More Unanswered Questions to
Consider
Vogel thus leaves unanswered
important questions that have long been raised by defenders of
Joseph Smith, such as why should we think the GAEL was used by Joseph to
any degree to produce the Book of Abraham or to translate Egyptian:
1. when
so much of it is not Egyptian,
2. when
all but three of the Egyptian characters allegedly translated from JSP XI are
generally not even present therein,
3. when
the English “translations” in the GAEL show a slight relationship with
(arguably a dependency from) a few verses in the Book of Abraham but
come nowhere close to being useful for translating the text,
4. when
the characters allegedly used to create the translation are explicitly said by
Joseph on Facsimile 2 to not have been translated,
5. when
the GAEL shows no involvement of Joseph Smith, being entirely in the
handwriting of W.W. Phelps apart from a few lines from Warren Parrish,
6. when
Joseph’s other efforts at translation show no relationship at all with the
model Vogel thinks Joseph used,
7. when
Joseph showed that he could translate some of the papyrus by revelation
essentially as soon as he received the scrolls and could see that there was
information related to Abraham (so why would painstaking efforts to create an
alphabet first and then a grammar be needed to continue with
a revealed translation?), and
8. when
significant material in the GAEL is drawn from other existing materials such as
the Doctrine and Covenants?
The complex nature of the GAEL
may defy any simple theory for whatever Phelps was doing, whether it was
reverse translation, coming up with clues to the “pure language,” or something
related to Schryver’s reverse cipher theory (not mentioned at all by Vogel).
But the important issue is that drawing upon material from the Doctrine and
Covenants raises valid questions about translation of Egyptian being the goal,
especially in light of the non-Egyptian material in the characters.
Many questions also remain on
other basic topics that should also be raised in such a book:
1. Does
the historical record about where Joseph and the scribes were on various dates
fit the paradigms offered?
2. In
any of the revelatory/translation scenarios Joseph had, did he do anything that
corresponds with Vogel’s model, i.e., first creating an alphabet with
a small group of characters, then developing a grammar, and then
working out the translation of characters that generally were not in the
alphabet or the grammar?
3. Is
there any reason anybody would pursue a translation the way Joseph
allegedly did? Isn’t the idea of creating an alphabet before anything is known
of a language and then using that to create a grammar and then
a translation so ridiculous that his peers would be anything but impressed
and, at least for those who left the Church, would surely call foul? Can this
really be explained as a scheme to impress peers and brainstorm to come up with
a story line?
4. Does
Vogel’s model comport with the most basic statement in Joseph’s journal about
his work with the alphabet, namely, that it was an alphabet “to” the Book of
Abraham, as if it were a guide or index related to existing translated
material from the Book of Abraham, not an impossible translation key “for”
translating the Book of Abraham? This quote is virtually a foundation for
Vogel’s approach, yet he fails to consider arguments about why Joseph said “to”
rather than “for.”59
5. Given
that there actually was a sizeable collection of materials that were sold
after Joseph’s death and apparently were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire,
how can we be sure that nothing related to the Book of Abraham could have been
in that collection? We are supposed to accept that it would necessarily just be
more perfectly commonplace Egyptian funerary documents, but can we really be
confident that materials we don’t have were entirely ordinary, especially when
the facsimiles are not? Of course, defense of the authenticity of the Book of
Abraham need not rely on a missing scroll. The key is that the
translation, from whatever source, was given through revelation. (Jeff Lindsay,
“Book
of Abraham Polemics: Dan Vogel’s Broad Critique of the Defense of the Book of
Abraham,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and
Scholarship 47 [2021]: 146-48)
Further Reading:
Michael MacKay and Daniel Belnap, "The Pure Language
Project," The Journal of Mormon History 49, no. 4 (2023):
1-44.
