Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

[_DrW]

The most likely reason that the content cannot be translated, even though each character is known.... We have a string of characters, each of which can be identified as coming from a known contemporary (non-ancient) character set...

This is nonsense.

Only to believing Mormons.

To rational and objective individuals it is not only the best explanation, it is the only plausible (or even possible) explanation.

To make the earlier analogy more precise, let us assume that one typed a few random characters with the keyboard language set to English (Tironian notae), then typed a random string with the keyboard language set to Arabic (Ogham code), and then a character with the keyboard language set to Chinese (Old Gaelic) and so on. Would this random mix of characters from different contemporary character sets constitute an unknwon ancient language by the simple fact that it could not be "translated"?

[_Nevo]

Really? That is not for any of us to settle by simple declaration, at least not on the Celestial level at which this discussion is being conducted.

I am sorry, Chap, but DrW's declaration that all of the Anthon transcript characters have been identified and that, moreover, they have all been identified as modern, is a whopper. Not only is it untrue, it is not even close to being true. You guys can't just make stuff up and pass it off as fact.

[Guest]

Really? That is not for any of us to settle by simple declaration, at least not on the Celestial level at which this discussion is being conducted.

I am sorry, Chap, but DrW's declaration that all of the Anthon transcript characters have been identified and that, moreover, they have all been identified as modern, is a whopper. Not only is it untrue, it is not even close to being true. You guys can't just make stuff up and pass it off as fact.

Nevo,

Fair enough. I will take that as a reasonable CFR.

It may take some time to find the reference(s), but I have seen statements in the literature that they have all been identified (although I suppose that some may not agree with some of the matches).

I don't like being accused of telling whoppers (although given that I made the statement without providing the evidence, I suppose you were justified in doing so), so I will do my best to find the reference(s) this weekend and get back to you.
______________________
ETA: I did not say that the characters were all modern. I said that they were contemporary and non-ancient. What I should have made clear (and did not) is that they were contemporary with Joseph Smith in that they would have all been available for Joseph Smith to copy, miss-copy and possibly alter slightly.

[_cksalmon]

This is the best they could come up with, really?

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

What was the number of unique hieroglyphs in the sample from which Ashment drew his purported matches?

If Nevo is correct, Stout (with whom I've conversed very little but generally respect) drew from a sample numbering upwards of 12,000.

I'd be interested to know how the total number of Micmac signs from which Ashment drew potential matches stacks up against the total number of Tironian signs from which Stout drew his.

The answer to that question may provide some perspective on the question of which is a "better" match, statistically.

[_Themis]

What was the number of unique hieroglyphs in the sample from which Ashment drew his purported matches?

If Nevo is correct, Stout (with whom I've conversed very little but generally respect) drew from a sample numbering upwards of 12,000.

I'd be interested to know how the total number of Micmac signs from which Ashment drew potential matches stacks up against the total number of Tironian signs from which Stout drew his.

The answer to that question may provide some perspective on the question of which is a "better" match, statistically.

I agree that more is needed to see which has better matches aver all, but the example you posted was not very good. Over half had some similarities, but I would never call them matches.

[_Themis]

Which means that what they had there was a string of characters, each of which can be identified as coming from a known non-contemporary (ancient) character set.

The only problem is, they clearly can't. So assuming we can discount the possibility that Anthon could not recognize any of those scripts, but nevertheless told Harris a bunch of nonsense (why would a man in his position do that?) and later denied it, then:

Either:

1 Martin Harris was lying about what Anthon said to him,

Or:

2. Joseph Smith was lying about what Harris said to him.

Considering the two parties, Harris (or perhaps really Smith speaking in his name) and Anthon, whose truthfulness needs to be evaluated in order to deal with their conflicting statements, who had the stronger motives to tell untruths? Anthon, a scholar being visited by a country bumpkin with a paper of scribbles in which he had no particular interest, or Harris, the man who was betting the farm (literally) on Smith and his 'gold plates'?

I think it may be far more complicated then that. They both could be telling the truth as they remember or interpreted certain events. Memory is also easily altered and changed to fit our biases. It is in many ways is irrelevant since Anthon could never have deciphered the characters whether real reformed Egyptian or made up.

[_cksalmon]

I agree that more is needed to see which has better matches aver all, but the example you posted was not very good. Over half had some similarities, but I would never call them matches.

You might take it up with Ashment. I've no stake in the matter, either way, Themis. You're resolving to a subjective analysis, which is inevitable, I'd think, in such things. But, such an analysis necessarily involves the complexity of the sign, etc.

As you say, more information is needed. I was responding to the apparent triumphalism of some of the Tironian proponents in this thread.

I don't see it, yet.

[_Themis]

You might take it up with Ashment. I've no stake in the matter, either way, Themis. You're resolving to a subjective analysis, which is inevitable, I'd think, in such things. But, such an analysis necessarily involves the complexity of the sign, etc.

As you say, more information is needed. I was responding to the apparent triumphalism of some of the Tironian proponents in this thread.

I don't see it, yet.

It is easy to see that the Micmac signs do not match very well. That is not to say that because the Tironian signs used are easily better matches that they must be what Joseph used, especially since it is easy to just pick the ones that do match. It's interesting though.

[_Chap]

Which means that what they had there was a string of characters, each of which can be identified as coming from a known non-contemporary (ancient) character set.

The only problem is, they clearly can't. So assuming we can discount the possibility that Anthon could not recognize any of those scripts, but nevertheless told Harris a bunch of nonsense (why would a man in his position do that?) and later denied it, then:

Either:

1 Martin Harris was lying about what Anthon said to him,

Or:

2. Joseph Smith was lying about what Harris said to him.

Considering the two parties, Harris (or perhaps really Smith speaking in his name) and Anthon, whose truthfulness needs to be evaluated in order to deal with their conflicting statements, who had the stronger motives to tell untruths? Anthon, a scholar being visited by a country bumpkin with a paper of scribbles in which he had no particular interest, or Harris, the man who was betting the farm (literally) on Smith and his 'gold plates'?

I think it may be far more complicated then that. They both could be telling the truth as they remember or interpreted certain events. Memory is also easily altered and changed to fit our biases. It is in many ways is irrelevant since Anthon could never have deciphered the characters whether real reformed Egyptian or made up.

Oh of course - it is always possible that what really happened bore no resemblance at all to what either Harris (reported by Smith) or Anthon said happened, and that they were both quite deluded in their recollections. In that case there is nothing to discuss.

Of course, by the same token, the entirety of Joseph Smith's account of the visitation of Moroni, the finding of the golden plates and the First Vision could be entirely mistaken, and he sincerely believed that they had happened while in fact they did not.

But if we are asking the question "Can these statements be true?" it is clear that Harris and Anthon cannot both be telling the truth about the central facts of their encounter. Harris said :

Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct.

Anthon's account flatly contradicts this, does it not? He said that the characters he saw were a meaningless jumble of signs. He says there was no translation provided - and even if he was lying about that or recollecting mistakenly, he could never have said that Harris had shown him a correct translation from the Egyptian "more so than any he had before seen translated" - because he could not translate Egyptian.

As for the 'certificate' story - it is just not credible (to me at least - how about you?) that Harris recollected such a dramatic event mistakenly - an event that is completely incompatible with what Anthon said. Somebody here is lying.

[_Themis]

Oh of course - it is always possible that what really happened bore no resemblance at all to what either Harris (reported by Smith) or Anthon said happened, and that they were both quite deluded in their recollections. In that case there is nothing to discuss.

Of course, by the same token, the entirety of Joseph Smith's account of the visitation of Moroni, the finding of the golden plates and the First Vision could be entirely mistaken, and he sincerely believed that they had happened while in fact they did not.

But if we are asking the question "Can these statements be true?" it is clear that Harris and Anthon cannot both be telling the truth about the central facts of their encounter. Harris said :

Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct.

Anthon's account flatly contradicts this, does it not? He said that the characters he saw were a meaningless jumble of signs. He says there was no translation provided - and even if he was lying about that or recollecting mistakenly, he could never have said that Harris had shown him a correct translation from the Egyptian "more so than any he had before seen translated" - because he could not translate Egyptian.

As for the 'certificate' story - it is just not credible (to me at least - how about you?) that Harris recollected such a dramatic event mistakenly - an event that is completely incompatible with what Anthon said. Somebody here is lying.

It's not really a secret that Harris was known for being easily fooled, and his recollection does not fit the known facts. While it may be possible that Anthon was lying, the facts do not support it. I think it more likely that Harris may have created his own memories of the events to fit his biases. I agree with what you say above. I think the problem for many members is that they don't realize just how made up our memories can be. Joseph certainly could have altered his memories of some important vision early in life to what we see in the POGP, even though it may be vastly different from what he originally experienced. It is very possible even for Joseph to convince himself that the Book of Mormon was inspired. I have a cousin I know very well who is great at this. I am not saying these things don't effect me as well, but he seems one of the most extreme that I know personally.