Oliver'S Attempt To Translate

[Whiskeypete]

In D&C 8 and 9 we learn that Oliver Cowdery was desirous to "translate". D&C 8:1 specifically references "engravings of old records." We learn in D&C 9 that Oliver was unsuccessful in his attempt to translate. A quick sunday-school-style set of assumptions would lead one to believe that Oliver was handed the plates and the Urim and Thummin and he couldn't get them to work. However, if we go past our initial assumptions and look at what we knew of Joseph and what he called "translation" at this time, we can see the following:

1. Oliver's request to translate happened before he became one of the three witnesses. Did he try to translate the plates?
   
2. Joseph didn't always use the Urim and Thummin to translate. He started with the Urim and Thummin but eventually used his seer stone instead. Was he using the Urim and Thummin to translate the plates at this time? or the seer stone? He was receiving other revelations through the Urim and Thummin after this time (D&C 11 & 14)
   
3. Joseph referred to any revelation that resulted in the restoration of an ancient record as Translation, whether or not there was any physical record in front of him to translate (D&C 7 and JST/Book of Moses)
   
4. Joseph translated much of the Book of Mormon without even having the plates open in front of him. They were either wrapped in cloth, locked in a box, or hidden in another place entirely.
   

So when we read in D&C 9 that Oliver was unable to "translate," what was it that he was unsuccessful in doing?

• Reading Reformed Egyptian off of the plates using the Urim & Thummin?
  
• Getting a revelation as to what the text of the Book of Mormon was to be?
  
• Receiving the writings of another ancient prophet?
  
• Receiving a standard revelation from the Lord?
  

Any insights?

[MDalby]

1. Joseph translated much of the Book of Mormon without even having the plates open in front of him. They were either wrapped in cloth, locked in a box, or hidden in another place entirely.
   

CFR?

[Stargazer]

CFR?

I'm sure WP can answer the CFR, but this is an item which has been brought up many times on this board as a fact, and I don't think anyone disputes it.

[MDalby]

I'm sure WP can answer the CFR, but this is an item which has been brought up many times on this board as a fact, and I don't think anyone disputes it.

Sorry, but I will need more of a source than this board's opinion. I don't value people's opinions that much.

[Wiki Wonka]

Sorry, but I will need more of a source than this board's opinion. I don't value people's opinions that much.

Here is a collection of statements from contemporary sources (both believers and hostile) about the translation method which you may find useful:

Statements regarding the Book of Mormon translation method

Based upon what I've read, I believe that Joseph was using the seer stone by the time Oliver became involved and that he may never have received the Nephite interpreters back after the loss of the 116 pages. That's simply my personal opinion based upon my reading of the sources. Both the seer stone and the Nephite interpreters were eventually referred to as "Urim and Thummin" sometime in the early 1830's. One of the more well known statements regarding the translation of the plates while they were not viewed directly came from Emma. Emma never saw the plates directly, so her observation of the translation process means that they were either under a cloth or hidden somewhere.

1879

Emma Smith Bidamon (eyewitness)

Question. What of the truth of Mormonism?

Answer. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

Question. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?

Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.

Question. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?

Answer. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.

Question. Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book?

Answer. Joseph Smith [and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, "your father" or "my husband"] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to anyone else.

Question. I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?

Answer. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so;

Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

Answer. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.

Question. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?

Answer. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.

Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Herald 26 (October 1, 1879): 289-90; and Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma;' Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 50-52.

Scribe: Emma Smith

Curtain: Not present

Instrument: Seer stone

Method: Hat

Some additional quotes come from David Whitmer, although he alternately refers to both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stones. These quotes from Whitmer seem to describe the early portion of the translation process and refer to the Nephite interpreters and the blanket shielding them:

1885

David Whitmer (eyewitness), Chicago Tribune

"Each time before resuming the work all present would kneel in prayer and invoke the Divine blessing on the proceeding. After prayer Smith would sit on one side of a table and the amanuenses, in turn as they became tired, on the other. Those present and not actively engaged in the work seated themselves around the room and then the work began. After affixing the magical spectacles to his eyes, Smith would take the plates and translate the characters one at a time. The graven characters would appear in succession to the seer, and directly under the character, when viewed through the glasses, would be the translation in English."

"The Book of Mormon;' Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1885, 3• The Tribune correspondent visited and interviewed Whitmer on December 15, 1885, at Whitmer's home in Richmond, Missouri.

Scribe: Not explicitly identified ("the amanuenses")

Curtain: Not present

Instrument: Nephite interpreters ("magical spectacles," "glasses")

Method: "affixing the magical spectacles to his eyes"

David Whitmer (eyewitness), Chicago Tribune

"In order to give privacy to the proceeding a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eyes of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress. This, Mr. Whitmer says, was the only use made of the blanket, and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the amanuensis. In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned, but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith's relatives besides."

"The Book of Mormon;' Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1885, 3. The Tribune correspondent visited and interviewed Whitmer on December 15, 1885, at Whitmer's home in Richmond, Missouri.

Scribe: Not mentioned

Curtain: Mentioned

Instrument: Not specified

Method: Not specified

This quote from Whitmer seems to refer to the latter portion of the translation process and refers to the seer stone:

1887

David Whitmer (eyewitness), An Address to All Believers in Christ

"God gave to an unlearned boy, Joseph Smith, the gift to translate it by the means of a STONE. See the following passages concerning the ”Urim and Thummin," being the same means and one by which the Ancients received the word of the Lord."

David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, (1887), p. 5.

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, (1887), p. 11.

Scribe: Oliver Cowdery

Curtain: Not mentioned

Instrument: Stone, "Urim and Thummim," seer stone

Method: Hat

WW

[Wiki Wonka]

In D&C 8 and 9 we learn that Oliver Cowdery was desirous to "translate". D&C 8:1 specifically references "engravings of old records." We learn in D&C 9 that Oliver was unsuccessful in his attempt to translate. A quick sunday-school-style set of assumptions would lead one to believe that Oliver was handed the plates and the Urim and Thummin and he couldn't get them to work. However, if we go past our initial assumptions and look at what we knew of Joseph and what he called "translation" at this time, we can see the following:

1. Oliver's request to translate happened before he became one of the three witnesses. Did he try to translate the plates?
   
2. Joseph didn't always use the Urim and Thummin to translate. He started with the Urim and Thummin but eventually used his seer stone instead. Was he using the Urim and Thummin to translate the plates at this time? or the seer stone? He was receiving other revelations through the Urim and Thummin after this time (D&C 11 & 14)
   
3. Joseph referred to any revelation that resulted in the restoration of an ancient record as Translation, whether or not there was any physical record in front of him to translate (D&C 7 and JST/Book of Moses)
   
4. Joseph translated much of the Book of Mormon without even having the plates open in front of him. They were either wrapped in cloth, locked in a box, or hidden in another place entirely.
   

So when we read in D&C 9 that Oliver was unable to "translate," what was it that he was unsuccessful in doing?

• Reading Reformed Egyptian off of the plates using the Urim & Thummin?
  
• Getting a revelation as to what the text of the Book of Mormon was to be?
  
• Receiving the writings of another ancient prophet?
  
• Receiving a standard revelation from the Lord?
  

Any insights?

I suppose I ought to respond to the OP as well. In my opinion, Oliver attempted to translate the plates using the seer stone, without directly viewing them. The reason that I think this is because Joseph was fully focused on the translation of the plates at the time, and I can't imagine what else Oliver might have attempted to translate. The fact that Oliver did not physically view the plates until he became one of the three witnesses leads me to believe that he must have used the seer stone.

WW

[cinepro]

In D&C 8 and 9 we learn that Oliver Cowdery was desirous to "translate".

I recommend checking out these podcasts where the subject is discussed:

Episode 139a: D&C 8 and 9 for Dummies Part 1

Episode 139b: D&C 8 and 9 for Dummies Part 2

[Wiki Wonka]

I recommend checking out these podcasts where the subject is discussed:

Episode 139a: D&C 8 and 9 for Dummies Part 1

Episode 139b: D&C 8 and 9 for Dummies Part 2

I would recommend becoming familiar with the history of Oliver's "sprout" (a.k.a. the "rod of nature") as recorded in the D&C, which can be found here:

Doctrine and Covenants/Oliver Cowdery and the "rod of nature"

However, I still believe that Oliver attempted to translate using Joseph's seer stone. A "rod" would likely have been used to obtain a yes/no answer to questions, and wouldn't really be conducive to the type of translation Joseph was performing.

Regarding the history of the relevant D&C passage, here's how it evolved according to Vol. 1 of the "Revelations and Translations" series of The Joseph Smith Papers, which is published by the Church.

The original wording of the revelation along with revisions performed by Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, John Whitmer, and another unidentified editor is recorded in the REVELATION BOOK 1 (April 1829-B [D&C 8]). The original revelation reads as follows:

...remember this is thy gift now this is not all for thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout Behold it hath told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands.

Sidney Rigdon edited the passage to read like this:

...remember this is your gift now this is not all for you have another gift which is the gift of working with the rod Behold it has told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this rod to work in your hands.

In the Book of Commandments (the predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants), the revelation underwent an additional revision by a publication committee of the First Presidency (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Frederick G. Williams). The Book of Commandments stated:

Chapter 7:3—Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God.

In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, this was revised to read:

D&C 8:6–8—Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God. (1921 edition, 8:6–8.)

If Oliver used a "rod," then it would help explain why he was open to the idea of Joseph using a physical aid to perform translation. I do not, however, believe that he used a rod to attempt such a translation.

WW

Edited July 4, 2011 by Wiki Wonka

[Brant Gardner]

However, I still believe that Oliver attempted to translate using Joseph's seer stone. A "rod" would likely have been used to obtain a yes/no answer to questions, and wouldn't really be conducive to the type of translation Joseph was performing.

Two things argue for Oliver using a "rod" to attempt a translation. The first is the verse in question. The second is the revelation explaining why he failed. You will notice that you indicate that a rod would work best with a yes/no answer, and that is exactly what that revelation tells him he should have done (and why it works for us in prayer - yes/ no is a good way to get that kind of understanding). I think that Oliver failed because he used a different method than Joseph, but expected it to work more similarly. Oliver didn't understand how to receive a text through his talent with the yes/no instrument (certainly not as easy as reading it was for Joseph).

The attempt at translating with the "rod" explains the event, the nature of the failure, and the reason that the explaining revelation doesn't fit the way Joseph translated.

[Whiskeypete]

Thanks for the replies. It is so easy to make assumptions about what we think the text is saying, or what the context is. This gives me some more to look at

[Mike Reed]

Two things argue for Oliver using a "rod" to attempt a translation. The first is the verse in question. The second is the revelation explaining why he failed. You will notice that you indicate that a rod would work best with a yes/no answer, and that is exactly what that revelation tells him he should have done (and why it works for us in prayer - yes/ no is a good way to get that kind of understanding). I think that Oliver failed because he used a different method than Joseph, but expected it to work more similarly. Oliver didn't understand how to receive a text through his talent with the yes/no instrument (certainly not as easy as reading it was for Joseph).

The attempt at translating with the "rod" explains the event, the nature of the failure, and the reason that the explaining revelation doesn't fit the way Joseph translated.

I agree with you that Oliver tried to translate with the Rod, and that during this process he would have therefore been limited to receiving yes/no answers. But I also think Oliver believed that the BoM characters were pitographic, and could therefore be guessed at intuitively--a sort of "study it out in your mind and ask me if it is right" process. I agree with you that this process would've been especially difficult (if not impossible) for Oliver to come up with quick and easy results. Joseph could receive purely imaginative/revelatory results by simply looking at his seer stone. Oliver's results, on the other hand, essentially needed to be reconciled with the way he perceived each of the characters.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Wiki Wonka]

Thanks for the replies. It is so easy to make assumptions about what we think the text is saying, or what the context is. This gives me some more to look at

I think that your OP hit directly one one of the more obvious but unchallenged inconsistencies in what we are taught in Church.

1) We clearly teach from the scriptures that Oliver attempted to translate during the course of the BoM translation process.

2) We clearly teach from the scriptures that Oliver did not view the plates or the Urim and Thummin until he became one of the Three Witnesses.

Oliver's attempt to translate is always used to illustrate the important lesson of "studying it out in your mind." We accept the lesson that was intended, yet nobody ever seems to wonder how Oliver attempted to translate if he could not view the plates or the U&T. I always wondered, but never asked the question. Once the historical sources are examined, it starts to make a lot more sense. Whether Oliver attempted to translate using a rod, or whether he used Joseph's stone, it leads straight to the idea that the plates did not have to be viewed directly through some sort of instrument, which is also supported by the historical sources.

WW

Edited July 4, 2011 by Wiki Wonka

[Wiki Wonka]

I agree with you that Oliver tried to translate with the Rod, and that during this process he would have therefore been limited to receiving yes/no answers. But I also think Oliver believed that the BoM characters were pitographic, and could therefore be guessed at intuitively--a sort of "study it out in your mind and ask me if it is right" process. I agree with you that this process would've been especially difficult (if not impossible) for Oliver to come up with quick and easy results. Joseph could receive purely imaginative/revelatory results by simply looking at his seer stone. Oliver's results, on the other hand, essentially needed to be reconciled with the way he perceived each of the characters.

I could picture Oliver attempting to use the rod to determine the meaning of characters that he could actually view. Looking at a particular character and then using a "yes/no" answer to see if he was getting it right would be tedious, but I can see him attempting it. Since Oliver wasn't allowed to see the plates, that's where I begin to have trouble with the "rod." I suppose it is possible that Oliver attempted to use a rod to translate the characters that Joseph had written down for Martin Harris to take to Charles Anthon. I don't suppose that it would have taken Oliver very long to attempt to translate those using his rod and fail at the attempt.

WW

Edited July 4, 2011 by Wiki Wonka

[Brant Gardner]

I could picture Oliver attempting to use the rod to determine the meaning of characters that he could actually view. Looking at a particular character and then using a "yes/no" answer to see if he was getting it right would be tedious, but I can see him attempting it. Since Oliver wasn't allowed to see the plates, that's where I begin to have trouble with the "rod." I suppose it is possible that Oliver attempted to use a rod to translate the characters that Joseph had written down for Martin Harris to take to Charles Anthon. I don't suppose that it would have taken Oliver very long to attempt to translate those using his rod and fail at the attempt.

WW

There is no difference that Oliver might have understood between Joseph translating with "means" but without seeing the plates and Oliver translating with "means" without seeing the plates. The basic set up is the same, but underlying assumptions are the same. The only difference is the nature of the way the "means" functioned.

I do find it fascinating that from what we have of the before/after revelation, Joseph appears to have really believed that Oliver could translate and was, I submit, surprised that he couldn't.

[Wiki Wonka]

There is no difference that Oliver might have understood between Joseph translating with "means" but without seeing the plates and Oliver translating with "means" without seeing the plates. The basic set up is the same, but underlying assumptions are the same. The only difference is the nature of the way the "means" functioned.

I do find it fascinating that from what we have of the before/after revelation, Joseph appears to have really believed that Oliver could translate and was, I submit, surprised that he couldn't.

Agreed. Brant, I very much look forward to seeing your presentation on the subject of the translation at the FAIR Conference. I thought that the one you did 2009 was outstanding.

WW

[Mike Reed]

I suppose it is possible that Oliver attempted to use a rod to translate the characters that Joseph had written down for Martin Harris to take to Charles Anthon.

Or the "Book of Mormon Caracters [sic]" transcript that we have, which conflicts with the description that Anthon reported seeing.

[Wiki Wonka]

Or the "Book of Mormon Caracters [sic]" transcript that we have, which conflicts with the description that Anthon reported seeing.

Yes, and I understand that Mark Hofmann attempted to correct that discrepancy in his version.

WW

[LeSellers]

Or the "Book of Mormon Caracters [sic]" transcript that we have, which conflicts with the description that Anthon reported seeing.

Anthon was reporting years after the event, and what Martin Harris took with him to New York has been attested as being what we have today. Therefor, it is far more likely that Anthon's report is not accurate.

Let's not forget that whatever happened at Anthon's place in 1829, it was sufficient to convince the skeptical Harris that he should mortgage his farm and pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. You may believe that Harris was a rube, or that Joseph was defrauding him, but Anthon was not in on the plot, and yet Harris came back and acted very much as if Anthon did exactly what he, Harris, said he'd done, and exactly the opposite of what he'd have done if Anthon had done something else.

Lehi

[Mike Reed]

Therefor, it is far more likely that Anthon's report is not accurate.

I don't agree.

Let's not forget that whatever happened at Anthon's place in 1829, it was sufficient to convince the skeptical Harris that he should mortgage his farm and pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon.

Irrelevant.

You may believe that Harris was a rube, or that Joseph was defrauding him

I may indeed believe one of these conclusions, but since I have yet to state such position in this thread, then you are jousting windmills.

[LeSellers]

[Even though the "Caractors" still exist and do not look like what Athon described, and even though Athon's report was from years later] I don't agree [that it is more likely that the Anthon report is less accurate than the Harris account].

What evidence do you have that Anthon would be, or even could be, more accurate?

[it is] Irrelevant [that Harris's experience in New York convinced him to mortgage his farm].

How is it irrelevant? It is highly relevant since it is praxeologolistically consistent to assume Harris was telling the truth (as he saw it), but inconsistent for him to have experienced what Athon reported and for him still to have mortgaged the farm.

I may indeed believe one of these conclusions, but since I have yet to state such position in this thread, then you are jousting windmills.

Whether you have stated such a belief/ves is irrelevant. There is just one choice: either Anthon convinced him that the Caractors were genuine (and I stipulate that Anthon was incompetent to determine that, but Harris didn't know it), or Harris acted completely against his own interests. The former is reasonable, the later wholly untenable.

Lehi

[Mike Reed]

What evidence do you have that Anthon would be, or even could be, more accurate?

I am open to the possibility that it may indeed be the Anthon transcript. What I disagree with is your overly confident conclusion, and your fallacious logic that apparently got you there. You said, "Anthon was reporting years after the event, and what Martin Harris took with him to New York has been attested as being what we have today." You seem to insinuate that the length of time ("years") somehow undermines Anthon's story... never mind how many years it took to identify the "Book of Mormon Caractors" transcript. 1884. Never mind who identified it. George Q. Cannon's report of meeting with David Whitmer. Why should George Q. Cannon's report of this meeting in 1884 trump Anthon's? And did George Q. Cannon even say in his 1884 report that it was David Whitmer who identified it as the "Anthon Transcript"? No. He does not. Rather Cannon simply said, "But there was a paper with this, which, if anything, was still more interesting than the manuscript. It was the characters drawn by Joseph [smith, Jr.] himself from the plates for Martin Harris to take to show the learned professors...." Cannon does not say that David Whitmer claimed it was the actual Anthon transcript. Such could have been an unverified assumption on Cannon's part, simimilar to another assumption Cannon made in his sentences to follow: "Here was the very paper which Isaiah saw in vision about 2,600 years before, and which he called 'the words of a book.'"

It is highly relevant since it is praxeologolistically consistent to assume Harris was telling the truth (as he saw it)...

Shouldn't you say "the truth as George Q Cannon saw and reported it"? Anyway... this is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Lets get back on track. The topic is Oliver's attempt to translate.

LeSellers,

Feel free to respond to my post above. I just won't be able to continue this discussion any further, unfortunately. I have three conference papers to write, a summer seminar to participate in, and graduate school to prepare for.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Wiki Wonka]

Anthon was reporting years after the event, and what Martin Harris took with him to New York has been attested as being what we have today. Therefor, it is far more likely that Anthon's report is not accurate.

Let's not forget that whatever happened at Anthon's place in 1829, it was sufficient to convince the skeptical Harris that he should mortgage his farm and pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. You may believe that Harris was a rube, or that Joseph was defrauding him, but Anthon was not in on the plot, and yet Harris came back and acted very much as if Anthon did exactly what he, Harris, said he'd done, and exactly the opposite of what he'd have done if Anthon had done something else.

Lehi

Anthon gave a description of the document that he saw that does not match the "Caractors" document that we have. Martin Harris also mentions a translation of the document that he had which we do not have. Anthon mentioned "sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac." (see Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 65) I personally do not believe that the one that is extant is the one that Martin showed Anthon. It does seem obvious that Anton told Martin something about the document that he had that convinced Martin that it was authentic (enough to put his farm on the line), and that Anthon denied this later. However, Anthon's two written accounts of the experience contain contradictions between themselves. In Anthon's first letter, he claims that he refuses to give Harris a written opinion on the validity of the document, and in his second letter, Anthon claims that he wrote his opinion "without any hesitation" because he wished to expose the document as a fraud.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with Oliver's attempt to translate and it probably deserves its own thread.

WW