Let's concentrate on the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham to try to illustrate what I mean, since that is what you are probably most familiar with. To an Egyptologist Figure 1 is Khnum in Facsimile 2. Barney would say that it was adapted to be Kolob. That adds a secondary intent when something was originally Khnum to the Egyptians. To an Egyptologist, Facsimile 1, Figure 2 is Osiris. Barney would say this was adapted to be Abraham. Do you see the Secondary Intent?
Now, for same principle in the Sensen Papyrus in the so-called text. The Egyptian Alphabet in the KEP says that the reed symbol is ChalsidonHiash, the land of the Chaldees. To an Egyptologist, it is the reed symbol, the Uniliteral I character in the Egyptian phonetic alphabet, a piece of a word, not a pictograph. But the KEP treats it as a pictograph. A reverse-engineering of the KEP name shows that the ChalsidonHiash name is actually identical to Karduniash, a well-known and ancient place-name for Southern Babylonia, the land of the Chaldees. And it was also known as Kiengi, Land of Reeds, showing the pictographic use of the reed symbol to represent a place. Wala. Secondary Intent, the same as with the Facsimile pictures. This character was adapted by the same ancient person to represent the Land of the Chaldees that also adapted the symbol of Osiris to represent Abraham. It is the same exact concept. It was not used as an element of text by the person Barney calls J-red [i.e. the hypothetical "Jewish Redactor," who to me is one or more Egyptian Syncretist/Magician(s), although a Jew is within the realm of strong possibilities] . It was used as a pictograph, the same way that J-red used Osiris to represent Abraham in the picture.
There isn't really all that much that is new here except for actually following through and not having special, artificial exceptions for these characters (where one would believe that the principles of interpretation of these characters are somehow different than for the ones that are pictures in the Facsimiles). If we are not allowing ourselves to be told that these principles ONLY apply to the pictures in the Facsimiles, then we actually break through the barrier. I have applied these same principles to characters in the text and in the columns that nobody else wanted to defend apologetically, and have allowed Joseph Smith's words to actually mean what they plainly say in the KEP.
In their conception, some people wanted to have J-red ONLY adapt the Facsimile pictures, but they wanted to be able to write off and toss out all the translations for the characters in the text and in the columns. I say just treat them the same as the rest. That's where I say that other people have made a big mistake. That's where I say that I have real results in reverse-engineering the KEP that contains translations for these very characters that everyone else wanted to write off and give up on. I am just taking Barney's and Moyer's principles to their logical conclusion by applying them to the KEP and to the Sensen so-called "text" characters also. Why didn't anybody do this decades ago? Because they are so hung up with the idea that the Egyptologists are saying that the Sensen Text is nothing but text and cannot be used any other way. They allowed the Egyptologists to convince them there was no secondary intent, when the KEP demands secondary intent, just like the explanations for the facsimiles. But the Semitic Adaptation Theory for the facsimiles is not Egpytological either. It requires that apologists open their minds to something outside of standard Egyptological assumptions. So why not go one step further and solve the problem of the KEP and the Sensen so-called "text" characters with the very principles we already know?
The Egyptian Alphabet English Text in the KEP has always made the same exact claims as the Facsimile explanations text, that it represents explanations of characters. If we are going to verify Joseph Smith's claims, we ought to pay attention to how he says the characters were used in this Secondary Intent, and actually test the claim to see if we can actually show that it is so. And we can. These symbols were used pictographically by these people that had the System of Interpretation that they used, not as text. That doesn't make the original (Egyptological) intent wrong. It just makes it the original intent, not the secondary one.
In other words, yes, on a surface, mundane level, factually speaking, the Sensen Papyrus is just a "regular old funerary papyrus" that Hugh Nibley showed to be an Endowment. But it's characters in the text were also used as pictures by other people later on, to go along as section markers with the Book of Abraham text. It is true that the hieratic characters look like cursive scribbles to us and not a lot like pictures. But if you study the rest of my posts carefully in this blog, you will see that I have successfully demonstrated in depth in a number of instances the pictographic intent of these characters, and I am not just "puffing" in the sense of trying to make my theory sound good with extravagant statements. I actually have real demonstrations of what I am talking about, and I challenge the reader to study them out. They are documented for your eyes to see.
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about with Secondary Intent in Egyptian:
One statue from the reign of Ramesses II is an ideal example of the application of the rebus principle to sculpture. This statue is clearly composed of three primary parts: the pharaoh as a child, a large falcon representing Re, and a sculpted sedge plant. Less obvious is the fact these three sections of the statue represent phonograms, which combine to read “Ramesses”: a visual pun on the name of the king. Wilson notes that it would be unusual to see the king depicted as a child, and that the plant at first seems incongruous, but once the symbols are understood, the full meaning of the sculpture falls into place. Beyond a simple reading of the signs, this sort of depiction displays a certain playfulness on the part of its creators that would have been entirely lost on a viewer without knowledge of the language.There are also complete texts that demonstrate this unexpectedly humorous aspect of Egyptian culture. One example is a hymn to Sobek, the crocodile god, from the Temple of Esna. The inscription is composed of a long series of crocodile hieroglyphs. This would not be possible in a system of writing with a one-to-one correspondence of ideogram to meaning, where a picture of a crocodile would represent only a crocodile. In Egyptian writing, a pictograph of a crocodile could be read to mean “divine”, “time”, “one who seizes” and a number of other terms, often conceptually related. Other artists took advantage of this ability of hieroglyphs, creating texts that could be read either vertically or horizontally with a different meaning in each direction. (http://cujah.org/past-volumes/volume-iv/volume-iv-essay-11/)
Similarly, our text in the Sensen Papyrus has a different meaning when viewed as a set of pictographs, each representing a separate theme, rather than a text that reads in regular Egyptian. It certainly does read that regular way, but it has secondary intent, not dissimilar to these other examples above. It is not exactly the same, but it is very similar. And it has external dependencies required for it to be given context. Joseph Smith's notebook acts as a "key," and it is likely that ancient interpreters would have had a similar type of document for interpretive context.