Two Hills Cumorah, Two Transcripts Anthon

[drumdude]

https://interpreterfoundation.org/looki ... anscripts/

At face value, the above can be viewed as evidence that two different scripts were shown to Anthon—a script Anthon simply identified as Egyptian and another script containing characters of a less certain origin. Joseph Knight Sr.’s report seems to corroborate the idea of two different scripts for he stated that Harris “found men that could translate some of the Carictors . . . But there were some Carictors they could not well understand.”


The possibility of an Egyptian script that Anthon could readily identify and another script that he could not readily identify would be in harmony with claims within the Book of Mormon itself. Mormon and Moroni, who lived c. 400 AD, created an abridgment of the main Nephite records using a language that had been “altered” over their thousand-year history which they called “reformed Egyptian.”

It was reformed so much that “none other people knoweth our language” (Mormon 9:32, 34), suggesting that even an ancient Egyptian would not have understood their language in spite of the name given.14 Mormon, however, noted that as he was creating his abridgment of the main Nephite history, he “searched among the records” and “found” the set of plates that contained the “small account” written by Nephi, Jacob, and others down to King Benjamin. He felt they were important to include and indicates that he would simply “put them” with the remainder of his abridgment (Words of Mormon 1:3–6).15 Since Nephi and Jacob lived around a thousand years before Mormon and Moroni, the language and characters on this small record would not have been the altered “reformed Egyptian” that Mormon and Moroni used. Rather, Nephi tells his readers plainly that he wrote using “the language of the Egyptians” (1 Nephi 1:2), a language that his father Lehi knew how to read and had taught to his children (Mosiah 1:4). It is known from archaeology that there was a scribal tradition using Egyptian hieratic in Israel during Nephi’s day.16 This Palestinian Hieratic is currently the most plausible candidate for an Egyptian script Nephi would have used to make his own record.

Is there any problem in Mopologetics that can’t be solved with the swift application of Occam’s Duct-tape?

[I Have Questions]

Anthon gave two descriptions of what Harris presented to him. The two descriptions are 3 years apart, both are from memory more than a decade after the incident.

In the 1841 account, Anthon described the characters as "arranged in columns like the Chinese mode of writing .. (g)reek, Hebrew, and all sort of letters ... intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican zodiac."

And in 1844

Anthon described the transcript as containing "in one or two parallel columns rude imitations of Hebrew and Greek characters together with various delineations of sun, moon, stars, &c.."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon_Transcript

If apologists want to say that Anthon’s marginally differing accounts amount to a conclusion that Anthon is referring to two different events (even though he never suggests anything but one event) then being intellectually honest requires them to hold the position that because Smith gave differing accounts of the First Vision that amounts to a conclusion that the current canonised account of a vision, isn’t the First Vision.

Also, if they want to place real value on Anthon’s testimony as a witness, they also should accept his conclusion…

Anthon stated in the letter that the story of his supposed authentication was false, that Anthon had identified the writings as a hoax, and that he had told Harris that the writings were part of "a scheme to cheat the farmer [Harris] of his money".

Unfortunately the writer of the article swallows whole everything that Martin Harris said Anthon said. But neglects to consider what Anthon himself said he said. On that basis the article is intellectually dishonest, and a clear example of confirmation bias.

[I Have Questions]

“At face value, the above can be viewed as evidence that two different scripts were shown to Anthon…”

Once an apologetic starts with “at face value” you know that what will follow will be a complete flight of fancy.

It’s no wonder the Scripture Central researcher had to publish it via Interpreter - they will publish anything to keep their Friday track record intact (if indeed it actually is intact).