Joseph Smith as a Hebrew Student

[phaedrus ut]

Incidentally, when it comes to the study of history, you will find that there is often a big difference between what people say they were doing at any particular time and what the evidence actually demonstrates they were doing. That is why evidence is given preference over testimony in such cases.

Not surprisingly I agree. That's why I provided actual evidence in addition to the testimony of both the translator and multiple participants. He said he translated characters, they said he translated characters, we have scenarios of him transcribing characters onto paper for both the early translation process and the Anthon situation. We have characters identified and translated from the BoA fascimilies.

And we have this written by Fredrick G Williams who was Joseph's scribe from 1833 to 1837. The note was found on a paper that had been separated into four sections by a line drawing. The top section contained a copy of the revelation on the parchment of John now in D&C 7. The second section has "Questions in English and answers in Hebrew", and the third section had writings titled "Characters on the book of Mormon" and "The interpretation of Languages." Two characters appear under each heading. The fourth section concerns Lehi's landing in chile. (Selected collections 1:19, Revelations Collections, Box 1, Folder 5. Original: LDS Church Archives MS 4583. )

The same document also exists in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery except the translation says "The Book of Mormon - The interpreter of language" with a note below where he wrote "Written & kept for profit & learning Oliver".

Phaedrus

[William Schryver]

Not surprisingly I agree. That's why I provided actual evidence in addition to the testimony of both the translator and multiple participants. He said he translated characters, they said he translated characters, we have scenarios of him transcribing characters onto paper for both the early translation process and the Anthon situation. We have characters identified and translated from the BoA fascimilies.

And we have this written by Fredrick G Williams who was Joseph's scribe from 1833 to 1837. The note was found on a paper that had been separated into four sections by a line drawing. The top section contained a copy of the revelation on the parchment of John now in D&C 7. The second section has "Questions in English and answers in Hebrew", and the third section had writings titled "Characters on the book of Mormon" and "The interpretation of Languages." Two characters appear under each heading. The fourth section concerns Lehi's landing in chile. (Selected collections 1:19, Revelations Collections, Box 1, Folder 5. Original: LDS Church Archives MS 4583. )

The same document also exists in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery except the translation says "The Book of Mormon - The interpreter of language" with a note below where he wrote "Written & kept for profit & learning Oliver".

Phaedrus

This is a document written by Frederick G. Williams.

Are you saying that you believe that "The book of Mormon" and "The interpreter of Languages" represents the translation of the characters on the next line? If so, how and why have you reached that conclusion? You could be correct, but it sure looks to me like Williams is suggesting that the two characters under "The book of Mormon" were copied from the plates of Mormon, and the two characters under "The interpreter of Languages" were copied from the Urim & Thummim:

On the back of the same sheet there are dozens of other characters of unknown origin:

None of these characters have a translation associated with them, either, although they may have been copied from the plates of Mormon.

Even if we were to accept your dubious interpretation of this Williams letter, it is hardly evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith was producing translations by deciphering unknown characters in a foreign script. There is, quite simply, no evidence to support such a thesis. The witnesses to the process are clear on that, and it just didn't happen that way. Now, is it possible that Joseph Smith was able to, or at least believed he was able, to deduce the meaning of a character or two among the several hundred or thousands appearing on the plates and the papyri? Sure, that's possible. But that is beside the point--the point being that there is no evidence that he was doing anything similar to what we would now term an "academic translation" of a foreign text. The evidence is quite clear on that point: Joseph Smith recited words without the aid or necessity of a source text for the "translation" he was producing.

I don't understand why this is proving so difficult for you to grasp, unless you're resisting the evidence deliberately.

[mapman]

This is a document written by Frederick G. Williams.

Are you saying that you believe that "The book of Mormon" and "The interpreter of Languages" represents the translation of the characters on the next line? If so, how and why have you reached that conclusion? You could be correct, but it sure looks to me like Williams is suggesting that the two characters under "The book of Mormon" were copied from the plates of Mormon, and the two characters under "The interpreter of Languages" were copied from the Urim & Thummim:

On the back of the same sheet there are dozens of other characters of unknown origin:

None of these characters have a translation associated with them, either, although they may have been copied from the plates of Mormon.

Even if we were to accept your dubious interpretation of this Williams letter, it is hardly evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith was producing translations by deciphering unknown characters in a foreign script. There is, quite simply, no evidence to support such a thesis. The witnesses to the process are clear on that, and it just didn't happen that way. Now, is it possible that Joseph Smith was able to, or at least believed he was able, to deduce the meaning of a character or two among the several hundred or thousands appearing on the plates and the papyri? Sure, that's possible. But that is beside the point--the point being that there is no evidence that he was doing anything similar to what we would now term an "academic translation" of a foreign text. The evidence is quite clear on that point: Joseph Smith recited words without the aid or necessity of a source text for the "translation" he was producing.

I don't understand why this is proving so difficult for you to grasp, unless you're resisting the evidence deliberately.

Will, could you tell me where those photos are from? I've never seen a photo of the back of that page. Do you know if those are all of the characters on the page?

[mapman]

First of all, there is little, if any, evidence (and much to the contrary) that the so-called "Caractors" document was in fact what Martin Harris presented to Charles Anthon in 1829.

Could you direct me to the evidence to the contrary? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the "caractors" document was made out of the same kind of paper as the original manuscript.

By the way, I agree with you that Joseph Smith didn't know how to translate the characters from the plates without divine aid.

[phaedrus ut]

You could be correct, but it sure looks to me like Williams is suggesting that the two characters under "The book of Mormon" were copied from the plates of Mormon, and the two characters under "The interpreter of Languages" were copied from the Urim & Thummim:

Not only Williams but Oliver Cowdery by making that same reference document for himself with the corresponding characters and translation.

On the back of the same sheet there are dozens of other characters of unknown origin:

None of these characters have a translation associated with them, either, although they may have been copied from the plates of Mormon.

I didn't have a copy of this. Thanks.

Even if we were to accept your dubious interpretation of this Williams letter, it is hardly evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith was producing translations by deciphering unknown characters in a foreign script.

Seriously? My interpretation is dubious? The scribes for a man who claims to translate these reformed Egyptian characters both create a document titled "Characters on the Book of Mormon" they draw pictures of the characters and circle the picture with some English text. And my conclusion that that the words and pictures are not unrelated is the dubious conclusion?

Should I suppose the half dozen or so of LDS scholars that have reached the same conclusion as me on this document are also making "dubious interpretations"?

There is, quite simply, no evidence to support such a thesis.

Except as I shown all through this thread.

The witnesses to the process are clear on that, and it just didn't happen that way. Now, is it possible that Joseph Smith was able to, or at least believed he was able, to deduce the meaning of a character or two among the several hundred or thousands appearing on the plates and the papyri? Sure, that's possible. But that is beside the point--the point being that there is no evidence that he was doing anything similar to what we would now term an "academic translation" of a foreign text. The evidence is quite clear on that point: Joseph Smith recited words without the aid or necessity of a source text for the "translation" he was producing.

I don't understand why this is proving so difficult for you to grasp, unless you're resisting the evidence deliberately.

I'm not suggesting that was the entire process. In fact the eye witness accounts indicate that the majority of the process was without source text to translate and just given by Joseph to his scribes.

I was just challenging your assertions that:

"There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever deciphered unknown characters"

"there is no evidence whatsoever that he produced his "translation" by coming to understand the meaning, in English, of the strings of individual characters he had copied."

"Again, there is no evidence at all that Joseph Smith understood the meaning of individual characters"

But there is ample evidence of his actual translation of both Egyptian and reformed Egyptian Characters. If you said "There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever deciphered characters correctly" then I would agree.

Phaedrus

[William Schryver]

But there is ample evidence of his actual translation of both Egyptian and reformed Egyptian Characters.

Where?

Show me.

[William Schryver]

Will, could you tell me where those photos are from? I've never seen a photo of the back of that page. Do you know if those are all of the characters on the page?

There's a set of DVDs available for sale (costs a lot) or at various libraries, that has tons of archival church history materials on it. I forget right off hand what exactly they call the thing.

Anyway, there are more characters on the sheet. I just cropped off about 1/2 or 2/3 of the page to post here. Why? Do you know how to translate reformed Egyptian?

[phaedrus ut]

Where?

Show me.

It doesn't get any more explicit than the characters #'s 2, 4,& 5 on facsimile 3. Joseph specifically said these characters mean this. QED

I've responded to every question and CFR you've asked of me on this thread and you haven't responded to any of mine. This evidence you're claiming that supports your position I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you now.

One point I'd like to clarify. I've suggested that Joseph's translation of the reformed Egyptian characters was incorrect. Since the characters, IMO, are not ancient there wouldn't be a correct translation possible. However, as the likely original artist and subsequent translator there is a reasonable argument that Joseph's translations should be "correct".

Phaedrus

[mapman]

There's a set of DVDs available for sale (costs a lot) or at various libraries, that has tons of archival church history materials on it. I forget right off hand what exactly they call the thing.

Anyway, there are more characters on the sheet. I just cropped off about 1/2 or 2/3 of the page to post here. Why? Do you know how to translate reformed Egyptian?

I wish I could translate it, but alas I am not a prophet or a seer. I'd just be interested to see the rest of the characters because I find this stuff very fascinating. I've been collecting images of documents with reformed Egyptian for the past while. Thanks.

[phaedrus ut]

It's been 3 days since both mapman and I asked you on this thread for your claims of evidence. Should I assume at this point you're going to ignore our requests?

Phaedrus

[Mortal Man]

It's been 3 days since both mapman and I asked you on this thread for your claims of evidence.

You can add me to the list of those waiting with bated breath for Will's secret new evidence.

[Chris Smith]

deleted

[Mortal Man]

First of all, there is little, if any, evidence (and much to the contrary) that the so-called "Caractors" document was in fact what Martin Harris presented to Charles Anthon in 1829.

1828

But even if it is, the fact that Joseph Smith may have been informed, by revelation, that a certain portion of his translation corresponded to the characters he transcribed does not mean that he really knew how to decipher those characters, only that he learned that those characters were the source of that part of the translation he had already received. Remember that the document prepared for Anthon was produced AFTER the completion of the BoM translation.

According to Joseph Knight, Sr., Lucy Mack Smith, Charles Anthon and Joseph Smith himself, "no translation had been furnished at the time" Martin took the transcribed characters to Anthon.