Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _Chap »

DrW wrote:Chap,

Thanks for posting these letters with some observations. These certainly provides some context for JSJr's "Caractors" and indicate something important about Martin Harris' less than sterling character as well.

Anthon's description in the letter of Joseph Smith's followers as "deluded" is coming someone who should know.


For convenience of comparison, here is the standard account of Martin Harris's visit to Anthon in Joseph Smith, History of the Church:

The narrative opens in late 1827, so Harris's visit to New York takes place in 1828. The earliest likely date for the writing of this narrative seems to be 1838, several years after Anthon's first letter.

62 By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the aUrim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

63 Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:

64 “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. 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. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.

65 “He then said to me, ‘Let me see that certificate.’ I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of aangels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were bsealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed book.’ I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”


The account of Smith copying 'Caractors' from the plates is a corroboration of what Anthon says Harris told him. The statement that Anthon was shown a translation together with the transcription is however not consistent with Anthon's account. There seems no reason for Anthon to have denied seeing a translation if he had been shown one, and it is notable that while a transcription of what is said to have been shown to Anthon is said to have survived, unaccountably no-one seems to have bothered to preserve the supposed translation. (How on earth a MS can have consisted of a mixture of "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic" and still had ANY translation, let alone a 'correct' translation is beyond me.)
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Hasa Diga Eebowai
_Emeritus
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _Hasa Diga Eebowai »

-
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _DrW »

Nevo,

Perhaps you missed my question to you in an earlier post on this thread.

So, again, in consideration of the evidence so far posted on this thread (and / or any other evidence you would care to introduce) are you claiming that the Anthon "Caractors" are "reformed Egyptian" as claimed by Joseph Smith?
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _Nevo »

DrW wrote:So, again, in consideration of the evidence so far posted on this thread (and / or any other evidence you would care to introduce) are you claiming that the Anthon "Caractors" are "reformed Egyptian" as claimed by Joseph Smith?

I accept Joseph Smith's explanation that he copied the characters from the plates. And I agree with Dan Vogel's assessment that "to this day, the script remains anomalous and undecipherable" (Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 113).
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _DrW »

Nevo wrote:
DrW wrote:So, again, in consideration of the evidence so far posted on this thread (and / or any other evidence you would care to introduce) are you claiming that the Anthon "Caractors" are "reformed Egyptian" as claimed by Joseph Smith?

I accept Joseph Smith's explanation that he copied the characters from the plates. And I agree with Dan Vogel's assessment that "to this day, the script remains anomalous and undecipherable" (Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 113).

Surely you are not saying that the fact that the Anthon Caractors cannot be translated supports Joseph Smiths claim that they are "Reformed Egyptian".

The most likely reason that the content cannot be translated, even though each character is known, is that the Caractors were copied or written down randomly as a part of an attempted scam. Anthon was never shown a "translation" because the "translation" did not exist. It is pretty clear from the existing written documentation (and lack thereof) that Martin Harris' simply lied about the "translation".

If one were to write down a random string of the letters and symbols available on your computer keyboard, would anyone seriously claim that this character string represented an unknown language? Of course not.

Yet that is precisely the situation we have with the Anthon "Caractors". We have a string of characters, each of which can be identified as coming from a known contemporary (non-ancient) character set.

The fact that the random string cannot be "translated" is no mystery whatsoever. It cannot be translated because it is a random string of copied characters generated with the intent to commit fraud.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _Nevo »

DrW wrote: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.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Reformed Egyptian = Latin Short Hand? Celestial version

Post by _Chap »

Nevo wrote:
DrW wrote: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.


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.

It is interesting that the oldest LDS account of the transcript also stresses the eclectic nature of the script:

According to the account of Martin Harris, which Joseph Smith gives us without comment or demur:

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.


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'?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply