David P. Wright on Charles Anthon's Recollection of his meeting with Martin Harris

For those who don’t know about the issue of Martin Harris and his meeting with Charles Anthon, the FAIRMormon wiki has a good summary here.

David Wright, a long-time critic of the Book of Mormon, made the following comment in an article that was overall critical of the Book of Mormon, “Joseph Smith’s Interpretation of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 31/4, pp.181-206. However, on page 201 n. 47, he makes the following comments that are favourable towards Martin Harris’ recollection of events:

Anthon is contradictory on this matter; in the Howe letter he denies giving a written report, but in the Coit letter he says he gave Harris a document. In the latter letter he says that he gave the note to Harris to warn him and others of the fraud, but interestingly when he recalls what he wrote, it had a much more limited scope: "The import of what I wrote was, and far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper [i.e., the transcript] appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them." This is quite reserved if Anthon considered the matter bunk from the beginning. It may indicate that he expressed a more positive opinion before he found out about the mystical aspects of the BM.

Notes on Greek names in the Book of Mormon

A common criticism of the Book of Mormon is that it contains Greek terms and names that are anachronistic, and as a result, shows that the volume is ahistorical. This criticism ignores a number of things, not the least is that the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation; therefore, it stands to reason that the language into which the Book of Mormon has been rendered is not that from which, according to its own claims, it was translated.

A parallel would be the argument that the word “adieu” in the Jacob 7:27 “proves” the Book of Mormon to be ahistorical as French was not in existence during the time Jacob lived. However, this argument ignores a number of things, such as (1) adieu was adopted into the English language and was in use during the time of Joseph Smith as seen, for instance, in Webster’s 1828 dictionary; (2) other translated works, such as Schaff’s translation of Patristic writings, contain “adieu” (e.g. Iranaeus, Against Heresies, 4.8.3; Theophilus to Autolycus, 2.1; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 10).

To understand the silliness of this argument, think of a critic of the Bible claiming that the KJV (or any other translation) is false as “in the beginning” are English terms, and English did not exist when Gen 1:1 was written.

Here are some notes on some of these Greek terms:

Alpha and Omega:

“Alpha and Omega” in the Book of Mormon is an accepted English expression and we may view it as the best way of conveying the meaning of a certain Nephite expression to English readers. The purpose of a translation is to transmit meanings, not words. “Alpha and Omega” makes more sense and is more recognizable to English readers than the Hebrew equivalent, “Aleph and Tau.”

Antipas and Antipus:

Surprisingly, the names “Antipas” and “Antipus” seem to be derived from Egyptian. Budge has a place name entry Anttepus (Budge, Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, volume 2). It is interesting to note that there are spellings in Egyptian that very much sound like those in the Book of Mormon when the Book of Mormon was said to be derived from a “reformed Egyptian” script.

June 2026 Update: A cognitively limited Protestant challenged this recently. Instead of trying to track down a copy (whether in print or digital) of Budge, he asked Grok (lazy learner, I know). Here is the source from vol. 2 page 960 of Budge:

Archeantus:

In numerous Afro-Asiatic (and especially Northwest Semitic) languages there exist the “arch” preposition (or a similar sounding word) without being derived from the Greek version. Examples include the Egyptian names Arqchech, Ark-t and Arkhekh, etc, so it is obvious that the “arch” phoneme is not absent from Egyptian and might be expected in names in the Book of Mormon.

Jonas:

This simply reflects KJV NT influence on Joseph Smith at a translation level. Instead of transliterating the Hebrew  יוֹנָה as yonah, the more familiar Jonas was used.

The Bible often uses Greek names in the Old Testament for reasons of translation style. Examples include Moses, Solomon, Samuel, Job and Eve. Their Hebrew names are Mosheh, Shlomoh, Shmuel, ‘Eyob and Chawwah respectively. We can say the same thing about what Joseph Smith did.

Timothy:

The name "Timothy" means one who honours/fears God. In Greek, it is rendered Τιμόθεος. It also appears in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 19:4).

Assuming that Timothy (Τιμόθεος) is Joseph Smith's rendering of the name, the underlying name on the plates could be something like הדריה or הדריהו or something like that, such as הדראל. The Hebrew equivalent for Timothy (in a hypocoristic form [i.e., without the "divine name" element]) (הדר) appears at Genesis 36:39 as the name of the king of Pau:

And Baalhanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.

So the Semitic equivalent of "Timothy" is attested in the book of Genesis. It is also be attested in 1 Chron 1:50:

And when Baalhanan was dead, Hadad reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.

"Hadad" (‎הֲדַד) in 1 Chron 1:50 is the same person as "Hadar" (‎הֲדַר) in Gen 36:39. It appears that later scribes of the Hebrew Bible may have made the common mistake of confusing resh (ר) with daleth (ד). That this may just be the case can be seen in the LXX of 1 Chron 1:50 which renders the name as Αραδ Arad, not Αδαδ Adad.

"Timothy" is not an anachronism in the Book of Mormon.

Ezias:

The Tanners and Richard Packham have made the argument that this name is Greek in etymology, coming from “Esaias”; however, the truth is that this name is not a derivative of the Greek adaptation for Isaiah. This name can be found 1 Esdras 8:2 in the KJV apocrypha. It refers instead to the Hebrew “Uzzi.” For reasons of translation style (see my note under the discussion of “Timothy”) Joseph employed “Ezias.”

Angola:

In my opinion, critics such as Packham grasps at straws in his effort to show that the etymology for “Angola” in the Book of Mormon is from the Greek for angel (“angolos”). There is too great a difference in relation to spelling and pronunciation for this argument to be taken seriously.

Judea:

The same form of this name occurs in the KJV Old Testament at Ezra 5:8. It is a word (Yehud) that is derived from the tribe of Judah. If the KJV translators can do it, why can’t Joseph Smith?

Zenos:

The name “Zenos” is said by many Latter-day Saint scholars to be derived from the Hebrew name “Enos” and need not have any Greek roots.

Lachoneus:

Many critics allege that the name ‘Lachoneus’ is a Greek name derived from the Greek Lakonios meaning “Laconian.” At first blush, it does seem like a romanized version of a Greek gentillic. But one must go beyond the gentillic to the underlying etymology. Take, for example, the Semitic expression “Kn’ny.” On the surface, it appears to be “Canaanite” but also could mean “westerner” or merchant” based on etymology.


While it could be a Greek word, it could also be a corruption of an Egyptian phrase rekh nesu ("l" and "r" being interchangeable in Egyptian and other languages, including Hebrew), referring to a "royal kinsman" as a formal title.

One final note—it should be kept in mind that non-LDS scholars disagree with Richard Packham and other critics who claim there was no Greek contact with the ANE until after the time of Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem. The Ugaritic texts, dating from 1350-1150 BC, contain Greek names in their onomasticon. Furthermore, there were contacts through trade between Greece and the ANE prior to the time of Lehi et al. For a discussion of some of the issues, I would suggest the following:

Cyrus Gordon, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations

Eric H. Cline, 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed

Robin Lane Fox, Travelling Heroes: In the Epic Age of Homer

D&C 20:1 and the “[coming] in the flesh” of Jesus Christ

Since the time of James Talmage and his 1915 book, Jesus the Christ, many Latter-day Saints hold, uncritically, to the idea that Jesus was born on April 6, 1 BC, interpreting D&C 20:1 to be a verse specifying the date of Christ’s birth (it appears that BH Roberts in his Outlines of Ecclesiastical History [1893] first proposed this thesis, but the belief became more “mainstream” with the publication of Talmage’s work). There are numerous problems with such, not the least is that verse 1 is not original to this section, instead being a later insertion into D&C 20 by John Whitmer, and, furthermore, no Latter-day Saint interpreted this verse to be about the date of Christ’s birth. For instance, Orson Pratt, a close friend and associate of the Prophet Joseph Smith, once argued that Jesus was born on 11 April, 4 BC, not 6^th April 1 AD (Journal of Discourses 15:261). Such a reading, post-Talmage, has been rejected by the likes of Bruce R. McConkie and James R. Clarke, as well as the vast majority of LDS scholars and apologists who have commented on this verse.

Furthermore, allowing for an absolutist reading of this verse (which I do not recommend for any text; such is eisegesis), one would have to argue that this verse is speaking, not of the birth of Jesus, but his conception, or at least, ensoulment (where is debate in LDS circles as to when this happens), as it speaks of the “coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the flesh” (emphasis added), that is, his taking on humanity (cf. Luke 1:31-35; John 1:1-18; 1 John 4:1-3).

A good article summing up the issues vis-à-vis the date of Christ’s birth is that of John A. Tvedtnes, one of my favourite LDS scholars, “When was Christ Born?”

Bo Reicke on James 1:5

Wisdom is necessary in dealing with trials and afflictions; it may be obtained through prayer to God, vs. 5a. With this divine wisdom the readers will be above to endure suffering with patience and to escape ultimate danger and temptation . . . It is likely that James had such sources of “wisdom” [i.e., books] in mind when he advises his readers to strive after the true wisdom that comes only through prayer

Bo Reicke, The Epistles of Peter, James, and Jude (Anchor Bible 37; Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 14, square bracket added by me.

Soteriological Insights from selected texts from 1-3 John and Revelation

In the past few days, I read 1-3 John and am making a start through Revelation. I share here some brief notes on a few texts that stood out for me in my readings:

1 John 2:1-2

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not, and if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

In this pericope, John is addressing believers whose sins have been forgiven; however, he also informs them that if and when they do sin, they can have every confidence that their then-future sins will be forgiven due to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, Jesus is said to be a present “atoning sacrifice” (Greek: ιλασμος), as John uses the present tense (εστιν). In many theologies, when one is justified, not only are one’s past and then-present sins forgiven, but also one’s then-future sins, and any repentance after one’s justification is only “fatherly discipline” but nothing to do with one’s fellowship with God. However, this pericope provides biblical proof that justification does not result in a “blanket forgiveness”; instead, one’s then-future sins are only forgiven when one repents and seeks forgiveness through Jesus Christ, who John refers to as a paracelte. This is paralleled in 2 Pet 1:9 which speaks of one’s past sins being forgiven, but not one’s then-future sins:

But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged (καθαρισμος [to cleanse from impurity]) from his old sins.

1 John 2:19

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Some proponents of eternal security and its variations argue that this verse proves that all those who leave the faith were superficial converts who were not truly justified and true believers. The problem with this is that it isolates a singular verse from the totality of Scripture, and results in much scripture-wrenching of texts such as Heb 6:4-6 and 10;26, for instance, that shows that regenerated individuals can lose their salvation and that Christ’s sacrifice is no longer effective in their lives.

In reality, “they” refers to the heretical docetists whose theology John’s gospel and epistles refutes. This is an early Christological heresy that stated that while Christ appeared to have been mortal, in reality, he only appeared to have been mortal; in reality, he was not truly mortal (e.g. he did not suffer; did not die). John warns against such a theology and condemns it in texts such as the following:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world. (1 John 4:1-3)

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. That is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

In this verse, John is referring to a specific group of individuals within the community he is addressing; for Calvinists and other proponents of a variation of eternal security to cite this as biblical “proof” that no true believer can fall away and lose their salvation is eisegesis, ignoring both the immediate context of John’s epistles and the entirety of the biblical revelation.

For a useful study of John’s anti-doceticism, see the study by Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School.

Rev 2:5

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

In this verse, Jesus commands one to repent, but such repentance is not presented in rather superficial terms; instead, Christ commands one to “do” (ποιεω) the “first works” or else the church of Ephesus’ “candlestick” will be removed.

The NET Bible's note on this verse captures the meaning of this verse both soundly and succinctly:

The repeated mention of repenting at the end of the verse suggests that the intervening material ("do the deeds you did at first") specifies how the repentance is to be demonstrated.

This verse refutes the heresy in some (not all) Protestant circles, antinomianism, where repentance is either optional or where the call to repentance is seen as a “work” and perverts the true gospel of “free grace.” Furthermore, this verse is important as one will often hear from Evangelicals and others that the Latter-day Saint view of repentance is unbiblical, and yet this one verse captures the essence of what Latter-day Saint theology states about repentance—it is not merely confessing that one is repentant, but also incorporates our actions where necessary, such as repartition (cf. Alma 24:11).

Rev 2:20-21

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess to each and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not. (Emphasis added)

In verse 21, Jesus says that he gave Jezebel, the false prophetess, a space of time (χρονος) to repent, and His giving her this time is presented as a purpose clause in the Greek (a ινα-clause). However, this notwithstanding, and Christ’s obvious desire for her to repent, she did not.

While not a commonly cited verse, this does show a couple of things that runs antithetical to much of Reformed soteriology, such as (1) Christ wants all people, not simply people from all ethnic categories, to be saved; (2) that humans have a free-will to accept or reject the gospel and (3) as a result of the previous points, Christ’s sacrifice was for all people, not simply those God actively predestined before the creation of the world. To claim otherwise, one will be forced to engage in much eisegesis and special-pleading to read this pericope in light of TULIP.

Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Part 10: Isaiah 8:20

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Only by reading this verse in isolation to the context can one possibly claim that it can be used to teach sola scriptura. In vv.16-19, we see that "Law and Testimony" refer to any divine mandate given by God to His people:

Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? Fr the living to the dead?

In context, Isaiah is not speaking of the formal sufficiency of Scripture, but God's revelations versus that of the occult.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the word "testimony" (Hebrew:  תְּעוּדָה) and its cognate terms does not always refer to inscripturated revelation. תְּעוּדָה only appears three times in the OT. In Ruth 4:7, we read:

Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: this was a testimony in Israel.

According to Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (5 vols; Brill, 1994-2000), perhaps the leading lexicon of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, we have the following definition of תּוֹרָה as it appears in Isa 8:20:

—2. instruction, decision from different sources, or rather from different authorities: a) from Zion Is 2₃ Mi 4₂.

—b) from the prophets Is 1₁₀ (on which see Wildberger BK 10: 36, cf. also under 4b), 5₂₄ 8₁₆.₂₀ parallel with ) תְּעוּדָהon vs.₁₆ cf. TOB note(, 30₉ Zech 7₁₂.

—c) from the servant of God Is 42₄, cf. 42₂₁ (gloss), 51₄, see Westermann Jes. (ATD 19) 190ff.

—d) from a judicial or priestly official Dt 17₁₁, see THAT 2: 1035f.

In addition, it would be appropriate to examine all the other instances of תּוֹרָה as found in the book of Isaiah (the following verses are from the 1985 JPS Tanakh):

Hear the word of the Lord, You chieftains of Sodom; Give ear to our God's instruction (תּוֹרָה), You folk of Gomorrah! (Isa 1:10)

And the many peoples shall go and say: "Come, Let us go up to the Mount of the Lord, To the House of the God of Jacob, That He may instruct us in His ways and that we may walk in His paths." For instruction (תּוֹרָה) shall come forth from Zion, The Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (Isa 2:3)

Assuredly, as straw is consumed by a tongue of fire and hay shrivels as it burns, their stock shall become like rot, and their buds shall blow away like dust. For they have rejected the instruction (תּוֹרָה) of the Lord of Hosts, spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel. (Isa 5:24)

Bind up the message, seal the instruction (תּוֹרָה) with My disciples. (Isa 8:16)

For the earth was defiled under its inhabitants; because they transgressed teachings (תּוֹרָה), violated laws, broke the ancient covenant. (Isa 24:5)

For it is a rebellious people, faithless children, children who refused to heed the instruction (תּוֹרָה) of the Lord. (Isa 30:9)

He shall not grow dim or be bruised till he has established the true way on earth; and the coastlands shall await his teaching (תּוֹרָה). (Isa 42:4)

The Lord desires His servant's vindication, that he may magnify and glorify His teaching (תּוֹרָה). (Isa 42:21)

Who was it gave Jacob over to despoilment and Israel to plunderers? Surely, the Lord against whom they sinned in whose ways they would not walk and whose teaching (תּוֹרָה) they would not obey. (Isa 42:24)

Hearken to me, my people, and give ear to me, o my nation, for teaching (תּוֹרָה) shall go forth from me, my way for the light of peoples. In a moment I will bring it. (Isa 51:4)

Listen to me, you who care for the right, O people who lay my instruction (תּוֹרָה) to heart! Fear not the insults of men, and be not dismayed at their jeers. (Isa 51:7)

It is clear that Isa 8:20 is not exegetically-sound evidence for the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scripura as Isaiah is clearly not teaching the formal sufficiency of inscripturated revelation, something that would actually disprove the concept of tota scriptura, an essential “building block” of the doctrine as sola scriptura requires the inscripturation of “all” (defined as being both the Old and New Testament books) divine revelation!

Michael F. Bird on “Believing Criticism"

Michael F. Bird on “Believing criticism.”

I have been making my way through a new book by Michael F. Bird, The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus (Eerdmans, 2014). Thus far, it is a very stimulating read, and I appreciate the discussions of oral traditions and their reliability in antiquity and the nature of the Gospels (e.g. their relationship to eye-witness accounts [cf. Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eye-witnesses]).

There is a very nice quote on page 100 of Bird’s book on what he labels “Believing Criticism,” which I think is appropriate, not just for believers in the Bible and the importance of (scholarly) critical engagement with the texts, but could also be said, from a believing Latter-day Saint perspective, about the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price:

This approach treats Scripture as the inspired and veracious Word of God, but contends that we do Scripture the greatest service when we commit ourselves to studying it in the light of the context and processes through which God gave it to us. Scripture is trustworthy because of God’s faithfulness to his own Word and authoritative because the Holy Spirit speaks to us through it. Nonetheless, God has seen fit to use human language, human authors, and even human processes as the means by which he has given his inscripturated revelation to humanity. To understand the substance of Scripture means wrestling with its humanity, the human face of God’s speech to us in his Word. That requires that we can freely engage subjects such as how the text of the Gospels was transmitted (text criticism), sources that the Evangelists used (source criticism), when and where were the Gospels written (historical criticism), why the Gospels were written (literary criticism), what kind of literature they are (genre criticism), how the Evangelists edited and adapted their sources (redaction criticism), how the story in its current shape creates meaning (narrative criticism), how the stories of Jesus interacted with cultural values and modes of discourse (social-scientific criticism), and how the Gospels came to be accepted as the four official stories of Jesus sanctioned by the early churches (canonical criticism). These are the legitimate inquiries, not in spite of but precisely in light of the faith communities who cherished the Gospels as testimonies of Jesus Christ.