The "adieu" Argument

[Pahoran]

All I am familiar with is the Anthon transcript... and it's been a while since I've read anything about it. All I know is that some characters were copied (how many I don't know) and shown to Anthon. From there, the TBM version has it that Anthon confirmed the characters and then denied ever confirming them. The skeptic's version has it that Anthon never confirmed anything. Being a skeptic I like that version. Are you telling me you have solid evidence that Anthon did confirm the characters?

Anthon gave two versions of the Harris interview. Unlike Joseph's First Vision accounts, Anthon's denials really do contradict each other. In particular, in one letter he denied giving Harris a certificate, but in the other he admitted doing so, and then tearing it up when he heard about the miraculous provenance of the plates.

OTOH, Martin Harris gave only one version of the interview. Evidently he had some doubts of his own, but his meeting with Anthon settled them. Neither of the Anthon versions explains this outcome; only Martin's version does.

But by all means, stick with the version you "like."

Which one would that be, BTW?

Actually, if you recall, I was never very much into defending the "adieu" argument from the beginning... note my words:

Nevertheless, you gave it a go, and you still are trying to salvage something from it.

This has been my contention all along... not the rather trite "adieu" argument at all but rather the TBM idea (as embodied in the quote above) that the word "adieu" was chosen, not by God, but by Joseph Smith.

Exactly. See D&C 1:24; 9:8-9. Avoid any eisegetically derived, ad hoc "contradictions."

I agree with at least part of that assessment, because I believe every word in the BOM was chosen by Joseph Smith (or plagiarized). God had nothing to do with it.

Wow, what an original opinion. I never thought of that. It must take exceptional brain power to come up with the most easy and obvious naturalistic assumption available.

BTW, do you actually believe in God in any meaningful sense?

That "adieu" appears in the BOM is no surprise to me, nor apparently to the LDS apologist quoted above, who makes the case that the word appears in the BOM because it was "probably the best equivalent of Jacob's words of which Joseph Smith was aware."

Quite right. See D&C 1:24; 9:8-9. Avoid any eisegetically derived, ad hoc "contradictions."

Regards,

Pahoran

[MormonMason]

...

Okay so, as a skeptic, but certainly not an Egyptologist (and it appears you are not either)... my first reaction is quite different from yours... I see a definite English influence in the AT characters... you don't?

I see about as much English influence in the transcript as I see in Phoenician. Just for fun, I took a list of Phoenician characters from one of my lexicons and handwrote a number of same characters. In this case, I rearranged them like Charles Shook and others did and rewrote them to form a phrase. Here are the two compared, just for fun:

So you know, I've done the same with Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek, Coptic, and could do the same with Armenian and a few other languages. The point is, anyone can rearrange a bona fide language's characters and make them say or be something other than what they are. That sort of thing done by Shook and repeated by the Tanners does not impress me.

BTW, do you read Demotic?

As I stated above, my Demotic is horrible. I have stated elsewhere that I am not an Egyptologist. The language in all its dialects holds an interest for me. I have many of the same lexicons and dictionaries that a professional Egyptologist would have, Hannig, Erman and Grapow, Faulkner, Crum, and a number of grammars as well. I do not have a Demotic dictionary handy, however. In fact, no one I know has a complete dictionary of Demotic available as there is not one available so far as I know. There is one in progress but it is not yet complete. Anyone who wants to look at this sort of thing from the Demotic perspective has to go to many sources. Students do not call this dialect "Demon-tic" for nothing.

Are you a scholar?

Depends upon who you ask. Some with whom I have had dealings think I am a merciless, mercenary, mopologist hack.

I'm going to go back to your earlier post....

Okay, so again, you acknowledge that anything you say could be wrong... so we're just speculating here, which is fine, that's all I can do. But, correct me if I'm wrong, that is really all the AT characters have going for them at this point---speculation--correct? Are there any bona-fide Egyptologists or linguists who recognize them as authentic characters in a bona-fide language?

True enough. I also acknowledge that many things said by Egyptologists up to now may end up in the discard twenty years from now as much has done from twenty years ago. Even the great Gardiner has had material debunked rather thoroughly. Budge is now pretty much garbage unless what portions still have value can be confirmed in other sources.

Yes, I am speculating, and so is everyone else until a satisfactory methodology is worked out. Another problem is that there is not a complete Demotic dictionary available anywhere, at least not one of which I am aware. Until that happens, it will not be easy to run comparisons on the script and crosscheck it with Demotic dictionary entries.

Are there bona fide linguists who have looked at the Transcript with interest? Yes. I just do not remember their names at the moment. I just recalled that I know of another one who thinks that one day the transcript might be translated. His name is John Gee, and he is a trained Egyptologist. Heard of him? Yes, he is a Mormon but that is beside the point. When I can recall the names of the others who think there are a number of affinities with Demotic on the transcript, I will let you know. For the life of me, though, I cannot seem at the moment to remember who they were or what I did with the copies of the letters I had that contained the information.

How does it differ?

Anthon mentioned that the transcript was aligned in columns and ended with "the rude delineation" of a circle or "mexican calendar", if I recall correctly. None of these features are on the current transcript. The crosses and flourishes are, however.

So then are you suggesting this is not the paper Anthon actually saw?

I am not totally sure whether it is or isn't. It is most likely the one (the spelling "Caractors" looks like something that might come from Joseph Smith's spelling deficiencies but the handwriting is not close enough to Joseph Smith's own hand to say that he is the one who copied these characters) but without the other portions one can never be totally sure. That in and of itself may create difficulties with translating the characters, for if they were copied from another document, this means that it had to pass through the hands of at least one or more copyists.

Why not? Was it removed?

This paper is a scrap of paper torn from a whole sheet. Why it was torn is unknown. Where the English translation that accompanied the characters went is anyone's guess. The History of the Church states that an English translation accompanied the characters so that Anthon could declare to Harris that the English translation was correct.

And the skeptic in me would say, well that makes sense, since Joseph Smith didn't know how to combine authentic Egyptian characters!

That is correct! Joseph Smith did not know how to combine authentic Egyptian characters. This was especially so in 1827-1835, when Joseph Smith had no acquaintance with other languages than Frontier English. In 1835, Joseph Smith became acquainted with Hebrew, and came to see Hieratic Egyptian documents for the first time in his life. So, what makes you think that in 1827-1828 he would be able to copy Demotic-based Egyptian characters correctly?

On the other hand, on what basis can you make such a claim? Isn't the typical LDS defense that this is not actually Egyptian? ...rather reformed Egyptian? How then do you know enough about reformed Egyptian to assert that:

the characters are separated from one another in odd ways.

On the basis that it looks a lot like Demotic script. Look at the last three lines of the transcript again. The transcript has affinities with actual Demotic characters. Demotic was in use at the time that Lehi is said to have left Jerusalem. It is to be expected that there would be some affinity with such a dialect even in Egyptian characters that were handed down and altered. The only reason the characters were called reformed Egyptian by Moroni was because they were aware that they were altered and handed down and called that by him and by those he knew. But, there are affinities with Demotic because I believe that that dialect is the source of the underlying originals. Am I wrong? I could be. I would not be devastated to find myself so. No one knows enough about reformed Egyptian to know anything with a surety at this time.

I could make the claims because there is an underlying structure to Egyptian characters and these are broken in odd ways that don't seem right. This does not prove anything. I am sure that there others who will agree. But, it is possible that some of these problems may be caused by changes in the language. As I have said before, there is no surety at this time. But, we are closer.

Isn't it also possible that Joseph Smith didn't actually copy anything? That would account for the odd spacing and the "poor" copying... wouldn't it? On the other hand, if you are correct, one has to wonder why Joseph wasn't more careful in the way he copied these incredible, one of a kind characters--especially given that the purpose of the copying was to get them verified--wasn't it? Why would he be sloppy?

Not really. It would account for nothing. The characters do not look like random scribbling. Others have seen them and have seen the characters on the plates. I think someone would have noticed random doodles. What is more, the transcript is not written in random doodles. The transcript contains definite patterns of connected thought based upon the layout of the script alone. In addition, someone--I do not remember who at the moment--pointed out that certain of the characters can be restructured chiastically. This does not really prove anything but the pattern is too regular and not random enough to have been simply scribbles of someone wanting to fake a transcript. They must be read from right to left based upon the layout of the characters but Joseph smith at that time would not have known any languages but English and would not have known that other languages would be written from right to left. That he copied them from left to right demonstrates that. It was not until later that he would declare that the characters on the plates ran from right to left, and not until later that he would actually see a sample of Egyptian text that also would run from right to left.

He would be sloppy because he had no choice. He had no experience with such characters. Even changing of the tiniest, little stroke can modify the sense of a Demotic phrase. He would not have done this on purpose. He would have tried as hard as he could but would not have been able to copy them exactly with his inexperience. It takes time to learn how to copy Demotic.

Which again begs the same questions... why would Joseph be sloppy?

See above. Also, again, the characters on the plates were finely engraved. The transcript is coarsely laid out and copied. It would be difficult for an unlearned farm-boy to copy such characters as accurately as someone who has some experience with ancient languages, or even as accurately as someone who has spent years with Demotic or one of its offspring.

Now, here are some more difficulties. Anyone who would make an all-out go of translating the transcript would have to learn Demotic well. Not only this, he would also have to learn Late Egyptian Grammar because Demotic is actually written in that dialect. No one who reads Middle Egyptian alone will be equipped to read such a thing. I am not so equipped, I am sorry to say, but plan to rectify that situation one of these days. One must have a more or less complete Demotic dictionary. Such a thing does not yet exist but Egyptologists are getting there. This will take time. We now also have a preliminary methodology for translating the transcript but it will require acquiring more samples and comparing these with what we now have. We are closer but for now all is speculation except that the transcript has affinities with genuine Demotic Egyptian characters, which are the right dialect for the period upon which reformed Egyptian could have been based.

Further evidence of authenticity is the fact that Phelps used the words "short-hand Egyptian" in an 1831 letter, which phrase could only have been learned from an Egyptologist, linguist who knows of such a thing, of from a scholarly publication containing such a phrase. I cannot think of anyone who could have heard that phrase and passed it on but Harris, and I cannot think of where Harris could have gotten it but from Anthon, who had a subscription to a journal that used that selfsame phrase, a journal to which Anthon had access as proven by his quotation of another issue of it in his Classical Dictionary.

Another point of evidence in favor of Anthon's having told Harris what Harris claims? Harris came home and mortgaged his farm to have the Book of Mormon printed. He did not back down from what he knew about the Book, and Harris would not suplly any money to the publication of the Book of Mormon unless he heard from scholars first. As soon as he came back from Anthon, he stated that he would mortgage his farm and he did.

[4truth]

Pahoran:

Wow, what an original opinion. I never thought of that. It must take exceptional brain power to come up with the most easy and obvious naturalistic assumption available.

Yes, in fact, it does when in discussions with LDS who often postulate the most uneasy, unnatural assumptions in order to keep the hope of JS's prophethood alive.

BTW, do you actually believe in God in any meaningful sense?

Absolutely. Thanks for asking. I believe in a unique God who's always been uniquely God.

[4truth]

MM:

I see about as much English influence in the transcript as I see in Phoenician. Just for fun, I took a list of Phoenician characters from one of my lexicons and handwrote a number of same characters. In this case, I rearranged them like Charles Shook and others did and rewrote them to form a phrase. Here are the two compared, just for fun:

Okay, I'll agree, that is fun! However, it looks to me like you're "cheating" quite a bit, aren't you (?) by rotating, twisting and exaggerating strokes? For example, from which character do you get your "A"? Your "P" looks like a mirror image of the Phoenician, correct (?) and your "S" appears to have fallen over.

The point is, anyone can rearrange a bona fide language's characters and make them say or be something other than what they are. That sort of thing done by Shook and repeated by the Tanners does not impress me.

So then why couldn't Joseph Smith have also come up with his own characters modified from legitimate scripts, numbers and symbols? I don't think my IQ is as high as Joseph's likely was, and I venture to guess I could come up with my own characters if I gave it a little thought.

Depends upon who you ask. Some with whom I have had dealings think I am a merciless, mercenary, mopologist hack.

Well it's a good thing we've struck up a conversation since I've been accused of being a raving, bigotted, anti-Mormon who spews poisonous, faith-destroying lies every time I touch the keyboard. (Okay, I might be exaggerating just a bit for effect, but it was close!)

True enough. I also acknowledge that many things said by Egyptologists up to now may end up in the discard twenty years from now as much has done from twenty years ago. Even the great Gardiner has had material debunked rather thoroughly. Budge is now pretty much garbage unless what portions still have value can be confirmed in other sources.

Yes, I am speculating, and so is everyone else until a satisfactory methodology is worked out. Another problem is that there is not a complete Demotic dictionary available anywhere, at least not one of which I am aware. Until that happens, it will not be easy to run comparisons on the script and crosscheck it with Demotic dictionary entries.

Are there bona fide linguists who have looked at the Transcript with interest? Yes. I just do not remember their names at the moment. I just recalled that I know of another one who thinks that one day the transcript might be translated. His name is John Gee, and he is a trained Egyptologist. Heard of him? Yes, he is a Mormon but that is beside the point. When I can recall the names of the others who think there are a number of affinities with Demotic on the transcript, I will let you know. For the life of me, though, I cannot seem at the moment to remember who they were or what I did with the copies of the letters I had that contained the information.

I would think this would be a priority for LDS apologists... probably just the skeptic in me, though.

Anthon mentioned that the transcript was aligned in columns and ended with "the rude delineation" of a circle or "mexican calendar", if I recall correctly. None of these features are on the current transcript. The crosses and flourishes are, however.

Hmmm. I suppose if one rotates the page 90 degrees one gets "columns".... is it possible that "Caracters" is a late addition?

I am not totally sure whether it is or isn't. It is most likely the one (the spelling "Caractors" looks like something that might come from Joseph Smith's spelling deficiencies but the handwriting is not close enough to Joseph Smith's own hand to say that he is the one who copied these characters) but without the other portions one can never be totally sure. That in and of itself may create difficulties with translating the characters, for if they were copied from another document, this means that it had to pass through the hands of at least one or more copyists.

Yes I could see that causing problems whether or not there actually were any plates.

This paper is a scrap of paper torn from a whole sheet. Why it was torn is unknown. Where the English translation that accompanied the characters went is anyone's guess. The History of the Church states that an English translation accompanied the characters so that Anthon could declare to Harris that the English translation was correct.

And of course the evil skeptic in me rears his ugly head and wonders why there is no English translation here... hmmm...

That is correct! Joseph Smith did not know how to combine authentic Egyptian characters. This was especially so in 1827-1835, when Joseph Smith had no acquaintance with other languages than Frontier English. In 1835, Joseph Smith became acquainted with Hebrew, and came to see Hieratic Egyptian documents for the first time in his life. So, what makes you think that in 1827-1828 he would be able to copy Demotic-based Egyptian characters correctly?

Oh I don't know, maybe the idea that he actually had the real plates sitting right in front of him? I mean it seems to me that the fact that you see the resulting characters as "poorly copied" lends support to the notion that there were no plates after all.

On the basis that it looks a lot like Demotic script.

I see a lot of modified numbers.... several "2"s and "3"s a "6" an "8" ... I can't get it to zoom in very close, but I think I even see a 1/2! At least a couple of "4"s... there's even places that look like 2-digit numbers... I see "12" "11" "19" ...even possible 3 digits with marks in between "632" "206" I also see "6' " and "8-1" several "H"s... and of course I'm reading from left to right, top to bottom, but then if Joseph Smith created this that is also how he would have constructed it. I suppose you'll chalk it up to seeing what one wants to see, but it sure looks like something Joseph Smith could have created to me. (And the phenomenon works both ways. )

Not really. It would account for nothing. The characters do not look like random scribbling.

Agreed. However, it does look like modified English characters and numbers with random scribbling thrown in, coupled with what a rural American farm-boy might envision an exotic ancient semitic/Egyptian text to look like.

Others have seen them and have seen the characters on the plates.

Who, besides Joseph Smith ever claimed to have seen the characters on the plates?

I think someone would have noticed random doodles.

Charles Anthon?

What is more, the transcript is not written in random doodles. The transcript contains definite patterns of connected thought based upon the layout of the script alone.

The BOM contains definite patterns. Smith borrowed from various sources for various books to give the illusion of distinct authors. I think he knew what he was doing and pulled it off remarkably well. Yet, he invariably left clues.

In addition, someone--I do not remember who at the moment--pointed out that certain of the characters can be restructured chiastically. This does not really prove anything but the pattern is too regular and not random enough to have been simply scribbles of someone wanting to fake a transcript. They must be read from right to left based upon the layout of the characters but Joseph smith at that time would not have known any languages but English and would not have known that other languages would be written from right to left. That he copied them from left to right demonstrates that. It was not until later that he would declare that the characters on the plates ran from right to left, and not until later that he would actually see a sample of Egyptian text that also would run from right to left.

If he created them by modifying numbers and script and wrote from left to right, it's a very simple thing to later declare... oh yeah, I guess it is read from right to left! Why wouldn't he already have known this due to the fact that God had allegedly given him a word for word translation from the same plates?

He would be sloppy because he had no choice. He had no experience with such characters. Even changing of the tiniest, little stroke can modify the sense of a Demotic phrase. He would not have done this on purpose.

Unless there were no plates.

He would have tried as hard as he could but would not have been able to copy them exactly with his inexperience. It takes time to learn how to copy Demotic.

Chalk it up to the mean old skeptic in me, but I just don't buy that. He allegedly had the plates sitting right in front of him! I don't think he's going to mess it up nearly as badly as you seem to think he did--especially when the whole point of the copying was to get them verified.

Look at the last three lines of the transcript again. The transcript has affinities with actual Demotic characters. Demotic was in use at the time that Lehi is said to have left Jerusalem. It is to be expected that there would be some affinity with such a dialect even in Egyptian characters that were handed down and altered. The only reason the characters were called reformed Egyptian by Moroni was because they were aware that they were altered and handed down and called that by him and by those he knew. But, there are affinities with Demotic because I believe that that dialect is the source of the underlying originals. Am I wrong? I could be. I would not be devastated to find myself so. No one knows enough about reformed Egyptian to know anything with a surety at this time.

I could make the claims because there is an underlying structure to Egyptian characters and these are broken in odd ways that don't seem right. This does not prove anything. I am sure that there others who will agree. But, it is possible that some of these problems may be caused by changes in the language. As I have said before, there is no surety at this time. But, we are closer.

Unfortunately, that doesn't amount to solid support for the idea that Joseph Smith did not create the BOM in the 19th century.

See above. Also, again, the characters on the plates were finely engraved. The transcript is coarsely laid out and copied. It would be difficult for an unlearned farm-boy to copy such characters as accurately as someone who has some experience with ancient languages, or even as accurately as someone who has spent years with Demotic or one of its offspring.

Now, here are some more difficulties. Anyone who would make an all-out go of translating the transcript would have to learn Demotic well. Not only this, he would also have to learn Late Egyptian Grammar because Demotic is actually written in that dialect. No one who reads Middle Egyptian alone will be equipped to read such a thing. I am not so equipped, I am sorry to say, but plan to rectify that situation one of these days. One must have a more or less complete Demotic dictionary. Such a thing does not yet exist but Egyptologists are getting there. This will take time. We now also have a preliminary methodology for translating the transcript but it will require acquiring more samples and comparing these with what we now have. We are closer but for now all is speculation except that the transcript has affinities with genuine Demotic Egyptian characters, which are the right dialect for the period upon which reformed Egyptian could have been based.

Further evidence of authenticity is the fact that Phelps used the words "short-hand Egyptian" in an 1831 letter, which phrase could only have been learned from an Egyptologist, linguist who knows of such a thing, of from a scholarly publication containing such a phrase. I cannot think of anyone who could have heard that phrase and passed it on but Harris, and I cannot think of where Harris could have gotten it but from Anthon, who had a subscription to a journal that used that selfsame phrase, a journal to which Anthon had access as proven by his quotation of another issue of it in his Classical Dictionary.

Another point of evidence in favor of Anthon's having told Harris what Harris claims? Harris came home and mortgaged his farm to have the Book of Mormon printed. He did not back down from what he knew about the Book, and Harris would not suplly any money to the publication of the Book of Mormon unless he heard from scholars first. As soon as he came back from Anthon, he stated that he would mortgage his farm and he did.

Yes I think you are correct that for whatever reason, Harris was convinced this was the real thing. Looking back on the overall picture of JS's history, however, I am not.

You're a good sport, though. Thank you for responding and for a civil dialogue.

--All the best,

Roger

[Pahoran]

Wow, what an original opinion. I never thought of that. It must take exceptional brain power to come up with the most easy and obvious naturalistic assumption available.

Pahoran:

Yes, in fact, it does when in discussions with LDS who often postulate the most uneasy, unnatural assumptions in order to keep the hope of JS's prophethood alive.

Really? And after all your earnest insistence that you are in no way prejudiced against Mormons? Say it ain't so!

Are you really confessing that you regard believing Latter-day Saints as untermenschen of sub-normal intelligence; that you assume that we are such dolts that it has never even occurred to us that books can be written without miraculous intervention?

You're pulling our legs, right? What's the punchline here?

You know, of course, that every believing Latter-day Saint of normal intelligence has considered the "Joe Smith mayd it awl upp" assumption that you imagine is a complete intellectual triumph, if not a tour de force, and has rejected it.

BTW, do you actually believe in God in any meaningful sense?

Absolutely. Thanks for asking. I believe in a unique God who's always been uniquely God.

Uh-huh. So when you describe yourself as a "skeptic," you are laying claim to a highly selective skepticism; one that privileges your unprovable beliefs, but permits you to attack everyone else's. I quite understand.

No wonder you are so modest, if not downright coy, about telling us what they are.

You know they couldn't withstand five minutes of the kind of scrutiny you feel entitled to bring to bear upon the faith of the Latter-day Saints.

Perhaps you can help me with a crossword clue here. Nine letters, "One who professes principles contrary to his actions." I think it might start with an "H."

Regards,

Pahoran

[MormonMason]

A lot of this discussion is good, but it is missing something obvious. The problem is much simpler than all this. The "adieu" argument fails because the BOM claims to be translated from Reformed Egyptian, an unknown language. How can we be certain that Ref. Egyptian has no phrase that is best translated into English as "adieu"? Unless someone can prove that, "adieu" gets the benefit of the doubt.

And, in that light, consider the following data which turns up in the lexica. Last night, D. Charles Pyle stumbled on the following information while looking for something else, which information I now post here.

From Langensheit's Concise German Dictionary: English-German, p. 25:

From Hannig's Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Grosses Handw

[maklelan]

This argument of critics is now truly dead.

Was it ever really alive? My instincts say no.

[grego]

MormonMason,

Very nice.

But is there one in Hebrew? (Or did I miss that?)

[MormonMason]

...But is there one in Hebrew? (Or did I miss that?)

I have a Hebrew-English Lexicon of 40,000 Hebrew words that does contain words that are roughly equivalent to adieu, such as lehitra'oth, shalom, and lephridah, the latter two being placed right next to the English adieu. However, none of the Biblical Hebrew lexicons I can check contain them (exccept for shalom, which is attested in the Bible but not in the same way, notwithstanding cognate languages do have examples of such usage). Of course, there are only about 8,000 or so vocabulary words (I do not at the moment recall the exact count) in the Hebrew Bible.

I also know for a fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls also contain more Hebrew words than are found in a Biblical Hebrew Lexicon, so lack of a word or two in a Biblical Hebrew-English Lexicon means nothing.