Neal Rappleye: “Put Away Childish Things”: Learning to Read the Book of Mormon Using Mature Historical Thought

[Calm]

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/put-away-childish-things

Quote

 

A Tale of Two Jerusalems, Part 1: The Amarna Letters, 14th century BC

In 1887, a cache of cuneiform tablets dated to the mid-14th century BC was discovered in Amarna, Egypt. The collection primarily consisted of letters written by Canaanite rulers petitioning the Pharaoh to aide them in their petty squabbles with neighboring cities, including six letters written by the King of Jerusalem.[1] Based on these letters, Jerusalem at the time was a powerful regional capital, ruling over a “land” or even multiple “lands,” controlling subsidiary towns, and was even powerful enough to seize possession of the towns belonging to rival cities.[2]

There is just one problem: there is no archaeological evidence for this Jerusalem. According to Margreet Steiner, “No trace has ever been found of any city that could have been the [Jerusalem] of the Amarna letters.”[3] And yet, the letters are unquestionably authentic, and there is no doubt they mention Jerusalem.

Putting Away Childish Things

From this example, it is clear that genuine historical documents are not always supported by the archaeological record. This exposes the weakness of arguments predicated on the idea that if there is no archaeological evidence for something mentioned in the Book of Mormon, then the book must be false. Such arguments rest on what I would consider a misunderstanding of both archaeology and written history, and how the two relate to each other. Such misunderstandings come naturally, based on intuitive assumptions, but can be overcome by developing what historian and psychologist Sam Wineburg calls mature historical understanding...

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/put-away-childish-things 

What is particularly interesting about those Tell El-Amarna Letters is that they were written in Akkadian cuneiform by professional scribes attached to the Egyptian capital at Amarna and Canaanite scribes attached to the royal courts of the city-states they worked for.  These were scribes using a foreign language to communicate with each other.

[Physics Guy]

Rappleye claims that there is no archaeological evidence for the Jerusalem mentioned in the 14th century BCE Amarna letters. He calls it "this Jerusalem", and two of the section titles in his article refer to "two Jerusalems". Perhaps this is just unfortunate choice of language on Rappleye's part, and all he really means by "this Jerusalem" or "two Jerusalems" are cities in the same place (namely, Jerusalem) at different times. It seems like a natural reading of his article as it stands, however, to conclude that archaeologists are sure that the Jerusalem of the Amarna letters was some quite different city from the later Jerusalem, and no-one knows where that earlier Jerusalem was.

That would then be a very nice example with which to begin an apologetic article on Book of Mormon archaeology, because even though the later Jerusalem is well attested in archaeology (and is still there today), one could point to this other, earlier Jerusalem as a major city mentioned in ancient writings but now lost without trace—just like, say, Zarahemla. If Rappleye could merely say, however, that we haven't yet found any remains in Jerusalem that can be dated with confidence as far back as the 14th century BCE, but only back to the 10th century, then the parallel with Zarahemla would not be nearly so impressive. It's not as though Zarahemla is still there, a populous city in central America, with archaeological digs going back to just 400 years after Nephi. It's not as though archaeological skeptics of Book of Mormon historicity are only complaining about a four-century gap.

Rappleye's footnote [3] attributes the key sentence from Steiner to a book chapter on "Jerusalem in the tenth and seventh centuries BCE". Those are much later eras than the Amarna letters, so I doubt that the sentence about "no trace has ever been found" is really a stand-alone summary statement of one of Steiner's main points. It seems more likely to be a background remark that depends on its immediate context. So I wish Rappleye could have given us a longer extract from Steiner. Did she really mean that archaeologists are still looking in vain for the site of the lost first Jerusalem? Or did she only mean that the oldest strata of Jerusalem still lie buried beneath younger layers? In the second case the message from archaeology for Book of Mormon historicity would not be so reassuring.

The Wikipedia page on "Jerusalem" seems to think that the Jerusalem of the Amarna letters was the same Jerusalem we know now. I realize this is just Wikipedia. But it's something.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Kevin Christensen]

Very good work.  Contextualization is the great key to an abundant harvest, and that includes how a person contextualizes their open questions.  One thing I notice that could take more comment is the Priestly blessing.  In the discussions of the fact of the a passage from a book of Moses appearing on metal in Jerusalem 600 BCE, and the notable relevance that has for the Book of Mormon, the actual topic of Numbers 6 deserves more attention:

Quote

The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:

25 The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

26 The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

27 And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

This has interesting connections to the key controversies of the Deuteronomistic reformers, who were opposed to the notion of seeing the face of the Lord. And then the immediate context of "my name" shows up.   See Barker's discussion of Seeing the Face of the Lord in either Temple Themes in Christian Worship or the Givens/Neilson collection on Joseph Smith Jr.   The specific implications for the Book of Mormon get much more involved and intricate and cast light on details of the Temple experiences in Mosiah 2-5 and 3 Nephi.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Physics Guy]

Update:

A more recent (2003) paper by Margreet Steiner is available online at https://www.academia.edu/1186639/The_Evidence_from_Kenyons_Excavations_in_Jerusalem_A_Response_Essay. I quote below the most relevant paragraphs. 

Steiner makes clear in this slightly later paper that even thorough searching throughout the Jerusalem area has failed to turn up significant remains from any 14th century BCE town or city. There are ample remains from earlier dates as well as later, so it is not a matter of the 14th century layers still being buried. Steiner acknowledges that she had initially concluded from this absence of archaeological evidence that the "Urusalim" of the Amarna letters was an entirely different city "located elsewhere in Palestine".

As of 2003, however, Steiner has become persuaded that the Amarna letters' Urusalim was indeed the present geographic site of Jerusalem. What she now supposes is that any impression from the letters that Jerusalem was at that time a significant city is wrong. For Steiner, at least, the absence of archaeological evidence now indicates that the city of Jerusalem whose existence was deduced from the Amarna letters did not really exist. She is not calling the ancient letters a lie; she seems to be pointing out that if you read them carefully they refer to high-level politics but do not actually mention a city at all.

Steiner's blog lists her publications on Jerusalem and does not seem to show any changes of view on this point after 2003.

So. On the one hand Rappleye does have a point. At least for a while, a serious archaeologist was prepared to resolve the conflict between ancient textual evidence and lack of archaeological evidence by postulating that the attested ancient city had not yet been found, or perhaps had not yet been identified among known sites. This is indeed an indication that it might not be historically irresponsible to postulate that Zarahemla, and other Book of Mormon cities, simply remain as undiscovered (or unidentified) as Margreet Steiner once theorized Urusalim to be.

On the other hand, that same archaeologist Steiner has now resolved this conflict between text and archaeology in a different way, by reinterpreting the ancient text in line with the archaeological absence. This might suggest another approach to Book of Mormon historicity: accept the absence of archaeological evidence as evidence of absence, and reinterpret the texts. Perhaps the Nephite civilization portrayed in the Book of Mormon was really much smaller and more primitive than has been assumed, to the point where the Book of Mormon cities never left any ruins because they weren't really even close to being cities.

Non-Mormons may still, I'm afraid, have trouble seeing past the fact that Jerusalem is a solid archaeological site that can really be compared with ancient texts, one way or another, whereas Zarahemla remains purely speculative. But I think we all knew that. What I wonder is how tenable it might be, from a Mormon viewpoint, to reinterpret Nephite cities as primitive hamlets?

 

Quote

JERUSALEM WAS NOT A CITY OR IMPORTANT TOWN DURING THE AMARNA PERIOD

Since extensive excavations have not revealed any trace of the city of Urusalim, maybe it is time to accept the conclusion that no city existed at that time. In my mind, this is the most logical and most probable conclusion. Nevertheless, six letters were found written by the ruler of Urusalim. Even though no architectural remains have been found of this settlement, the letters do exist and must be interpreted and explained. When I first realized that Kenyon had not found the Amarna settlement in Jerusalem, I assumed that Urusalim was not ancient Jerusalem but a city located elsewhere in Palestine; geographical references in the letters, however, make this a very slight possibility. 

Realizing that Urusalim from the Amarna letters must be associated with Jerusalem, I began to read the Urusalim letters carefully and discovered another possibility that might account for the lack of archaeological evidence from the fourteenth century. There is no reference in any of these letters to the city itself, nor to its walls or its strong gates. Maybe Urusalim of the Amarna period was not a city or large town at all. Maybe we should interpret the “lands of Urusalim” as a royal dominion of the pharaoh, with Abdi-heba as his steward, who lived in a fortified house somewhere near the spring, on top of the hill, or on the Mount of Olives. This does not (as far as I am able to judge) contradict the content of Abdi-heba’s letters.

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Physics Guy

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is particularly interesting about those Tell El-Amarna Letters is that they were written in Akkadian cuneiform by professional scribes attached to the Egyptian capital at Amarna and Canaanite scribes attached to the royal courts of the city-states they worked for.  These were scribes using a foreign language to communicate with each other.

I don't see why that is particularly interesting. Egypt had a long scribal history in cuneiform, and several of their own scripts. Under Amose they had taken political control of Canaan, and collected tribute from them. It only seems logical they would communicate with the Canaanite cities in their language rather than to expect these Canaanites to learn Egyptian.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Update:

A more recent (2003) paper by Margreet Steiner is available online at https://www.academia.edu/1186639/The_Evidence_from_Kenyons_Excavations_in_Jerusalem_A_Response_Essay. I quote below the most relevant paragraphs. 

Steiner makes clear in this slightly later paper that even thorough searching throughout the Jerusalem area has failed to turn up significant remains from any 14th century BCE town or city. There are ample remains from earlier dates as well as later, so it is not a matter of the 14th century layers still being buried. Steiner acknowledges that she had initially concluded from this absence of archaeological evidence that the "Urusalim" of the Amarna letters was an entirely different city "located elsewhere in Palestine".

As of 2003, however, Steiner has become persuaded that the Amarna letters' Urusalim was indeed the present geographic site of Jerusalem. What she now supposes is that any impression from the letters that Jerusalem was at that time a significant city is wrong. For Steiner, at least, the absence of archaeological evidence now indicates that the city of Jerusalem whose existence was deduced from the Amarna letters did not really exist. She is not calling the ancient letters a lie; she seems to be pointing out that if you read them carefully they refer to high-level politics but do not actually mention a city at all.

Steiner's blog lists her publications on Jerusalem and does not seem to show any changes of view on this point after 2003.

So. On the one hand Rappleye does have a point. At least for a while, a serious archaeologist was prepared to resolve the conflict between ancient textual evidence and lack of archaeological evidence by postulating that the attested ancient city had not yet been found, or perhaps had not yet been identified among known sites. This is indeed an indication that it might not be historically irresponsible to postulate that Zarahemla, and other Book of Mormon cities, simply remain as undiscovered (or unidentified) as Margreet Steiner once theorized Urusalim to be.

On the other hand, that same archaeologist Steiner has now resolved this conflict between text and archaeology in a different way, by reinterpreting the ancient text in line with the archaeological absence. This might suggest another approach to Book of Mormon historicity: accept the absence of archaeological evidence as evidence of absence, and reinterpret the texts. Perhaps the Nephite civilization portrayed in the Book of Mormon was really much smaller and more primitive than has been assumed, to the point where the Book of Mormon cities never left any ruins because they weren't really even close to being cities.

Non-Mormons may still, I'm afraid, have trouble seeing past the fact that Jerusalem is a solid archaeological site that can really be compared with ancient texts, one way or another, whereas Zarahemla remains purely speculative. But I think we all knew that. What I wonder is how tenable it might be, from a Mormon viewpoint, to reinterpret Nephite cities as primitive hamlets?

I upvoted you for pointing out the truth about Urusalim, but I believe Zarahemla became prey to modern development before a concern for archaeology really took hold in the US. I also largely believe the same for the first city of Nephi although it does have a small amount of documented archaeology. 

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 It only seems logical they would communicate with the Canaanite cities in their language rather than to expect these Canaanites to learn Egyptian.

I would think it would be the other way around.  Egyptians would communicate in Egyptian and expect a subjugated people to learn their language.

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/put-away-childish-things

 

Perhaps this is a little off-point but the Amarna letters disclose a lot more than city-state squabbles. They seem to show a threat from the northern Hittites while also from a people called the "Apiru" attacking not only Urusalim but also cities of the Phoenician district of Egypt.

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would think it would be the other way around.  Egyptians would communicate in Egyptian and expect a subjugated people to learn their language.

Well, they didn't. Perhaps because their scribes already had long experience with cuneiform and Akkadian. The Canaanites used what they knew, and the Egyptians accepted it because they were already familiar with it.

[Robert F. Smith]

58 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't see why that is particularly interesting. Egypt had a long scribal history in cuneiform, and several of their own scripts. Under Amose they had taken political control of Canaan, and collected tribute from them. It only seems logical they would communicate with the Canaanite cities in their language rather than to expect these Canaanites to learn Egyptian.

No, Akkadian was a foreign language to the Canaanites as well.  Akkadian cuneiform was the lingua franca of the day.  I say it is interesting because the Book of Mormon is another instance in which a foreign language was used extensively -- in that case, both the Brass Plates and the Book of Mormon were engraved in Egyptian, even though the vernacular for them was Hebrew.  Only a trained scribal elite could read and engrave the records.

[Robert F. Smith]

56 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would think it would be the other way around.  Egyptians would communicate in Egyptian and expect a subjugated people to learn their language.

Actually, both the Egyptians and Canaanites used the regular lingua franca of the day, Akkadian in cuneiform script.

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/put-away-childish-things

A Tale of Two Jerusalems, Part 1: The Amarna Letters, 14th century BC

In 1887, a cache of cuneiform tablets dated to the mid-14th century BC was discovered in Amarna, Egypt. The collection primarily consisted of letters written by Canaanite rulers petitioning the Pharaoh to aide them in their petty squabbles with neighboring cities, including six letters written by the King of Jerusalem.[1] Based on these letters, Jerusalem at the time was a powerful regional capital, ruling over a “land” or even multiple “lands,” controlling subsidiary towns, and was even powerful enough to seize possession of the towns belonging to rival cities.[2]

There is just one problem: there is no archaeological evidence for this Jerusalem. According to Margreet Steiner, “No trace has ever been found of any city that could have been the [Jerusalem] of the Amarna letters.”[3] And yet, the letters are unquestionably authentic, and there is no doubt they mention Jerusalem.

Putting Away Childish Things

From this example, it is clear that genuine historical documents are not always supported by the archaeological record. This exposes the weakness of arguments predicated on the idea that if there is no archaeological evidence for something mentioned in the Book of Mormon, then the book must be false. Such arguments rest on what I would consider a misunderstanding of both archaeology and written history, and how the two relate to each other. Such misunderstandings come naturally, based on intuitive assumptions, but can be overcome by developing what historian and psychologist Sam Wineburg calls mature historical understanding...

So tablets dated to the mid-14th Century BC mention Jerusalem, which otherwise is not found in the archaeological record?  I really wish that was comparable to the BoM, a text not found to be supported earlier than the 19th century, aside from resemblance to writing styles in the 15th Century, and not found to be "genuine historical documents", particularly since we don't have the plates to see.  And there's no way to know if any of the BoM came from the plates in the first place.

I will add I was pleased by the end.  I enjoyed it.  I'm less impressed, I guess, with the evidence he cites for the Book of Mormon, but he did add, "It is important to keep in mind, however, that this process is not about proving the Book of Mormon, or any other historical work, is true. Rather, as quoted earlier, it is about gaining a “better grounded picture,” a process that will sometimes confirm, but other times qualify what our written record says, or at least how we interpret it." which I very much appreciate.

The best parts I find are in that section:

Quote

To do this, we must be able to acknowledge that our current understanding is deficient—it is hard to improve our understanding when we think we’ve already got it all figured out. We are trying to mature our understanding, and to mature is to change, to develop, to grow—and growing comes with growing pains.

Sometimes information from the past is jarring. Wineburg warns that “mature historical cognition” does not just engage the mind, but is also “an act that engages the heart.”[90] This is all the more so with the Book of Mormon, when not only historical facts but our faith is often on the line. Persistent questions raised by apparent contradictions in the archaeological context can seem devastating.

Wineburg found that mature historical thinkers displayed patience with the unknown. They were able to call attention to apparent contradictions without immediately seeking to resolve them. This was often uncomfortable, but mature historical thinkers “sat with this discomfort” as they continued to review addition sources.[91] As they did this, they exercised what Wineburg called the “specification of ignorance”: a practice of identifying when you do not know enough to understand something.[92] This is then followed by “cultivating puzzlement”: being able “to stand back from first impressions, to question … quick leaps of mind, and to keep track of … questions that together pointed … in the direction of new learning.”[93]

When approached this way, “Inconsistencies become opportunities for exploring our discontinuity with the past.”[94] Or, as Hugh Nibley put it, “every paradox and anomaly is really a broad hint that new knowledge is awaiting us if we will only go after it.”[95]

When it comes to the Book of Mormon, some of the most persistent questions pertain to anachronistic plants, animals, and technology. But these anachronisms may be a product of how we read the Book of Mormon in the first place. Wineburg notes, “Trying to reconstruct a world we cannot completely know may be the difference between a contextualized and an anachronistic reading of the past.”[96]

Rather than letting questions drive us to anachronistic readings and immediate, premature dismissals, the patience of mature historical thought can allow us to use questions to create contexts which accommodate them and lead to greater learning.[97]

Speaking as one who struggles to see the Book of Mormon as an ancient work (even if in part it still seems heavily influenced by Joseph's time, even if not in grammar or language), I think he's right on the money here.  It does make me eager to see whatever can be found and whatever arguments or positions might come. 

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, both the Egyptians and Canaanites used the regular lingua franca of the day, Akkadian in cuneiform script.

Yes, I'd read that.  I was responding to RevTestements assertion that the Egyptians would write in the language of their subjects. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Update:

A more recent (2003) paper by Margreet Steiner is available online at https://www.academia.edu/1186639/The_Evidence_from_Kenyons_Excavations_in_Jerusalem_A_Response_Essay. I quote below the most relevant paragraphs. 

Steiner makes clear in this slightly later paper that even thorough searching throughout the Jerusalem area has failed to turn up significant remains from any 14th century BCE town or city. There are ample remains from earlier dates as well as later, so it is not a matter of the 14th century layers still being buried. Steiner acknowledges that she had initially concluded from this absence of archaeological evidence that the "Urusalim" of the Amarna letters was an entirely different city "located elsewhere in Palestine".

There are a number of instances in archeology in which a particular city is unattested during the period when literary records claim it existed, e.g., Ai or Aiath, a place southeast of Bethel (Isaiah 10:28), probably the same as Arabic et-Tell, even though archeological remains cannot be found there for the period of Joshua (8:28). Sometimes such names are moved to nearby locations, and Steiner may be suggesting such an occasion for traditional Jerusalem.

3 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

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

Non-Mormons may still, I'm afraid, have trouble seeing past the fact that Jerusalem is a solid archaeological site that can really be compared with ancient texts, one way or another, whereas Zarahemla remains purely speculative. But I think we all knew that. What I wonder is how tenable it might be, from a Mormon viewpoint, to reinterpret Nephite cities as primitive hamlets?

One faction in Israelite archeology has taken the minimalist view that Jerusalem was no more than a primitive hamlet ruled (if at all) by a rascal named David and his small band of ruffians, while another group has maintained that David was a real king ruling over a respectable and substantial kingdom.

[Physics Guy]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One faction in Israelite archeology has taken the minimalist view that Jerusalem was no more than a primitive hamlet ruled (if at all) by a rascal named David and his small band of ruffians, while another group has maintained that David was a real king ruling over a respectable and substantial kingdom.

Yes, so I've just gathered. It's interesting. I find I can contemplate a ruffian David without concern, since even if you read Kings and Chronicles as the history of a great ancient nation, it's still a primitive nation that wouldn't even be a banana republic today, and David acts more like a mafia boss than a statesman.

I am curious, though, as to how compatible a similar demotion of Nephite society would be with Mormonism. I'm not trying to score a point. There are arguments that convince me, and arguments that I don't think should convince anyone, and there's a wide No Man's Land in between of arguments that I don't quite buy, but I consider legitimate. My expectation is that there's a legitimate Mormon answer to this question. I'd just like to hear it.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So tablets dated to the mid-14th Century BC mention Jerusalem, which otherwise is not found in the archaeological record?

There are much better examples of this in archeology, such as the lost site of ancient Troy (Ilium), rediscovered by Heinrich Schlieman.  The more important value for Book of Mormon studies, though, is the reference in the Amarna Letters to Bethlehem in the Land of Jerusalem:  You may recall that the Book of Mormon never mentions Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus, but rather claims that he will be born "at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10).  This is especially odd since every little child in Joseph's day knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  However, the Amarna Letters place Bethlehem within the Land of Jerusalem (^matURU-sa-lim), something which the Bible does not do.

There is, however, a controversy over whether the Abrahamic Salem (Gen 14:8) is to be identified with later Jerusalem. Psalm 76:2-4 would seem to support that equation, but Prof Douglas Frayne of the Univ. of Toronto says:

Quote

“The Salem found in the Abraham account in Genesis 14: 8 is a small town in the Habur Basin which appears in the Mari texts as Salaman and is to be placed at modern Syrian Tchôlâma Tahtani. It also appears in the Tell Beydar texts as Sulum. Its location is at 36°49'21.90"N 40°47'11.08”E. You can see it on Google Earth."

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  I really wish that was comparable to the BoM, a text not found to be supported earlier than the 19th century, aside from resemblance to writing styles in the 15th Century, and not found to be "genuine historical documents", particularly since we don't have the plates to see.  And there's no way to know if any of the BoM came from the plates in the first place.  ...............................................

Speaking as one who struggles to see the Book of Mormon as an ancient work (even if in part it still seems heavily influenced by Joseph's time, even if not in grammar or language), I think he's right on the money here.  It does make me eager to see whatever can be found and whatever arguments or positions might come. 

I don't see anything in the BofM text from the 19th century (except that it was published in 1830), aside from the grammar and style being systematically of 16th century origin.  However, any document can be closely examined to see whether it is authentic or not, and that includes the BofM.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Yes, so I've just gathered. It's interesting. I find I can contemplate a ruffian David without concern, since even if you read Kings and Chronicles as the history of a great ancient nation, it's still a primitive nation that wouldn't even be a banana republic today, and David acts more like a mafia boss than a statesman.

I am curious, though, as to how compatible a similar demotion of Nephite society would be with Mormonism. I'm not trying to score a point. There are arguments that convince me, and arguments that I don't think should convince anyone, and there's a wide No Man's Land in between of arguments that I don't quite buy, but I consider legitimate. My expectation is that there's a legitimate Mormon answer to this question. I'd just like to hear it.

Any record-keeper or later editor (including Nephite ones) could inflate the importance of historical events and persons.  Biblical and other ancient writings do that all the time.  In fact hyperbole seems de rigueur.

[RevTestament]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No, Akkadian was a foreign language to the Canaanites as well.  Akkadian cuneiform was the lingua franca of the day.  I say it is interesting because the Book of Mormon is another instance in which a foreign language was used extensively -- in that case, both the Brass Plates and the Book of Mormon were engraved in Egyptian, even though the vernacular for them was Hebrew.  Only a trained scribal elite could read and engrave the records.

Well, I agree with you that by the time of the Amarna letters, Canaanites had developed their own dialects, but according to my studies they were more derived from Akkadian than anything else. However, I don't pretend to be an expert in Canaanite by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure you know more in that regard. The Egyptians had a long history of communications with Mesopotamia, and so yes, Akkadian was the Lingua Franca of the Middle East. The Ebla tablets demonstrate a combined usage of Akkadian and new words - many of which seem to be strong precursors of Hebrew - as well as new scripts. However, by the time of the 1400s we have the Phoenicians beginning to develop their own alphabet. I believe we also have evidence that the Hebrews had developed their own alphabet which was a curious conjunction of Egyptian hieroglyphs and new symbols. So it may well be that the Phoenicians got their alphabet from the Hebrews! Wouldn't that turn archaeology on its head! My studies indeed seem to reveal several characters in common with the Anthon script or what is commonly accepted as the Anthon script, so I wouldn't exactly agree the Brass Plates nor the golden plates were engraven in Egyptian.  If they had been an ancient record from the time of Joshua, they would have been in the hands of the priests rather than Laban. The fact that they contained Isaiah indicates they were a fairly new record, so they were probably in the same script as the BoM, which preserved it for Mormon, the compiler. This script seems to be a form of their more ancient script from their time in Egypt. See Serabit el-Khadim

[hagoth7]

48 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Yes, so I've just gathered. It's interesting. I find I can contemplate a ruffian David without concern, since even if you read Kings and Chronicles as the history of a great ancient nation, it's still a primitive nation that wouldn't even be a banana republic today, and David acts more like a mafia boss than a statesman.

I am curious, though, as to how compatible a similar demotion of Nephite society would be with Mormonism. I'm not trying to score a point. There are arguments that convince me, and arguments that I don't think should convince anyone, and there's a wide No Man's Land in between of arguments that I don't quite buy, but I consider legitimate. My expectation is that there's a legitimate Mormon answer to this question. I'd just like to hear it.

I think Germanic archaeology/history offers a helpful parallel.

Germania was sufficiently strong by 9 AD to give Roman legions a serious thumping. And was still/again sufficiently strong  in the 400s-500s AD to topple Rome itself more than once.

Yet archaeology is hard pressed to show archaeological traces in early Germania that moderns might equate to a significant civilization. No remnants of early Germanic cities beyond the Rhine, etc. They were to a considerable degree a mobile agrarian society.

In the early Americas (and in Palestine), a Nephite (or Jerusalem-based) society built upon a similar framework wouldn't leave a whole lot of archaeological trace that moderns might recognize as civilization.

I personally find it bizarre that moderns tended to deem the significance of one's lodging or place(s) of worship as some indicator supposedly telling to what degree a people was civilized.

Edited August 24, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

As to the identify of Uru-salem, since Salaam/Shalom means "peace" in Semitic and Persian languages, what was the Akkadian term(s) for peace?

Edited August 24, 2017 by hagoth7

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Yes, so I've just gathered. It's interesting. I find I can contemplate a ruffian David without concern, since even if you read Kings and Chronicles as the history of a great ancient nation, it's still a primitive nation that wouldn't even be a banana republic today, and David acts more like a mafia boss than a statesman.

I am curious, though, as to how compatible a similar demotion of Nephite society would be with Mormonism. I'm not trying to score a point. There are arguments that convince me, and arguments that I don't think should convince anyone, and there's a wide No Man's Land in between of arguments that I don't quite buy, but I consider legitimate. My expectation is that there's a legitimate Mormon answer to this question. I'd just like to hear it.

I actually believe Nephite society was pretty simple for about 500 years. The cities they built consisted of wooden structures for their synagogues, but they lived in tents, and much of their efforts were given into defending themselves. After about 100 BC they began to build some houses, so that is when archaeological evidence of trash heaps would be expected to show up.  However, there is no evidence they ever built great stone cities like those found in Mesoamerica. In fact I think for the most part the "cement" described was more like dried clay, although they knew how to make what we would call cement. It depended on the raw materials available. But in terms of great stone and brick cities like Jerusalem, I don''t think there is any textual evidence for this, nor consistent archaeological evidence. And that is ok with me. I believe wood was their main building material, and I believe that is consistent with the archaeological record. And btw, the ancient city of David really wasn't that big  - about 15 acres I think. There are many, many known walled sites in the Americas that big or bigger. So, to answer your question succinctly, I don't mind picturing the Nephites living out in the woods. I don't believe it affects the truthfulness of the BoM at all. I think for them it was a great resource, and in fact I believe they became a woodland culture rather than a desert culture. I think they considered it a blessing - with lots to eat. 

[hagoth7]

Until the temple was built via his son Solomon and supposedly with Hiram of Tyre's help, and while the tabernacle and ark of the covenant were still portable and at least the latter was at times transported to places of conflict..was not that center of Jeru-Salem portable and in motion throughout significant portions of David's reign?

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I agree with you that by the time of the Amarna letters, Canaanites had developed their own dialects, but according to my studies they were more derived from Akkadian than anything else.

Akkadian was a very different language than Canaanite, which we know well from Ugarit (Ras Shamra), even though they are both part of the Semitic language family (one is East Semitic, the other West Semitic).  Let me give you an example of the differences in ordinary words or phrases:

Akkadian KUR gab-ba-sha = Canaanite (Ugaritic) 'arets kulah = Egyptian p3 t3 dr.f "the land, all of it (the entire land)."

Akkadian zēr šarrūti = Hebrew zeraˁ hammamlākâ “royal descendant” (2 Kings 11:1), or zeraˁ hammělûkâ “royal descendant” (Jeremiah 41:1), since melek is the West Semitic equivalent of East Semitic šarrū "king" (LUGAL is the logogram used by the scribes).  You can also see a possible etymological source of BofM Zarahemla here.

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

..............................................My studies indeed seem to reveal several characters in common with the Anthon script or what is commonly accepted as the Anthon script, so I wouldn't exactly agree the Brass Plates nor the golden plates were engraven in Egyptian.  If they had been an ancient record from the time of Joshua, they would have been in the hands of the priests rather than Laban. The fact that they contained Isaiah indicates they were a fairly new record, so they were probably in the same script as the BoM, which preserved it for Mormon, the compiler. This script seems to be a form of their more ancient script from their time in Egypt. See Serabit el-Khadim

The BofM is most explicit in claiming that the Brass Plates and Book of Mormon were engraven in Egyptian, even apologizing for not using Hebrew for space-saving reasons -- which are only explicable based on the succinct logograms in Egyptian cursive (1 Ne 1:2, Mosiah 1:2-4, Mormon 9:32-33).  Moreover, professional non-Mormon Egyptologists have identified the script of the so-called "Anthon Transcript" as Egyptian cursive (Richard Parker and W. C. Hayes).  Finally, I have identified numerous Eygptianisms in the BofM, which do not exist in Hebrew -- aside from names in the BofM which are of Egyptian origin (Paanchi and Pahoran, for example, as confirmed by the late W. F. Albright).

When were the Brass Plates begun?  We do not know, but the fact that they contain Isaiah and Jeremiah only indicates that professional scribes were busy adding to the record before it was filched by Nephi and his brothers.  Where did the Brass Plates come from?  Most likely brought by refugees from the Northern Kingdom at the time of the destruction by Assyria.  Laban (the custodian) was a descendant of Joseph, as was Lehi, and likely descendants of those important refugees a century earlier.  Why kept in Egyptian?  Seems rather odd, but might be explained as having come down from the time of Joseph the Patriarch himself.  In any case, we now know that professional scribes in Judah and Israel regularly used Egyptian script, something the Bible gave no hint of.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Akkadian was a very different language than Canaanite, which we know well from Ugarit (Ras Shamra), even though they are both part of the Semitic language family (one is East Semitic, the other West Semitic).  Let me give you an example of the differences in ordinary words or phrases:

Akkadian KUR gab-ba-sha = Canaanite (Ugaritic) 'arets kulah = Egyptian p3 t3 dr.f "the land, all of it (the entire land)."

Akkadian zēr šarrūti = Hebrew zeraˁ hammamlākâ “royal descendant” (2 Kings 11:1), or zeraˁ hammělûkâ “royal descendant” (Jeremiah 41:1), since melek is the West Semitic equivalent of East Semitic šarrū "king" (LUGAL is the logogram used by the scribes).  You can also see a possible etymological source of BofM Zarahemla here.

The BofM is most explicit in claiming that the Brass Plates and Book of Mormon were engraven in Egyptian, even apologizing for not using Hebrew for space-saving reasons -- which are only explicable based on the succinct logograms in Egyptian cursive (1 Ne 1:2, Mosiah 1:2-4, Mormon 9:32-33).  Moreover, professional non-Mormon Egyptologists have identified the script of the so-called "Anthon Transcript" as Egyptian cursive (Richard Parker and W. C. Hayes).  Finally, I have identified numerous Eygptianisms in the BofM, which do not exist in Hebrew -- aside from names in the BofM which are of Egyptian origin (Paanchi and Pahoran, for example, as confirmed by the late W. F. Albright).

When were the Brass Plates begun?  We do not know, but the fact that they contain Isaiah and Jeremiah only indicates that professional scribes were busy adding to the record before it was filched by Nephi and his brothers.  Where did the Brass Plates come from?  Most likely brought by refugees from the Northern Kingdom at the time of the destruction by Assyria.  Laban (the custodian) was a descendant of Joseph, as was Lehi, and likely descendants of those important refugees a century earlier.  Why kept in Egyptian?  Seems rather odd, but might be explained as having come down from the time of Joseph the Patriarch himself.  In any case, we now know that professional scribes in Judah and Israel regularly used Egyptian script, something the Bible gave no hint of.

If you would be so kind, could you provide sources for your Egyptian cursive experts? as well as your comment about Judaean scribes using Egyptian? IIRC there is some evidence of that in the Elephantine records, but I am unfamiliar with any materials reflecting what you are claiming here.

I want to thank you for your helpful comments. I indeed think your comments about Zarahemla are on the right track. Again, I have noticed some similarities between Egyptian cursive and the Anthon script, but they largely seem different to me. Same with demotic. But then I really don't know much about all these languages/scripts so have to rely upon experts. I wasn't aware of any who would identify the Anthon script as Egyptian cursive.