tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post7735823987574329416..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The Making of a Myth: A Possible Explanation for the Mysterious Ignorance of Champollion (Among Scholars)Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72960794948642890702019-08-25T06:49:44.733-05:002019-08-25T06:49:44.733-05:00Dan said, "I don’t think Ritner was saying th...Dan said, "I don’t think Ritner was saying that Champollion and his decipherment of the Rosetta Stone were unknown in America, only that the details of the decipherment were “generally” unknown."<br /><br />Here's what Ritner wrote: "...1842, well before Jean François Champollion’s correct decipherment of Egyptian was generally known in America." Any reasonable reading of this passage, IMHO, suggests that Ritner is talking about <i>knowledge</i> of the decipherment, or in other words, the <i>news</i> of the decipherment (that news included the fact that there is a phonetic aspect to Egyptian). Ritner appears to be discussing the headlines, not the scholarly details, and he supports his claim with an article that speaks of how news of Champollion is becoming widely known and that clearly is NOT making an announcement of Champollion's discovery or introducing Champollion to the world -- that is clearly common knowledge by then, just as it was years earlier in Palmyra, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. <br /><br />Details? The scholarly details still aren't "generally known" in the United States or anywhere else. Champollion actually did not even decipher the Rosetta Stone, just parts of it. It wouldn't be until long after his death that the translation would be published in the late 1850s. <br /><br />Ritner's comment only makes sense as a teaching (though erroneous) that news of Champollion's breakthrough was not generally known in the US by 1842, but the cat was out of the bag in the US by no later than 1827 when the widely read Niles Register reported the story, and news of the Rosetta Stone was out before that. The rise of Egyptomania was fueled by these "generally known" matters. You can't have Egyptomania gripping the Saints in 1835 in complete ignorance of the big news fueling Egpytomania: Champollion and the Rosetta Stone. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59308751972103934752019-08-25T06:32:18.310-05:002019-08-25T06:32:18.310-05:00Dan said, "The works of Nibley, Gee, and Muhl...Dan said, "The works of Nibley, Gee, and Muhlestein are worthless when it comes to the Kirtland Egyptian papers. None of them understood the original documents. Jensen and Hauglid understand them better." <br /><br />If you define "understanding better" as "agreeing better with Dan Vogel," then you're absolutely right. But if "understanding the documents" includes understanding the relationship between the KEP and the Book of Abraham, or the understanding the way prior scholars have analyzed and treated the documents, or understanding dates of production or purpose or authorship of those documents, then there may be a problem.<br /><br /><a href="https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-joseph-smith-papers-project-stumbles/" rel="nofollow">John Gee's review of their volume</a> raises some pretty serious issues about their work, I'm sorry to say -- the most visible of which is the relatively minor issue of printing two documents upside down. (I don't think that particular gap can be debated now that it has been pointed out.) To me, though, the bigger issue is getting key documents backwards (in terms of the relationship between the KEP and the Book of Abraham). Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-26056971269321925552019-08-25T06:18:26.414-05:002019-08-25T06:18:26.414-05:00For further evidence regarding knowledge of Champo...For further evidence regarding knowledge of Champollion among the early members of the Church, see my latest post: "<a href="https://mormanity.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-there-direct-evidence-that-early.html" rel="nofollow">Is There Direct Evidence that the Early Saints Had Heard of Champollion?</a>," Aug. 25, 2019. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28094955150885363592019-08-24T01:32:26.007-05:002019-08-24T01:32:26.007-05:00Dan said: "Ritner is cited by Jensen and Haug...Dan said: "Ritner is cited by Jensen and Hauglid mostly because of his book published by Smith-Pettit is groundbreaking and the most authoritative publication on the subject of the Joseph Smith papyri. None of the apologists have published anything remotely like it." Do you mean that no one else has published a translation of the papyri? Of course not, since Rhodes has and Nibley did as well. Do you mean that no apologists have published a book that makes lots of sarcastic comments against Joseph Smith? You've got me there. But what other aspects of Ritner strike you as so unique?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-83249151909448297622019-08-23T18:55:00.965-05:002019-08-23T18:55:00.965-05:00“Smith no doubt concluded that he could not be exp...“Smith no doubt concluded that he could not be exposed.“<br /><br />I’m starting to be of the opinion that this is why the translation took so long and why Joseph attempted a more traditional translation first (including trying to learn Hebrew—which was thought to be close to the Adamic language, as was Egyptian) He may have had an inkling that hieroglyphics were on the verge of being cracked and didn’t want to risk the exposure. <br /><br />Do we have any further evidence as to the impetuous of the purchase? Did Joseph request that the Egyptian collection be purchased or was he provided with the documents by members wanting to see his gift of translation in action? I can see his ego forcing him to request the documents to provide him with a reason for a new translation, but I can also see him feeling great pressure to translate the documents that members spent a small fortune to purchase. To me, the documents “surprisingly” containing records of Abraham and Joseph are evidence that he clearly knew his knowledge of Egyptian culture was much more limited than his knowledge of Hebrew culture. It’s one thing to claim to be able to translate Egyptian—it’s another to be able to correctly mirror the culture. He solved this problem by having his Egyptian documents contain Hebrew themes. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76617540052361145422019-08-23T11:08:17.588-05:002019-08-23T11:08:17.588-05:00Jeff, I must agree with one of the anonymous comme...Jeff, I must agree with one of the anonymous commentators above. You seem to have missed Ritner’s point as well as the point of the 1842 New York Herald article cited by Ritner. Glidden was taking advantage of the general public’s ignorance and pretending Champollion’s work was his own. The letters Tasistro threatened to publish were no doubt in French. <br /><br />I don’t think Ritner was saying that Champollion and his decipherment of the Rosetta Stone were unknown in America, only that the details of the decipherment were “generally” unknown. <br /><br />Jensen and Hauglid merely state: “There is no evidence that Joseph Smith or his associates had read contemporary works of French or English Egyptological scholarship, but they nevertheless seemed to approach the papyri with many assumptions that were espoused by scholars who wrote before Champollion.” (p. xvii)<br /><br />We don’t know if Joseph Smith knew about Champollion in 1835. I doubt it. However, we do know that Joseph Smith was told by Chandler that none of the learned he consulted in the East could decipher the writing on the papyri. From this, Smith no doubt concluded that he could not be exposed. <br /><br />The works of Nibley, Gee, and Muhlestein are worthless when it comes to the Kirtland Egyptian papers. None of them understood the original documents. Jensen and Hauglid understand them better. If they were to cite these three apologists, it would have only been to correct the misinformation they have disseminated. <br /><br />Ritner is cited by Jensen and Hauglid mostly because of his book published by Smith-Pettit is groundbreaking and the most authoritative publication on the subject of the Joseph Smith papyri. None of the apologists have published anything remotely like it.<br />Dan Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861816737615959061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-78258936064195277992019-08-21T08:37:33.253-05:002019-08-21T08:37:33.253-05:00“there's about a 99% chance that Joseph read t...“there's about a 99% chance that Joseph read the article where they talked about Champollion“<br /><br />Please note that this article was published with the already translated text. Knowledge of Champollion at this point would have no bearing on the translation process. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66677274267891293652019-08-21T00:01:30.295-05:002019-08-21T00:01:30.295-05:00And secondarily, there is no reason to believe tha...And secondarily, there is no reason to believe that they were aware of what his work actually entailed as that was disputed for years after his death. It wasn’t for years that the correctness of his theories and interpretations was ultimately proven. The article Jeff cites above shows that the British thought Young had the right of things for quite some time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57561778108744152462019-08-20T23:37:21.641-05:002019-08-20T23:37:21.641-05:00“there's little chance that Joseph Smith and C...“there's little chance that Joseph Smith and Church members (immigrant and local) didn't know who Champollion was“<br /><br />This is the purest of speculation on your part since nobody mentioned him in anything we have record of. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-63166197925044726352019-08-20T20:09:29.060-05:002019-08-20T20:09:29.060-05:00I'm just a maintenance guy in a food Plant (bu...I'm just a maintenance guy in a food Plant (but I feel it's an honest living), so I don't know much about 19th C. Newspaper publishing but I'd say there's about a 99% chance that Joseph read the article where they talked about Champollion. The article was about President Smith and was quite positive. They were hoping that he could help stop the downward slide of our country. You, of course, fight against all that (as in PAGAN= People who fight Against Goodness and Niceness ;)--was that from an Eddie Murphy movie?). Also, I would think they had to borrow Hedlock's printing plate for Facsimile 1, but maybe there was some other way? <br />Should we ask the smart guy? <br />Jeff, if you check this, what do you think? Wouldn't they have to borrow the plate to publish fac 1 in a newspaper? <br /><br />Either way, there's little chance that Joseph Smith and Church members (immigrant and local) didn't know who Champollion was. And why would anyone label Joseph as a "Champollion"? As Jeff has shown us over the past months, he wasn't a decipherer, he translated the BofA by revelation. The GAEL appears to have been an intelligent failed experiment, an attempt to reverse engineer, as Nibley and others have pointed out for over half a century. <br /><br />I'll probably be very busy for a while, so will say “bye” after I wrap up a few things, and I'll give a few explanations here (unless someone starts something :)): <br />1- anonymous commentators who don't dare admit their affiliations (MT, IRR, etc.) are often "not ok" <br />: ), even if they sign 'OK" after comments they are particularly proud of. <br /><br />2- "no brainer" means, it's so easy to see the truth that even a critic could believe, if they weren't afraid or ashamed of it : ). <br /><br />luv ya'llJoePeacemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515894816932894540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33416829255284273322019-08-20T17:33:37.310-05:002019-08-20T17:33:37.310-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.JoePeacemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515894816932894540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13271272707210175332019-08-20T00:21:49.733-05:002019-08-20T00:21:49.733-05:00“most confusing for Joseph Smith, The New York her...“most confusing for Joseph Smith, The New York herald, April 03, 1842”<br /><br />Do you suppose Joseph had a subscription to the New York Herald in 1842? Do we have record of him, any of his cohorts, or even anyone in the Mormon community referencing Champollion or his work? Wouldn’t you assume someone would perhaps mention it in passing, especially considering the similarities you are inferring between their work? How about anyone west of Appalachia? On the lips of everyone?<br /><br />You would suppose someone in the community would refer to Joseph as the Mormon Champollion being as it was such a common reference in the vernacular. Anything?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62698420478061581932019-08-19T21:47:01.437-05:002019-08-19T21:47:01.437-05:00Ok/not Ok, looks like you kinda have a point this ...<br />Ok/not Ok, looks like you kinda have a point this time. Ritner introduces a Jean François Champollion, who probably wasn’t known in the Americas. Same with that guy "Dr. Young", who everyone in Europe agrees was a contributor to deciphering Egyptian, but here it was so confusing. There were so many Champollions running around deciphering things that members of the Church of Jesus Christ couldn’t have possibly known that exact Champollion. In fact, it was so confusing that the papers would say things such as “The Ruins in Wisconsin...by what Champollion it was deciphered, we are not informed…” Constantine republican. 1837 They had no idea which or who. Probbaly because most Champollions simply went by “Champollion”, but several were M. Champollion, some were “the celebrated Champollion”, some spelled it with only one l, some worked with a Dr. Young (but it seems that the discussion of Ritner’s Champolion actually had insulted a guy simply named Young!! Or was it the other way around?,s o confusing...). Some Champollions led expeditions to Egypt, one died in 1832, and it was said that “...announces the death of the celebrated Champollion...the scientific world sustains an irreparable loss...” Phenix gazette (Alexandria [D.C.]), April 24, 1832). One paper published extracts from a letter written by a Champollion who used 2-3 of the Champollion first names “Extract of a letter from M. Champollion, the celebrated French hieroglyphist” (what Champollion could possibly figure out who that was in 1828?). Even more confusing, another 1838 paper refers to leaving something for “future Champollions” to decipher. <b> And, probably most confusing for Joseph Smith, The New York herald, April 03, 1842, mentions Champollion and Young (offended Dr. Young or Young the co-decipherer? Maybe those future Champollions will decipher that one :)) near the publication of Joseph’s Fac. 1 and BofA (good thing he didn’t look at that number, or he never would have dared publish the next installments). No wonder they had to clear that up in December of 42…. : ) </b><br />JoePeacemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515894816932894540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69865752587698618752019-08-18T22:28:19.897-05:002019-08-18T22:28:19.897-05:00Jeff also states that:
“This is not an announceme...Jeff also states that:<br /><br />“This is not an announcement of Champollion's accomplishment or story, but news about criticism on a lecture given by a third party on the antiquities of Egypt. The background story of the Rosetta Stone and Champollion are assumed to be well known to the readers.”<br /><br />What he fails to mention is that the writer is discussing a presentation by a Mr. Gliddon (Glidden? two different spellings in the article) regarding Egyptian antiquities, in which he is presenting information as his own that, according to Tasistro, was “in the hands of every European scholar.” Glidden was an apparent plagiarist who was called out by Tasistro. The plagiarist’s hope to succeed lies in the fact that those who are receiving the information presented 1) aren’t familiar with it, and 2) don’t know the information comes from a source outside of the presenter. Why would Glidden be so hopeful of success if “The background story of the Rosetta Stone and Champollion are. . . well known”? Tasistro can so readily recognize the deception because he was “ Louis Fitzgeral Tasistro, an Irishman who came to the US four or five years before this article was written.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49563340179873017892019-08-18T22:03:15.963-05:002019-08-18T22:03:15.963-05:00“The background story of the Rosetta Stone and Cha...“The background story of the Rosetta Stone and Champollion are assumed to be well known to the readers.”<br /><br />So well known that they recount to the readers the background story:<br /><br />“the study of hieroglyphics has been very common in England, ever since the publication of Champolion’s complete grammar of the Coptic language, in which he proves that this is the language used in the inscriptions on the ancient Egyptian monuments. The same indefatigable individual has also compiled a Coptico-Egyptian dictionary, contained in three quarto volumes, and comprising the three distinct dialects, viz: the Thebaic, Memphitic, and Heptanomiic. . .”<br /><br />Jeff goes on to claim:<br /><br />“Americans may not have been as intensely interested or as well informed as Europeans in general, but flame of American Egyptomania surely was not burning bright without the fuel of Champollion. The reference cited by Ritner simply does not support his claim and implicitly contradicts it.”<br /><br />Please refer to the following quote from the article and see if it does what Jeff claims (emphasis added by me)<br /><br />“Every thing connected with the history of those remote ages. . . possesses a mysterious interest <i>which is <b>now</b> beginning to be much more generally felt than heretofore.</i>”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65068712043971356532019-08-18T21:45:07.288-05:002019-08-18T21:45:07.288-05:00Jeff says:
“Ritner has completely misread this re...Jeff says:<br /><br />“Ritner has completely misread this reference.”<br /><br />I think this should be rewritten “Jeff has completely misread this reference.” Two examples as follows:<br /><br />Example 1<br />“note that Champollion is introduced only with his last name -- as if no introduction were needed. And no introduction is given.”<br /><br /><br />Let’s see who else in the folio doesn’t include mention of a first name—as if no introduction were needed. Do you suppose the readership is intimately familiar with each of these other names?<br /><br />Arnold<br />Webb<br />Countess of Dysart<br />Postmaster General<br />Parson Cheever<br />Elder Knapp<br />Mr Davis<br />Mr Cheever<br />Mr Andrews<br />Mr Glidden<br />Mr Tasistro<br />Dr Young<br />Kalproth<br />Le Chevalier de Palin<br />Commander McKenzie<br />Lieutenant Gansevoort<br />M. C. Perry<br />R. W. Lincock<br />C. W. Hayes<br />A. Delonde<br />O. H. Perry<br />J. W. Wales<br />B. P. Browning<br />Mr Morris<br />Mrs Hunt<br />Mr Forrest<br />Miss Duff<br />M. Bley<br />Mrs Loder<br />Mr Horn<br />Mrs. Sutton<br />the Brahams<br />T. B. Clayton<br />Alderman Davis<br />Alerman Purdy<br />Alderman Smith<br />Alderman Davies<br />Alderman West<br />Alderman Lee<br />Alderman Crolius<br />Alderman Hatfield<br />Alderman Woodhull<br />Alderman Underwood<br />Justice Matsell<br />Justice Merritt<br />Recorder Tallmadge<br />Alderman Leonard<br />Alderman Bonnell<br />Justice Taylor<br />Alderman Gedney<br />Messrs Sheiffelin<br />Alderman Atwell<br />Ald. Scoles<br />Alderman Brown<br />Mr. Whiting<br />W. Dodge<br />Barnum<br />Nellus<br />Jenkins<br />Diamond<br />Young<br />Judge Conrad<br />Judge Barton<br />McNamee<br />Gov McDonald<br />Mr Habersham<br />Officer Stephens<br />Thompson<br />Capt. Quackenboss<br />Morris<br />Dr Elliott<br />Dr Castle<br />a lady<br />a gentleman <br />Dr M O’Regan<br />W. S. Richardson<br /><br />Obviously a full name isn’t a requirement to be mentioned in this folio. Second example to followAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77251362136296477722019-08-18T17:51:34.326-05:002019-08-18T17:51:34.326-05:00I could write 2000 words about the word charity. I...I could write 2000 words about the word charity. I could do it for any meaningful Gospel word. How could you not probe an eternal reservoir of language in describing atonement and so on.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying the book of Abraham was translated that way, but I think there's no reason why a symbol couldn't come with all kinds of language that even those fluent in it can't describe.c365https://www.blogger.com/profile/15031746697471649640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65827925260563457982019-08-18T17:20:48.097-05:002019-08-18T17:20:48.097-05:00Funny, hopefully this isn't taken the wrong wa...Funny, hopefully this isn't taken the wrong way (can't afford an attorney ;)), but I've often wondered if Robert lets his peers at Lighthouse Ministry do research for him. <br /><br />It's fine to give needed attention to critics, but it's sad that JSPP editors would refer to RR 50 times, and not Nibley. Nibley is one of the greatest scholars of all time. <br />True, Ritner's additional translation of the Hor scroll may be more accurate (as expected, since that is his occupation and it's 50 years later), but we have better from Rhodes and already knew what the papyri said anyway. So, it may be that Robert has added himself to the conversation, along with misinformation and additional encouragement for hate groups, but I can't think of reasons to quote him unless we are comparing Egyptologists' translations of papyri...again. <br /><br />On the other hand Nibley educated us. He opened doors, taught us to respect Abraham and learning and to reject riches and pompousness. Nibley tied things together with world history, connected us in ways that bettered our so called "modern" lives. He inspired love, reason, compassion, humility, and so on and on. <br /><br />Nibley opened minds, Ritner closes them.<br /><br />Still, gotta love him. JoePeacemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515894816932894540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66978772333474081112019-08-18T17:06:29.797-05:002019-08-18T17:06:29.797-05:00Jeff, this is an example of a strengthening trend ...Jeff, this is an example of a strengthening trend among Latter-day Saint scholars to agree uncritically with the critics, even adopting positions they know or should know are inaccurate. Sometimes they just leave readers with the wrong impression, but do so deliberately. There is certainly incentive among LDS scholars to do this, as they can gain approval from the broader, non-LDS academic community and increase their opportunities to publish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com