Are These Metal Plates Real?

[mfbukowski]

Sometimes a cigar isn't a cigar.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

[volgadon]

Given Martin Harris' experience with the Book of Mormon transcript, I would reserve final judgment in spite of the expert opinions of scholars. And don't most scholars who've seen the characters on the Anthon transcript consider them to be a hoax? And didn't most scholars consider the Dead Sea Scrolls to be a hoax as well, until they were finally set straight? And isn't it the scholars who say the Book of Abraham translation is a hoax? From an LDS point of view, that's a pretty crappy record.

 

Have you read Maklelan's links?

[teddyaware]

Have you read Maklelan's links?

 

Yes

[Robert F. Smith]

Given Martin Harris' experience with the Book of Mormon transcript, I would reserve final judgment in spite of the expert opinions of scholars. And don't most scholars who've seen the characters on the Anthon transcript consider them to be a hoax? And didn't most scholars consider the Dead Sea Scrolls to be a hoax as well, until they were finally set straight? And isn't it the scholars who say the Book of Abraham translation is a hoax? From an LDS point of view, that's a pretty crappy record.

You've got it wrong, Teddy:

1.  Most of the non-Mormon scholars who have commented specifically on the so-called "Anthon Transcript" have taken them seriously as real ancient Egyptian, and have written notes and letters to that effect.

2.  Most of those scholars seeing the Dead Sea Scrolls for the first time considered them authentic, including Millar Burrows (who took the initial photos), and William F. Albright.  The only scholar who thought them fake or Medieval was Solomon Zeitlin of Dropsie College, and he actually refused to look at Burrows' photos (offered to him by Albright).

3.  There are indeed some Egyptologists who consider the Book of Abraham to be a hoax, such as Robert Ritner, but very few non-Mormon scholars have actually addressed the issue directly.  For example, I once confronted the late Klaus Baer during a Q&A with a series of correlations between normative Egyptological opinion with the Book of Abraham.  He had no reply, and I thought he was going to have a heart attack (he had to sit down).

 

In all of these cases, despite internet folklore, when a scholarly discussion is actually held, the Mormon Canon comes off rather well.

[volgadon]

Yes

 

Then would you care to comment on his specific arguments?

[canard78]

You've got it wrong, Teddy:

1. Most of the non-Mormon scholars who have commented specifically on the so-called "Anthon Transcript" have taken them seriously as real ancient Egyptian, and have written notes and letters to that effect.

2. Most of those scholars seeing the Dead Sea Scrolls for the first time considered them authentic, including Millar Burrows (who took the initial photos), and William F. Albright. The only scholar who thought them fake or Medieval was Solomon Zeitlin of Dropsie College, and he actually refused to look at Burrows' photos (offered to him by Albright).

3. There are indeed some Egyptologists who consider the Book of Abraham to be a hoax, such as Robert Ritner, but very few non-Mormon scholars have actually addressed the issue directly. For example, I once confronted the late Klaus Baer during a Q&A with a series of correlations between normative Egyptological opinion with the Book of Abraham. He had no reply, and I thought he was going to have a heart attack (he had to sit down).

In all of these cases, despite internet folklore, when a scholarly discussion is actually held, the Mormon Canon comes off rather well.

Do you have any references for '1' please?

I wasn't aware that non-Mormon scholars had endorsed the Anthon manuscript as genuine Egyptian.

[cinepro]

1.  Most of the non-Mormon scholars who have commented specifically on the so-called "Anthon Transcript" have taken them seriously as real ancient Egyptian, and have written notes and letters to that effect.

You have got to be kidding. What could you possibly mean by "most"? You're implying that more than two or three "non-Mormon scholars" have looked at the Anthon caractors and formed an opinion about their relationship to ancient Egyptian, and that more than half have expressed an opinion that they were more related to ancient Egyptian than not.

Please back up this claim with something. Anything. I beg of you.

[cinepro]

Back in 1999, someone published a book where they claimed to have translated the Anthon caractors and found Ether 6:3-13.

Here's the FARMS review of that book:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/12/1/S00003-51b9eae7e31073Gee.pdf

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[canard78]

Back in 1999, someone published a book where they claimed to have translated the Anthon caractors and found Ether 6:3-13.

Here's the FARMS review of that book:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/12/1/S00003-51b9eae7e31073Gee.pdf

Interesting and an impressive debunking.

If the so-called Anthon transcript is the actual piece of paper that Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon, it is safe to assume that the characters came from the text they were then translating (the 116 missing manuscript pages, which contained a record from the time of Lehi to the time of King Benjamin).

Usually apologists seem to emphasise the uncertainty that the Anthon manuscript is even an original copy from the plates, thereby removing the urgency of defending the squiggles.

Robert, I've never heard of any non-Mormon scholars endorse the Anthon M'script as genuine Egyptian, never mind a majority.

[Robert F. Smith]

Do you have any references for '1' please?

I wasn't aware that non-Mormon scholars had endorsed the Anthon manuscript as genuine Egyptian.

See my posts on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62152-reformed-egyptian/ .

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting and an impressive debunking.

Usually apologists seem to emphasise the uncertainty that the Anthon manuscript is even an original copy from the plates, thereby removing the urgency of defending the squiggles.

Robert, I've never heard of any non-Mormon scholars endorse the Anthon M'script as genuine Egyptian, never mind a majority.

See my post #36 in this thread, Canard, and please note that non-Mormon Egyptologists rarely even bother to look at the so-called "Anthon Transcript," much less give it a scholarly examination.  So it would be difficult to take a poll, and none has been taken.  That makes it very difficult to speak of a "majority" on any position.

 

I am interested in your statement about what nameless "apologists" "usually" do.  Sounds like a bountiful harvest of "apologists" who disavow the "Anthon Transcript."  Could you name some of them for me?  Thanks.

[AndyDnom]

Sometimes a cigar isn't a cigar.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images

 

sometimes its a phallus!!

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................   

 

I don't get the impression that even John Gee regards the "Caractors" document as containing "real ancient Egyptian" so I doubt many of his fellow Egyptologists think so.

Perhaps you could CFR that "impression" that Gee does not regard the AT "Caractors" as real ancient Egyptian.  For some reason I missed that comment or claim by him.  Thanks.

 

And, by the way, even the late D. J. Nelson said in print that the AT Characters looked like hieratic Egyptian and that they all faced the correct direction to be read from right to left.

.

[Robert F. Smith]

You have got to be kidding. What could you possibly mean by "most"? You're implying that more than two or three "non-Mormon scholars" have looked at the Anthon caractors and formed an opinion about their relationship to ancient Egyptian, and that more than half have expressed an opinion that they were more related to ancient Egyptian than not.

Please back up this claim with something. Anything. I beg of you.

See my posts on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62152-reformed-egyptian/ .

 

Of the Egyptologists who have taken a serious look at the AT, I know of none who dismiss it as non-Egyptian.  If you know of one or two, I'd love to have a specific quote and citation.  Even the late Dee Jay Nelson (who was not an Egyptologist) said in print that the AT characters looked like Egyptian hieratic and that they faced the correct way to be read from right to left.

 

The real question you should ask yourself would be, Why do you automatically dismiss the characters?  How do you explain the belief of some non-Mormon Egyptologists that they are actual Egyptian?

[canard78]

See my posts on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62152-reformed-egyptian/ .

Thanks, I had a look through. I'm not that equates to "most Egyptologists" but it does seem a few have seen some patterns of significance.

[canard78]

I am interested in your statement about what nameless "apologists" "usually" do. Sounds like a bountiful harvest of "apologists" who disavow the "Anthon Transcript." Could you name some of them for me? Thanks.

Fair point, it was an over generalisation.

There were people in the thread you referenced a few posts back casting doubt on its authenticity. I've also read the same on FairMormon (I'll have a look for a reference). FairMormon is, by nature, nameless.

I guess the problem with the Anthon manuscript is this:

- If no Egyptian characters are found on it, apologists can say it might not be original.

- If Egyptian characters are found on it, critics can say it might not be original.

As a good Utah boy might say, you're darned if you do and darned if you don't.

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................................    

There were people in the thread you referenced a few posts back casting doubt on its authenticity. I've also read the same on FairMormon (I'll have a look for a reference). FairMormon is, by nature, nameless.

If you or FAIR are raising a question about whether the so-called "Anthon Transcript" is the one taken by Martin Harris to scholars on the East Coast, then of course we have no direct evidence (or chain of custody) that it is, and some evidence against it (Anthon's description does not match, etc). What is often said about it nowadays is that it was a "memento" given by Joseph to some close associates, i.e., one of a number of copies of characters from the plates.

I guess the problem with the Anthon manuscript is this:

- If no Egyptian characters are found on it, apologists can say it might not be original.

- If Egyptian characters are found on it, critics can say it might not be original.

As a good Utah boy might say, you're darned if you do and darned if you don't.

Since such characters cannot be proven to exist before 1844, there is indeed such an issue to be debated, so that non-scholars can weasel out of nearly any conclusion. And such is usually the case.