Two (or more) Anthon Transcripts

[Zosimus]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since it is possible to see strong resemblances to ancient Egyptian cursive in two different copies of Book of Mormon characters, your opinion seems quite odd.  When and where did you study ancient Egyptian?

Where is it possible to see strong resemblances to Egyptian in the characters? I watched the Grover link Kevin Christensen above and read his paper, but so many questions

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When and where did you study ancient Egyptian?

Of course I haven't. But that's my point, only 2-3 people saw the manuscript(s) and the characters copied by Joseph Smith from the plates who would have been qualified to offer an educated opinion based on what was known in 1829 about Egyptian characters. Experts today might have opinions, but we have no way of knowing if the characters we have were the ones Harris showed to Anthon, Mitchill, and Bradish.

Only Anthon, Mitchill, and Bradish saw the characters, and none of them said they were Egyptian.

Joseph Smith and Martin Harris, in 1838, claimed that Anthon had told Harris that the characters were Egyptian. However, Anthon denied ever saying that three times in writing, and supposedly multiple times in his lectures. Why would Anthon deny it so frequently? We know now that he was very open to anything that might be evidence of Egyptians in the Americas. Read his 1836 letter above to Reynolds.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Where is it possible to see strong resemblances to Egyptian in the characters? I watched the Grover link Kevin Christensen above and read his paper, but so many questions

It's usually helpful to consult with those who actually know Egyptian.  I have cited sources which can aid you in making up your own mind.

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Of course I haven't. But that's my point, only 2-3 people saw the manuscript(s) and the characters copied by Joseph Smith from the plates who would have been qualified to offer an educated opinion based on what was known in 1829 about Egyptian characters. Experts today might have opinions, but we have no way of knowing if the characters we have were the ones Harris showed to Anthon, Mitchill, and Bradish.

We have only two separate documents with characters supposedly from the plates.  Since they exhibit authentic ancient Egyptian cursive, it might be wise not to be so dismissive of the notion that the BofM was written in Egyptian.  They do not have to be the very docs shown to Anthon, Mitchill, and Bradish, in order to be authentic.

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Only Anthon, Mitchill, and Bradish saw the characters, and none of them said they were Egyptian.

False.  All that has been thoroughly discussed, and I cited some excellent resources.  As I have emphasized in my sources, the decipherment of Egyptian was being actively pursued in the 1820s and the three you mention were certainly aware of that.  If you haven't bothered to read my sources, you will be unaware of that.

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Joseph Smith and Martin Harris, in 1838, claimed that Anthon had told Harris that the characters were Egyptian. However, Anthon denied ever saying that three times in writing, and supposedly multiple times in his lectures. Why would Anthon deny it so frequently? We know now that he was very open to anything that might be evidence of Egyptians in the Americas. Read his 1836 letter above to Reynolds.

One thing is certain, Harris' meeting with Anthon and the others convinced him to invest considerable money in the BofM.  To put it simply, Anthon later lied.

[Zosimus]

On 10/24/2024 at 5:42 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

It's usually helpful to consult with those who actually know Egyptian. I have cited sources which can aid you in making up your own mind.

Thanks, I started in on it after you sent the link, but it will take some time

On 10/24/2024 at 5:42 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

We have only two separate documents with characters supposedly from the plates.  Since they exhibit authentic ancient Egyptian cursive, it might be wise not to be so dismissive of the notion that the BofM was written in Egyptian.  They do not have to be the very docs shown to Anthon, Mitchill, and Bradish, in order to be authentic.

Still trying to figure out if that's Egyptian cursive on the manuscripts or something else. I've heard so many different theories so I'm by default pretty dismissive of any claims that anything on the manuscripts we have is authentic Egyptian shorthand, Tironian shorthand, Rich-family shorthand, characters lifted from Chinese tea chests, Burmese/Chinese from a cylinder seal found in Tlatilco (you reference this article three times in your book) or anything else.

My inclination is to lean towards Arabic, since that's most frequently mentioned by those that saw the original papers. Joseph Smith Sr. told Lapham that the most learned man in NY (probably Mitchill) said the characters were, with few exceptions, Arabic. Crane said the characters resembled Bradish's Ottoman travel docs, which would be Arabic. Joseph Smith himself says that Anthon had told Harris that Arabic was one of the scripts alongside three others, including Egyptian.

At the very least, I'd say the manuscript Anthon saw (the one arranged in vertical columns with a calendar or zodiac at the end) had something resembling Arabic and Egyptian shorthand. It certainly wasn't all 100% hieratic or whatever Egyptian script you propose. Even Joseph Smith didn't claim it was all Egyptian. He seems to accept the statement attributed to Anthon: Egyptian, Chaldeak, Assyriac, and Arabac. If we assume by Assyriac Anthon meant Syriac (the more common usage between 1829 and 1838) and not Aramaic or Babylonian, and Arabac meant Arabic, then two of these scripts that Anthon supposedly identified as "true characters" didn't even exist during Nephi's lifetime. For Syriac and Arabic to be on the gold plates, they'd have to be invented in the promised land independent of Syriac and Arabic

So many questions

On 10/24/2024 at 5:42 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  All that has been thoroughly discussed, and I cited some excellent resources.  As I have emphasized in my sources, the decipherment of Egyptian was being actively pursued in the 1820s and the three you mention were certainly aware of that.  If you haven't bothered to read my sources, you will be unaware of that.

Discussed, without conclusion. It seems your conclusion is based on the assumption that Anthon was the one to mention shorthand Egyptian to Harris, and Harris then told WW Phelps. But there are other ways Harris or Phelps could have learned of shorthand Egyptian. For example, Erin B. Jennings proposes it came from Bradish, who'd traveled in Egypt. I'd assume you are familiar with these papers that were published after yours. So what's your take on them? Why are you right and others are wrong? there's still room for discussion

Quote

One thing is certain, Harris' meeting with Anthon and the others convinced him to invest considerable money in the BofM.  To put it simply, Anthon later lied.

I like Richard Bennet's solution (source). Harris was convinced by whatever Mitchill told him after he had visited Anthon. That the characters were of a nation in the east, now extinct, which he named. That endorsement from Mitchill would have meant so much more to Harris than Anthon saying it was a mix of Egyptian, Chaldeak, Assyriac, and Arabac. Which for the reason mentioned above, makes no sense

Edited October 25, 2024 by Zosimus

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/25/2024 at 3:25 AM, Zosimus said:

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

My inclination is to lean towards Arabic, since that's most frequently mentioned by those that saw the original papers. Joseph Smith Sr. told Lapham that the most learned man in NY (probably Mitchill) said the characters were, with few exceptions, Arabic. Crane said the characters resembled Bradish's Ottoman travel docs, which would be Arabic. Joseph Smith himself says that Anthon had told Harris that Arabic was one of the scripts alongside three others, including Egyptian.

It is unwise to swallow whole the speculations of various people after the fact,  instead of analyzing currently available characters on very old docs (for example, the "Caractors" word is in the hand of John Whitmer, first LDS Church Historian, though that does not tell us who copied the characters from the plates).

On 10/25/2024 at 3:25 AM, Zosimus said:

At the very least, I'd say the manuscript Anthon saw (the one arranged in vertical columns with a calendar or zodiac at the end) had something resembling Arabic and Egyptian shorthand. It certainly wasn't all 100% hieratic or whatever Egyptian script you propose. Even Joseph Smith didn't claim it was all Egyptian.

I base my comments on actual docs now available, not on wild speculations about what Anthon and others may have seen.  We do not know what they saw.  Finally, Joseph never claimed that it was anything but Egyptian.  As Joseph himself said:  "By the power of God, I translated the Book of Mormon from hieroglyphics" (Roberts, ed., History of the Church VI:74).

On 10/25/2024 at 3:25 AM, Zosimus said:

He seems to accept the statement attributed to Anthon: Egyptian, Chaldeak, Assyriac, and Arabac. If we assume by Assyriac Anthon meant Syriac (the more common usage between 1829 and 1838) and not Aramaic or Babylonian, and Arabac meant Arabic, then two of these scripts that Anthon supposedly identified as "true characters" didn't even exist during Nephi's lifetime. For Syriac and Arabic to be on the gold plates, they'd have to be invented in the promised land independent of Syriac and Arabic........................

You are wrong on all counts.  Chaldaean and Assyrian are both Semitic languages spoken and written by people in the Babylonian and Assyrian empires centered in Mesopotamia (they had not been deciphered in Joseph's day).  Their writing system was cuneiform.  Much later Syriac is written in a Semitic alphabetic script.  As to Arabic, Ancient South Arabic was written in an alphabetic script at the time Lehi and Nephi were wending their way to Bountiful.  We even have contemporary inscriptions with the name NHM on them near where Ishmael was buried at Nahom.

On 10/25/2024 at 3:25 AM, Zosimus said:

Discussed, without conclusion. It seems your conclusion is based on the assumption that Anthon was the one to mention shorthand Egyptian to Harris, and Harris then told WW Phelps. But there are other ways Harris or Phelps could have learned of shorthand Egyptian. For example, Erin B. Jennings proposes it came from Bradish, who'd traveled in Egypt. I'd assume you are familiar with these papers that were published after yours. So what's your take on them? Why are you right and others are wrong? there's still room for discussion

We know that Anthon was reading the American Historical Quarterly, which contained the conclusions of Champollion that demotic and hieratic were "shorthand." Speculating about what someone learned by traveling in Egypt is absurd.  Tourists learn almost nothing.  Occam's Razor, the Law of Parsimony.

On 10/25/2024 at 3:25 AM, Zosimus said:

I like Richard Bennet's solution (source). Harris was convinced by whatever Mitchill told him after he had visited Anthon. That the characters were of a nation in the east, now extinct, which he named. That endorsement from Mitchill would have meant so much more to Harris than Anthon saying it was a mix of Egyptian, Chaldeak, Assyriac, and Arabac. Which for the reason mentioned above, makes no sense

Would have, could have, .  .

What we do know is that the Brass Plates were written in ancient Egyptian, most likely engraved in standard hieratic.  Nephi would have written his record in standard hieratic Egyptian as well.  Only a thousand years later do we get the news that their Egyptian has been "altered" or "reformed," which is typical for languages and writing systems over that length of time.

[Zosimus]

Quote

It is unwise to swallow whole the speculations of various people after the fact,  instead of analyzing currently available characters on very old docs (for example, the "Caractors" word is in the hand of John Whitmer, first LDS Church Historian, though that does not tell us who copied the characters from the plates).

 

don’t worry, i’m not swallowing the speculations of anybody. hence all the questions for those making claims

Quote

You are wrong on all counts. Chaldaean and Assyrian are both Semitic languages spoken and written by people in the Babylonian and Assyrian empires centered in Mesopotamia (they had not been deciphered in Joseph's day).  Their writing system was cuneiform.  

Genuine question. If Chaldeak and Assyriac both refer to the cuneiform used in the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, how are they different? Would Anthon in 1829, before these scripts were deciphered, know they were different?

Quote

Much later Syriac is written in a Semitic alphabetic script. 

So your take is that in 1829 Anthon understood Assyriac to mean Assyrian cuneiform and not Syriac? Any sources to support that claim would help. I did a Google Book search and it seems like Assyriac did mean something like Assyrian in the early 19th century. In the 1820s the term seems to shift to mean Syriac.

Like Chaldeak, it seems Assyriac has always been a pretty niche term, I could only find one poem that used the term “Assyriac” after 1830. I'd like to determine how Anthon understood the term in 1829. I’ll go through the results Google gave me. Do you have any insights on that?

Quote

As to Arabic, Ancient South Arabic was written in an alphabetic script at the time Lehi and Nephi were wending their way to Bountiful.  We even have contemporary inscriptions with the name NHM on them near where Ishmael was buried at Nahom.

So what Joseph calls Arabac, Anthon meant ancient South Arabian script and not Arabic? Was that a common understanding in 1829? My understanding is that the differences between South Arabian (Homerite or Himyaritic) inscriptions and Arabic were known in 1829.

As for Joseph never claiming that it was anything but Egyptian. How would Joseph know any better than Anthon, Mitchill or Bradish whether the record was standard hieratic Egyptian, or not? 

Quote

We know that Anthon was reading the American Historical Quarterly, which contained the conclusions of Champollion that demotic and hieratic were "shorthand." Speculating about what someone learned by traveling in Egypt is absurd.  Tourists learn almost nothing.  Occam's Razor, the Law of Parsimony.

Tourist? Bradish was appointed by the President of the United States as a special emissary to the Ottoman Empire. His two-year mission was to collect “such information in foreign countries in relation to the commerce of the United States, as may prove useful and interesting to them”. I don’t imagine you’d argue that LDS missionaries serving two-year missions abroad are no better then tourists at understanding the local languages.

Bradish learned Arabic while on mission in Constantinople. Although he was in Egypt only 5 months, he traveled extensively and was a personal friend of the Viceroy. Given the timing, and secret diplomatic mission, some scholars have even speculated that Bradish was the mysterious New Yorker who accompanied Henry Salt, the first afaict to transcribe Ancient South Arabian script (source), on his expeditions up the Nile into Ethiopia and Sudan. Although its not likely Bradish went beyond the second cataract, he was on the Nile at the same time as Salt. And even if Bradish did not travel with Salt, he did meet him in Cairo to report that he had witnessed the mutilation and ongoing theft of the zodiac embedded in the ceiling of the temple in Dendera which he tried to prevent by bribing the captain of the boat commissioned to transport it down the Nile. Bet that wasn't covered by his tourist package.

If there are still any doubts that Bradish wasn't much more than a tourist. Bradish is said to the first documented American to set foot in Jerusalem. Here's a letter he sent to NY attorney Wilkins describing his journey from Egypt to Palestine by camel:

"When I left Constantinople for Egypt in February, everything was quiet. In the prospect of this state of things continuing, I ascended the Nile through Upper Egypt and Nubia until I had reached the Second Cataract. It was not until my return to Lower Egypt that I learned of the altered state of affairs. The presence of the plague along the sea coast from Alexandria to the eastern delta ended my attempts to cross the Arabian desert by the Red Sea to reach India and Palestine. I therefore sent for the principal Arab of the tribes of the desert, who contracted to take me safely through. As a pledge for the faithful performance of this engagement, he and three other sheikhs, along with their families, remained with the Viceroy of Egypt—all of whose heads were to be taken off in case of any ill treatment toward myself. Upon this agreement, I departed from Cairo, accompanied by an officer of the Viceroy of Egypt, an Arab sheikh, and three men from different Bedouin tribes. Mounted on camels and thus attended, I entered the desert. On the fourth day, we passed the head of the Red Sea."

You say its absurd to speculate about what someone learned by traveling in Egypt. I disagree. I think its pretty wild that the only American at that time to travel from the head of the Red Sea to Jerusalem, guided by a real-life Arab sheikh and Beduin traders (from three different real-world Arabian tribes) along a similar path the Lehites would have taken from Jerusalem to the Red Sea, grew up in Palmyra. Imagine the conversations Bradish had with those traders as they sat around the campfire. 

This is another reason I don't buy the argument that Palmyra was some sort of backwoods information vacuum where people like Martin Harris and Joseph Smith could learn nothing about the traditions and geographies of the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt. That's a difficult argument to support when Harris spoke to Bradish just weeks before translation on the Book of Lehi began.

Besides, it was Martin Harris that went to Bradish, plausibly because he was a family friend and he respected his opinion on oriental languages given his experience as a "tourist" in Egypt and Palestine. Bradish, more than any other American in 1829, would have been able to recognize any Arabic, South Arabian or Egyptian characters on the manuscript. Its somewhat problematic that Joseph Smith Sr. told Lapham that Bradish examined the manuscript and advised Harris to take up a different occupation.

Quote

What we do know is that the Brass Plates were written in ancient Egyptian, most likely engraved in standard hieratic.  Nephi would have written his record in standard hieratic Egyptian as well.  Only a thousand years later do we get the news that their Egyptian has been "altered" or "reformed," which is typical for languages and writing systems over that length of time.

Apologies if I missed it in the links you sent. I did try and search the answer to this. What’s your opinion of John A. Wilson’s comments? "This is not Egyptian writing, as known to the Egyptologist. It obviously is not hieroglyphic, nor the "cursive hieroglyphic" as used in the Book of the Dead. It is not Coptic, which took over Greek characters to write Egyptian. Nor does it belong to one of the cursive stages of ancient Egyptian writing: hieratic, abnormal hieratic, or demotic….it does not conform to the normal pattern of cursive"

Edited October 27, 2024 by Zosimus

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/26/2024 at 5:34 PM, Zosimus said:

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

Genuine question. If Chaldeak and Assyriac both refer to the cuneiform used in the Babylonian and Assyrian empires, how are they different? Would Anthon in 1829, before these scripts were deciphered, know they were different?

No.  The Babylonians (Aramaic Chaldeans) and Assyrians wrote in the same cuneiform, and spoke mutually intelligible languages.  Anthon would have known only that the two separate empires used cuneiform.  He would not have spoken in the modern terms I am using.

On 10/26/2024 at 5:34 PM, Zosimus said:

So your take is that in 1829 Anthon understood Assyriac to mean Assyrian cuneiform and not Syriac? Any sources to support that claim would help. I did a Google Book search and it seems like Assyriac did mean something like Assyrian in the early 19th century. In the 1820s the term seems to shift to mean Syriac.

Like Chaldeak, it seems Assyriac has always been a pretty niche term, I could only find one poem that used the term “Assyriac” after 1830. I'd like to determine how Anthon understood the term in 1829. I’ll go through the results Google gave me. Do you have any insights on that?

Like Aramaic and Hebrew, Syriac was well understood by scholars in Anthon's day.  All three written in an alphabet.  It is likely that Anthon knew Latin and Greek.  He was a classical scholar.  It is possible that he knew a Semitic language.  Hebrew was taught at colleges and even in prep schools in his day.

On 10/26/2024 at 5:34 PM, Zosimus said:

So what Joseph calls Arabac, Anthon meant ancient South Arabian script and not Arabic? Was that a common understanding in 1829? My understanding is that the differences between South Arabian (Homerite or Himyaritic) inscriptions and Arabic were known in 1829.

You had stated "For Syriac and Arabic to be on the gold plates, they'd have to be invented in the promised land independent of Syriac and Arabic........................"

Yet you have now reversed yourself here, admitting that ancient South Arabic script was known in Anthon's day, thus not requiring that it be invented to show up in someone's description of the plates.  Moreover, we are not talking here of modern professional scholars.  We are dealing with very limited knowledge being expressed by scholars who didn't really know very much -- speaking to local yokels.

On 10/26/2024 at 5:34 PM, Zosimus said:

As for Joseph never claiming that it was anything but Egyptian. How would Joseph know any better than Anthon, Mitchill or Bradish whether the record was standard hieratic Egyptian, or not? 

Had you bothered to read my book on Egyptianisms in the BofM, you would realize that Lehi & Nephi lived at a time when standard hieratic was used regularly in Judah (and also in Israel, before the Assyrian destruction of that Northern Kingdom), and that the Bible tells you nothing about that.  I also explain in detail that the BofM itself repeatedly claims that Nephi and his successors wrote in Egyptian.  What kind of Egyptian?  Certainly not in hieroglyphic, because it would not save space.  The Brass Plates had to be in standard hieratic in order to be useful and readable.  Lehi & Nephi both had to be formally trained scribes in order to transmit the tradition and to write their own accounts.  Joseph Smith was not an Egyptologist and used no formal Egyptological terms.  He knew from Moroni and from the BofM itself what language was written on the plates.

On 10/26/2024 at 5:34 PM, Zosimus said:

Tourist? Bradish was appointed by the President of the United States as a special emissary to the Ottoman Empire. ................. 
If there are still any doubts that Bradish wasn't much more than a tourist. Bradish is said to the first documented American to set foot in Jerusalem. Here's a letter he sent to NY attorney Wilkins describing his journey from Egypt to Palestine by camel:
.......................

You say its absurd to speculate about what someone learned by traveling in Egypt. I disagree. I think its pretty wild that the only American at that time to travel from the head of the Red Sea to Jerusalem, guided by a real-life Arab sheikh and Beduin traders (from three different real-world Arabian tribes) along a similar path the Lehites would have taken from Jerusalem to the Red Sea, grew up in Palmyra. Imagine the conversations Bradish had with those traders as they sat around the campfire. 

This is another reason I don't buy the argument that Palmyra was some sort of backwoods information vacuum where people like Martin Harris and Joseph Smith could learn nothing about the traditions and geographies of the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt. That's a difficult argument to support when Harris spoke to Bradish just weeks before translation on the Book of Lehi began.

Besides, it was Martin Harris that went to Bradish, plausibly because he was a family friend and he respected his opinion on oriental languages given his experience as a "tourist" in Egypt and Palestine. Bradish, more than any other American in 1829, would have been able to recognize any Arabic, South Arabian or Egyptian characters on the manuscript. Its somewhat problematic that Joseph Smith Sr. told Lapham that Bradish examined the manuscript and advised Harris to take up a different occupation.

Yes, Bradish would have been able to recognize Arabic writing, and may even have learned to speak a little Arabic.  He also likely saw plenty of hieroglyphic inscriptions, so would know what they looked like.  It is doubtful that he knew anything about hieratic or demotic.  Unlike hieroglyphic writing, cursive is not easily mastered, and one papyrus would look pretty much like any other.  Take a look at Egyptian papyri online and see how you feel.  You may even want it compare that with the "Caractors" document.

On 10/26/2024 at 5:34 PM, Zosimus said:

Apologies if I missed it in the links you sent. I did try and search the answer to this. What’s your opinion of John A. Wilson’s comments? "This is not Egyptian writing, as known to the Egyptologist. It obviously is not hieroglyphic, nor the "cursive hieroglyphic" as used in the Book of the Dead. It is not Coptic, which took over Greek characters to write Egyptian. Nor does it belong to one of the cursive stages of ancient Egyptian writing: hieratic, abnormal hieratic, or demotic….it does not conform to the normal pattern of cursive"

Had you read my book you would have found full citations of regular non-LDS Egyptologists who take exactly the opposite position from Wilson.  How is that possible?  Richard Bushman spoke with Richard A. Parker (Brown Univ), and Stanley Kimball spoke with William C. Hayes (Metropolitan Museum of Art).   Hayes even translated part of the first hieratic line of the "Caractors" doc, and provided his notes to Kimball (copies given to FARMS).

Understanding these issues is not a Sunday walk in the park.  It is complex and time-consuming.

Edited October 29, 2024 by Robert F. Smith

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Had you bothered to read my book on Egyptianisms in the BofM

Fair enough. As mentioned above I've started but it will take some time to get through it. As you say the topic is not a walk in the park. I'll hold off on commenting on Egyptianisms until I've finished your book

In the meantime, your mention of Hayes at the Metropolitan Museum of Art reminded me of this crazy backstory (starting at 1:18)

Luther Bradish travels all the way to the second cataract of the Nile in 1821, carves his name on a wall of the Temple of Dendur along the way. 200 years later the entire temple, along with Bradish's grafiti, is lifted to New York and installed in the MET 😂

Edited October 29, 2024 by Zosimus

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Fair enough. As mentioned above I've started but it will take some time to get through it. As you say the topic is not a walk in the park. I'll hold off on commenting on Egyptianisms until I've finished your book

In the meantime, your mention of Hayes at the Metropolitan Museum of Art reminded me of this crazy backstory (starting at 1:18)

Luther Bradish travels all the way to the second cataract of the Nile in 1821, carves his name on a wall of the Temple of Dendur along the way. 200 years later the entire temple, along with Bradish's grafiti, is lifted to New York and installed in the MET ...........................

Yep.  Quite ironic.

[Zosimus]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yep.  Quite ironic.

I found an interview with Luther Bradish published just days/weeks after his death. Some insights:

• After passing the bar exam, Bradish traveled to the West Indies and South America, then to England, Scotland and Ireland.
• Bradish returned to New York to volunteer in the army shortly before the War of 1812.
• Bradish married the daughter of George Gibbs
  • Aside: George was son of George Gibbs Sr, said to be the wealthiest American in the late 18th century due to his involvement with the East India and China trade.
  • Aside: George Gibbs, Bradish's father-in-law, was a friend of James Fenimore Cooper and Samuel Mitchill. (source)
  • Aside: Fenimore Cooper wrote "The Last of the Mohicans" while staying with the Gibbs in their home. Is this how Bradish became Cooper's literary agent?
• Bradish sailed to Constantinople in 1820. He confirms that he was able to speak Arabic fluently there.
• Bradish confirms he traveled as far as the 2nd cataract, but he also says he "entered upon the great plain of Sennar"

This last bullet is worth discussing. Why would Bradish, a secret agent for the United States, have gone all the way to the plain of Sennar? It was incredibly dangerous, and hardly any reason for anyone to go that far up the Nile into Nubia and Senaar. Makes me think there's something to the suggestion that Bradish intended to rendezvous with the Turkish/Ottoman military expedition to subdue Sennar. George Bethune, another American spy alongside Bradish, was already embedded with that expedition. Was Bradish carrying correspondence to Bethune?  

After completing his assignment in Egypt and Nubia. Bradish confirms he traveled overland from Cairo and "passed the outer desert to the Red Sea", and then through the inner desert to Syria, which he "traversed in almost every direction". Returning to Beirut Bradish then embarked again for Constantinople.

He then went "on horseback, accompanied by Tartars, across Adrianople and Bulgaria, the great mountain chain of the Balkan, and the Danube, to New-Orsova, in Hungary. He traveled thence by Temeswar, Presburg, and Buda to Vienna. After passing some time in the capital of the Hapsburgs, he proceeded to the Sclavonian Provinces and the Tyrol, to Trieste on the Adriatic; and thence by Venice, Ancona, Perugia, Narni, and Terni to Rome. He revisited Naples and its environs; returned to Rome; and, after a residence of eight months in "The Eternal City," he recrossed the Apennines to Tuscany. Revisited Florence and the Val d'Arno; and proceeded thence to Lombardy. Went into Sardinia; visited Turin and Genoa, and returned by Pavia to Milan. Visited the Lakes of Como, Lugano, and Maggiore; and thence crossed the Alps, by the Simplon, into Switzerland. Traversed its glaciers and valleys; and from the Falls of Schaffhausen went, by the way of the Black Forest, to the Rhine at Strasburg. Crossed into Alsace, and proceeded to Paris. From Paris he passed through Holland, England, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, to Cronstadt in Northern Russia; and thence to St. Petersburg. Having passed some time there, he proceeded to Moscow and the winter residence of the rich Boyards of the empire. Thence he went to Warsaw in Poland; and thence, by the Grand Duchy of Posen, to Berlin; and thence to Dresden where he passed some months. He then ascended the valley of the Elba into Bohemia, and by Töplitz to Carlsbad. Thence through Bavaria, Wurtemburg, and the smaller German States, to France. From Paris he proceeded to Havre, and embarked for New York, where, in the close of 1826, he arrived after an absence of six years.

I think its safe to say, by the time Martin Harris meets up with him in Albany, Bradish was the most traveled American up to that time. Not only had he traveled through Syria "in almost every direction", he had also gone deeper into Africa then any American other than George Bethune and Khalil Aga who were there at the same time, just one or two cataracts ahead of him. Not a shabby achievement for a local yokel from the backwaters of Palmyra. You mention that in 1829, we're dealing with people who don't know much about South Arabian script. Although its true next to nothing was known about it, Henry Salt was the first to transcribe and publish a South Arabian script. He was also there on the Nile the same time as Bradish. Bradish knew him.

Another thing I picked up from Richard Bennett's Sperry Symposium presentation. Luther Bradish "very well knew" Antonio Lebolo, the man who had excavated the mummies and Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith would later translate and publish as the Book of Abraham. Bradish was rubbing shoulders with the same guy that pulled the ancient scrolls that would become our Book of Abraham out of the Valley of the Kings. Since Lebolo was excavating in 1821, its possible Bradish even visited the site. Quite ironic

Knowing all the above, why couldn't Martin Harris learn something about Syria/Assyriac, Egypt/Hieratic, South Arabian and Arabic scripts from Bradish?

Edited October 30, 2024 by Zosimus

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Zosimus said:

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

Knowing all the above, why couldn't Martin Harris learn something about Syria/Assyriac, Egypt/Hieratic, South Arabian and Arabic scripts from Bradish?

Being an amazingly well-traveled man does not make Bradish any sort of expert on scripts.  Nor does that mean Martin Harris learned anything about scripts from him.  Harris was interested in getting confirmation from various scholars before investing so much in Joseph's project.  Thus, generic statements from the cognoscenti was what he was looking for, not a classroom (such as would later come with the School of the Prophets).  Arabic language and script were accessible to Bradish.  Beyond that he would likely be able to recognize some strange scripts for undeciphered languages.

People like Jean-François Champollion and Thomas Young were the true linguistic experts then, not the people whom Harris went to see.

[PacMan]

On 10/19/2024 at 2:17 PM, Stargazer said:

Many academics who are full of themselves, tend to say things for which they have no basis. If you look at the history of academia there are lots of similar cases, though most of them tend to just dismiss things they don't like, either because the person presenting the information doesn't have the proper degrees, or because they themselves are supposed to be the experts, and "how dare this hick come forward to challenge me?" In the case of Anthon, he may very well have known what eastern alphabets looked like, and only claimed the translation was good because he didn't want to look ignorant. That would be why he tore up his endorsement once he realized that the source of the translation was not a fellow academic, and angels were involved.

The Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, and its decipherment led eventually to a general ability to read ancient Egyptian, but at the time the Book of Mormon came forth there had not been a lot of progress. Anthon was no doubt knowledgeable about that progress.

That’s not true. Champollion had not only deciphered Egyptian but it was well known all over America, from Honolulu to Palmyra, before the Book of Mormon was translated. 

[Zosimus]

On 10/30/2024 at 2:15 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Being an amazingly well-traveled man does not make Bradish any sort of expert on scripts.  Nor does that mean Martin Harris learned anything about scripts from him...Arabic language and script were accessible to Bradish.  Beyond that he would likely be able to recognize some strange scripts for undeciphered languages.

Having been the first or second American into Nubia, Palestine and Syria Bradish would have had a unique first-hand experience of the history and inscriptions of Egypt, that no other American in 1829 had.

Again, he wasn't just a tourist or a well-traveled man. He was afaict America's first secret agent into the Middle East and he was on a mission to gather intelligence in upper Egypt. He was a friend of the man who pulled the papyrus that became the Book of Abraham out of a crypt in Luxor and he probably examined such papyrii and scripts while in Luxor. He scratched his name into a temple in Nubia just inches away from hieroglyphs, so we know he saw hieroglyphs on temple walls.

I suppose its possible that Harris learned nothing about scripts from Bradish, but I find that very unlikely since the whole point behind Harris traveling to Albany to meet Bradish was to ask him about scripts, and learn about scripts from him.

Quote

Harris was interested in getting confirmation from various scholars before investing so much in Joseph's project.  Thus, generic statements from the cognoscenti was what he was looking for, not a classroom (such as would later come with the School of the Prophets). 

Harris get's that confirmation from Mitchill. He told both Butler and Hyde that Mitchill compared the gold plate characters to hieroglyphs, and identified them as coming from a nation which he named. This means Mitchill had hieroglyphs in his office. These may have been in his famous cabinet of curiosities which were said to contain hieroglyphs.

Quote

People like Jean-François Champollion and Thomas Young were the true linguistic experts then, not the people whom Harris went to see.

But in America, the best student of Champollion's work was Samuel Mitchill at least according to Richard Bennet (source). Bennett says just few minutes earlier in that presentation that there's very little indication that Anthon knew anything about Egyptian, Hebrew or any other Middle Eastern language.

Between Bradish, Mitchill and Anthon, the evidence is clear that Anthon would have known the least about Egyptian hieroglyphs and scripts and was the least qualified to give a learned opinion.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Zosimus

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Having been the first or second American into Nubia, Palestine and Syria Bradish would have had a unique first-hand experience of the history and inscriptions of Egypt, that no other American in 1829 had.

Again, he wasn't just a tourist or a well-traveled man. He was afaict America's first secret agent into the Middle East and he was on a mission to gather intelligence in upper Egypt. He was a friend of the man who pulled the papyrus that became the Book of Abraham out of a crypt in Luxor and he probably examined such papyrii and scripts while in Luxor. He scratched his name into a temple in Nubia just inches away from hieroglyphs, so we know he saw hieroglyphs on temple walls.

I suppose its possible that Harris learned nothing about scripts from Bradish, but I find that very unlikely since the whole point behind Harris traveling to Albany to meet Bradish was to ask him about scripts, and learn about scripts from him.

Traveling around in the ancient world (which I have done as an archeology student) provides no real knowledge of scripts, except for bare recognition that the script is associated with a particular civilization.  As I have already pointed out, Bradish would have know little more than that.  Bradish was a bon vivant, not a scholar.  A prime indicator of his low-brow status is his carving graffiti.

16 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Harris get's that confirmation from Mitchill. He told both Butler and Hyde that Mitchill compared the gold plate characters to hieroglyphs, and identified them as coming from a nation which he named. This means Mitchill had hieroglyphs in his office. These may have been in his famous cabinet of curiosities which were said to contain hieroglyphs.

But in America, the best student of Champollion's work was Samuel Mitchill at least according to Richard Bennet (source). Bennett says just few minutes earlier in that presentation that there's very little indication that Anthon knew anything about Egyptian, Hebrew or any other Middle Eastern language.

Between Bradish, Mitchill and Anthon, the evidence is clear that Anthon would have known the least about Egyptian hieroglyphs and scripts and was the least qualified to give a learned opinion.

By reading the publications of Champollion, and reading about Champollion in the American Quarterly Review, Anthon certainly recognized what ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic and cursive scripts looked like, even if he could not read them.  Anthon was, as I have said, a Classical scholar, but he would certainly know what Hebrew looked like.  Bennet just doesn't know what he is saying.

[Zosimus]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A prime indicator of his low-brow status is his carving graffiti.

It was a common thing for people, even high-status scholars and diplomats, to do. Drovetti and Salt's names are carved on the same walls as Bradish. Remember Salt was the first to transcribe and publish an Ancient South Arabian Script.

Here's some troglodyte named Champollion, who carved his name on the Temple of Karnak.

Quote

By reading the publications of Champollion, and reading about Champollion in the American Quarterly Review, Anthon certainly recognized what ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic and cursive scripts looked like, even if he could not read them. Anthon was, as I have said, a Classical scholar, but he would certainly know what Hebrew looked like. 

I dunno what to say. I think its clear that Anthon would have known less about Egyptian scripts than Bradish and Mitchill. Mitchill not only knew oriental languages better than Anthon, he even was able to translate some of them:

"Coon's history of Columbia College states unambiguously that "[Mitchill] translated books from the Spanish, German, Latin, Dutch. He also could read Greek and decipher ancient Oriental tongues." R.B. Stout lays out how Mitchill had experience with all of the languages Anthon supposedly identified in the characters document." (source)

There's even an account of Mitchill attempting to translate a Babylonian brick, suggesting familiarity with Chaldeak and Assyriac. As Stout notes: "Satirical poet Joseph Rodman Drake also made reference, albeit obliquely, to Mitchill's "deciphering a Babylonian brick," or cuneiform tablet, in his poem "To the Surgeon-General of The State of New York."

[Stargazer]

On 11/7/2024 at 3:08 AM, PacMan said:

That’s not true. Champollion had not only deciphered Egyptian but it was well known all over America, from Honolulu to Palmyra, before the Book of Mormon was translated. 

Au contraire, mon amis. 

First of all, I detect that you are trolling or joking. Or both.  But, being intrigued at what you wrote, I looked up M. Champollion. A brilliant man, too bad he died so young. No, his work was not well-known all over America. But I'm sure that the Palmyra Public LIbrary had a copy of Champollion's 1824 paper, "Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens égyptiens, ou, Recherches sur les élemens premiers de cette écriture sacrée, sur leurs diverses combinaisons, et sur les rapports de ce système avec les autres méthodes graphiques égyptiennes," (in the original language of course, because who would study such a great work in translation?) that was always in circulation because of the inexplicable interest had by the local citizens).

Late in Champollion's life (he died in 1832 at age 41) his work was becoming known to the rather rarefied academic atmosphere in the France and United Kingdom. Champollion's initial breakthrough in his decipherment occurred in 1822, and though he had made good progress by the time he died, his work did not constitute a complete decipherment. By 1824 he had managed to decipher 450 ancient Egyptian words and hieroglyphics groupings. And he's generally considered to the "Founder and Father of Egyptology."

I have my doubts that Prof. Anthon had much contact with M. Champollion's work. He was a classical professor of Greek and Latin, and in looking to see what I could find of his other work, I didn't find anything to suggest he had much to do with ancient Egyptian. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/7/2024 at 5:46 PM, Zosimus said:

It was a common thing for people, even high-status scholars and diplomats, to do. Drovetti and Salt's names are carved on the same walls as Bradish. Remember Salt was the first to transcribe and publish an Ancient South Arabian Script.

Here's some troglodyte named Champollion, who carved his name on the Temple of Karnak.

Very disappointing.  We judge these miscreants by modern standards.

On 11/7/2024 at 5:46 PM, Zosimus said:

I dunno what to say. I think its clear that Anthon would have known less about Egyptian scripts than Bradish and Mitchill. Mitchill not only knew oriental languages better than Anthon, he even was able to translate some of them:

"Coon's history of Columbia College states unambiguously that "[Mitchill] translated books from the Spanish, German, Latin, Dutch. He also could read Greek and decipher ancient Oriental tongues." R.B. Stout lays out how Mitchill had experience with all of the languages Anthon supposedly identified in the characters document." (source)

There's even an account of Mitchill attempting to translate a Babylonian brick, suggesting familiarity with Chaldeak and Assyriac. As Stout notes: "Satirical poet Joseph Rodman Drake also made reference, albeit obliquely, to Mitchill's "deciphering a Babylonian brick," or cuneiform tablet, in his poem "To the Surgeon-General of The State of New York."

The problem is that the requisite languages were not yet deciphered.  Even so there was a lot of posturing by elite people who knew that no one could hold them to account for their absurd claims.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/6/2024 at 8:56 PM, Zosimus said:

.................. This means Mitchill had hieroglyphs in his office. These may have been in his famous cabinet of curiosities which were said to contain hieroglyphs.

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

America was in the midst of Egyptomania, and one could buy mummies and papyri in the USA in those days.  So, yes, Egyptian hieroglyphs were certainly visible.

[PacMan]

On 11/8/2024 at 6:45 AM, Stargazer said:

Au contraire, mon amis. 

First of all, I detect that you are trolling or joking. Or both.  But, being intrigued at what you wrote, I looked up M. Champollion. A brilliant man, too bad he died so young. No, his work was not well-known all over America. But I'm sure that the Palmyra Public LIbrary had a copy of Champollion's 1824 paper, "Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens égyptiens, ou, Recherches sur les élemens premiers de cette écriture sacrée, sur leurs diverses combinaisons, et sur les rapports de ce système avec les autres méthodes graphiques égyptiennes," (in the original language of course, because who would study such a great work in translation?) that was always in circulation because of the inexplicable interest had by the local citizens).

Late in Champollion's life (he died in 1832 at age 41) his work was becoming known to the rather rarefied academic atmosphere in the France and United Kingdom. Champollion's initial breakthrough in his decipherment occurred in 1822, and though he had made good progress by the time he died, his work did not constitute a complete decipherment. By 1824 he had managed to decipher 450 ancient Egyptian words and hieroglyphics groupings. And he's generally considered to the "Founder and Father of Egyptology."

I have my doubts that Prof. Anthon had much contact with M. Champollion's work. He was a classical professor of Greek and Latin, and in looking to see what I could find of his other work, I didn't find anything to suggest he had much to do with ancient Egyptian. 

 

I'm not trolling.  I'm dead serious.  I have over a dozen citations from around the United States through 1830, including the North American Review with multiple citations beginning in 1823, talking about Champollion's discovery.  And here's a fun one from Palmyra (and its not the only one):

Furthermore,

•In September 1825, the Boston Monthly Magazine published advertisements for Henry Salt’s “Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics” printed in London (1825).

•In 1830, Perkins & Marvin of Boston, MA published Isaac Stuart’s English translation of Henry Salt’s Essay on the Hieroglyphic System of M. Champollion, Jun.

It is inconceivable that Charles Anthon, of all people, was not one of the first to be aware of Champollion and his work.  After all, Anthon even mentions Champollion in his Classical Dictionary, sixth edition, published in 1827 (p. 480)--a year BEFORE Martin Harris met him in New York.

See for yourself:

https://archive.org/details/1827classicaldic00lempuoft/page/480/mode/2up

Edited November 10, 2024 by PacMan

[Zosimus]

18 hours ago, PacMan said:

Furthermore,

•In September 1825, the Boston Monthly Magazine published advertisements for Henry Salt’s “Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics” printed in London (1825).
•In 1830, Perkins & Marvin of Boston, MA published Isaac Stuart’s English translation of Henry Salt’s Essay on the Hieroglyphic System of M. Champollion, Jun.
It is inconceivable that Charles Anthon, of all people, was not one of the first to be aware of Champollion and his work.  After all, Anthon even mentions Champollion in his Classical Dictionary, sixth edition, published in 1827 (p. 480)--a year BEFORE Martin Harris met him in New York.

See for yourself:

https://archive.org/details/1827classicaldic00lempuoft/page/480/mode/2up

Thanks for sharing that link, seems Anthon really did have a grasp of a number of texts across a wide range of topics. Turns out he did know a lot about Egypt.

I consider Bradish as being the street-wise well-trod resource for Harris. Bradish knew Henry Salt personally. In the American Quarterly Review, the volume following the mention of Egyptian short-hand that Robert Smith mentioned, Salt is listed alongside Champollion and Young as the first to translate king names from hieroglyphs



Although Mitchill would have been more familiar with oriental scripts, I accept that Anthon was equally book-smart about Egypt. There's some really detailed (and often speculative) material in his dictionary.