Stargazer Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 21 hours ago, RevTestament said: Since the BoM uses both darts and arrows, and does speak of bows, it seems that it is distinguishing between the two. Indeed, the use of arrows by the Lamanites is problematic for the Mesoamerican setting, since it seems the bow and arrow had not reached Mesoamerica by that time. The atlatl was the primary weapon of choice in the Americas at the time. However, the bow and arrow had entered N. America at the time, based upon the arrowheads found there. I'm afraid that "arrowheads" is a presumptive term. In fact "points" fashioned from obsidian, flint or chert for heading "arrows" (presumably cast using a bow) can just as well head "darts" (presumably cast using a bare arm or an atlatl). 1
RevTestament Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: There are Mormon scholars who share your view that the BofM was written in Hebrew using Egyptian script, but that seems somewhat absurd: Why not simply write in alphabetic Hebrew, as suggested by Mormon 9:33? Use of Egyptian ideograms made possible the saving of precious space on the plates (Mormon 9:32-33). Aside from which the BofM is quite explicit that the records (Bronze Plates) were written in actual Egyptian (Mosiah 1:2-4). As Hugh Nibley has said, "The language of Lehi's forefathers was a foreign language; and when the Book of Mormon tells us it was the language of the Egyptians, it means what it says." Nibley, "Lehi in the Desert," part II, Improvement Era, 53/2 (Feb 1950):155 = Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, V:24. He also said: "people who were not crowded for space would not have continued to write Hebrew in the difficult Egyptian characters for hundreds of years, when all the time they might just as well have been writing in the twenty-two simple and practical characters of the Hebrew alphabet. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 2nd ed., Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, V:16. Cf. Brant A. Gardner, “Nephi as Scribe,” FARMS Review, 23/1 (2011):45–55, online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1462&index=4 . We also know that, when the Hebrew Bible has been translated into another language, it has been done wholesale into the other language, as with the Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums, and the Coptic Christian Bible. However, it isn't only those claims in the BofM which are relevant, but also the existence of many Egyptianisms which could not exist in Hebrew. In the case of those Hebraisms listed by you from the work of the late John Tvedtnes, my listing of good Egyptian equivalents only moots the point you made. Egyptianisms which could not be Hebraisms provide us with a much more powerful diagnostic tool: 1. There is no ancient Hebrew word or phrase appropriate to the expression "make (write) an abridgment" (I Nephi 1:17, Words of Mormon 1:3, Mormon 5:9, Moroni 1:1), although the Egyptian phrase sḥwy p3w n šfdw pn "abridgment of this book" seems suitable,[1] and "to make an abridgment" would simply be irt sḥwy. The late Hugh Nibley found it a particularly Egyptian concept. Nibley, BYU Studies, 11/2 (Winter 1971):164. 2. “Ites” in IV Nephi 17 “nor any manner of -ites,” has no known parallel in Hebrew as a single word, but could be represented by the Egyptian determinative sign for “people,” which is not vocalized, but is frequently accompanied by a plural termination -w, as in šЗsw “bedouin” (accompanied by a man & woman over plural signs as the determinative). It could also serve an ideographic function in this generic case on the Book of Mormon plates. Here, for example, is the ethnicon "Israelites" from the Merneptah Stele: 3. Only two words in the entire Book of Mormon contain the double-ff, and both are Zeniffite words: The personal name Zeniff, and the common noun ziff (Mosiah 7:9, 11:3,8, 25:5). The single f is the voiceless labiodental fricative sound for non-plosive (no dagesh) Hebrew p. However, we only see the double-ff in ancient Egyptian, as in Egyptian ˁff, ˁffj “fly (insect).” A. Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian, 31; R. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, 42. 4. Pedro Olavarria and Matthew Bowen have suggested that an excellent Egyptianism can be found in I Nephi 11:25, 15:23-25, where “the rod of iron” is equated with “the word of God” (I Samuel 9:27 Hebrew děbar ʼĕlōhîm) Just so, Egyptian mdw ntr (Demotic mtw ntr) “word of god, scripture,” uses the word mdw which can mean both “word” and “rod, staff.”[1] Interestingly, the Hebrew phrase “rod of God” maṭṭē hāʼĕlōhîm occurs at Exodus 4:20 and 17:9 (cf. maṭṭē ʼahărōn Numbers 17:21, 23 = KJV Numbers 17:6, 8; Genesis 38:18, 25), and the Hebrew word for “rod” there, maṭṭē, is cognate with Egyptian mdw “rod, staff.”[2] However, this pun only works in Egyptian, not Hebrew. Olavarria on MDDB at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52705-zarahemla-revisiting-the-seed-of-compassion ; Bowen at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/ insights/25/2/S00004-quotWhat_Meaneth_the_Rod_of_Ironquot.html . Faulkner, Concise Dictonary of Middle Egyptian, 122. The upshot is that, when Nephi exhorts his brethren to “give heed to the word of God [mdw ntr] and remember to keep his commandments” (I Nephi 15:25), he is not only suggesting that one must give heed to the commandments given in Holy Scripture (mdw ntr) – and making a not very subtle reference to the Brass Plates which contained those very commandments – but also saying that those plates were specifically incised or engraved in Egyptian script (mdw ntr). 5. Brian Stubbs recently called our attention to a common Middle and Late Egyptian idiom or way of saying “to leave a place or return from” it is (r)di sЗ n/r “set my back to”; the pronominal suffix following “back” tells whose back or who is leaving/returning; and n/r “toward/ against.” In Alma 8:24, Alma writes, “I was about to set my back towards this land forever” (italics added for emphasis), that is, “leave it forever.” Stubbs, Changes in Languages: From Nephi to Now (Blanding, UT: Four Corners, 2016), 25; Faulkner, CDME, 156,205, citing A. Gardiner, Notes on the Story of Sinuhe, 34-35. 6. John Gee suggests an instance of haplography in the Book of Mormon attributable specifically to use of the Egyptian preposition n "of, for," at Alma 24:19, they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace. As Gee points out, the Book of Mormon scribe apparently looked away from the master text for a moment while engraving, then returned and continued copying at the second n, then noted his mistake and immediately corrected it by adding "or they buried the weapons of war for peace." Gee adds that this would only work in Egyptian where the preposition n can be used as an indirect genitive, and then also meaning "for." (Gee, personal communication, 2010). This could not happen in Hebrew. There are many more examples along these and other lines, but you get the picture. If they were going to write in Egyptian, why not just use the Egyptian hieroglyph script? Why invent yet another? The Egyptian hieroglyph script is a condensation already. But from what we know of the BoM characters, which is very little, they were not Egyptian hieroglyphs. Instead, what I think we have in the BoM is an invention of a new hieroglyphic script for Hebrew - adopting some Egyptian words. As you note, the Hebrew has no words for certain concepts which appear in the BoM. We know from the Bible that the Hebrews did use certain Egyptian words, so what I am suggesting had been done previously.
RevTestament Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 20 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I'm afraid that "arrowheads" is a presumptive term. In fact "points" fashioned from obsidian, flint or chert for heading "arrows" (presumably cast using a bow) can just as well head "darts" (presumably cast using a bare arm or an atlatl). And vice versa I think, although some atlatl heads are a little big for a bow and arrow. Nevertheless, I think some atlatl heads would work perfectly well for a large arrow, and indeed that size would probably be preferred for war. Smaller arrowheads would have been used for hunting small prey, but would not have been very ideal for killing men. Nevertheless, there are pictures in Mesoamerica of atlatl use, but no pictures at the time revealing use of a bow and arrow. We do know that the bow and arrow was introduced into N. America first. But to a certain extent you are right - absence of small arrowheads, does not equate to absence of the bow and arrow as much of archaeology seems to presuppose. Indeed, the Nephites may have used the same heads for both atlatls and arrows - we simply don't know, and the point size doesn't necessarily tell us there were no bow and arrows in use.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, strappinglad said: We are told that Reformed Egyptian was used to save space. Some have suggested that there were only a few dozen plates with the symbols to cover what now occupies over 500 pages of English print. Has anyone done a heiroglyphic translation of some of the BoM so as to ascertain just how efficient it would be? I realize that no one knows just how the Nephites reformed the script to , what I assume, was a ' shorthand ' type , but some bright person should be able to guess based on what was done by the Egyptians themselves as well as what has been done with other scripts including Gregg .etc. The Improvement Era featured a page of a Hebrew translation of the BofM back in the 1920s to illustrate how much more text one could put on a page of Hebrew (because the vowels are left out). So too Hugh Nibley Illustrated how much less space one had to use with Demotic, as opposed to Hieroglyphic Egyptian in his Since Cumorah, VII:149. Abbreviated ideograms take much less space. Thus the name of the god Amun could be reduced to a mere squiggle in Demotic. Edited July 1, 2018 by Robert F. Smith 2
strappinglad Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 I imagine such shorthand would wreck havoc with nuance and subtle interpretation.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: If they were going to write in Egyptian, why not just use the Egyptian hieroglyph script? Why invent yet another? The Egyptian hieroglyph script is a condensation already. But from what we know of the BoM characters, which is very little, they were not Egyptian hieroglyphs. Instead, what I think we have in the BoM is an invention of a new hieroglyphic script for Hebrew - adopting some Egyptian words. As you note, the Hebrew has no words for certain concepts which appear in the BoM. We know from the Bible that the Hebrews did use certain Egyptian words, so what I am suggesting had been done previously. Engraving in Hieroglyphic Egyptian would simply take up too much space and take too long to engrave. Moroni explains that they have space-saving considerations, which leaves only Hieratic and early Demotic. Both were abbreviated, but Demotic much more so. There was simply no reason to use Hebrew in Egyptian script, and that would make no sense at all. The text of the BofM never suggests that they used Hebrew, and Moroni is even explicit about that fact. All biblical scholars now accept that all royal courts in the ancient Near East had multilingual scribes. This means that (as David P. Wright has pointed out) the courts of Israel and Judah would have scribes knowing Akkadian and Egyptian. Non-Mormon scholar Stefan Wimmer suggested that Hebrew scribes may have gone to Egypt for training, or that Egyptian scribes came to Israel to train them.[1] [1] Wimmer, “’Palestinian Hieratic’: Egyptian Impact on Ancient Hebrew Writing,” Willes Center lecture delivered August 31, 2012, at BYU, citing Bernd Schipper, “Egyptian Imperialism After the New Kingdom: The 26th Dynasty and the Southern Levant,” in S. Bar, et al., eds., Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature, Proceedings of a Conference at Haifa University, May 2009 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 268-290; O. Goldwasser, "An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms," Tel Aviv, 18 (1991):248-253 cf. Wimmer, Palästinisches Hieratisch: Die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in der althebräischen Schrift, Ägypten und alten Testament 75 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008). 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, strappinglad said: I imagine such shorthand would wreck havoc with nuance and subtle interpretation. Yes, and Moroni even complains about it in Mormon 9:33.
Glenn101 Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 On 6/30/2018 at 1:05 AM, Thinking said: The fact that the Book of Mormon exists at all is evidence that JS could have produced it using his natural ability. Not hardly. How many books have been attributed to an author but was actually ghostwritten by someone else? Glenn
Thinking Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 6 hours ago, Glenn101 said: Not hardly. How many books have been attributed to an author but was actually ghostwritten by someone else? "could have" Also, a ghostwriter typically has a collaborative relationship with the credited author. Collaboration was one of my possibilities. Link
Glenn101 Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 7 hours ago, Thinking said: "could have" Also, a ghostwriter typically has a collaborative relationship with the credited author. Collaboration was one of my possibilities. Link When would this collaboration have taken place? What sixteenth century author would Joseph have collaborated with. The current state of the evidence indicates that none of Joseph's contemporaries would have been able to produce the Book of Mormon either.
RevTestament Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Engraving in Hieroglyphic Egyptian would simply take up too much space and take too long to engrave. Moroni explains that they have space-saving considerations, which leaves only Hieratic and early Demotic. Both were abbreviated, but Demotic much more so. There was simply no reason to use Hebrew in Egyptian script, and that would make no sense at all. The text of the BofM never suggests that they used Hebrew, and Moroni is even explicit about that fact. All biblical scholars now accept that all royal courts in the ancient Near East had multilingual scribes. This means that (as David P. Wright has pointed out) the courts of Israel and Judah would have scribes knowing Akkadian and Egyptian. Non-Mormon scholar Stefan Wimmer suggested that Hebrew scribes may have gone to Egypt for training, or that Egyptian scribes came to Israel to train them.[1] [1] Wimmer, “’Palestinian Hieratic’: Egyptian Impact on Ancient Hebrew Writing,” Willes Center lecture delivered August 31, 2012, at BYU, citing Bernd Schipper, “Egyptian Imperialism After the New Kingdom: The 26th Dynasty and the Southern Levant,” in S. Bar, et al., eds., Egypt, Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature, Proceedings of a Conference at Haifa University, May 2009 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 268-290; O. Goldwasser, "An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms," Tel Aviv, 18 (1991):248-253 cf. Wimmer, Palästinisches Hieratisch: Die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in der althebräischen Schrift, Ägypten und alten Testament 75 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008). While I admit that the BoM does strongly suggest Egyptian was used, it also mentions that what was used consists of the learning of the Jews. 1 Nephi 1:2 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. This to me implies more than just learning the Egyptian language. I believe it is saying there is some kind of hybridization going on. Otherwise, it seems it would just say that the BoM was written in Egyptian. I believe what it is trying to say is that an Egyptian script was used. This apparently did include adopting Egyptian words as well, but if they did not use Hebrew as well, there is not much point in hybridizing some Egyptian script again. From what we know the BoM did not use straight Demotic nor straight Hieratic. It was adapted for some reason, and I think the evidence shows it was adapted for Hebrew thinking including Hebrew words. I guess we can go around and around, but unfortunately, I don't believe there is enough evidence to decide the issue one way or the other. The evidence seems to show Hebrew syntax was used with some Egyptian words.
clarkgoble Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Engraving in Hieroglyphic Egyptian would simply take up too much space and take too long to engrave. Moroni explains that they have space-saving considerations, which leaves only Hieratic and early Demotic. Both were abbreviated, but Demotic much more so. Given the Anthon Transcript it's hard to believe it was in demotic. It seems like some unknown script perhaps even more compressed than demotic - perhaps a shorthand of some sort akin to Tironian that arose a few centuries later. 17 hours ago, RevTestament said: And vice versa I think, although some atlatl heads are a little big for a bow and arrow. Nevertheless, I think some atlatl heads would work perfectly well for a large arrow, and indeed that size would probably be preferred for war. Smaller arrowheads would have been used for hunting small prey, but would not have been very ideal for killing men. Nevertheless, there are pictures in Mesoamerica of atlatl use, but no pictures at the time revealing use of a bow and arrow. We do know that the bow and arrow was introduced into N. America first. But to a certain extent you are right - absence of small arrowheads, does not equate to absence of the bow and arrow as much of archaeology seems to presuppose. Indeed, the Nephites may have used the same heads for both atlatls and arrows - we simply don't know, and the point size doesn't necessarily tell us there were no bow and arrows in use. I think the problem with positing the bow and arrow is simply that it didn't catch on and spread whereas there's constant spread of the technology from the north to the south historically. However if you look at Spanish descriptions of atlatl they often used bow and arrow terminology. I did a blog post on this last year.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Given the Anthon Transcript it's hard to believe it was in demotic. It seems like some unknown script perhaps even more compressed than demotic - perhaps a shorthand of some sort akin to Tironian that arose a few centuries later................................ That is not the position of non-Mormon Egyptologists such as William C. Hayes, who suggested to Stanley Kimball on Monday, February 6, 1956, that the "Caractors Transcript" begins with a Hieratic date formula, as found at the beginning of so many inscriptions and papyri, e.g., the Canopus Decree and Rosetta Stone. Egyptologist Hayes (then with the Metropolitan Museum of Art) made notes of his proposed transcription of the first Egyptian Hieratic characters of that formula as ḥ3t sp 6, 3bd 4, 3ḫt, sw, which would mean "Regnal year 6, month 4, of the Inundation, day . . ."[1] Hayes there and then provided those notes to Stanley B. Kimball, a doctoral student at Columbia University, and Kimball eventually sent a copy of those notes (along with his journal entry for that day) to FARMS.[2] I have copies of all that. Of course today the first characters would be transcribed as ḥsbt, or rnpt-ḥsbt (rather than ḥ3t sp) "(year of) counting."[3] However, whether in fact Hayes' suggested transcription (and implied translation) of these first characters is credible or correct is another matter, dependent on a coherent translation of the entire Transcript. Later, while a visiting scholar at Brown University, Richard Bushman spoke with Egyptologist Richard A. Parker about the same Caractors Transcript -- Parker commenting that it appeared to be a copy of a real document in Egyptian script, but possibly in an unknown language such as Meroitic (Indeed, Hugh Nibley thought many names in the Book of Mormon not only sounded like Meroitic, but that the writing on the Caractors Transcript itself looked Amost like Meroitic@[4]). In a letter to Marvin W. Cowan, March 22, 1966, Richard A. Parker stated that “the signs purportedly from the Book of Mormon . . . could well be the latest form of the written language – demotic characters.” [1] Hayes provided Kimball with notes on the Hieratic along with a hieroglyphic transcription (copy in my possession, along with the Sunday, February 5, 1956, personal journal entry of Stanley B. Kimball). [2] Hayes also wrote a letter to Paul M. Hanson of the RLDS Church later that year (June 8, 1956) saying that the Caractors Transcript “could conceivably have been an inaccurate copy of an Egyptian account or something of the sort written in hieratic script. With some imagination the beginning of the inscription could be taken as a date, and many of the other groups look like hieratic numerals” – quoted in Hanson, “The Transcript from the Plates of the Book of Mormon,” Saints’ Herald, 103 (Nov 12, 1956):6 (Hanson included negative comments on the Transcript from Egyptologists John A. Wilson and Alan H. Gardiner). [3] James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 104. [4] Nibley, Since Cumorah, CWHN VII:170-171.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, RevTestament said: While I admit that the BoM does strongly suggest Egyptian was used, it also mentions that what was used consists of the learning of the Jews. 1 Nephi 1:2 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. This to me implies more than just learning the Egyptian language. I believe it is saying there is some kind of hybridization going on. Otherwise, it seems it would just say that the BoM was written in Egyptian. I believe what it is trying to say is that an Egyptian script was used. This apparently did include adopting Egyptian words as well, but if they did not use Hebrew as well, there is not much point in hybridizing some Egyptian script again. From what we know the BoM did not use straight Demotic nor straight Hieratic. It was adapted for some reason, and I think the evidence shows it was adapted for Hebrew thinking including Hebrew words. I guess we can go around and around, but unfortunately, I don't believe there is enough evidence to decide the issue one way or the other. The evidence seems to show Hebrew syntax was used with some Egyptian words. A scribe trained in Egyptian would have no reason to hybridize anything, and such would not be wise anyhow, what with the need to be able to read the Brass Plates for the next thousand years. One would necessarily have to maintain standardized Egyptian for those practical reasons. Moreover, the exegesis of I Ne 1:1-3 must take into account the parallel words of the controlling chiasm: 1b having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days. 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. 3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge. Edited July 2, 2018 by Robert F. Smith
clarkgoble Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: That is not the position of non-Mormon Egyptologists such as William C. Hayes, who suggested to Stanley Kimball I think it's telling that you didn't list one LDS Egyptologist seeing that connection. Rather just a couple from 50 years + ago who said it in passing but didn't publish why they thought it. John Gee seems pretty skeptical in particular. Meroitic is a variant on demotic and thus shows one can get custom scripts in the era in question. However if it were demotic we'd expect people to be able to read our text, which they can't. So whatever it is, even if influenced by known Egyptian scripts it seems quite different from them. Edited July 2, 2018 by clarkgoble
Robert F. Smith Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: I think it's telling that you didn't list one LDS Egyptologist seeing that connection. Rather just a couple from 50 years + ago who said it in passing but didn't publish why they thought it. John Gee seems pretty skeptical in particular. Hayes actually translated part of the first line, placed it in Hieroglyphic form, and transliterated it into English (as I indicated). To you that may just be "in passing," but to me it indicates actually engaging the document. Two prominent Egyptologists actually taking time to consider the matter. As for Gee, he tells me that he regards some characters as authentic Egyptian -- in the case of Benjamin Urrutia. “The Name Connection,” New Era, 13/6 (June 1983), 39, online at https://www.lds.org/new-era/1983/06/the-name-connection?lang=eng . Both Hugh Nibley and Dee Jay Nelson (before he apostatized) commented on the obvious Egypticity of the Caractors Transcript, Nelson correctly pointing out that every character in the Caractors Transcript faced the proper direction to be read from right to left. He saw them as Hieratic, and I agree, but who would ever take the view of a Mormon seriously? For further information on the Caractors Transcript, see my “Chiasmus in Ancient Egyptian & in the So-called ‘Anthon Transcript’,” June 2017, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/352354579/Chiasmus-in-Ancient-Egyptian-in-the-So-called-Anthon-Transcript . Early Demotic (ca 600 BC) is very much like Hieratic in appearance. 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Meroitic is a variant on demotic and thus shows one can get custom scripts in the era in question. However if it were demotic we'd expect people to be able to read our text, which they can't. So whatever it is, even if influenced by known Egyptian scripts it seems quite different from them. Meroitic characters can be read just fine. We just don't know the language, so can't translate it (except for isolated phrases and names).
EdGoble Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: A scribe trained in Egyptian would have no reason to hybridize anything, and such would not be wise anyhow, what with the need to be able to read the Brass Plates for the next thousand years. One would necessarily have to maintain standardized Egyptian for those practical reasons. Moreover, the exegesis of I Ne 1:1-3 must take into account the parallel words of the controlling chiasm: 1b having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days. 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. 3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge. If it is not to produce some sort of shorthand in a hybridization, there would be no point to the hybridization, and they should just go ahead and use regular alphabetic hebrew. It can't be that if the Egyptian is used somehow alphabetically, that it takes up that much less physical space on the metal plate than Hebrew. There must be a better reason. Certainly, the type of "shorthand" suggested by some KEP theorists doesn't make sense, where a whole message or paragraph is somehow encoded into one symbol. So that type of encoding is not a serious candidate. A pictographic type of encoding doesn't make any sense for a shorthand, and to be meaningful in any way, would require a complex key of some sort. However, if we examine some of the traits/attributes of the written Egyptian language, some other possibilities manifest. Egyptian is full of puns, is pictographic to some degree when it makes sense, and each symbol stands for either a single consonant, a double consonant, or a triple consonant, or a context-giving determinative. If the "reformed" Egyptian were to encode somehow single-consonantal, dual-consonantal or tri-consonantal values in Hebrew as it does in Egyptian, then this would make sense for some sort of shorthand. Because in some cases, where there would have been two or three symbols in a Hebrew script, this could be substituted by one symbol in an Egyptian script. Plus, one could tie symbols together in sort of a cursive ligature that looks somewhat like Hieratic or Demotic. Therefore, this type of shorthand to encode the Hebrew tongue in Egyptian script would make sense for a shorthand. Edited July 2, 2018 by EdGoble
Robert F. Smith Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 7 hours ago, EdGoble said: If it is not to produce some sort of shorthand in a hybridization, there would be no point to the hybridization, and they should just go ahead and use regular alphabetic hebrew. It can't be that if the Egyptian is used somehow alphabetically, that it takes up that much less physical space on the metal plate than Hebrew. There must be a better reason. Certainly, the type of "shorthand" suggested by some KEP theorists doesn't make sense, where a whole message or paragraph is somehow encoded into one symbol. So that type of encoding is not a serious candidate. A pictographic type of encoding doesn't make any sense for a shorthand, and to be meaningful in any way, would require a complex key of some sort. However, if we examine some of the traits/attributes of the written Egyptian language, some other possibilities manifest. Egyptian is full of puns, is pictographic to some degree when it makes sense, and each symbol stands for either a single consonant, a double consonant, or a triple consonant, or a context-giving determinative. If the "reformed" Egyptian were to encode somehow single-consonantal, dual-consonantal or tri-consonantal values in Hebrew as it does in Egyptian, then this would make sense for some sort of shorthand. Because in some cases, where there would have been two or three symbols in a Hebrew script, this could be substituted by one symbol in an Egyptian script. Plus, one could tie symbols together in sort of a cursive ligature that looks somewhat like Hieratic or Demotic. Therefore, this type of shorthand to encode the Hebrew tongue in Egyptian script would make sense for a shorthand. It makes no sense to me at all, and it simply wasn't done in the cases of the Septuagint (LXX), Aramaic Targums, Coptic Christian Bible, or other translations. What we normally have is standard language translations. It is of no value to put them into a cipher of some sort, which no one understands. The KEP material is nonsense and of almost no value at all. Hieratic and Demotic (enchorial) Egyptian cursive scripts were often termed "short-hand" (the translation for French tachygraphie)[1] – also the term used by William W. Phelps in his letter to Eber D. Howe, January 15, 1831, concerning the February 1828 Martin Harris visit to Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia College. Employing this very context, Howe went on to discuss "reformed" and "short hand Egyptian" in his Mormonism Unvailed (1834), 269. [1] Tachygraphie "short-hand," as in J.-F. Champollion's Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Égyptiens, I (Paris, 1824), 18,20,354-355, and plate I; and in the review of that book, "Egyptian Hieroglyphics," American Quarterly Review, I/2 (June 1827):450, both cited in FARMS, “Martin Harris’ Visit With Charles Anthon,” 1st ed., FARMS Preliminary Report STF-85a (1985).
RevTestament Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: A scribe trained in Egyptian would have no reason to hybridize anything, and such would not be wise anyhow, what with the need to be able to read the Brass Plates for the next thousand years. One would necessarily have to maintain standardized Egyptian for those practical reasons. Moreover, the exegesis of I Ne 1:1-3 must take into account the parallel words of the controlling chiasm: 1b having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days. 2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. 3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge. But it is not Egyptian. Although the Anthon transcript may not have really come from Prof Anthon, it seems to be a valid copy of characters from the plates preserved by Cowdery. The characters are definitely not pure Hieratic nor Demotic. So you appear to be arguing against yourself. You are arguing against a hybrid script, but the evidence doesn't support a pure Egyptian language nor script.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: But it is not Egyptian. Although the Anthon transcript may not have really come from Prof Anthon, it seems to be a valid copy of characters from the plates preserved by Cowdery. The characters are definitely not pure Hieratic nor Demotic. So you appear to be arguing against yourself. You are arguing against a hybrid script, but the evidence doesn't support a pure Egyptian language nor script. We don't actually have strong evidence that this Transcript had anything to do with Anthon. For one thing it does not match Anthon's description at all (which is why Mark Hofmann forged one which did fit the Anthon description). For another, we have no evidence that this Transcript comes from any Book of Mormon plates -- certainly not from the translated portion, because it does not fit the sequence of characters from any part of the BofM. Professional Egyptologists have claimed that it is in fact Egyptian Hieratic or Demotic, and my own training in Egyptian at the Hebrew Univ in Jerusalem and at UCLA confirms that. So I don't know on what basis you declare with certainty that "it is not Egyptian." I'd like to know your reasoning on why that is your opinion.
RevTestament Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: We don't actually have strong evidence that this Transcript had anything to do with Anthon. For one thing it does not match Anthon's description at all (which is why Mark Hofmann forged one which did fit the Anthon description). For another, we have no evidence that this Transcript comes from any Book of Mormon plates -- certainly not from the translated portion, because it does not fit the sequence of characters from any part of the BofM. Professional Egyptologists have claimed that it is in fact Egyptian Hieratic or Demotic, and my own training in Egyptian at the Hebrew Univ in Jerusalem and at UCLA confirms that. So I don't know on what basis you declare with certainty that "it is not Egyptian." I'd like to know your reasoning on why that is your opinion. Well, because the Book of Mormon says as much. Mormon 9:32 32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the areformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. So, they altered the script ie the characters or "reformed" them to fit their manner of speech, which was obviously Hebrew. I doubt they spoke Egyptian, and I have never heard anyone even suggest that. So, it is the Book of Mormon which tells me the script was hybridized. So, one could not read it using the customary Hieratic nor Demotic rules it would seem. While I agree the script is most like Hieratic and Demotic, and apparently has some of the same characters, what we know of it is neither, and the Book of Mormon itself says as much. While you appear to be discounting the so-called Anthon transcript, it is what you are using to claim a Hieratic and/or Demotic derivation, is it not? It's basically all we have, and while it may not be what Prof Anthon saw, I don't see much reason to doubt its authenticity. You seem to be relying on it for your claims.
EdGoble Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It makes no sense to me at all, and it simply wasn't done in the cases of the Septuagint (LXX), Aramaic Targums, Coptic Christian Bible, or other translations. What we normally have is standard language translations. It is of no value to put them into a cipher of some sort, which no one understands. The KEP material is nonsense and of almost no value at all. Hieratic and Demotic (enchorial) Egyptian cursive scripts were often termed "short-hand" (the translation for French tachygraphie)[1] – also the term used by William W. Phelps in his letter to Eber D. Howe, January 15, 1831, concerning the February 1828 Martin Harris visit to Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia College. Employing this very context, Howe went on to discuss "reformed" and "short hand Egyptian" in his Mormonism Unvailed (1834), 269. [1] Tachygraphie "short-hand," as in J.-F. Champollion's Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Égyptiens, I (Paris, 1824), 18,20,354-355, and plate I; and in the review of that book, "Egyptian Hieroglyphics," American Quarterly Review, I/2 (June 1827):450, both cited in FARMS, “Martin Harris’ Visit With Charles Anthon,” 1st ed., FARMS Preliminary Report STF-85a (1985). You say that "it makes no sense to you at all." I am of the opinion that you are automatically biased against anything that I say, and that you give no profound thought anything that I say to actually analyze what I say, because you are dead set to be against anything I have to say, regardless of whether what I say actually has value. This is absolutely clear from my interaction with you for all the time I have been on this message board. Its not a cipher. Its a priestly way of writing, exactly in the same type of way as hieratic was, but for the Nephites. There is no "cipher" thing here that is out of the ordinary for Nephite writing. All writing is an encoding of information in some way, and in the Afro-Asiatic languages, it is usually an encoding of consonants, but there is no intent here for a cipher as if they are "hiding" information. The fact that Egyptian sometimes encoded more than one consonant to be represented by a symbol is of absolute relevance here, despite the fact that you are dismissing my comment. You manifest your negative bias toward the KEP by these things that you are saying. Edited July 3, 2018 by EdGoble
clarkgoble Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: As for Gee, he tells me that he regards some characters as authentic Egyptian -- in the case of Benjamin Urrutia. “The Name Connection,” New Era, 13/6 (June 1983), 39, online at https://www.lds.org/new-era/1983/06/the-name-connection?lang=eng . Some characters in common isn't the same as agreeing with demotic or its variant. Indeed you're basically conceding my point and of course didn't mention the other active Mormon people with Egyptology degrees. If these people shared the view with you that this is just Meroitic I'd have expected a paper along those lines by now making the demonstration. 22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Meroitic characters can be read just fine. We just don't know the language, so can't translate it (except for isolated phrases and names). Again, which of the current professors at BYU with a background in Egyptian agree the script (not a few characters) is meroitic? John Gee, by your own admission, only agrees some characters are the same. What about the others? Edited July 3, 2018 by clarkgoble
clarkgoble Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 On 7/1/2018 at 4:07 PM, Stargazer said: I'm afraid that "arrowheads" is a presumptive term. In fact "points" fashioned from obsidian, flint or chert for heading "arrows" (presumably cast using a bow) can just as well head "darts" (presumably cast using a bare arm or an atlatl). Typically from the size and weight you can figure out what they're for. However certainly from words it's much more difficult - especially if the terminology changes over time. i.e. perhaps the words remain the same but the object referenced changes. A not at all uncommon facet of life for anyone who makes it to middle age and finds language changed.
CA Steve Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 (edited) I am a bit confused here by the discussion about the type of script or characters that were on the plates and how that fits in with EMod. I guess the part I don't understand is, if there was a 16th century translation into English of some sorts, why is the script that Joseph Smith was using still in some form of reformed Egyptian? If there was an English translation available why make him work off of an older version in a language he did not understand? Why make him or Cowdery study it out in their minds when it already was in English? Edited July 3, 2018 by CA Steve
Recommended Posts