Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint (LDS) topics.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Common Features in Written Languages and the Anthon Transcript

Michael Price's news story, "Why Written Languages Look Alike the World Over" in Science magazine's online edition (Sciencemag.org) might be of interest to some readers here. He discusses a recent publication on the nature of scripts used in written language. The study, published in  Cognitive Science, finds that scripts contain a vary high degree of vertical and horizontal lines (e.g., our T and L) relative to oblique lines (as in our X or W). Symmetrical characters, with either vertical or horizontal symmetry, also occur more frequently than one would expect from chance, and vertical symmetry (as in B or C) is more common than horizontal symmetry (as in W or A). Examination of how scripts evolve suggests that these features are present from the earliest stages of writing.

The study discussed is by Oliver Morin, "Spontaneous Emergence of Legibility in Writing Systems: The Case of Orientation Anisotropy," Cognitive Science, 10 October 2017, DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12550. Abstract:
Cultural forms are constrained by cognitive biases, and writing is thought to have evolved to fit basic visual preferences, but little is known about the history and mechanisms of that evolution. Cognitive constraints have been documented for the topology of script features, but not for their orientation. Orientation anisotropy in human vision, as revealed by the oblique effect, suggests that cardinal (vertical and horizontal) orientations, being easier to process, should be overrepresented in letters. As this study of 116 scripts shows, the orientation of strokes inside written characters massively favors cardinal directions, and it is organized in such a way as to make letter recognition easier: Cardinal and oblique strokes tend not to mix, and mirror symmetry is anisotropic, favoring vertical over horizontal symmetry. Phylogenetic analyses and recently invented scripts show that cultural evolution over the last three millennia cannot be the sole cause of these effects.
With this in mind, it is interesting to once again look at the Charles Anthon transcript to see examples of the characters that Joseph Smith copied from some portion of the gold plates for Martin Harris to show to some highly educated folks to help Martin cope with his doubts.

When Martin showed them to the scholar, Charles Anthon, Anthon allegedly responded favorably. According to Harris, Anthon "said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic" and that they were "true characters." Whatever Anthon said, Harris came away convinced that Joseph was not a fraud. To say that the characters were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic, if accurately quoted and sincerely meant, would seem to mean that Harris saw similarities to these other scripts, and indeed, it's not hard to see many similarities. In light of Morin's publication, part of the similarities include a very high degree of vertical and horizontal strokes, a low degree of oblique lines (curved lines were excluded in the study), and a high degree of symmetrical characters, all typical of many real scripts. However, in the small sample from the Anthon Transcript, the symmetry is primarily horizontal, though there are some characters with vertical symmetry.

After examining the Anthon characters, it is easy for a naive viewer like me to see apparent similarities to numbering systems in Demotic (like a long curved line for 100 and then vertical strokes above it for multiples of 100) and also Mayan (the bar and dot system). Probably coincidental, but I can sort of see why someone could say that there are features like those of ancient Old World scripts, for they have some common general features similar to what Morin observed.

Had Harris brought Anthon some of the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates, I wonder what his response would be?

These characters to me just look a lot different than the various scripts I've seen from the Old World. To me they appear to have a high emphasis on oblique lines, contrary to Morin's observation. I'm not saying his findings represent an accurate test for distinguishing a lone forger's contrived script from a real civilization's practical script that developed according to common cognitive aspects of our brains, but it may be a topic for further research. Just a fun tidbit to consider that may help explain why someone might feel the Book of Mormon characters resemble other ancient scripts they've seen. 

FYI, Tolkien's fun work in developing the Tengwar script for Middle-earth seems to do well in its abundance of cardinal strokes, but then it seems to draw heavily on Tibetan and related scripts and is rooted in his deep scholastic knowledge rather than being fabricated out of whole cloth.

A hat tip to Jennifer Mangelson for alerting me to this Science story.

For some background on the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates and their relation or lack thereof to the Book of Mormon, see my related LDSFAQ page on Book of Mormon problems.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Yemen Needs Your Help As Millions Face Starvation (Another Fruit of the "Military-Industrial Swamplex")

Many of you have heard about the stunning archaeological site in Yemen found by a German team that gives us three ancient altars from Lehi's day bearing the name of the Nihm tribe, close to the ideal site proposed for the ancient place name Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34). The lands of the Nihm tribe, sometimes spelled Nehem, to this day are still in that general region, around 25 miles northeast of Sanaa, the capital. This is a place I would love to visit, and I hope many of you share that desire.

Sadly, precious few have been there. I can only recall one person apart from a Yemeni friend in Hong Kong who has traveled to Yemen, and that would be Warren Aston who did field work in Yemen and Oman in his quest for knowledge about Lehi's Trail. Warren Aston is the author of the best book I've read relating to external evidences for the Book of Mormon, Lehi and Sariah in Arabia. (Related to that is the best DVD: Lehi in Arabia, a must-see documentary.)

Mormons ought to be highly interested in Yemen and its peoples, including the Nihm tribe. I'd love to go there, but right now travel is impossible. Yemen has become a dangerous place in recent years with civil war and heavy bombing from one of our putative allies, Saudi Arabia.

Saudia Arabia just imposed a blockade on entry points to Yemen that has cut off badly needed humanitarian aid. Without outside help, the war-torn country faces starvation. As reported in the New York Times, Mark Lowcock, the UN's coordinator of humanitarian aid, Yemen could face a disaster in which millions die unless external aid is provided. The EU's commissioner for humanitarian aid and crisis management, Christos Stylianides, was quoted by Al Jazeera as saying that Yemen “is suffering the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with more than two-thirds of its population in need of humanitarian assistance.” Stunning.

Feeding the "Military-Industrial Swamplex"

Michael Krieger, a Wall Street finance guy who became disgusted with the industry and quit, now blogging at Liberty Blitzkrieg, called my attention to the disaster in Yemen and to our role there as well, through our good buds in Saudi Arabia. Our role? What could our role possibly be? Michael delicately puts it this way in his recent post on Yemen:
What we’re looking at here is potentially the worst famine in decades, and it’s important for decent U.S. citizens from across the political spectrum to admit our government’s hands are soaked in blood.
Soaked in blood? I'm afraid he has a point. He backs it in part with this quote from The Intercept:
Saudi Arabia relies heavily on the U.S. military for intelligence sharing, refueling flights for coalition warplanes, and the transfer of American-made cluster bombs, rockets, and other munitions used against targets in Yemen.

Congress, however, has never authorized U.S. support for the war, which has caused 10,000 civilian deaths and has spiraled in recent months into one of the worst humanitarian crises of the century. For two years, Saudi Arabia and its allies have imposed a sea and air blockade around Yemen. Now, more than 7 million Yemenis face starvation and thousands, mostly children, are dying from cholera. Coalition warplanes have repeatedly struck crowded markets, hospitals, power plants, and other civilian targets.

Several members of Congress indicated an interest in the issue, noting that the Obama and Trump administrations’ reliance on the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF] to justify U.S. involvement in the conflict is absurd. That authorization, after all, was designed to fight the terrorist groups responsible for the September 11 attacks, not to intervene in Yemen’s civil war.

For 16 years, the executive branch has pointed to the AUMF as legal justification for its involvement in conflicts across the Middle East and Africa, a strategy that is legally questionable. But the use of the AUMF in the Yemeni context is especially bizarre given that the AUMF’s target is Al Qaeda, and the group AQAP — Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – is fighting alongside the U.S.-Saudi coalition against the Houthi rebels.
For those of you who thought we were draining the swamp, we've just shuffled a few swamp creatures while continuing on the same warlike course we grew numb to during the daily bombings around the world under the Obama Administration and during the assaults on other nations during the Bush years.

As one of my good friends put it when I once dared to criticize our invasion of and endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., "at least we were doing something about the problem of terrorism!" Indeed.

And now we are once again truly doing something about the problem of terrorism, though perhaps a tad more counterintuitive in appearance, by joining forces with the one nation most directly linked to 9/11 whom we provide with weapons and never, ever invade, and by simultaneously joining forces with Al Qaeda (!) to help carpet bomb civilians in Yemen. Please don't confuse a lack of patriotism with my discomfort with the Military-Industrial Swamplex. (Hey, I like that phrase!  You heard it first here.) One can love a spouse but dislike the cancer taking his or her life. You don't have to love and feed the cancer. In fact, the loving thing, the patriotic thing, is to excise it or do whatever possible to curtail its growth. Some of you thought we'd be draining the swamp in Washington. So sorry about that delusion!

As a patriotic American who lives his country and believes the Constitution should be followed and was a relatively inspired and precious document that could help preserve our liberty and rights if followed, I think it's time we get out of selling weapons to the Saudis, get out of giving weapons and support to terrorist groups (who often start as apparent allies in the first place and then use our weapons against our real or putative allies and eventually against us), get out of being the world's policeman when we can't even tell good guys from bad anymore, and immediately find ways to get aid to Yemen.

This graph from the Washington Post shows the explosive growth of weapon sales to the Saudis:

Krieger on the Liberty Blitzkrieg site points out that we are involved in a clearly unconstitutional and illegal war effort in Yemen that has killed many thousands and could soon result in millions dying. But our elected officials -- your Congressmen -- have been largely silent. They don't want to even discuss this. Give it a try and let me know what you experience! Watch the video on Michael's site for a preview of what you might encounter.

As reported in the Washington Post, “The shameless arms supplies to Saudi Arabia … may amount to lucrative trade deals, but the U.K. risks aiding and abetting these terrible crimes,” said James Lynch, head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International. Lucrative for the winners, devastating for the people being carpet bombed and now starved.

Yemen should matter to Congress, but it doesn't. But if it matters to you, we can change that. Let's change that now.

Let's stop aiding the carpet bombers of Yemen. Let's quit flooding the world with weapons. Let's get aid to Yemen. And may we, in a short while, be able to visit and maybe even strengthen that precious land and its more precious people.

Thursday, November 09, 2017

John Gee's Introduction to the Book of Abraham: A Lifetime of Book of Abraham Scholarship Distilled into a Valuable Book for a Broad Audience

It was a pleasure to read John Gee's recently published An Introduction to the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2017). This book is aimed for a broad audience with an interest in the Book of Abraham. While Dr. Gee is an expert in Egyptology, he does not get into overwhelming technical details of Egyptian language and lore while delivering clear and useful information that can help people of any faith better understand the origins and nature of the Book of Abraham.

Confusion over the Book of Abraham has flustered many members and investigators of the Church. About 20 years ago I personally had a similar crisis of faith while serving as bishop after considering a convincing argument on the Book of Abraham from a well-known anti-Mormon source. This was a few years after a previous bishopric member and his family in my town had left the Church initially over Book of Abraham issues and then started his own anti-Mormon website. The argument that I think stung both of us was compelling: Joseph claimed to have translated Egyptian by the power of God, apparently like he translated the gold plates. Now the Egyptian manuscripts have been found that Joseph used, and today we can read Egyptian and objectively evaluate his divine translation skills. Bottom line: He didn't get anything right. The work is a complete fraud, as was Joseph. End of story. Ouch!

If Gee's book had been available then, it would have greatly helped. In my case, after prayerful consideration in which I reviewed my testimony of the Book of Mormon but pled great confusion over the Book of Abraham, I felt that I needed patience and further seeking of knowledge. That knowledge soon came when I got my hands on a book by H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abraham (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995), another excellent resource, where I learned what ought to be common knowledge among all Latter-day Saints, but isn't: the Joseph Smith papyri, the recovered fragments from the original papyrus collection, are merely a fraction of the larger collection that Joseph used. Longer documents were sent to the St. Louis Museum after Joseph's death, and from there they ended up in the Chicago Museum, where they apparently burned in 1871.

The existence of other significant scrolls was not mentioned by the anti-Mormon source. The statements of witnesses describing the documents Joseph used and the gap between those descriptions and the Joseph Smith papyri were not mentioned. I felt that I had been deceived with an argument that was largely accurate except for a few crucial details that were artfully left out and which changed everything. I have since encountered many cases where critics artfully whittle away data and mitigating factors in what they report to create a shocking case to shake the faith of their readers. Caution and patience is usually a wise initial response when we don't know where to turn for answers. But let's get back to Gee's excellent book.

Gee's 197-page book is a well-written and richly illustrated source for answers on what the Book of Abraham is and what it is isn't. It offers a careful discussion of the history of book and various theories regarding what the translation is, how it was done, and what relationship it has to the sJoseph Smith papyri as well as to the rest of the original papyri. It is written as a general overview of many aspects of the Book of Abraham, with an emphasis its origins and its relationship to antiquity, as well as its significance for Latter-day Saints today.  Along the way we encounter some pleasantly surprising issues that can strengthen our respect for this work of scripture, including a variety of issues with apologetic value, though that is not Gee's overarching purpose, so don't expect a complete list of the many apologetic gems that could be cited.

Gee also provides valuable insights into the Abrahamic covenant and Abraham's teachings on astronomy, the preexistence, and the Creation. He closes with a look at the role of the Book of Abraham as a part of LDS scripture, and finally provides a succinct but excellent set of answers to frequently asked questions.

The book is nicely illustrated with samples of the Joseph Smith papyri, original documents from Joseph Smith and his peers related to the Book of Abraham, the facsimiles, and related images from Egypt and other areas. It is well organized and tightly written to deliver what often seems like just the right level of detail to help a non-specialist understand important issues without getting caught up in unfruitful detours.

The book is distilled from a lifetime of research into issues related to the Book of Abraham, including his expertise in Egyptology. It will be a valuable addition to the library of almost anyone with an interest in LDS issues or in the Book of Abraham.

Particular Points of Interest
One of the most interesting and original portions that draw upon Gee's extensive scholarship is his discussion of the ancient owners of the papyri in Chapter 5. The owners "were among the most literate and educated people of Ptolemaic Egypt" and one of them, Horos, "served as prophet in three different temples in the Karnak temple complex" (p. 59). Situated in Thebes, he would have had access to grant "Theban temple libraries, containing narratives, reference works, and manuals, as well as scrolls on religion, ritual, and history" (p. 61). Further,
Ptolemaic Thebes had a sizable Jewish population; some of them served as the tax collectors. The Egyptian religion of the time was eclectic. Foreign elements like deities and rites—including those from the Greek religion and Judaism—were added to Egyptian practices. The papyri owners also lived at a time when stories about Abraham circulated in Egypt. If any ancient Egyptians were in a position to know about Abraham, it was the Theban priests. (p. 61)
Gee's discussion of the various roles Horus would have played implicitly suggests he would have had interest and familiarity with various temple themes, creation stories, rituals and other elements found in the Book of Abraham and its facsimiles.

Gee carefully discusses some of the interesting connections  between the Book of Abraham and evidence from antiquity, such as the many ancient accounts of Abraham being threatened as a human sacrifice and accounts of his father's idol worshipping, accounts not available to Joseph Smith. Sometimes there are especially significant points that, from an apologetics perspective, I wish had been given more emphasis or at least an exclamation mark or two. One of these cases involves the unusual place name Olishem mentioned in Abraham 1:10. It turns out that there is in fact such a place name from the ancient Levant in a plausible location. Here is John Gee's treatment:
Biblical scholars have not agreed on the time and place that Abraham lived, but the Book of Abraham provides additional information that specifies both. In the Bible, Abraham must flee his homeland (môladâ) in Ur of the Chaldees (Genesis 12:1). Later he sends his servant back to his homeland (môladâ) to find a wife for his son (Genesis 24:4, 7). The servant is sent to Aram-Naharaim in modern-day northern Syria or southern Turkey (Genesis 24:10) and not Mesopotamia as the King James translators rendered it. This location of Aram-Naharaim must have been the location of Abraham's homeland. The Book of Abraham also indicates that Abraham's homeland was in that area. Olishem (Abraham 1:10), one of the places mentioned near Ur, appears in Mesopotamian and Egyptian inscriptions in association with Ebla, which is in northern Syria. (pp. 98, 101)
The discussion of Olishem is limited to a single sentence casually mentioning that an unusual place name in Joseph's translation is mentioned in ancient inscriptions. There is further information in the notes under "Further Reading" pointing to valuable sources on this potentially sensational find. But many readers may not notice how interesting or even sensational this issue may be. It was already interesting when Akkadian documents where noted that mentioned the place Olishem, and it got much more interesting when a Turkish team reported finding the site and noted that ancient documents indicate this was place where Abraham had lived. See the press release Prophet Abraham's lost city found in Turkey's Kilis in The Hurriyet Daily News, August 16, 2013. On this matter, Gee has noted the potential value but urges patience as more work is needed. See John Gee, "Has Olishem Been Discovered?," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 22/2 (2013): 104–7.

Finding the place name Olishem was interesting enough in many ways before the actual archaeological site was found and its connection to Abraham made. In a rather technical 2010 post, Val Sederholm explores the significance of Olishem and related Egyptian and Semitic words in "The Plain of Olishem and the Field of Abram: LDS Book of Abraham, Chapter One," I Begin to Reflect, April 27, 2010. "Is the place of Ulisum or Olis(h)em the plain of Olishem? Conclusions remain premature, but it would be remiss not to point out the similarity and, by so doing, show that the Book of Abraham merits a second look." Sederholm then explores the rich association of meanings related to Olishem that may make it an entirely appropriate name for a place with a hill, suggesting the possibility not only of a phonetic connection between the Akkadian account and the Book of Abraham, but also a semantic connection. Indeed, there are many such fascinating issues in the Book of Abraham, leading Sederholm to make a strong but supportable statement:
Exactly how does a book of 14 pages produce dozens upon dozens of linguistic, cultural, thematic, theological, and literary points of comparison to the Ancient Near Eastern record? The numbers are no exaggeration. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with no hesitation whatsoever, not even a hint of abatement, continues to post the canonical Book of Abraham on line and to print copies by the tens of thousands in scores of languages. There is a lot of explaining to do.
Gee, however, is more restrained and focuses rather on explaining to broad audiences the basic of the Book of Abraham and some of the fascinating connections to the ancient world, including hints of evidences for authenticity without making too much of the evidence. This is not an primer for apologists, but one that defenders of the faith will definitely want to study.

There were many other sections that I felt are especially important. His discussion on the so-called "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" a.k.a. the Kirtland Papers was clear and helpful (pp. 32-39). He ably demonstrates that this was not the tool Joseph used to translate the Book of Mormon, but appears to be an attempt by others after the translation was done to make sense of Egyptian.

His treatment of ancient connections to the Book of Abraham is especially meaningful (Chapter 4, pp. 49-55), though brief, and the "Further Reading" section points to some significant treasures for further study. In light of many references to Abraham in Egypt by the time the Joseph Smith papyri were created, Gee concludes that "the Book of Abraham fits comfortably with the literature about Abraham that was circulating in Egypt during the general time period of the Joseph Smith Papyri" (p. 52).

In reviewing competing theories for the origins of the Book of Abraham in Chapter 7, "The Relationship of the Book of Abraham Text to the Papyri," Gee quietly dismantles some common theories on the basis of evidence. For example, the theory that Joseph used the surviving Joseph Smith Papyri fragments for the translation does not fit descriptions from witnesses of the long scroll that he was translating (this and other parts of the collection apparently are what was later sent to the St. Louis Museum and then later to Chicago, to perish in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871). The fragments, in fact, were mounted on glass by 1837, while witnesses saw the unmounted long roll in the 1840s and 1850s (p. 85), so the fragments cannot be what Joseph used as the basis (or pretended basis, if you insist) for the translation, however he performed that work.

Another theory popular in the Church is that Joseph created the Book of Abraham by inspiration without being connected to any papyrus. Gee makes some interesting points in discussing this:
The theory, however, also has some problems. In a discourse given on 16 June 1844, just before his death, Joseph Smith said, "I want to reason — I learned it by translating the papyrus now in my house — I learned a test. concerning Abraham & he reasoned concerng. the God of Heaven — in order to do that sd. he — suppose we have two facts that supposes that anotr. fact may exist two men on the earth — one wiser than the other — wod. shew that antr. who is wiser than the wisest may exist—intelligences exist one above anotr. that there is no end to it — if Abra. reasoned thus." Joseph Smith prefaces a paraphrase of Abraham 3:16–19 with a statement that he "learned it by translating the papyrus now in my house," and ends by saying that it is Abraham's reasoning. This quotation supports the theories that he translated the Book of Abraham from papyri that he had in his possession, but seems to be the only statement from Joseph Smith on the subject other than the preface to the published Book of Abraham that it was "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt" that presumably Joseph Smith authored. The quotation, however, comes from fragmentary and incomplete notes of a sermon Joseph Smith gave and thus the evidence is not as solid as might be desired.  
Given our current state of knowledge, the theory that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyri that we no longer have accounts for the most evidence with the fewest problems. Even so, for none of the theories is the evidence as neat or as compelling as one might wish. (pp. 85-86)
Another noteworthy issue is introduced immediately after Gee points to the find of Olishem in a region near the northern Ur that he strongly favors. It is a clue regarding the specific time when Abraham lived:
Abraham's homeland was incorporated as part of the Egyptian empire under the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs Sesostris III and his son, Amenemhet III, but it was then lost to the subsequent pharaohs. This provides an historical date for the events of the first chapter of the Book of Abraham. (p. 101)
That date is not given in this section. Sesostris III ruled from 1879 to 1839 BC, and Abraham may have lived in that era as well. That's a remarkable detail, if accurate, and it may bring several other issues into better focus. For example, Gee explains that around this time, historical and archaeological evidence shows that Egypt did practice human sacrifice as a ritual against religious offenders and it could take place in areas Egypt influenced, consistent with the Book of Abraham account. Gee provides readers with two references from Kerry Muhlenstein to support the statements on human sacrifice. Gee also states that, "Three of the four deities mentioned, Elkenah, Libnah, and Korash, are attested for the approximate time and place of Abraham" (p. 101). I've read some of the work supporting such a sensational sounding statement, but it won't be clear to a reader which of the "Further Reading" sources to turn to. In this case, I believe the relevant source is Daniel Peterson, "News from Antiquity" in the Jan. 1994 Ensign. Sadly, while most of that issue is accessible at LDS.org, Peterson's article currently is not (a link is there but it gives a "page not found" error), but it is available at Archive.org. The article with all its extensive footnotes can also be accessed on the free LDS Library app. Footnote 5 from Peterson offers the references that should have been cited for this tantalizing tidbit (this is one of a few gaps in the book that I discuss in more detail below).

Many more insights can be gleaned if we can estimate the date of Abraham's life:
Because Abraham's life was in danger, he left his homeland, which was controlled by Egypt, and crossed the Euphrates to Haran, which was outside of Egyptian control (Abraham 1:1, 2:3–4). After the reign of Amenemhet III [Jeff's note: this would be after 1814 B.C., per Wikipedia], he left Haran and went to Canaan, which was then no longer under Egypt's control (Abraham 2:6–18).

When famine set in, the closest steady supply of grain was the land of Egypt, the northern part of which was now under the management of the Fourteenth Dynasty. These pharaohs were "partaker[s] of the blood of the Canaanites by birth" (Abraham 1:21) and bore Canaanite names. Abraham seems to classify all pharaohs as Canaanite, though the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs whose servants tried to kill him were not. Since Abraham never met the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs, he may have assumed that all pharaohs were like the Fourteenth Dynasty ones he did meet.

Although the dynasties in northern Egypt might have changed, pharaonic power and prerogatives had not changed. Abraham was instructed by God to refer to his wife, Sarah, as his sister (Abraham 2:22–25). This takes advantage of an ambiguity in the Egyptian language: the Egyptian word for wife (hime) means only wife, but the Egyptian word for sister (sone) means both sister and wife. Thus, the term that Abraham used was not false, but ambiguous. It was also necessary: since numerous Egyptian texts discuss how pharaohs could take any woman that they fancied and would put the husband to death if the woman was married, this advice saved Abraham's life. God was willing to save Abraham's life on more than one occasion. (pp. 101-102)
Fascinating. This brief passage resolves several significant questions regarding Abraham and the Book of Abraham. It's not the only time in this book that Gee applies his knowledge of Egyptian to illustrate how an Egyptian word play strengthens the text and turns something confusing or troubling into some quite interesting and logical (see also his discussion of astronomy and the word play that naturally allows Abraham to move from talking about stars to talking about matters of the soul and religion, indirectly challenging Egyptian religion without offending others and getting killed, pp. 116-119).

Some Gaps
For all its merits, there are also some gaps that I should point out. One gap is the uneven use of footnotes. Most chapters lack footnotes, but key references are listed at the end of the chapter in a "Further reading" section with occasional comments. These are helpful and often adequate, for a reader can usually deduce which reference might be the one that supports an interesting, unexpected, or potentially controversial statement Gee has made, but in other cases one is left to guess when a footnote seems required, as I demonstrated above on the fascinating issue of pagan gods mentioned in the Book of Abraham, a complex and still controversial issue that wold seem to demand more details in specific footnotes and perhaps some additional clarifiers as to how settled or controversial the claims may be.

Some editors strongly dislike abundant footnotes and many readers find footnotes distracting. For the intended audience, Gee's approach is probably about right, but I would personally like more footnotes, especially for controversial, nuanced, or sensational issues that may be important to serious students of the Book of Abraham. Again, that information is usually there, but there are a few gaps.

Another example of uneven and perhaps problematic treatment in documentation is in Chapter 13, "The Creation," where 11 footnotes from rather technical sources are provided in a section on the Egyptian background, but none are provided in an arguably more important section, "The Book of Abraham and Source Criticism" on the views of modern biblical scholars. Some relatively strong claims are made in that section that seem to require specific documentation. What is provided on the topic of source criticism in the "Further Reading" section is simply one reference from 20 years ago, which turns out to be rather casual editorial remarks from Daniel Peterson made in the introduction to an issue of the FARMS Review of Books. See Daniel C. Peterson and John Gee, "Editor's Introduction: Through a Glass, Darkly," FARMS Review of Books 9/2 (1997):v–xxix. John Gee is listed as a co-author, but the article is written in the first person by Peterson, who relies on an unpublished report of Gee that refers to an unpublished report from an anonymous student who concocted a "test" of source criticism. The student, "Gadfly," wrote 3 one-page quasi-biblical stories and had two friends combine these the way biblical redactors might have.  He then gave his professor three very short documents for analysis, one written entirely by him, one that had portions from two documents, and one that was changed slightly by a student editor. He gave these to the professor and challenged her to discern which portions of the product came from different sources. I am surprised the professor, whoever she was, agreed to this test. In any case, the professor was mostly wrong. Not a surprise.

While that anecdote is useful, it was hardly a scientific test nor even a fair one. Peterson's personal discourse in introducing the FARMS Review of Books surely was not meant to be a solid scholarly challenge to source criticism but an interesting anecdote shared by Peterson with Gee's assistance to illustrate the need for healthy skepticism with some of the claims of scholars. That point is well taken, but skepticism may also be in order for conclusions based on unpublished, anonymous anecdotes from students trying to trip up a professor.

Apart from the unsuitability of Gee's sole reference on source criticism, there is a more serious issue that could be used by critics to assail this important work. The issue is a minor gaffe which most charitably can be overlooked as sloppy terminology. In the section "Source Criticism" on pp. 136-138, Gee discusses the tendency of biblical scholars to view the account in Genesis as coming from multiple sources that have been patched together by a redactor:
In the late nineteenth century, a theory called source criticism developed, arguing that the Pentateuch (the five books attributed to Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) was composed by a number of different authors in separate books and then shuffled together in such a way that the separate accounts told one story. This combining of accounts supposedly took place sometime after the Babylonian exile. Source critics claim that their modern separation of the biblical text into narrative strands somehow matches hypothetical ancient sources. (p. 137)
The problem is that the theory Gee refers to is not "source criticism" itself but a specific fruit of source criticism known as the Documentary Hypothesis. Conflating the two is an easy mistake to make for those of us not schooled in biblical scholarship and not terribly serious in my opinion, but it weakens the discussion on that topic and can be used for guffaws from critics. In a general sense, source criticism itself, for all its weaknesses in attempting to recreate long-vanished ancient sources of the Bible, is a valuable tool that has been of great help to Latter-day Saint studies. Efforts related to source criticism from Royal Skousen and others involving years of scholarship on the manuscripts of the Book of Mormon and its various editions have helped us better understand the original text, including the miraculous translation process and the apparent present of Hebraisms and other fascinating artifacts that can enlighten and strengthen our appreciation of the text. Some principles related to source criticism can be examined in action as we explore the complex document of the Book of Mormon where its authors and editors draw upon numerous sources, often stated but sometimes implied, in crafting a complex text that has some of the redundancies (e.g., the small plates of Nephi vs. the lost 116 pages) and other issues that are often a starting point for biblical source criticism. Source criticism is not the enemy, though it can be applied with false assumptions, errant data, or poor methodology to give many erroneous results, and may necessarily involve much speculation.

While I agree that source criticism may lead to excessive dissection of text and has serious limitations, and also agree that some conclusions from the Documentary Hypothesis can be and should be challenged, Gee does not treat this topic adequately or point readers to useful sources to understand the issue. Since he is writing for a general audience, he might well have pointed readers to the very accessible work on the Documentary Hypothesis by Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, 2nd edition (New York: HarperCollins, 1997) or many other works. And in response to those who argue that the Pentateuch was faith-promoting fiction made up during the Exile, he might have cited works such as Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). The challenges arising from modern biblical scholarship must be considered in treating the Book of Abraham since, according to many scholars, the Genesis account of Abraham not only comes from multiple conflicting sources written long after Abraham's day, but Abraham himself like the other patriarchs probably did not even exist.

The Documentary Hypothesis and the classification of Abraham as a fictional or mythical character has challenged the testimony of Latter-day Saints and other Christians. It raises questions not just about the Old Testament and the Book of Abraham, but also about the New Testament, where Christ speaks positively of Abraham with no apparent awareness that He was referring to a non-existent character.

In fact, given the tendency of modern scholars to undermine faith in God and Christ and certainly in the Restoration with their views on the origins of the Bible, the evidences of historicity or plausibility that Gee touches upon in several parts of his book may be of great value in reassessing the limitations of scholarship in ways that are far more meaningful than the student anecdote mentioned above. While the discovery not only of the name but more recently apparently also the place Olishem in the Book of Abraham may not be as monumental as the archaeological and linguistic evidence pertaining to Nahom in the Book of Mormon, it nevertheless does, as Val Sederholm said above, "show that the Book of Abraham merits a second look." In fact, evidence from the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon may eventually be just the thing to correct some flaws in the Documentary Hypothesis or other theories, and to anchor and guide future source criticism of biblical texts.

I have said far too much about a few problematic pages. The shortcomings of Gee's brief section on source criticism are not characteristic of the entire book.

In general An Introduction to the Book of Abraham is a work of careful scholarship and thought, one that those in and out of the Church can appreciate, with some significant original contributions and exciting directions for further research and discussion.

Highly recommended!

Friday, November 03, 2017

The Council of the Gods in the Book of Mormon: Can You Help Me Find the Best Sources for Joseph's Plagiarism?

Book of Mormon critics have been working hard to identify sources that Joseph Smith might have used to fabricate the Book of Mormon. They've made some good inroads by showing, for example, that there were rare maps of Arabia in Joseph's day that could have been used to come up with the even more rare place name Nahom (well, OK, Nehhm or Nehem, but close enough) and a book or two that hinted at chiasmus and other Jewish poetical techniques. There's still a lot of work to do, of course, such as finding one of those maps that was anywhere near Joseph during production of the Book of Mormon. Since they are already pretty busy with such tasks, maybe some of you can help with a new item on the list of items to explain through plagiarism. After all, some of my best friends are critics of the Book of Mormon, and it's only fair that I help lift one of their burdens.

The annoying new problem comes from Stephen O. Smoot's recent publication at The Interpreter. In "The Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon" in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27 (2017): 155-180. In my opinion, Smoot seems to be taking a well-known weakness in Mormonism and turning it into a strength in light of modern scholarship. That weakness is our departure from the flavor of strict monotheism found in the post-biblical creeds and the concept that there is a heavenly "council of the gods" with multiple divine beings (e.g., sons and daughters of God who can be called "gods") presided over by the One God whom we worship, God the Eternal Father.  This belief is commonly used to not only criticize our theology but to actually exclude us from being Christians in spite of our firm belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and our Savior and Redeemer (and yes, we believe He is One with the Father, but differ from others in our understanding of how they are One).

After reading Smoot, I would say that in light of modern scholarship about what ancient Jews and Christians really believed, the slam-dunk argument for the absolute monotheism that dominates modern theology in mainstream Christian and Jewish belief has actually become rather feeble. Yes, of course there are verses in the Bible that decree God is one and there is no other god besides Yahweh. But considering what we know now of ancient practices and beliefs and the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek texts, even some Evangelical scholars now admit that modern assumptions may be overlooking a much more complicated and nuanced situation in the ancient scriptures. In fact, it is rather clear that ancient writers of scripture understood that there was a divine council of godlike beings. There is only one God whom we worship -- a relational and covenantal oneness -- but multiple non-demonic, non-fictional beings in the assembly of heaven and the council of the gods. Smooth documents this nicely from a wide array of respected modern scholars and also shows how well these ancient concepts fit into the Book of Mormon, providing another line of evidence pointing to its ancient origins. After a thorough but still preliminary review, he concludes that "the Book of Mormon very clearly portrays the divine council in such a way that indicates its close familiarity with the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israelite religion."

Ancient origins, or just another case of servile plagiarism from sources Joseph was familiar with? Here's where your help is needed. This line of alleged evidence is a little trickier than most since there were lots of preachers in Joseph's day where he could have picked up ideas for his fabrication, but as far as I can tell they sounded a lot like preachers today when it comes to their teachings on the nature of God: strict monotheism. When an LDS-favorable prooftext is mentioned, like Psalm 82:6 or Christ's citation of it in John 10:33-35 ("I said, ye are gods"), only the standard "strict monotheistic apologetics" view is given, namely, that "gods" only refers to mortal priests or rulers and definitely not anything else. Looking through sources that others have pointed to for Joseph's plagiarism of the Book of Mormon, like the sermons of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, or John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, I have not yet found clues for Joseph's plagiarism on topic of the divine council or any guidance to motive his departure from what everyone already believed on that topic -- a risky move if the goal is to win converts or sell books, I'd say.

Using Google Books, I can see some pre-1830 references to the term "divine council" such as a sermon from Elijah Waterman, but that reference refers to the Trinity, not to the Trinity collaborating with a real council of multiple divine beings. Pre-1830 uses of "council of the gods" seems limited to pagan lore. But surely there are some early sources out there that understood this concept since it can be found in the Bible, especially if one carefully considers the Hebrew which Joseph could not read at that time. Preferably they will be closer than some of the documents our critics have had to rely on so far, like a map on the order of 200 miles away. So can you help make life a little easy for the Book of Mormon plagiarism theorists and offer reasonable routes for Joseph's plagiarism of this aspect of the Book of Mormon? If your source also employs obvious chiasmus, describes Mesoamerican cement, lists a few ancient Jewish non-biblical names like Alma, and has a map or two of Arabia attached, then bonus points for you! Ideally, the source is in a language Joseph can read (English or hick English, I am told, but I'll accept Early Modern English). Bring out those big data tools or whatever else it takes and let us know what you find.

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

A Rookie Mistake in Forging an Ancient Document

Biblical Archaeology Review just shared an interesting story on a purportedly ancient Jewish document. As reported in October 2016, a papyrus mentioning the city of “Jerusalem,” “the king,” and “jars of wine” allegedly from around 600 BC was recently acquired through the antiquities market. Multiple scholars accepted the document as authentic, based in part upon carbon dating that confirmed the papyrus was ancient. Carbon dating has also been done on the ink, and though the results have not yet been published, apparently also attest to ancient origins.

However, there is good reason to remain skeptical, as Christopher Rollston explains in "The King of Judah, Jars of Wine, and the City of Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Papyrus and the Forged Words on It"  at Biblical Archaeology Review, one of my favorite resources. The article can be read for free, but I recommend joining me as a subscriber to their publications for just $35 a year.

Yes, the papyrus may be ancient and the ink may be ancient also, and the Hebrew may be plausible in general. But to a trained expert in Hebrew, one can detect a rookie mistake that may give away the forgery.

Modern forgeries have become much more sophisticated. Forgers have access to articles on the technical details of how previous forgeries have been detected. They have access to vast resources of knowledge to improve their work. In forging an ancient document, for example, they know how to buy ancient materials that will pass carbon dating tests. But Rollston notes that the Hebrew stumbles badly on a grammatical subtlety:
Within the Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic, is a linguistic construction called a “construct.” In its most basic form, a construct chain consists of the juxtaposition of two nouns (or nominals). So, for example, the phrase “Law of Moses” is a construct chain, and the phrase “Song of Songs” is as well. One of the most important features of a construct chain is the form of the first noun in the construct chain. That noun is said to be in the “construct state” (and the noun that follows it is said to be in the absolute state). And when that first noun is a masculine plural or dual plural, its construct form is quite different from its absolute form.
In the Jerusalem Papyrus inscription, there is paradigmatic construct chain, namely, “jars of wine.” We have that very same phrase, with the very same words, in the Hebrew Bible: “jars of wine” (1 Samuel 25:18; cf. also Job 38:37; Lamentations 4:2). But there is a subtle difference. In the Hebrew Bible, it is spelled nbly yyn. That’s the correct spelling. However, in the Jerusalem Papyrus, it is spelled “nblym yyn.” The problem with the spelling in the Jerusalem Papyrus is that the m is not supposed to be there. It’s not the sort of mistake that a native speaker of ancient Hebrew would make (and certainly not a scribe!). Significantly, within modern Hebrew, a circumlocution is often used to avoid construct forms (namely, the word šĕ), but in ancient Hebrew (in speech and in writing), the construct form was the way to do this. And, of course, the fact that we have the construct form of “jars of” (i.e., nbly) used multiple times in the Bible, including the very phrase “jars of wine,” demonstrates that this was certainly the way it should have been done in the Jerusalem Papyrus. But it wasn’t (and I find the logic of the authors of the editio princeps to account for this problem to be strained, special pleading). This is really quite a rookie mistake for the forger, and my strong suspicion is that the forger of this text is reading up right now on the proper construct forms in ancient Hebrew. I doubt that he will make that mistake again. There are also some problems with the script, some very fine anomalies. I may discuss those in a future publication…or I may not do so, in order to avoid educating the forgers. After all, for the past century and a half, forgers have been reading the things scholars write and learning more and more about how to avoid blunders in their forgeries.
Ultimately, the case against the Jerusalem Papyrus is pretty strong. To be sure, there are, and will continue to be, people who believe that it’s ancient. But for my money, I think that it’s of recent vintage. And the modern forger is pretty good at his craft, but not perfect. And, as I mentioned, I suspect that the forger of this inscription is studying up on construct forms right now.
And so, another classic case of forgery has been closed, exposed -- in spite of a skilled, even meticulous forger going to great lengths to obtain ancient materials -- by a rookie mistake in the text.

Then comes some further review in the comments, and now the story becomes even more interesting. Other readers explain that this mistake, the added m on the first noun, is actually characteristic of an early form of Hebrew in the relevant region, dating before the Masoretic text, and is a sign of authenticity, not a forgery. Indeed, were it a forgery, the forger would naturally use the phrase in question as it appears multiple times in the Bible. Why depart from that? If the commenters are correct, what appeared as a rookie flaw in the text that pointed to a modern forgery actually strengthens the case for ancient origins. A great example of how complicated it can be to evaluate an ancient document even when you have it before your eyes with all the tools of modern science and knowledge to evaluate it.

It's also a reminder of the story behind some of the classic rookie blunders in the Book of Mormon. I refer to blunders like the male name "Alma," so stupidly plagiarized from the modern woman's name in the Romance languages. Over a century after the Book of Mormon was published, Jewish scholars discovered that Alma indeed was a proper name for a Jewish man dating back to the 7th century B.C. Suddenly, a glaring weakness was a strength. Ditto for the horrific blunder, one of the top 10 arguments against the Book of Mormon in many publications, wherein according to Alma 7:10 Christ is said to be born in Jerusalem, or rather "at Jerusalem, the land of our forefathers." Earth to Joseph: everybody in your day knew that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. What were you thinking? It would be over a century again before we learned something not found in the KJV Bible, namely the area around Jerusalem was actually known anciently as the "land of Jerusalem" and that Bethlehem, according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, was explicitly stated to be in this land (in any case, Bethlehem being virtually a suburb of Jerusalem, for practical purposes those on the other side of the world can reasonably say that Christ was born there). It's exactly the kind of mistake that even a clumsy forger would not make.

There are many more rookie mistakes which tend to get more interesting when examined more closely. Things like crossing the Arabian Peninsula to get to Bountiful -- totally ridiculous until field work confirmed the plausibility of many details and even provided archaeological confirmation of the name Nahom, in the right place and time, and at least one excellent candidate for Bountiful in just the right place (recent questionable attempts to undermine this evidence are especially interesting).

What's your favorite former Book of Mormon blunder?