The Grolier Codex and The Book of Mormon

[smac97]

So this just made the news yesterday (September 7):

Quote

13th century Maya codex, long shrouded in controversy, proves genuine

Brown University’s Stephen Houston and a team of leading researchers in anthropology and Maya archeology methodically verify the authenticity of the oldest known manuscript in ancient America.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] —The Grolier Codex, an ancient document that is among the rarest books in the world, has been regarded with skepticism since it was reportedly unearthed by looters from a cave in Chiapas, Mexico, in the 1960s.

But a meticulous new study of the codex has yielded a startling conclusion: The codex is both genuine and likely the most ancient of all surviving manuscripts from ancient America.

Stephen Houston, the Dupee Family Professor of Social Science and co-director of the Program in Early Cultures at Brown University, worked with Michael Coe, professor emeritus of archeology and anthropology at Yale and leader of the research team, along with Mary Miller of Yale and Karl Taube of the University of California-Riverside. They reviewed “all known research on the manuscript,” analyzing it “without regard to the politics, academic and otherwise, that have enveloped the Grolier,” the team wrote in its study “The Fourth Maya Codex.”

The paper, published in the journal Maya Archaeology, fills a special section of the publication and includes a lavish facsimile of the codex.

The study, Houston said, “is a confirmation that the manuscript, counter to some claims, is quite real. The manuscript was sitting unremarked in a basement of the National Museum in Mexico City, and its history is cloaked in great drama. It was found in a cave in Mexico, and a wealthy Mexican collector, Josué Sáenz, had sent it abroad before its eventual return to the Mexican authorities.”

Controversial from the outset

For years, academics and specialists have argued about the legitimacy of the Grolier Codex, a legacy the authors trace in the paper. Some asserted that it must have been a forgery, speculating that modern forgers had enough knowledge of Maya writing and materials to create a fake codex at the time the Grolier came to light.

This is a little confusing to me.  I only have passing familiarity with the Grolier Codex, but I thought the question of its authenticity had been settled years ago.  Here is an article on that issue by John Sorenson and John Welch, which was published in 1999 (footnotes :

Quote

The Sobering Lesson of the Grolier Codex

The story of the authenticating of the Grolier Codex twenty-five years ago still teaches some valuable lessons about the dangers of jumping to conclusions and the problems of name-calling, even though the scholars involved no longer hold to their original positions. As discussed recently by John L. Sorenson, the discovery of ancient manuscripts is a touchy issue that, for some people, can be unsettling.1

In 1971 what seemed to be an ancient Mesoamerican codex was discovered in southern Mexico. It was claimed to stem from "unauthorized archaeology" (most archaeologists would call it looting). Mesoamerican scholars judged it a fake without giving it much, if any, scrutiny. Michael D. Coe was a principal protagonist in arguing for the authenticity of the document, eventually labeled the "Grolier Codex."2 The famed Mayanist Sir J. E. S. Thompson played the role of key antagonist.3

In 1992 Coe said of Thompson that he had "ignor[ed] the main argument while concentrating on some detail where he thought the chances of a quick kill were best."4 Thompson had also criticized Yuri Knorosov, the Soviet linguist to whom much of the credit eventually has gone for launching the successful decipherment of the Maya hieroglyphics. Thompson considered the Knorosov position completely mistaken and labeled the Russian's work "a Marxist hoax."

The Grolier Codex is now generally acknowledged to be authentic, based on the characteristics of the document itself rather than on its unorthodox discovery. Fully vindicated, Coe believes that had the Grolier Codex had a less-prejudiced origin, "it would [have been] accepted by even the most rock-ribbed scholar as the genuine article."5

...

1. John L. Sorenson, "The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Record," in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (1997), 484-6.

2. See Michael D. Coe, Breaking the Maya Code (1992), 227-9.

3. J. E. S. Thompson, review of The Maya Scribe and His World, by Michael D. Coe, The Book Collector 26 (1976): 64-75.

4. Coe, Breaking the Maya Code, 229.

5. Ibid.

So, can those of you with more training/experience re: the Grolier Codex help a brutha out?  Was the authenticity of this artifact settled in the 90s, or has it continued to be a point of substantive scholarly dispute until very recently?

Sorenson and Welch go on to make some trenchant observations about the Grolier Codex and disputes about its authenticity as a "sobering lesson" for those who take a similar approach to . . . The Book of Mormon:

Quote

Those who judged the Grolier Codex a hoax made at least five mistakes, also commonly made by people critical of the Book of Mormon:

(1) They allowed the unconventional origins of the codex to prejudice the case. Just as Thompson was dogmatically dubious from the outset, many have peremptorily ruled the Book of Mormon out of scientific court.

(2) Moreover, the antagonists ruled out the Grolier Codex without giving it a close examination. Similarly, as Thomas O'Dea once reported, "the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion on it."6

(3) Those who misjudged the Grolier Codex were served poorly by their closedmindedness. They responded by reflex on the basis of opinions they had long since fixed in intellectual concrete of their own mix.

(4) When the opponents took time to examine the Grolier Codex, they chose to pick on little details that seemed easier targets than the main characteristics of that complex document. One is reminded of the pedantry of Alexander Campbell who took endless delight in pointing out minor infelicities of grammar in the first edition of the Book of Mormon.7

(5) Finally, if all else fails, a critic may turn to name-calling. The lesson is especially poignant here, because even a fine scholar as responsible as Coe himself once regrettably spoke of the Book of Mormon using derogatory labels.8 This is just as unwise and irrelevant in judging the Book of Mormon as was Thompson's use of the "Marxist" brush to smear Knorosov's scholarship. Using such epithets allows one to avoid the drudgery of doing the serious investigation that ought to precede a judgment about the authenticity of any potentially ancient text.

The truth will some day come out as to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Until then, derogatory remarks and sloppy research do no one any good.

...

6. Thomas E O'Dea, The Mormons (1957), 26.

7. Alexander Campbell, "Delusions," Millennial Harbinger (10 February 1831): 85-97.

8. Michael D. Coe, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," Dialogue 8/2 (1973): 40-5.

As to the first point raised above, I think we need to allow for some presumptive skepticism where issues of provenance ("unconventional origins") of an ancient artifact are in play.  While a knee-jerk, peremptory rejection of The Book of Mormon is, I think, unwarranted, we should anticipate and not resent skepticism pertaining to its "unconventional origins."  The third point raised above seems to be a variation of the first one.

The second, fourth and fifth points above, however, are spot-on.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by smac97

[notHagoth7]

Interested in the contents of the Codex.

Edited September 8, 2016 by notHagoth7

[strappinglad]

Every time I read about these artifacts , I curse the Spaniards who thought they were doing God's work by destroying all the codices and other writings they found. Talk about letting preconceived views promote wholesale burying of information. Makes me spit nickles!!!

Edited September 8, 2016 by strappinglad

[smac97]

2 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Interested in the contents of the Codex.

See here.

Quote

Six pages depict a figure bearing weapons and accompanied by a captive (pages 1–4, 6 and 9), two pages (5 and 6 ) both depict a figure hurling a dart at a temple. Page 7 of the codex shows a passive warrior standing in front of a tree. Page 11 depicts a death god with a javelin, pointing his weapon at a water vessel containing a snail.[13] Page 10 is a badly damaged fragment with the subject largely obliterated. Based on the surviving portion, Michael Coe thought it depicted a standing figure wearing a waterbird headdress and bearing an atlatl. The figures represented on each page differ from those on the other Maya codices and are far more similar to the Mixtec codices and Toltec art styles of central Mexico.

...

The pages of the Grolier Codex contain seven hieroglyphs representing days; the style of these glyphs differs from that of the other three Maya codices but is most similar to the glyphs of the Dresden Codex. The glyphs are arranged in vertical columns incorporating day signs accompanied by a number; each date corresponds to a manifestation of Venus. Whereas the Venus almanac in the Dresden Codex documents the planet after inferior conjunction as the morning star, the Grolier Codex documents all four of the stations of Venus: rising after inferior conjunction as morning star in the east, disappearance before superior conjunction, reappearance as evening star in the west and disappearance before inferior conjunction.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

Oh please.  Because the Grolier Codex has its provenance with looters one shouldn't question the Book of Mormon's provenance?  That's got to be one of the most obnoxious apologetic arguments I've ever read, and I'm a believer in the divine provenance of the Book of Mormon. 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Oh please.  Because the Grolier Codex has its provenance with looters one shouldn't question the Book of Mormon's provenance?  That's got to be one of the most obnoxious apologetic arguments I've ever read, and I'm a believer in the divine provenance of the Book of Mormon. 

However, there is the interesting connection with a cave in Chiapas.  How many other such documents await discovery, Bob?

[cinepro]

But couldn't the same arguments in 1 - 4 be made by defenders of other artifacts?

Quote

 

(1) They allowed the unconventional origins of the [Kinderhook Plates/ Bat Creek Stone/ Michigan Relics] to prejudice the case. Just as Thompson was dogmatically dubious from the outset, many have peremptorily ruled the Book of Mormon out of scientific court.

(2) Moreover, the antagonists ruled out the [Kinderhook Plates/ Bat Creek Stone/ Michigan Relics] without giving [them] a close examination. Similarly, as Thomas O'Dea once reported, "the Book of Mormon has not been universally considered as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion on it."6

(3) Those who misjudged the [Kinderhook Plates/ Bat Creek Stone/ Michigan Relics] were served poorly by their closedmindedness. They responded by reflex on the basis of opinions they had long since fixed in intellectual concrete of their own mix.

(4) When the opponents took time to examine the [Kinderhook Plates/ Bat Creek Stone/ Michigan Relics], they chose to pick on little details that seemed easier targets than the main characteristics of that complex document. One is reminded of the pedantry of Alexander Campbell who took endless delight in pointing out minor infelicities of grammar in the first edition of the Book of Mormon.

 

It should also be pointed out that The Book of Mormon isn't the logical equivalent of the Grolier Codex.  The Gold Plates are. 

The Book of Mormon would be as if a creative Mexican 28 year old ("Jose") took the Grolier Codex, dictated a 400 page book about a migration of Vikings to Japan in 200 AD, where they grew to a civilization of thousands or millions, had wars and great civilizations for hundreds of years, then disappeared without a trace, leaving defenders of the book sifting through the book looking for anything that can be possibly tied to ancient Japanese history, and then tossing whatever doesn't fit. 

And then Jose lost the actual Grolier Codex after showing it to a few close family and friends who attested that he did indeed have such an artifact, and to their Mexican eyes it did indeed have an ancient script that looked a lot like Viking Japanese.

And then, hundreds of years later, you had a group of "Grolier Scholars" who took umbrage that Viking historians and Japanese Historians just aren't really buying in to Jose's translation.

So the Gold Plates are the logical equivalent of believing in the authenticity of the Grolier Codex had it gone missing shortly after its discovery.  The situation would probably be very different were that the case, and the fact that it has been available for study and inspection doesn't make it like the Gold Plates at all, but instead makes it about as unlike the Gold Plates as could possibly be.

Edited September 9, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

On 9/8/2016 at 0:59 PM, strappinglad said:

Every time I read about these artifacts , I curse the Spaniards who thought they were doing God's work by destroying all the codices and other writings they found. Talk about letting preconceived views promote wholesale burying of information. Makes me spit nickles!!!

They might not have been doing God's work, but they sure gave defenders of The Book of Mormon the greatest of all gifts.  They're the Book of Mormon version of the 1871 Chicago fire.

Edited September 9, 2016 by cinepro

[strappinglad]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

They might not have been doing God's work, but they sure gave defenders of The Book of Mormon the greatest of all gifts.  They're the Book of Mormon version of the 1871 Chicago fire.

Hindsight vs  foresight