Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Have you tried applying your methodology to the Kinderhook Plates?

I have not, I am still finishing up the final parts of this book to get it to the printer to print the hard copies.  I have another Book of Mormon project 3/4 done (unrelated to this) that I am trying to finish up.  That might be an interesting project, noone has suggested that I do that up til now.

Share this post


Link to post

One method of testing it might be to compare the proffered translation (which does not exist in the current Book of Mormon) to the double chiasm in the Caractors Transcript detected independently in 2001 by Wade Brown and Blair Bryant,  You can see them displayed online at http://www.angelfire.com/nm/mfb/QC-Issue2.pdf (page 7).

For unknown script, the best test is to apply it to another example of the unknown text.  I did that with the four separate characters recorded by Oliver Cowdery/Frederick G. Williams where we had a translation from Joseph Smith.  It is of course a very small sample but translation technique did prove an exact match.  A secondary test is whether the text as translated is consistent with the rest of the known Book of Mormon text, since there are overlaps in calendar and content.  It is exactly consistent with the existing Book of Mormon.  There are other tertiary tests, namely looking at the calendrical glyphs vs. the Maya glyphs.  Anyway, I did the best I could with the limited examples that we have of the text.  Other experts may have further insight, I'm hoping that they will engage and look at it, that would be great.

Share this post


Link to post

Nevermind. I see from the PDF that these are suggested to be title page descriptions, which would probably include more dates and numbers.

Without reading or understanding all of it, I commend you for your extended effort here. Before accepting any conclusions, though, I would want to see other scholars chime in about the particulars. I want to believe this could be accurate(ish), but there have been a couple of other attempts (one saying the characters come from a section of the book of Ether), which seem to have been discredited.

I always thought that a translation attempt on the Anthon characters could be a promising endeavor and possibly yield some insights and evidence for the BoM. Merely showing that it is not just a random collection of shorthand scribbles by JS (as Anthon and others have claimed) and might have some numerical and narrative structure to it is pretty intriguing. And I think you may have at least established that... or you are adding structure as you see it onto the characters, which I'm sure some will claim.

If true, though, this would explain to me some of the issues with the BoM, where we're not sure if it was a tight or loose translation and such... The choppy and abbreviated nature of the original writing (to conserve space, of course) would imply that a fair amount of narrative and even editorial embellishment was needed to flesh out the basic information into a cohesive narrative work of scripture. Then again, it's possible (perhaps even probable) that the style of writing was a little more abbreviated for the title sections than for the bulk of the main work.

I am hopeful that others will look at it, that is one reason that it is available for free to anyone.  Part of the problem is that there aren't too many experts conversant in Mayan and Egyptian, so one has to try to piecemeal it academically.  The other problem is that it is time consuming for experts to go through it in a detailed way, I did pay some small honoriums for a cursory review by some experts.  I am guessing I will need to pay someone a significan amount of money to do it, but that might trigger allegations of bias.  Anyway, we'll just have to see how it goes, whatever anyone might think of the translation, I do think that at a minimum it can be said that there are clear Mesoamerican and Egyptian elements in the text, and that there are straigtforward number groups and calendrical indicators, which I believe is a step forward in understanding the document.

Share this post


Link to post

I downloaded the Geology of the Book Of Mormon. I'm not a scholar but I'm enjoying the book. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't wrap my head around most of it, but I also enjoyed reading it. Thanks for sharing Piccione.

Share this post


Link to post

Very perceptive.  Back in the late 40s, William F. Albright made a similar criticism of Ariel Crowley's comparisons -- which consisted of hieratic and demotic signs taken from widely varying periods.

jkwilliams comment is not entirely accurate.  The numerals are primarily Palestinian Egyptian hieratic or standard Egyptian hieratic.  There are a couple Mesoamerican numerals.  I did not rely very much on Ariel Crowley's work for the translation, As far as Albright's criticisms I spent significant time discussing this issue (which was a similar issue involving the decipherment of Egytian hieroglyphs and Mayan, there was nothing 'perceptive' in pointing this issue out.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, there's some time I will never get back. Basically he tries to match the characters to numerals from different writing systems, including Mayan, various Egyptian, and Semitic languages. He combines these "matches" with Ariel Crowley's earlier attempts to match characters to names in hieratic and demotic Egyptian to produce his translation. 

I said that that was "Very perceptive.  Back in the late 40s, William F. Albright made a similar criticism of Ariel Crowley's comparisons -- which consisted of hieratic and demotic signs taken from widely varying periods."

 

jkwilliams comment is not entirely accurate.  The numerals are primarily Palestinian Egyptian hieratic or standard Egyptian hieratic.  There are a couple Mesoamerican numerals.  I did not rely very much on Ariel Crowley's work for the translation, As far as Albright's criticisms I spent significant time discussing this issue (which was a similar issue involving the decipherment of Egytian hieroglyphs and Mayan, there was nothing 'perceptive' in pointing this issue out.

The problem is that you are not using signs from one coherent period (diachronic versus sychronic coverage).  However, I would be willing to overlook that considerable problem, if you could show how your translation relates to the parallels internal to the two large chiasms of the Caractors Document -- as shown by Bryant and Brown.  That is a crucial test of your hypothesis.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post

 

I said that that was "Very perceptive.  Back in the late 40s, William F. Albright made a similar criticism of Ariel Crowley's comparisons -- which consisted of hieratic and demotic signs taken from widely varying periods."

 

The problem is that you are not using signs from one coherent period (diachronic versus sychronic coverage).  However, I would be willing to overlook that considerable problem, if you could show how your translation relates to the parallels internal to the two large chiasms of the Caractors Document -- as shown by Bryant and Brown.  That is a crucial test of your hypothesis.

 

I anticipate further clarification research on the coherent period issue, (I mention that in the book, as that type of analysis will be extensive and time consuming given the number of characters),  items that may be confounding are whether Egyptian records taken were from the period of departure (brass plates, etc.) will also need to be addressed and will not doubt add significant research time.  In any event, I totally agree that it is an area that definitely warrants further work.  

 

The issue of chiasmus is very interesting, I did not really look at that issue at all (and was not aware of the paper you cited) but now that I have started to look at it, there look to be very intriguing consistencies. Initially I was inclined to presume that given the nature of the text as being heavy on chronology as opposed to prose that perhaps one would not expect to see much as my familiarity with chiasmus was more of a literary structure.  However, interestingly,  I identified independently that there were two discreet (somewhat unrelated) sections in the document, so did the chiasmus analysis you provided.  I identified that the first section looked to be a complete discreet literary unit, so did the chiasmus analysis you provided.  I identified the second section as appearing incomplete, especially at the end, so did the chiasmus analysis.  I identified the use of small scale glyphic "mirroring" which has similarities to chiastic structure.  Very fascinating.  I am planning on doing a follow-up publication to further research issues raised from the initial book, this will definitely be one of them.  Do you have particular experts in chiasmus that you could recommend?  I anticipated funding research beyond the initial publication (one cannot be an expert in everything I am afraid, so understand I will need to compensate people for their time).  As I mentioned in the book, the translation that I rendered was more for meaning putting it into contemporary English, I did not attempt to preserve the underlying linguistic structure (such as chiasmus), the underlying Egyptian grammar etc also definitely needs further research.

 

Thanks for your comments, this is exactly what I was hoping for in putting out the initial book electronically.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...