(cont. -- part 3)

While the 1st to 3rd centuries AD would at first probably strike many scholars as too late a date to find the paleo-Hebrew reported as the main script of the Jordanian plates, the DSSs prove the script lasted up till the dawn of the Roman period, & given Aramaic Hebrew’s specific use as a ink-based script, it’d be plausible that the paleo-script could’ve lasted even longer for the specialized purpose of engraved media, such as the plates (a task the paleo script is specifically designed for).

On a final note, I must also give two reasons for viewing so-called metal plates from antiquity with suspicion: not only would a metal text be a convenient/practical way for believing an ancient text survived from antiquity all the way to the present, but it's also a natural medium of choice for an antiquities forger, as metal is a material that can’t be easily & conveniently overturned by chemical chronology tests. Then, there's of course the loaded issues brought to the table by the Joseph Smith story & the Book of Mormon.

As it goes, I won’t be one bit surprised if these Jordanian plates prove fake, but I can also be patient enough for the academic world to produce its official publications before I join in with Thonemann or the BBC’s unequivocal censure. My hopes will hold out at least long enough to hear out an academic consensus on the matter. Anything less is simply unscientific. At this point in time, few if any scholars have unrestrained access to these artifacts.

As for your modern play with forgery here, Aaron. Jolly Good show, man! Your Donald Ocha got me pretty good. And your final quote, while cruel, put a smile on my face.

mutu.

(cont. -- part 2)

Being selected as a scribe in antiquity generally had more to do with one's artistic ability (for penmanship's sake), rather than one's literary potential. But in the case of the Greek-inscribed Jordanian Plate in question, neither the confusion of the alphas & lambdas, nor the incomplete sentence of the text, is enough, I think, to solidly verify the illiteracy of the unknown scribe. At least when we consider the incompleteness & limitations of the media that Thonemann had to work with.

On further review, the mixing up of the lambda & alpha is a curious “slight of hand,” IMO. As Greek majuscules, the two letters are obviously close, but not so close that I’d expect them to be confused by someone relying on a modern print-text. If someone were following an ancient, handwritten text there’d be more likelihood for this error. In addition, this is just the sort of error that would force me, if I were a textual scholar, to want something a bit more than mere photographs before I begin making strong censures, & staking my name & credentials on them. Given the limitations of his observable media, how is Thonemann so certain that there is, in fact, no distinction between the lambdas & alphas in the questioned text? Many writers in modern & ancient times have developed idiosyncratic systems for distinguishing between letters. In my mongrelized cursive system (don’t we all mongrelize it to a degree?), there is often little to no distinction between my “a”, “o” & “e”, nor between my “n” & “m” & often my “r”. Yet I can read my own writing just fine -- & as far as male handwriting goes, I’m really not that bad a read for others either. The fact that Thonemann tracked down the unknown scribe’s source-text certainly suggests that he had no problem reading it. Furthermore, if all the letters in question appeared as alphas I’d say that Thonemann’s textual case is strong, but the fact they appear to all be the simpler, one-or-two-stroke lambda suggests to me that we may have nothing more than an efficient scribe on our hand; not necessarily an illiterate or a modern one.

Granted, I’m going on just what’s reported in the article here, which itself may be a very incomplete view of Thonemann’s overall analytical argument. Like I said, he may indeed have very good reasons for believing the questioned text is indeed a modern forgery—some of which may be too technical for the press, & beyond my training to comprehend. As a Mormon, I’ll admit I have a bit more cause to be cautious than the average person given my natural reasons for excitement in such a discovery. But besides the literary/historical information it seemed poised to deliver of ancient Christianity, my initial excitement in this specific discovery was that it seemed to my eyes to be unlikely as a plate-forgery produced with Mormonism in mind (like the numerous “metal plate” finds that have been disproven over the years from the States). While it’s true that these Jordanian plates are in the form of a ringed codex like Joseph Smith’s reported golden plates, on the other hand, they are much smaller, & made of lead rather than gold. In contrast, the two other known ringed, metal codices from antiquity (the Etruscan plates & the Golden Achamaenid Book) are of more comparable size to Smith's claimed plate, & like them, are made of gold (the 1st pure, the 2nd an alloy), so I figured smaller lead plates were less likely to come from a forger with the partial objective of either substantiating or ridiculing the Mormon faith (or likely both). Such a forger would have antiquity's license in getting his craft to match Smith's golden plates more closely than these Jordanian plates do. While lead plates for scribal purposes are attested several times over from Classical times, none that we know of formed codices. But I think it’s worth mentioning that the two ancient metal codices that do exist have established a historical platform for these Jordanian plates to be taken seriously, quite independent of Mormonism. If there are forgers involved, it’s very likely that both they & the expert analysts involved had no thought at all to the significance this would hold for the Mormon faith. With the known ancient metal codices coming from different times & regions (6-7th century BC Bulgaria versus 4-5th century BC Iran) & from very different language/cultural groups (Etruscan versus Cuneiform-Persian), there’s solid proof that the use of metal, ringed codices was widely known among elite people in antiquity, & it certainly wouldn’t be an outrageous occurrence, therefore, to find such technology & such a scribal skill in the early Christian Levant.

For a taste of these two, ancient metal codices: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2939362.stm ; http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2005/October2005/11...

(part 1)

All we have here are a few voices calling for the Jordanian Plates' obvious falsity--& even the one Oxford scholar mentioned (Peter Thonemann) admits that his preemptive denouncement is based off select photographs only. His conclusion: it's so obviously a fake that I need no more evidence to stake my credentials on that conclusion. Now I've seen the picture of the Greek-inscribed plate this scholar refers to, & don't have the technical knowledge or training to even begin to challenge his claims, but I do have enough sense & experience with scientific inquiry to know the academic book on this whole scenario is hardly closed. Dr. Thonemann may indeed have training & senses enough to make so bold a claim as he did despite the limited resources available to him, but I have enough training in textual criticism to know that one of his observations--at least at face value--cannot be ruled as a slamdunk for forgery. As reported by the press, one of Thonemann's criticisms was that the scribe copied a grammatically incomplete line of ancient Greek available from modern publications, and that he also confused the multiple alphas & the lambdas of the text, & therefore obviously didn't know written Greek. First of all, the existence of illiterate scribes in antiquity has not only been well established since the 19th century, it's a phenomenon that's not all too uncommon, particularly in Classical times when literature was being mass-produced at unprecedented levels, yet formal schooling still remained a thing of the elite (& the occasional genius). It's also been argued by some (Ehrman being one) that the documented textual sloppiness of the early Christian community strongly suggests that it didn't have an optimal amount of literate professionals to cover its literary needs (which should not surprise anyone given the New Testament's record that the leadership was often conducted by widely-circulated & copied epistles, but that the general membership was quite poor (& therefore likely illiterate)). It'd therefore be of no surprise for an illiterate scribe to pop up in the early Christian community.

(continued -- part 7)

But the real kicker is that the two utterly terrible passages that I have just quoted come from an infamous letter, “On the Jews and their Lies,” written by none other than our beloved father of Protestantism, Martin Luther. And if you think such merciless rhetoric played no part in Germany’s 20th century anti-Semitic atrocities, then I think you need to ask yourself why the Jews of today are so gracious in honoring those brave souls specifically within Germany’s Catholic community who put their lives on the line to shelter & hide their people through those dark years of WWII. While the Nazis certainly weren’t Protestant, they followed in an Anti-Semitic tradition that was strongly centered in Germany’s Protestant community. Martin Luther himself being the chief cornerstone of that tradition.

And with that sober truth, I make my end. If you're in the business of pointing out religious skeletons in someone elses's closet, I think you'd better 1st check your own closet. Truth is, the Mormon community has not shared in the Antisemitism that's been typical & pervasive in Protestant America's long history. Most notably among America's conservative Protestants. However much you wish to stretch & make it seem otherwise, Sharon, it just is not the case. It's just another in a long line of literary concoctions from your own mind & hand. You may not like that acusation, but this deceptive literary commitment of yours has at its heart an ethnic polemic that belongs to the same spirit of persecution that has haunted ethnic minorities for ages, most noticeably the Jews. And in that vein I agree totally with the statement from Mr. Paredes's Jewish associate. If the shoe fits...

mutu.

(continued -- part 6)

Note the blatantly religious rationale for this pure hatred -- a hatred that relishes in an all-out persecution of the Jews not at all dissimilar to what we find three centuries later by the Nazis. Sharon, just as you find it reprehensible that Mormon persecution be mentioned in the same breath with Jewish persecution, I want you to try this on for size: your claimed “Antisemitic” rhetoric by Brigham Young shouldn’t rightly carry that designation when compared with these above statements; I certainly hope you can agree. Brigham didn’t seek to injure any Jews, & his language never called for his Mormon people to so much as verbally accost Jews. His call was simply for Mormon missionaries to leave them alone as they were entirely hardened against Christianity (& in fairness, Brigham was likely entirely ignorant of why the European Jews had good historic reason to be so abrasive towards Christian proselytizers like the Mormon missionaries).

(continued -- part 5)

7th, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews & Jewesses & letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow . . . . For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim (Gentiles) toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting & farting . . . ."
(Michael; Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, & the Holocaust; Palgrave: 2006; p. 114)

Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter & feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified by them, & to suffer every evil at their hands—these venomous serpents & the devil’s children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord & of us all. & if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind & worship this holy object. . . . Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy—for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews—in the eternal fire of hell.
(Ibid; p. 113)

(continued -- part 4)

3rd, I advise that all their prayer books & Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, & blasphemy are to be taught, be taken from them. . . . also the entire Bible. . . . [The Jews] be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, & to teach publicly among us & in our country. . . . [T]hey be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. . . . We must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy of uttering the name of God within our hearing. He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him & chase him away. & may no one be merciful & kind in this regard.
4th, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life & limb. . . .
5th, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. . . .
6th, I advise that usury be prohibited to them & that all case & treasure . . . be taken from them & put aside for safekeeping. . . .Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should [receive a cash bonus].

(continued -- part 3)

In closing, Sharon, I’d like to return to your reference of the initial Nazi crackdown on the Jews, the Kristallnacht. While the Nazi death camps were a new kind of ethnic persecution in Germany’s long history, the Kristallnacht represented nothing new for the Jewish people. Throughout the middle ages violent, destructive uprisings were periodically stirred up against Germany’s Jews. About the only thing unique to the Kristallnacht is that the uprising rhetoric wasn’t religious in nature. To illustrate, I point to a 16th century call for a similar destructive uprising against the Jews. A call that was issued in the form of an official pamphlet, not by a government official, but by a very popular clergyman:

"1st, . . . set fire to their synagogues or schools & . . . bury & cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord & of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians.
2nd, I advise that their houses also be razed & destroyed.

The Stokes family needs to be a little less sensitive.

While I don't know the details of this case, the Presbyterian Church did nothing outlandish here. It's probably not how I would've acted, but it's hardly "audacious" that the personnel in a church-sponsored scout troop decline leadership to people who they think are ideologically contrary to their faith, yet still welcome their children as scouts within the troop.

Maybe someone did something mean-spirited to incite the Stokes in speaking out, but personally I think this sort of stuff in the media is sad, whatever the excuse. It only hardens people all the more in their petty fears & bigotries.

mutu.

Well, Rick, that's because you don't believe that God spoke through Joseph Smith. While I'll admit that the Bible nowhere in which I'm aware commands polygamy -- as it was in the revelations to Joseph & later in the preaching of Brigham -- neither does it proscribe polygamy or treat it in a way that we should categorically denounce as "unchristian" or "unbiblical" post-biblical revelations that claim the Lord to reinstate it.

The real issue here has nothing to do with polygamy, but in the sanctity of post-biblical revelation. That the Lord would call and speak through prophets in the modern era as he did in biblical times.

As for there being denial of JS's involvement with polygamy, you're simply misinformed. The only ones who denied JS's involvement with polygamy were the RLDS (Missouri based) Church, though nowadays they have "repented" of their century-plus denial. While many Mormons & even some of the LDS leadership show signs of being ashamed of their polygamous history in ways that fairly invite criticism from insiders & outsiders alike, they have never been in denial of JS's polygamy. The general secrecy of polygamy was limited to the Nauvoo period & for several years after (for all except Joseph, the 12 apostles, & their wives & select others), & it became openly acknowledged in 1853, I believe -- & soon after strongly admonished & even commanded of the general church membership (though no more than a third of the eligible male members seemed to have followed it even in its most popular era). Most men in those early western settlements never had the means to afford or reasonably attract more than one wife. Their lives for the most part were very hard & simple. But for those who could establish polygamous households, they proved incredibly self-efficient for the isolated life on the very difficult & infertile frontier. Even many non-LDS historians acknowledge that polygamy played an important role in the Mormon's seemingly impossible task of pioneering the valleys of the Rockies.

For many of us believing Mormons, we see the command to practice polygamy as we do all the prophetic commands of the Bible -- it provided a way of blessing to the faithful.

Sincerely, mutu.