Other Religious Forgeries

[Res Ipsa]

Dr. Pangloss agrees.

[Lem]

Agreed!!!!! And your avatars of my great-aunts are always appreciated.

Vivant Parowanianae.

That's disappointing. The only epigraphical information available points to a forgery, and the response is: what if the information is wrong because sometimes the drawings were inaccurate? And apparently, inaccurate in exactly the way necessary to cause an evaluator to incorrectly interpret the specific error as a forgery instead of as the real thing?

Adding that layer and moving the analysis one step further from the original seems a little convenient, notwithstanding the very nebulous comment about drawings contradicting each other (which drawings? Where? What differences?) Maybe he spells it out better in his article, but simply stating that this new hypothesis (errors in copying) favors the conclusion being searched for makes it even more suspect as a legitimate argument. One could just as easily argue that copiers of the stroke marks were extremely careful to reproduce the best copy possible. Speaking only as a nonprofessional in the industry, in my opinion it feels as though someone who says the people who do this for a living actually created changed copies, copies that ever so conveniently show the source is a forgery when its not, sounds a little too much like a lazy conspiracy theory.

Again, this is not my area, so I would welcome any correction from the experts.

I have not read the article from the New York Times, but I just read Dershowitz's article in question, and I think he has some valid points that Rollston's blogpost does not address.

I think you anticipate some of the problems his article raises, but I would say first that the "cui bono" argument you imply here—he is picking the read of the evidence that best fits his theory—cuts both ways in this case, because there are two insoluble problems, which means one will have to make a choice, and the there is no direct evidence to provide the way.

Shapira did not destroy the animal skin fragments or conveniently lose them; they were destroyed years after his suicide in a fire. He apparently worked on them himself but appears not to have fully understood the text. What does survive are transcriptions, so that is our first problem.

But the transcriptions by Christian Ginsburg themselves are not consistent, and I think Dershowitz shows that rather convincingly. One could object that the inconsistencies were original to the text, but Dershowitz has something like a control: using Ginsburg's transcriptions of a text that do have (the stele of the Moabite King Mesha), Dershowitz finds evidence from Ginsburg's transcriptions in that case that GInsburg was simply not very accurate in his transcriptional habits (although Dershowitz only discusses a few examples from a text that is more than thirty lines long: in how many letters does this carelessness show up?). The transcriptions may not be reliable then, but there is no way to be sure. That is our second problem.

Rollston's blogpost seems to ignore these significant issues and come out with gun's blazing, but the ammunition is all blanks. That doesn't mean he's wrong, just that he doesn't state his case very well. He gives you a nice discussion about forgeries, but doesn't deal there with the problems raised by Dershowitz. But in my view, those two key problems really aren't open to solution by appeal to evidence, so naturally, each side will pick the interpretation that best suits their theory.

First of all, thank you for responding to my layperson’s comment. I see your point about the transcriptions and how reading the evidence can go either way at times; the NYT article was of course a summary and as such was very brief, so I appreciate your filling in some details. I look forward to reading the Dershowitz article. Right or wrong, it seems he really put some effort into addressing many different elements of this argument.

For me the analysis of the language would be key. The real meat of Dershowitz's work is not this article but rather an edition and commentary of the Shapira Strips, and there is supposed to be a chapter on language co-written (or authored by) Na'ama Pat-el where they supposedly show the language to be consistent with pre-exilic Hebrew. That's not going to settle it absolutely but it's better than arguing over whether or not the transcriptions are accurate, which is impossible to know. But Ron Hendel's comment over there, which does address the language, leaves me quite skeptical of Dershowitz's claim:

Like Mesha and Siloam, they have very few internal matres (with some surprising exceptions, like hwʾ and ʾyš, both written fully, unlike Mesha and Siloam). As for final matres, the Strips always have the 3ms pronominal suffix on singular nouns written with a waw (for -ō), never with he, although the latter is consistently used in pre-exilic orthography. I wondered why a forger would make the mistake of using post-exilic orthography in this position. Then I noted that Siloam has the odd form r’w, “his companion” (three times), perhaps indicating an unusual contraction. The forger may have thought this was the normal pre-exilic form in Hebrew. This misapprehension would explain this consistent error, which a recent forger wouldn’t make

The underlined part is particularly significant to me, because there is a linguistic reality behind that orthography that we can reconstruct through comparative evidence. The "he" is a letter that represents a sound analogous to English "h," and in earlier stages of Hebrew, which the Shapira text is supposed to represent, that "he" was still pronounced for that grammatical form, the 3rd person masculine singular pronominal suffix (as it still is in formal Arabic). That is why spelling is consistent in the pre-exilic orthography. When that letter was no longer sounded for that form, it was written with a different letter (called "waw") better to reflect the pronunciation. Forms with the waw are later. One could argue the Siloam evidence, which has this later form—but only for this word. Shapira apparently knew the Siloam inscription well but, if it is forged, missed that in another word with this grammatical form, the expected "he" appears to be there in the Siloam inscription. So there is an inconsistency in a pre-exilic inscription, perhaps suggesting the linguistic shift in this morpheme was in process, but the Shapira strips (apparently) are consistent in using the later form, suggesting that it was complete. That makes me skeptical, and once the only real data we have open the way for skepticism, then I turn to all of the circumstantial material that Rollston focuses on first. We will how the chapter on language addresses this problem (if it does).

Again, fascinating, especially the points about spelling consistency. I always learn so much from your posts. (It’s too bad that Carmack and Skousen can’t seem to figure out that an evaluation of the totality of issues are necessary to fully position a work, rather than stand alone statistical analyses of isolated coincidentals. )

Also, I like your point that
”...and once the only real data we have open the way for skepticism, then I turn to all of the circumstantial material that Rollston focuses on first.”

That sounds far more reasonable than a comment on Rollston’s blog that I found a little jarring:

...Regarding authenticity, we think that Dershowitz’s rationalization alters the rules, in the sense that it changes the attitude to the SM from “forgeries unless proven otherwise” to “authentic unless proven otherwise”....

That just rubbed me the wrong way. Why does it have to be one or the other? Your measured approach is much more appealing.

And lastly, when you referred to “an edition and commentary of the Shapira Strips, [with] a chapter on language”, are you referring to the companion book by Dershowitz, referred to in the NYT article? That would be a fascinating chapter to read.

[Gadianton]

Well, but the apologists already have their modern expansion of an ancient text theory, right? One of their many ways of turning the obvious howlers into negligible problems, at least, for their fellow believers. My guess is that the gold plates would have been proven a fraud based mostly on the evidence of their method of fabrication. See the Kinderhook Plates.

I definitely agree with you that an actual fake set of plates would have been a much harder sell, and a far greater risk of ruining it even with the faithful. His chances of pulling that off given real historical context is next to zero. And so yes, the church coughing up a real set of plates should they possess them, would debunk the fraud immediately.

[Philo Sofee]

Nope, no big deal on the plates. There was not kind of kept record for the future with the manuscripts of biblical peoples that Joseph was told about and shown and knowledge passed on to him. There is no need whatsoever of any records, God can give the information just as easily by word of mouth. Joseph Smith proved that in discussing the "record" of John which had disappeared many centuries before, so no one in the future can ever benefit from it, unless God gives a revelation. You're simply buying into Smith's story to bolster the supposed "historicity" of it all in order to appear to make it more real to people.

[mentalgymnast]

Dr. Pangloss agrees.

Positivism vs. negativism isn’t inherently a bad thing. What to do with all of these positive witness statements?

Hey, let’s go to the negative witnesses and focus solely on that!

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Well, but the apologists already have their modern expansion of an ancient text theory, right? One of their many ways of turning the obvious howlers into negligible problems, at least, for their fellow believers. My guess is that the gold plates would have been proven a fraud based mostly on the evidence of their method of fabrication. See the Kinderhook Plates.

I definitely agree with you that an actual fake set of plates would have been a much harder sell, and a far greater risk of ruining it even with the faithful. His chances of pulling that off given real historical context is next to zero. And so yes, the church coughing up a real set of plates should they possess them, would debunk the fraud immediately.

Given that every time there were actual artifacts that survived, Smith failed to interpret them properly (either a correct interpretation of a real artifact or recognizing a fake), I agree that producing plates would be disastrous. Third time would NOT be a charm.

[Res Ipsa]

Dr. Pangloss agrees.

Positivism vs. negativism isn’t inherently a bad thing. What to do with all of these positive witness statements?

Hey, let’s go to the negative witnesses and focus solely on that!

Regards,
MG

Swing and a miss.

[Moksha]

What about the Bible? The New Testament specifically. It stands on weaker ground than the Book of Mormon.

Excellent point. Until some evidence emerges for these so-called "biblical civilizations" we should hold these civilizations suspect. Where is that one sliver of Israelite pottery, eh Professor Jenkins? Show us some fine Corinthian leather! Until then we must assume the Sword of Damocles was a club with some obsidian shards!!!

[Kishkumen]

The underlined part is particularly significant to me, because there is a linguistic reality behind that orthography that we can reconstruct through comparative evidence. The "he" is a letter that represents a sound analogous to English "h," and in earlier stages of Hebrew, which the Shapira text is supposed to represent, that "he" was still pronounced for that grammatical form, the 3rd person masculine singular pronominal suffix (as it still is in formal Arabic). That is why spelling is consistent in the pre-exilic orthography. When that letter was no longer sounded for that form, it was written with a different letter (called "waw") better to reflect the pronunciation. Forms with the waw are later. One could argue the Siloam evidence, which has this later form—but only for this word. Shapira apparently knew the Siloam inscription well but, if it is forged, missed that in another word with this grammatical form, the expected "he" appears to be there in the Siloam inscription. So there is an inconsistency in a pre-exilic inscription, perhaps suggesting the linguistic shift in this morpheme was in process, but the Shapira strips (apparently) are consistent in using the later form, suggesting that it was complete. That makes me skeptical, and once the only real data we have open the way for skepticism, then I turn to all of the circumstantial material that Rollston focuses on first. We will how the chapter on language addresses this problem (if it does).

Thank you for taking the time to look into that, Symmachus. That is very interesting.

[dastardly stem]

The underlined part is particularly significant to me, because there is a linguistic reality behind that orthography that we can reconstruct through comparative evidence. The "he" is a letter that represents a sound analogous to English "h," and in earlier stages of Hebrew, which the Shapira text is supposed to represent, that "he" was still pronounced for that grammatical form, the 3rd person masculine singular pronominal suffix (as it still is in formal Arabic). That is why spelling is consistent in the pre-exilic orthography. When that letter was no longer sounded for that form, it was written with a different letter (called "waw") better to reflect the pronunciation. Forms with the waw are later. One could argue the Siloam evidence, which has this later form—but only for this word. Shapira apparently knew the Siloam inscription well but, if it is forged, missed that in another word with this grammatical form, the expected "he" appears to be there in the Siloam inscription. So there is an inconsistency in a pre-exilic inscription, perhaps suggesting the linguistic shift in this morpheme was in process, but the Shapira strips (apparently) are consistent in using the later form, suggesting that it was complete. That makes me skeptical, and once the only real data we have open the way for skepticism, then I turn to all of the circumstantial material that Rollston focuses on first. We will how the chapter on language addresses this problem (if it does).

Thank you for taking the time to look into that, Symmachus. That is very interesting.

Thank you all, esteemed mentors and tutors of C U (is this still a thing?) It's been a pleasure reading your thoughts in this thread.