Ancient Manuscripts Fit Book of Mormon Pattern, Insights, February 1999 pg.3-4
contributed by John Gee and John A. Tvedtnes
The metal plates, which had the appearance of gold.
Looking back into time at the beginnings of Mormonism I find that almost 200yrs. allows me a very broad perspective. I think it almost impossible to separate what we know now; from what we think Joseph would have known then. We project our own hopes, disbeliefs, and agenda's onto the past almost subconsciously.
So as I was digging through old Insights trying to find a needle in a haystack, I came across this little article, that attempts to establish a pattern of ancient religious writings on metal plates:
QUOTE
"...the earliest extant manuscripts containing biblical text have the same three features that were stumbling blocks for early detractors of the Book of Mormon. One of these manuscripts was written on metal plates, onne manuscript was written in a reformed Egyptian script, and a set of manuscripts was concealed for future recovery.
"The earliest of all known manuscripts displaying biblical text was found in 1980 when archaeologists opened an ancient tomb adjacent to the Scottish Presbyterian church of St. Andrew in Jerusalem. They discovered two small rolled-up strips of silver with a Hebrew inscription of the priestly blessing found in Numbers 6:24-26. From paleographic evidence...the scrolls have been dated to the end of the seventh century B.C. or the beginning of the sixth centruy B.C.-about the time Lehi left Jerusalem." 1.
QUOTE
"The second oldest known manuscript citing a Bible text is written in Egyptian demotic script and dates to the fourth centurey B.C...it includes a quote of Psalm 20:2-6. Though the language of the text is Aramaic, the language spoken by the Jews of that time, it is not written using the Aramaic alphabet. Instead it is written in Egytian demotic, and ancient cursive script that can properly be called "reformed" Egyptian." 2.
Identifying these patterns is definitely a compelling argument. But is this proof of the historicity of the BoM, No. Is it even evidence? I'd say yes, although I'm sure some would disagree. But what seems obvious is that there is something profound about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I've tried to separate myself from the spiritual connections I have with this book and with Joseph, and I've tried to separate myself from any agenda I have in "proving" the Book of Mormon to be authentic; in an attempt at objectivity. I've looked at it from many different angles, including a strictly intellectual approach (as much as is humanly possible), and invariably I arrive at the conclusion that this is a very special man, and a very special book.
When I reintroduce the Spiritual witness I've received regarding the Divinity of Joseph's calling and the historicity of the Book of Mormon then the intellectual pursuits fade into the background and become a very mild form of Brain Candy.
So to the non-believer, I respect your declination. But what I can't understand is some of the reason's behind your unbelief. I think the best one I've heard is, "Satan inspired the whole thing and gave Joseph the power to do what he did". Honestly, that really is the best argument against the Mormon narrative, IMO. Try and reply with a list of other reasons, and Apologists will jump on it with explanations ad nauseum. And you will respond in kind. And the back and forth exchange will continue for 22 pages.
It really is a matter of study and faith. If you remove the faith, you cut your own neck, and are left only with intellectualism, and you will soon find that you have thought yourself straight down to Hell! LOL! I like a little hyperbole now and then.
Big UP!
Lamanite
1. The finds were reported by Gabriel Barkay in "The Divine Name Found in Jerusalem,"Biblical Archaeology Review 9/2 (19830:14-19; and "Priestly Blessings on Silver Plates"(in Hebrew, Cathedra 52 (1989): 46-59; see Insights (summer 1986):1
2. For a biliography o the scholarship on Papyrus Amherst 63, see John Gee in Review of books on the book of Mormon 6/1 1994: 96-97-n. 147
9 comments:
Mormon and Moroni wrote I believe in alphabetic Mayan Script (Glyph) and that because there was no other frame of reference they called Egyptian Script!
Thanks for the reply Curtis. However, I'm not aware of any empirical data that would support your assertion.
Do you have a reference by any chance?
Big UP!
Lamanite
Are you familiar with Jeffery R. Chadwick?
You can look him up at the Neal A. Maxwell website - he is a Biblical Archeologist but lucky for me he is a member of our stake high council and has taught classes for the benefit of the members of the Farr West stake.
We just finished a course of classes that he taught on the Book of Mormon and he is preparing to release a book on the BOM geography. He had some very interesting thoughts that pertain to the translation and the process that Mormon and Moroni used in there abridging of the Plates.
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.
If you look at the last part of Mormon 9: 32 "according to our manner of speech" and you believe as I believe that BOM saga takes place in Mesoamerica specifically Maya and that Moroni and Mormon are more or less Mayan - then according to the manner of there speech would be Mayan and they would have written in Glyph or simplified Mayan Glyph. Based on the things the Joseph Smith new at the time and his limited knowledge of "Glyph's" he probably was familiar with the Egyptian Picture Glyphs hence the wording that he used.
It is interesting that the word Hebrew is used - Lehi and Nephi did not use "Hebrew" they both spoke Jewish. The word Hebrew comes much later after Lehi and Nephi. I think a more accurate term would me Alphabetic script.
While I have not really answered your question of empirical data or reference and that my comments above are from some classes I have attended and my own personal study I think it is very interesting. And while I only give one example there is a treasure trove of stuff that pertains to the Mayan culture in the Large Plates!
I would be willing to pass that info on if you are interested!
If the Anthon Transcript can be trusted it appears it was not a Mayan glyph that was used. Further, from what I understand, Mayan glyphs are pictorial representations of concepts, and a direct interpretation has no real correlative language; it's a representation. You might be understanding Chadwick incorrectly.
Curtis,
So I would assume you believe in a very "loose" translation of the Book of Mormon.
And I'm not trying to box you in mind you; it's just that for your theory to work, the loose translation theory must also be accurate. And Royal Skousen of the Joseph Smith Papers Project and Professor of Linguistics at BYU would probably disagree.
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=167
Big UP
Lamanite
I actually believe in a very tight control in the translation process of the BOM! It is all about time and place - The Prophet was living in the 1800's and you have understand time and place and there frame of reference. Many people thought the BOM was a fraud based on the reference to cement, brass plates, and even the prodigious amount of fighting that takes place; all of those things have been validated in Mesoamerica. The fact that the phrase "Reformed Egyptian" is used to describe pictorial writing really speaks to the Prophets frame of reference!
As far as the Anthon transcript I think that it validates Mayan Glyph. He spoke of the Characters being in columns and being pictorial in nature. If you have seen what some believe to be a copy of some of the "caractors" from the sheet of paper that was taken to Anthon; which is believed to be from David Whitmer there are some examples of Mayan Glyphs and Mayan numbers.
I do want to make one thing clear this stuff is very interesting and I enjoy the discussion! My testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is based on a confirmation from the Holy Ghost that the eternal principle of salvation have been revealed in this ancient text through the a Dispensational Prophet - Joseph Smith - and that eternal salvation only comes through Christ Jesus!
I am still amazed how off the wall many saints can get.
The one good thing that the Hoffman mess did do, was get epigraphers interested in the different copies of the Anthon script. My favorite is Berry Fell. He noticed an artifact in the script. The number 19. Nine veritcal lines, underlined. Going immediately to the epigrapher's secret weapon, the Joseph Hammer book, he looked up Egyptian Temple Script #19, and there it was. Transcribing the letters he found the text was Aramaic/Arabic. He then translated the first 6 verses of 1Ne chapter 1. from the Aramaic. "Nefi jafr" (Revelation of Nephi,) "I have written these things. I,Nefi, a son born to sagacious parents ... " to 1 Ne 1:6 "It came to pass, there was a whirling column of smole from which fire flashed above, and ...
-text ends- Not bad for a guy that had not read the BOM.
BTW, 1st Nephi and the Book of Lehi having the exact same intro is exactly what you would expect. They had the same author, and the secular and religious histories don't diverge until later.
Actually the Book of Lehi would have been redacted or abridged by Mormon, so I don't believe it would have begun the same at all.
Curtis said: "I actually believe in a very tight control in the translation process of the BOM! It is all about time and place - The Prophet was living in the 1800's and you have understand time and place and there frame of reference. Many people thought the BOM was a fraud based on the reference to cement, brass plates, and even the prodigious amount of fighting that takes place; all of those things have been validated in Mesoamerica. The fact that the phrase "Reformed Egyptian" is used to describe pictorial writing really speaks to the Prophets frame of reference!"
This to me Curtis would imply a loose translation. If Joseph inserted any social constructs or cultural influences into his translation that would be the definition of "loose".
However, if it really was "tight", then he need only peer into the hat and read off what appeared to Oliver, et al.
Big UP and thanks for the testimony!
Lamanite
Post a Comment