Groove, do you think the document known as the Anthon transcript or "Caractors" document contains images of script from the alleged gold plates? What is your take on this document?

First, in a general sense, I think the story of the transcript says a lot to discredit the notion (a la South Park) that Martin Harris was some dimwitted fool. Harris went to Anthon because he was concerned about not being duped and wanted some reassurance. Had he not really been interested in the question, it seems doubtful that he would have undertaken a difficult multi-day journey to New York. After his visit with Anthon, Harris put his money into the publication of the BOM by mortgaging his farm.

Here is one image of the purported transcript (now in possesion of the RLDS Church):


Like almost everything within the LDS venue, people tend to read their own biases into what they see. Some have tried to make a case that it was all made up, while a bunch of others have gone on to actually try and translate the thing. I am inclined to agree with LDS Egyptologist John Gee (PhD. Yale) that there is not "a single example of someone being able to decipher an unknown language written in an undeciphered script that was attested in only a single, small, monolingual document."

Apparently someone has found some clay seals and urns or something dating to the Olmec that have similar characters. Others have shown similarities with Egyptian hieratic and demotic. I don't have a reference, as I don't pay too much attention to this sort of stuff. The bottom line is that basically, if you pick a language, ancient or modern, someone has probably tried to make a case that the transcript originated from that language. Without a larger sample it is impossible to tell, and will likely be interpreted based on preexisting biases.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 10/17/2007 4:16p).]

Do you believe it contains actual examples of script from the alleged gold plates?

I think it is probable that they do. There are some uncertainties though since Anthon's description doesn't match up exactly with the above reproduction. If the above transcript is the actual piece of paper (or reproduction of such) that Martin Harris had then the characters probably came from the part of the plates containing 116 missing pages.

Do you agree that these symbols are completely unrelated to all known Mayan writing from the BoM time period?

I suppose so.

Although I am also unsure why this would be significant. The only people who used the writing form on the plates were a small priestly lineage that existed for only about 900 years, probably occupying a fairly confined geographic space. Moreover, if 99% of Mayan writing has been lost why should it be significant that a remaining 1% doesn't correspond? Moreover, if the Mayans are to be considered Lamanites, why would we expect them to follow a Nephite priestly writing tradition?

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 10/17/2007 5:12p).]

Following Christ's appearance in the BoM, there is a long time of unity amongst the peoples. This slowly, bit by bit, degrades until the Lamanites and Nephites are both pretty evil, and the Lamanites wipe out the Nephites.

We have plenty of archaeological evidence, however, from the Maya Mesoamerica during the time period associated with Jesus' appearance. I think I recall an undisturbed/unlooted Mayan tomb from this very time period being discovered just a few years ago.

At any rate, one would expect the writing style to either exist or not exist for the time period. All the writings we have found are distinctly Maya - and nothing like this stuff.

If you want to believe that only a handful of men, over one thousand years, maintained their own separate writing, unknown to all the rest of the earth, well I will just say to you that sounds pretty far fetched. It sounds like nothing more than an attempt to spin (yet another) proof against the historicity and validity of the BoM.

[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 10/17/2007 10:41p).]

quote:

---

At any rate, one would expect the writing style to either exist or not exist for the time period. All the writings we have found are distinctly Maya - and nothing like this stuff.

---

This seems to be a common theme with your reasoning which seems to always boil down to "one would expect" or "common sense" or any number of hypotheticals which don't seem to be supported by the degree of evidence compelled by reality. Instead it seems to boil down to your preconceived notions of what "ought" to be, based on unproven ideas, instead of a rational look at what "is".

The Book of Mormon indicates that the writing style used on the plates was not in the common language, and was specifically used for its brevity so as to fit on the plates. In fact the text indicates that the language was altered over time and was unique to them (Mormon 9:32, 34). It certainly would not have been used amongst the Lamanites, even assuming a "pax" period with some of them. The Mayans may not have even been part of such an era of peace.

As for the inscriptions, we don't even have any examples of such from the time period of the Book of Mormon. According to our friend Dr. Coe from the other thread, there is evidence that there were hundreds of Mayan books, yet there are only three extant texts and all are from the post-Classic period after the demise of the Nephites and are even then based on recollections. Coe even notes that most field archeologists are totally illiterate when it comes to Mayan script, due to widely held -- and wrong -- ideas about the nature of the Mayan language which have only recently begun to be challenged.

At some point in the future we might be able to say yay or nay to the kinds of conclusions you are talking about, but that day isn't here. Basing conclusions on what the text itself says and the extent of other evidence instead of reading in preconceived conjecture isn't spinning.

[This message has been edited by groove (edited 10/18/2007 1:08a).]

Sid -here is a real opportunity to expand your knowledge on this subject and exchange theories with some of the best experts in this field. I know you would like to take advantage of it.

http://www.ldsmag.com/churchupdate/071018bom.html

groove, you left out, "And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew."

The Nephites and Lamanites did send written letters back and forth between themselves

With how many languages do you suppose they had fluency in writing?

There were not necessarily mighty in writing. 2 Ne. 33: 1.

It just doesn't have the ring of truth to me.

And of course, the characters are not a match for any known script anywhere. You basically are saying that a handful of folks has a secret written language which they passed down for 1000 years, and for which we have no other example world-wide other than in the BoM.

That does not ring true to me. (And it shouldn't to you, either. It should, at the very least, give you pause.)

quote:

---

And of course, the characters are not a match for any known script anywhere.

---

You'll find there's a ton of folks that disagree with you on that one.

One example would be here:
www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley.htm (site is down at the moment, probably for maintenance)

quote:

---

You basically are saying that a handful of folks has a secret written language which they passed down for 1000 years, and for which we have no other example world-wide other than in the BoM.

---

Not in the Book of Mormon, per say, but the plates they were written on. I don't think it is unreasonable at all to consider that if a small founding group of people took some hebraised form of demotic and modified it and then used it primarily as a form of shorthand for the purposes of plate writing that something like that could be easily lost as a language. Moreover, the discovery of previously unknown writing systems is not unheard of:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/15/MNGS8L68QT1.DTL&type=science

I am no expert in epigraphy, but here is what my brain tells me:

1) Writing systems definitely change over time, but writing systems are highly unlikely to change instantaneously.

2) When writing systems do change, one can usually track the changes through time - and see clearly how one type developed from an earlier type.

3) Writing systems tend to change as part of a larger culture. There must be many different writers who are impacted by the culture and who impact each other.

If the alleged gold plates were evidence of a written language practiced by only a priestly few, unknown to the culture at large, it strikes me that the system would be far less likely to change. Without the influence of the wider culture on the writing system, and given the "holy" nature of the texts, it would be preserved.

None of this seems to "fit." It just doesn't ring true.

Have you raised possible (if not truly plausible) explanations for the Anthon transcript? Yes. The odds, however, seem to weigh very heavily against your explanation.

1. I think that is certainly the case. In the case of the Book of Mormon things evolved over about a 900 year span. In fact, it might have taken a fair bit of study for Moroni to have deciphered Lehi's writing when he was making the abridgement.

2. This is assuming we have examples of phylogenetic succession in the writing. And even then, things can be mistaken. For a great example of this check out Dr. Coes book, "Breaking the Mayan Code" where he discusses the false epigraphic assumptions that lead archologists interested in the Mayan written dialect down the wrong path for decades. Moreover, we have plenty of examples where we have little snippets of language without seeing any sort of "before" or "after." Mayan language was commonly thought to have descended from Olmec wrting styles -- that was until Olmec writing examples were found that threw this assumption on its head.

quote:

---

If the alleged gold plates were evidence of a written language practiced by only a priestly few, unknown to the culture at large, it strikes me that the system would be far less likely to change

---

Except that Mormon himself *says* they adapted the abbreviated writing style to their needs over time. This is the problem with just going on preconceived assumptions without looking at what the text actually says. This problem has gotten LDS authors into just as much trouble as non-LDS authors.

"Except that Mormon himself *says* they adapted the abbreviated writing style to their needs over time."

That is not precisely what he said. I don't know how much you can conclude from the BoM text.

Did it change from what the Hebrews had been using in the old world? Did it change from what Lehi brought over? Did it change from what the culture at large used?

You have to be incredibly twisty and turny to find a path to the ultimate conclusion you reach (that the characters are indeed from the plates, and that plates existed).

Back to something you said earlier, the Nephites and Lamanites were not Maya, then what were they? Don't most LDS say they were Maya or nothing?

quote:

---

That is not precisely what he said. I don't know how much you can conclude from the BoM text.

---

The primary reason for using the different writing style was to save space (See: Jarom 1: 2, 14, 3 Ne. 5: 18, Jacob 4: 1-2). And then Mormon says that they altered the language (see below). I don't see how my conclusions are far fetched at all.

quote:

---

Mormon 9:32-34

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

---

quote:

---

You have to be incredibly twisty and turny to find a path to the ultimate conclusion you reach (that the characters are indeed from the plates, and that plates existed).

---

No. I think you have to be incredibly "twisty and turney" to deny the multiple witness evidence that the plates did in fact exist. As for the veracity of the characters actually coming from the plates, I suppose there is some doubt as I alluded to earlier, but I think, based on what we know that it is probable they came from the plates.

quote:

---

Back to something you said earlier, the Nephites and Lamanites were not Maya, then what were they? Don't most LDS say they were Maya or nothing?

---

I think most believe that the Maya would be considered Lamanites in the sense that they were not Nephites. The Classic Maya arose after the Book of Mormon times and may have assimliated much of the remaining Lehite culture. Book of Mormon peoples would have been around during the formative proto-Mayan or pre-Classic Mayan periods, but even then, I don't think anyone takes "Lehite" to be synonymous with "Mayan."

Well, what culture which existed historically do you associate with the Nephites?

I assume you think Nephite city ruins exist but we just don't know they were called Nephites. Is that correct?

I think what you are referring to would be the so-called "Limited Tehuantepec theory." Here, the Olmecs are postulated to be the product of Jaredite assimilation and the pre-classic Mayans would be considered the Lamanites. The Nephites are either considered to be part of the pre-Classic Mayan milieu or to be another tribe such as the Zapotecs. Others have suggested that a purge of Nephite-related material by later kings has obscured their origins.

As for geography, I think the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_geography_model_(Book_of_Mormon)) article actually has a good basic summary of what some people are thinking.

quote:

---

I assume you think Nephite city ruins exist but we just don't know they were called Nephites. Is that correct?

---

I, personally, am not sure. I'm not an expert on these things. But I know that Sorenson and Clark and others certainly feel this way.