|
|
| (19 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}} | + | {{Main Page}} |
| − | {{draft}}
| + | {{H2 |
| − | {{BoMPortal}}
| + | |L=Book of Mormon/Language/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky |
| − | =={{Criticism label}}== | + | |H=The use of Egyptian on the plates of the Book of Mormon |
| − | Critics claim that Egyptian would be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon:
| + | |S= |
| | + | |L1=Question: Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon? |
| | + | }} |
| | + | <onlyinclude> |
| | + | {{:Question: Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon?}} |
| | + | </onlyinclude> |
| | | | |
| − | :[Egyptian would take] "perhaps four times, or even more than four times, as much room as the English, and it is quite certain that, as the Book of Mormon is 600 pages thick, it would take at least a ''thousand'' plates to hold in the Egyptian language, what is there written." {{io}}{{ref|critic.1}} | + | {{To learn more box:Book of Mormon: anachronisms: reformed Egyptian}} |
| − | {{CriticalSources}}
| |
| | | | |
| − | =={{Response label}}==
| |
| − | Unfortunately for the critics, knowledge of Egyptian was in its infancy. Critics of the era knew little about Egyptian, because ''no one'' knew very much. The critics were probably thinking of Egyptian hieroglyphics. However, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that reformed Egyptian had been adapted by them for concise writing. As discussed in the [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian|main article]], variant Old World forms of Egyptian (such as Demotic) were quite compact, and well-suited for writing with space constraints.
| |
| | | | |
| − | =={{Conclusion label}}==
| + | {{Critical sources box:Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Language/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky/CriticalSources}} |
| − | | + | {{endnotes sources}} |
| − | One hears little of this critique today; linguistic "fact" has caught up with the Book of Mormon, the critics have largely abandoned this approach.
| |
| − | | |
| − | =={{Endnotes label}}==
| |
| − | #{{note|critic.1}} {{CriticalWork:A Little Talk:1840|pages=1–8}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Best articles to read next==
| |
| − | {{LearnMore}}
| |
| − | #{{FR-19-1-6}}<!-- Hamblin - Reformed-->
| |
| − | #{{FR-5-1-16}}<!-- Hamblin - Review of Tanners-->
| |
| − | #{{JBMS-5-2-7}} <!-- Tvetdnes -->
| |
| − | | |
| − | =={{Further reading label}}==
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
| |
| − | {{Book of Mormon anachronisms}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==={{FAIR web site label}}===
| |
| − | *{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai091.html|topic=Reformed Egyptian}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==={{External links label}}===
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==={{Printed material label}}===
| |
| − | *Carl H. Jones, "The 'Anthon Transcript' and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals," ''Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historical Archaeology'' 122 (September 1970): 1–8.
| |
| − | *{{Nibley7_1|start=149}}{{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=274530}}
| |
| | | | |
| | + | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> |
| | [[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Reformiertes_%C3%84gyptisch]] | | [[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Reformiertes_%C3%84gyptisch]] |
| | + | [[en:Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Language/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky]] |
| | [[es:Anacronismos del Libro de Mormón: Egipcio reformado]] | | [[es:Anacronismos del Libro de Mormón: Egipcio reformado]] |
| − | | + | [[pt:O Livro de Mórmon/Anacronismos/Egípcio reformado/Egípcio demasiado volumoso]] |
| − | [[fr:Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky]] | |
The use of Egyptian on the plates of the Book of Mormon
Jump to details:
Question: Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon?
The Book of Mormon makes it clear that reformed Egyptian had been adapted by them for concise writing
It has been claimed that Egyptian would be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon:
[Egyptian would take] "perhaps four times, or even more than four times, as much room as the English, and it is quite certain that, as the Book of Mormon is 600 pages thick, it would take at least a thousand plates to hold in the Egyptian language, what is there written." (italics in original)[1]
One hears little of this critique today; linguistic "fact" has caught up with the Book of Mormon, the critics have largely abandoned this approach.
At the time that this assertion was made, knowledge of Egyptian was in its infancy. Critics of the era knew little about Egyptian, because no one knew very much. The critics were probably thinking of Egyptian hieroglyphics. However, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that reformed Egyptian had been adapted by them for concise writing. As discussed in the main article, variant Old World forms of Egyptian (such as Demotic) were quite compact, and well-suited for writing with space constraints.
Learn more about "Reformed Egyptian" in context of the Book of Mormon
FAIR links |
|
Online |
- John Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon (Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 79-83, 94-99. [51–120] link
- John Gee, "Two Notes on Egyptian Script," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/1 (1996). [162–176] link
- William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007). [31–35] link
- William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," criticism paper (Provo, Utah: The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1995), 8 pp.
- William J. Hamblin, "Review of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon by Jerald and Sandra Tanner," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5/1 (1993). [250–272] link
- Stephen D. Ricks and John A. Tvedtnes, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996). [156–163] link
- Ariel Crowley, "The Anthon Transcript," Improvement Era, 45:1 (January 1942) and 45:2 (February 1942), 45:3 (March 1942). *
- John Gee and John A. Tvedtnes, "Ancient Manuscripts Fit Book of Mormon Pattern," Insights 19:2 (February 1999): 4–5.off-site
- William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," FARMS Featured Papers, 1995. off-site
- William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 31–35. off-site wiki
- William J. Hamblin, "Review of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon by Jerald and Sandra Tanner," FARMS Review of Books 5/1 (1993): 250–272. off-site
- Paul Y. Hoskisson and Michael D. Rhodes, "Ancient Semitic in Egyptian Pyramids?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 16/1 (2007). [74–75] link
- Stephen D. Ricks, "Language and Script in the Book of Mormon," Insights 12 no. 3 (March 1992), 2. direct off-site
- John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Part 2," Ensign (October 1984): 17.off-site
- Stephen D. Ricks and John A. Tvedtnes, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996). [156–163] link
- John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, "One Small Step (Review of: The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement)," FARMS Review 15/1 (2003): 147–199. off-site
For parallels between Joseph Smith's "Anthon Transcript" characters and Egyptian writing see:
- Ariel Crowley, "The Anthon Transcript," Improvement Era, vol. 45, no. 1, January 1842; ibid., vol. 45, no. 2, February 1942; ibid., vol. 45, no. 3, March 1942.
|
Video |
|
Print |
- Carl H. Jones, "The 'Anthon Transcript' and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals," Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historical Archaeology, no. 122, September 1970, 1-8.
- Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), 149. ISBN 0875791395.GL direct link
- John L. Sorenson, "Digging into the Book of Mormon: Part 2," Ensign, October 1984, 17
|
Navigators |
|
Sub categories |
|
Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources |
- A Little Talk, Between John Robinson and his Master about Mormonism, Shewing its Origin, Absurdity, and Impiety (Bedford: W. White, 1840), 1–8. off-site
- Samuel Haining, Mormonism Weighed in the Balances of the Sanctuary, and Found Wanting: The Substance of Four Lectures (Douglas: Robert Fargher, 1840), 22. off-site
- La Roy Sunderland, “Mormonism,” Zion’s Watchman (New York) 3, no. 9 (3 March 1838): 34, citing Howe. off-site
|
Notes
- ↑ A Little Talk, Between John Robinson and his Master about Mormonism, Shewing its Origin, Absurdity, and Impiety (Bedford: W. White, 1840), 1–8. off-site
