Let's try again!!!
<SNIP>
Caractors. The title of the above book, "which may be* the original paper carried by Martin Harris to show Charles Anthon," according to Mormon scholars. ("What Did Charles Anthon Really Say," Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 76) Of course no sealed or unsealed gold plates were delivered to the learned Anthon nor anything else that might in any sense be called a book (or even a readable excerpt from a book) so this whole fabrication is more than faintly ridiculous.
Caractors. The title of the above book, "which may be* the original paper carried by Martin Harris to show Charles Anthon," according to Mormon scholars. ("What Did Charles Anthon Really Say," Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 76) Of course no sealed or unsealed gold plates were delivered to the learned Anthon nor anything else that might in any sense be called a book (or even a readable excerpt from a book) so this whole fabrication is more than faintly ridiculous.
*"may be..." Take note of the apologists' sorry stab at leaving themselves a minimally loopy loophole here. They had to be aware (they're scholars) of the unsettling fact that the "Caractors" are amateurishly faked and foolishly fraudulent. Truly unsettling is the fact that Latter-day Saints are thought to have high standards of probity and honesty to uphold. Read this, from p. 75 of the aforementioned publication:
Caught on the horns of a dilemma, and having unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 29, Anthon took the easy way out: He tore up the statement he had innocently given to Harris and denied Harris's story. Today Anthon's cover-up appears more blatant than ever.
Aha! All doubt has been removed. No buts or maybes about it! These thankfully preserved "Caractors" definitely are what Anthon saw and he truly believed, as do these intelligent apologists, that the "Caractors" were exactly what he supposedly claimed. Has a blatant pretense of scholarship stumbled all over itself here?
Think about it. The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story. No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim... only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.
Think about it. The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story. No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim... only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.
Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."
Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quickly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up with a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!
*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.
Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)
Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:
What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.