mine” to “the” because he wasn’t used to seeing “mine in front of a noun.” Lindsay goes so far as to speculate that Parrish may have been confused since “mine ends with ne, which can look like he in the” (p. 65). This is the serious scholarship Lindsay wants Jensen and Hauglid to consider replacing with the “questionable scholarship” of the critics?

Lindsay obviously doesn’t know how haplography occurs. If the scribe’s eye accidentally skipped ahead, we should expect it to read: “I sought for [mine appointment unto the priesthood according to] the appointment of God unto the fathers,” with the words in brackets missing. In other words, we wouldn’t expect “appointment whereunto.”

Trying to explain the appearance of “whereunto” leads Lindsay further into incoherence. According to Lindsay, “The conversion of unto into whereunto makes sense as a scribal or reading error given that whereunto was just used in a similar context earlier in Abraham 1:2” (p. 66). In other words, Parrish was momentarily confused and said the wrong word because he had said it several sentences earlier. However, the error is not one of simple substitution but also the absence of the words “of God.”

Another problem is that according to Lindsay’s theory Parrish had not read Abraham 1:2, since both Williams and Parrish begin with Abraham 1:4. Lindsay stumbles all over himself trying to keep his ad hoc speculation from imploding: “If the person reading the text to our two scribes had the complete text of Abraham 1 in hand, helping them to make copies for their own use or study, perhaps, then if that person had previously read verse 2 or were familiar with it, then memory (or visual memory) of that previous whereunto regarding Priesthood rights could easily cause one to stumble and say whereunto instead of unto” (p. 66). This reveals yet another problem with Lindsay’s theory: explaining why the two scribes began with verse 4 instead of at the beginning. The obvious answer is that they were continuing the text where Phelps had left off, which implies there was not speculated complete text dating to July 1835.

Needless to say, this is not only bad scholarship, but the worst kind of apologetics.

Lindsay spared readers of his excessively long review similar ridiculous explanations for several other inline corrections appearing in both the Parrish and Williams documents, which he has given on his thoroughly apologetic Mormanity blog.

_________________
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:29 am 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm
Posts: 859
Continuing my response to Lindsay’s Part 5 (pp. 61-76), I will discuss his apologetic approach to dismissing evidence that the Parrish and Williams manuscripts of the BofA were created simultaneously as Joseph Smith dictated, which he omitted from his Interpreter essay but included on his Mormanity blog—“The Twin Book of Abraham Manuscripts: Do They Reflect Live Translation Produced by Joseph Smith, or Were They Copied From an Existing Document?” (4 July 2019)


Abraham 1:17

Williams
... and this because {their hearts are turned} they have turned their hearts away from me to worship the god of Elk Kee-nah ...

Parrish
... and this because {their harts are turn} they have turned their hearts away from me, to worship the god of Elkkener, ...

Here Joseph Smith dictated “their hearts are turned” and immediately changed it to “they have turned their hearts.”

Lindsay tries to speculate his way out of this one: “It could also occur ... if the original manuscript Parrish was seeing had the initial phrase only lightly stricken out or with a penciled in correction that caused initial confusion about the editorial intent.” However, on this one he admits the critic’s interpretation is stronger.


Abraham 1:26

Williams
... in the first generation in the days of the first Patriarchal reign,
even in the reign of Adam.
And also Noah his father. {For in his days}
who blessed him with the blessings of the earth ...

Parrish
... in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam;
and also Noah his father, {for in his days},
who blessed him, with the blessings of the earth ...


Here Joseph Smith evidently changed the direction of his narrative after both Williams and Parrish recorded four words.

According to Lindsay, Parrish (or whoever was reading) was influenced by the first occurrence of the phrase “in the days,” which somehow led him to accidentally repeat the phrase, although adding the word “for” preceding it. While can easily understand how Joseph Smith could start to say something like “for in the days of Noah,” and then change his mind, it is not easy to see how a reader can arbitrarily insert “for in the days.” Lindsay further imagines, “Upon noticing and reading ‘who blessed him,’ the incongruity would have been noted and the error detected.” There is absolutely no logic to this assertion. Indeed, with such freewheeling reasoning, Lindsay could resist any evidence.

_________________
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on FPR
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:32 am 
Prophet
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:26 pm
Posts: 859
In Part 6 of his review (pp. 76-85), Lindsay criticizes Jensen and Hauglid (as well as Terryl Givens) for “downplaying common knowledge about Champollion and the nature of the Egyptian language.” These scholars have simply pointed out that the KEP seem to reflect a view about Egyptian characters that pre-dated Champollion, where a character could be packed with layers of meaning, a view dating back to Athanasius Kircher in the seventeenth century. According to Lindsay, Joseph Smith, W. W. Phelps, and other early Mormons must have known about Champollion’s decipherment of the Rosetta Stone, which raises serious doubt about “the possibility that Joseph Smith really may have thought he could translate hundreds of words of text from a single Egyptian character, as we have in a standard critical narrative about how Joseph allegedly translated the Book of Abraham” (pp. 76-77).

Given this argument, how then does he propose to explain the five degree system in the GAEL? Oliver Cowdery in the December 1835 issue of the Messenger and Advocate said the Egyptian language was “very comprehensive,” and the first pages of the GAEL explain how each line and dot could produce a sentence in English and how that could be further expanded in each of the five degrees. Lindsay can produce no evidence for knowledge of Champollion among early Mormons. Considering their views about Egyptian, it could be taken as evidence that they were quite ignorant of Champollion’s work or perhaps didn’t appreciate its implications.

A careful examination of the BofA manuscripts show that the characters were not placed in the left margin to mark paragraphs, either to decorate or organize the text. The paragraphing does not occur where expected, but occasionally paragraphs are created in midsentence, suggesting that the text was being aligned with the characters. This in turn suggests that the text is a translation of the characters. This is especially clear in W. W. Phelps’ text of Abraham 1:1-3, where the characters and text of keyed to numbers.

This concludes my response to Lindsay’s review of Jensen and Hauglid’s book.

_________________
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dr. Shades, Gray Ghost, huckelberry, Majestic-12 [Bot], oliblish and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group