Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _I have a question »

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')
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _Fence Sitter »

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.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _Dan Vogel »

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)
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _Dan Vogel »

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 Book of Abraham. They stand alone as translations of various characters taken from other portions of the papyri that JSP XI, which is the source of the Book of Abraham. 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)
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _Shulem »

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
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _grindael »

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.
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _Philo Sofee »

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!
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _Dan Vogel »

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)
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _Dan Vogel »

In Part 5 (pp. 61-76), Lindsay criticizes Jensen and Hauglid for giving “improper credibility” to the critics’ claim that Book of Abraham 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 Book of Abraham 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 Book of Abraham 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)
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

Re: Vogel responds to Ostler and Lindsay on Faith-Promoting Rumor

Post by _Dan Vogel »

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 Book of Abraham 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)
Post Reply