Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Phelph's "Pure Language" Sample and its Relationship to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers: Why Some KEP Researchers have let the Tail Wag the Dog

(Source: http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk110/schryver1960/EA%20Characters/Phelps-Letter-Comparison.jpg)

(Source: http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk110/schryver1960/EA%20Characters/Second-Part-Chars.jpg)

(Source: http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk110/schryver1960/EA%20Characters/EA-WP-EA-JS-Comparison.jpg)

The credit for the above images goes to William Schryver.  He provided them to show the similarities between the characters in the Letter of W. W. Phelps to his wife, and the characters in the KEP/Egyptian Alphabet.

Chris Smith talks about it here:

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2009/10/specimen-of-some-of-pure-language.html

This is related to this document:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/sample-of-pure-language-between-circa-4-and-circa-20-march-1832

A SAMPLE of pure language
given by Joseph the Seer as copied by Br Johnson

Question What is the name of God in pure Language
Answer Awman.
Q The meaning of the pure word Aman
A It is the being which made all things in all its parts.
Q What is the name of the Son of God.
A The Son Awman.
Q What is the Son Awman.
A It is the greatest of all the parts of Awman which is the godhead the first born.
Q What is man.
A This signifies Sons Awman. the human family the children of men the greatest parts of Awman Sons the Son Awman
Q What are Angels called in pure language.
A Awman Angls men
Q What are the meaning of these words.
A Awman’s Ministering servants Sanctified who are sent forth from heaven to minister for or to Sons Awmen the greatest part of Awman Son. Sons Awmen Son Awmen Awman


Anyway, Phelps translations of the characters are clearly based on Joseph Smith's earlier revelation on the "parts of God."  Brigham Young also gave an account of this revelation which is found in the Journal of Discourses.

Because of the correspondences of the meanings of the translations, between the KEP and the Phelps letter, KEP researchers in the Church have come up with pretty wild explanations, ranging from Phelps being the mastermind of the KEP project, to the whole KEP being an attempt to get back to a "pure language."

Both propositions are wrong in my opinion, not only because of the scribes controversy where it is clear that Phelps was JUST a scribe, but also because the KEP version is NOT an attempt at matching up the characters with words in the Adamic language, but in other language items that are not all of the same language family, the entire set of which Joseph Smith was calling "Egyptian."  The research prior in this blog shows that there are a number of things that are called Egyptian that are not specifically Ancient Egyptian that we would think of, but are of other language families.  Whatever the "technical" name of the language(s) is/are in the KEP, it is NOT Adamic.  If it were the Adamic or pure language in the KEP, then the pronunciations in the words would match with Phelph's Adamic pronunciations, which they do not.  On the other hand, the Phelps letter that also shows these same "letters" or characters from this part of the Egyptian Alphabet ARE his attempt at matching them up with Adamic pronunciations.  So, rather than the KEP showing an attempt to get back to some pure language and equating Egyptian to Adamic as some KEP researchers would have you believe, what is really happening is that Phelps has used characters from the Egyptian Alphabet to match them up with words in Adamic in his letter ONLY.

In other words, it is the PHELPS LETTER which is the attempt to line these characters up with words in the Adamic, NOT the KEP version.  So, some KEP scholars like Samuel Brown and William Schryver would tell you that this shows evidence that the KEP itself was an attempt to get back to a pure language because of the Phelps letter evidence, which is an unjustifiable assumption.  That is the tail wagging the dog, because you cannot generalize like this about the KEP just because Phelps was doing an exercise in Adamic in one letter with words that he got from Joseph Smith, and matching them up with the characters in the Egyptian Alphabet that have the same basic meaning.  In other words, the KEP is an exercise to get to the bottom of meanings of Egyptian characters.  The Phelps letter shows a different but linked idea for Adamic.  Therefore, the Phelps letter is an exercise in the pure language.  The KEP is NOT.  Because, as we have shown, the numerals in the KEP are Indo-European (Indo-Iranian) with Sino-Tibetan in the mix, making them close to the Himalayan language family.  The word Chalsidonhiash is Karduniash, which is a word from Kassite.  While neither of these languages are technically Egyptian, and we have yet to figure out exactly what they have to do with Egyptians, they are NOT Adamic.

Good Illustrations/Comparisons of the Characters in the Sensen Columns to the Characters in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56311-missing-scroll-theory/?p=1209068968

At this message in a thread on Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board, a poster named "Xander" contributed these images which are useful in demonstrating the fact that characters were taken from the Sensen Papyrus in the columns and put in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, and some were translated.  When I find stuff like this, it saves me time:

(Source: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm165/dartagnanx/a.jpg)

(Source: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm165/dartagnanx/b.jpg)


(Source: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm165/dartagnanx/c.jpg)


(Source: http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm165/dartagnanx/d.jpg)

Robert F. Smith's "A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham

Here is a link to Robert F. Smith's article above.  It was brought to my attention by a new facebook friend.  I have messaged him before on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board and he seems to be a reasonable man.  This is a very good article.  I can't think of anything significant that I disagree with in it.  He mentions both Syncretism and Iconotropy in the article, things that have been widely accepted in LDS Scholarly circles in the last several years about the Book of Abraham.  However, I do want to focus in on one issue in the article in this blog post:

The Book of Abraham facsimiles contain artistic and iconotropic material which (as with all Egyptian art and iconography) can be "read" all by themselves, or are to be "read" right along with the accompanying Egyptian words.  As the eminent Egyptologist James P. Allen has said:

The Egyptians did not distinguish hieroglyphic writing from other representations of reality, such as statues or scenes in relief. Both were a tjt, "symbol," rather than an accurate representation of reality. Hieroglyphic signs were often carved with the same detail as other pictorial elements of a scene. Conversely, statues or relief representations were themselves a kind of hieroglyph, a phenomenon most often illustrated in the animal-headed Egyptian gods--as, for instance, in the beetle-headed human form representing Ḫprj, "the Developing One" (a form of the sun-god).

He has also stated that paintings, vignettes, and inscriptions depicting the gods "are nothing more than large-scale ideograms." All are to be "read," which is what we should do, in order to bring powerful clarity to the discussion of the Abraham facsimiles.

And here I end the quote.  It is interesting that he mentions that the pictographic or pictoral elements where treated the same as the writing.  Then why not in other iconotropic usages of characters from a text as pictographic or ideogramic, as they are used in the KEP, but in a certain manner, are still supposed to be "read" in the same way ideogramic elements in facsimiles are, but just not "read" in the same way the text reads?  So, facsimiles can be "read" in this way, but the reverse cannot be true that characters from a "text" could be used as pictographic elements in the KEP?

Sunday, August 17, 2014

What are my Thoughts about Rejection of my Research?

I think it is best summed up by these statements:

The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes.

― Nikola Tesla

“Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

In summary, there has to be Pioneers in everything, even if you have to suffer for the fact that other people may be ignorant in their understanding of certain facts.  Some people love to remain in their ignorance, and even dedicate themselves to be a part of groups that love ignorance and maintenance of the status quo.


Abstractions and Concretions in Symbolism, and the Sensen Papyrus

Abstractions and concretions are terms that I have borrowed from the field of Computer Science to explain what is going on in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.  In his book One Eternal Round, Hugh Nibley wrote:

But what has the Book of Breathings to do with Abraham? . . .The very first line of the hieratic text bears a remarkable resemblance to Abraham's words in both Genesis and the Book of Abraham:  "Here begins the writing which Isis made for her brother Osiris to cause his ba to live."  In the Book of Abraham and in the Bible, Abraham says to his wife (and sister), Sarah, "and my soul shall live because of thee."  In Genesis 12:13 and Abraham 2:25: "Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee."  Why not simply, "I shall live"?  Why the awkward Egyptian idiom, "My ba shall live"?  That is an Egyptian doctrine, and the expression ba defies translation: but if it "cannot be translated, its meaning can certainly be explained," says Professor Louis V. Zabkar.  Among the many explanations offered, he gives his own definition as the "totality of [a person's] physical and psychic attributes and functions."  Many Egyptologists leave the word ba untranslated . . .
Routine Makes Ritual
How do Abraham and Sarah relate to Isis and Osiris?  The answer is, ritually.  Isis can take the name of more other women, human or divine, than any other character.  She is Ceres, Venus, Diana of the Ephesians, the triple-form Proserpine; in Athens she is Athena; in Cyprus the Paphian Aphrodite, etc.  Osiris, though he comes a poor second, takes the place of more Egyptians than any other God--at his or her funeral every Egyptian can be an Osiris.  Here in the two most venerable and sacred marriages in ancient literature (and the most romantic)--Abraham and Sarah, Isis and Osiris--husband and wife are also brother and sister.  In both cases, it is the woman who takes the lead to rescue her husband.  The next step in Abraham's story shows that we are dealing with a ritual situation, with a conscious repetition of a significant action which not only makes it a ritual but also makes it history.  A repeated ritual is a historical event literally, and the repetition confirms its historical possibility and reality. (One Eternal Round pp. 148-149)

Nibley then goes on to show how the same ritual was repeated with Abimelech king of Gerar, with Abraham saying his wife is his sister, not his wife.

In other words, as we and many others have pointed out, Abraham is Osiris ritually.  The symbol of Osiris is ritually Abraham.  The symbol of Sarah is ritually Isis.  In the words of Professor Faulconer of BYU, Abraham is an incarnation of Osiris.  Sarah is an incarnation of Isis.

And therefore, the Sensen document is ritually, the Book of Abraham, though not literally.  And in this, Joseph Smith was literally justified in claiming it to be the very Book of Abraham.  Technically speaking, we know it is not.  But, it is ritually the incarnation or stand-in that the Lord gave us to represent the Book of Abraham in our hands.  It was ritually made so by the Egyptian Priests that used its symbols to represent Abraham and themes from his book.  In other words, because these Syncretist Priests of the Magical Papyri Tradition ritualistically used the Sensen document to represent Abraham and his book, it has become so ritualistically.  Even though it isn't literally the text of the Book of Abraham, in Joseph Smith's hands, it is as good as if it was.  And the Lord accomplished the same work through Joseph Smith as if it was.  The text was produced through revelation, even though only the themes of the Book were represented pictographically and ritually by these priests in the Sensen document.

So, now back to the jargon of Computer Science.  I am a Software Engineer and have used analogies from Computer Science in earlier posts of my blog.

But, in other words, because Abraham can be represented by the symbol of Osiris, and becomes an incarnation of Osiris, therefore Abraham becomes the CONCRETE instance or incarnation of the ABSTRACT mythological symbol of Osiris because of shared attributes between the abstract symbol and the concrete incarnation of that symbol, not the least of which is the Husband/Brother and Wife/Sister phenomenon that Nibley points out.

So when I say, an abstract, non-literal symbol can be used to represent a concrete, literal, real instance or incarnation of that symbol, this is what I mean.

This is why I say, the abstraction is the reed symbol.  The concretion is the Land of the Chaldees, the Land of Reeds, as you saw in my previous posts about the reed symbol.  Something abstract (the reed) is used to represent something concrete (the Land of Reeds, or Southern Babylonia).  A REED SYMBOL IS GENERALIZED, BUT GIVEN SPECIFIC CONCRETE REALITY BY USING IT TO REPRESENT A CONCRETE LAND BY THAT NAME.  And this was made ritually so by the interpreters.  They invented this ritualistic secondary intent or secondary interpretive principle for Egyptian documents where they are employed using their symbols as abstractions for OTHER concrete realities, when their original authors may have not intended them to be used this way.  This is why I say, in computer science, if I have a variable type called VEHICLE, and it is abstract, because it isn't specific, if I DERIVE another variable type called CAR, it inherits some of its attributes from VEHICLE.  Because, as people know, while it is true that a car is a vehicle, not all vehicles are cars.  Some are buses.  Some are trucks.  But if I have a "key" for my "mapping", or in a computer program, if I declare my variable to be of type vehicle, but I instantiate a new instance of car, and ASSIGN it to the variable that is of type vehicle, then now my variable of type vehicle is now the representation of my car.  In other words, VEHICLE IS DESCRIPTIVE OF CAR, but is more generalized, and therefore more "ABSTRACT."  So, if I call Abraham by the name Osiris, or use the symbol of Osiris to represent Abraham, I am using an abstraction that by proxy represents a concretion.  The Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar contains mappings, or in other words, is a key providing concrete assignments to abstract symbols.  And the concrete things can be rationally represented by the abstractions because the abstractions contain attributes in common with the concretions.

So, the Sensen Papyrus is indeed the Book of Abraham, because it is an Abstract Proxy to represent a Concrete Instance of its attributes, which is the Book of Abraham.

So, ritually, the Sensen Papyrus is the Abstract Proxy Stand-In for the Book of Abraham.  For Anti- and Ex-Mormons to get hung up on the fact that we have been given a Abstract Proxy for the Book of Abraham is absurd, because the ancients were fine with that.  The Lord is fine with Proxy Stand-Ins for his children in the temple, where their work is done as if they were literally there.  The Lord has done the same thing for the Book of Abraham.  The proxy stand-in for it was sufficient for the work that Joseph Smith performed, and because it is the Abstract Proxy, it is not a lie that it is the Book of Abraham.  It is so, ritualistically.

Now, if we want to split hairs over technicalities, it is NOT the TEXT of the Book of Abraham, and everybody knows that.  But certainly, Joseph Smith was not necessarily taught by the Spirit what the differences are between ritual proxies and literal concrete originals in his translation process.  It didn't necessarily occur to him to ask.  But he at least was aware that he was working with symbols that only represented themes, not actual content.  That much is clear from the evidence in the KEP.

This is why apologists and critics alike cannot understand what Joseph Smith was doing with the KEP, because they are lost on this fundamental principle of what is happening.  They are lost on this concept of abstractions being used to represent concretions and how there must be a mapping or key to declare what the assignments are to the abstractions.  They get hung up on the Egyptological assumption of literalness for what are actually abstractions.  Anti-Mormons like the Robert Ritners of the world (incidentally he is an Egyptologist), claim that Osiris can never be anything other than Osiris.  So then for Joseph Smith to have used Osiris as an Abstraction to represent the Concrete Abraham is an absurdity, according to these types.  Well, the actual absurdity is for an Anti-Mormon Egyptologist to not notice the use of hieroglyphs and symbols as abstractions when that is a well-known principle in Egyptology.  Like for example, as Nibley said, where Osiris can represent pretty much any Egyptian or person.  That is pretty abstract.

Anyhow, just for clarity.  Using the words Abstractions and Concretions is just another way of describing Iconotropy or Adaptation of Symbols.