The Charles Anthon Incident — What the Evidence Actually Shows
Critics argue that Charles Anthon denied the Mormon account, that the 1832 version makes no mention of a “sealed book,” and that the script presented to Anthon was written after his consultation — making the Isaiah 29:11–12 fulfillment a fabrication. The historical evidence is more nuanced than this reading allows.
The Argument
Four charges are commonly leveled against the Anthon incident as a prophetic fulfillment:
The Four Objections
- Account variation — The 1832 account makes no mention of a “sealed book” — those details appeared in the 1838 revision, added in different ink
- Anthon’s denials — Charles Anthon repeatedly denied the Mormon account, calling it “a monstrous lie”
- Document timing — The Anthon transcript document was likely written after Harris visited Anthon in 1828
- Expertise problem — Anthon lacked expertise in Egyptian studies, making his supposed authentication meaningless
The Response
1. The 1832 Account and What It Says
The 1832 account was Joseph Smith’s earliest personal history — written for his own journal, not for publication. It is the most personal and least formal of the accounts. Its omission of certain narrative details (the sealed book, specific dialogue with Anthon) follows the same pattern as the First Vision accounts — different purposes, different emphases, different details highlighted.
The 1838 account was written as an official institutional history explaining the Restoration. Longer accounts written for official purposes naturally contain more narrative detail than brief personal journal entries.
This is not evidence of fabrication — it is evidence of normal narrative variation between personal reflection and official history. Every multi-account narrative in ancient and modern history exhibits the same pattern.
2. Charles Anthon’s Denials — What They Actually Establish
Anthon denied the Mormon account throughout his life. This is accurate. But consider what Anthon was denying: the LDS claim is that Anthon examined the characters, declared them authentic, and then refused to authenticate them because he learned they came from an angel.
Now read Isaiah 29:11–12 carefully:
“The vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed. And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.”
The Isaiah fulfillment does not require Anthon to have confirmed authenticity and then been stumped by a sealed book. It requires a “learned man” being unable to read or authenticate the document. Anthon’s inability to read it — regardless of his stated reasons — is precisely what was prophesied.
His denial doesn’t undo the fulfillment. It is part of the fulfillment. A learned man was presented characters he could not read. That is the prophecy. That is what happened.
3. The Script Document Timing
Critics argue the Anthon transcript — the actual document Harris showed Anthon — was written after the consultation. The evidence on this is genuinely uncertain. The provenance of the surviving document is debated among historians on both sides.
What is not uncertain: Martin Harris made the trip to New York, consulted multiple scholars, and returned reporting that learned men could neither read nor authenticate the characters. The question of which exact document he showed them is secondary to the documented fact of the consultation itself — which even critics acknowledge occurred.
4. Anthon’s Qualifications
Critics note Anthon lacked Egyptian expertise. This is correct — in 1828, virtually no one in America had Egyptological expertise. The Rosetta Stone decipherment by Champollion had just occurred in 1822 and was largely unknown in the United States.
But this cuts against the critics, not for them. If no learned American could read the characters, that is precisely the Isaiah fulfillment. The learned man cannot read it. The unlearned man — Joseph, with divine assistance — can. Anthon’s inability to authenticate is part of the prophetic pattern, not evidence against it.
The prophecy doesn’t say the learned man will have credentials. It says he will be unable to read. Anthon was exactly that man.
The Verdict
The Anthon incident does not require Anthon to have said “this is authentic ancient Egyptian and I certify it.” It requires a learned man to be unable to read it — which is exactly what happened.
The variation between the 1832 and 1838 accounts follows the same pattern as every other multi-account narrative in Joseph’s history. Anthon’s denials are noted; they do not undo the basic fact of the consultation or its prophetic significance. The document timing question is genuinely uncertain; it does not undo the consultation itself.
The critics have identified genuine historical complexity. They have not identified historical fabrication. Isaiah 29 predicted a learned man unable to read a sealed document. Charles Anthon — whatever he said or didn’t say — was precisely that man.